The Baptist, Benedict, and Blair

Today marks the feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist. Or, as my seminary professors liked to call him, John the Baptizer...so as not to confuse him with members of the Baptist denomination!

One of the marks of John the Baptist was his burning desire to speak the truth of God, no matter what the consequenses. John boldly told Herod and Salome that they were adulterers, even though he knew that it could, and did, cost him his life.

Another prophet of our day, Pope Benedict XVI, met yesterday with outgoing British PM Tony Blair. According to the Times, it was a meeting where Benedict reportedly had some very direct words about Blair's recent political support for, among other things, abortion, same-sex unions and embryonic stem-cell research.

This is an interesting turn of events, considering just days ago, the media was awash with reports that Blair, as soon as he leaves office, is set to formally join the Roman Catholic Church when he leaves office. His wife, Cherie, is a Catholic, and Blair regularly attends Mass with her. Blair has not swam the Tiber yet, ostensibly because Britain has never had a Catholic PM, and there is still a latent amount of Anti-Catholicism in the UK. There have even been suggestions that Blair, when and if he comes home to Rome, would be interested in ordination as a deacon.

It appears that Benedict has made things crystal-clear to Blair: Forget about ordination - if you are going to become a Catholic, let alone a cleric - you've got to hold all that the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals. The cafeteria is closed. It's the full meal deal or no deal.

Benedict knew, as did John the Baptist, that no one, however temporally powerful they may be, is above the laws of the King of the Universe. Our Catholic leaders must boldly speak the truth to them, no matter what the cost. If anyone does convert, it must be, as Benedict said today while discussing the Baptist, in perhaps a not-so-oblique reference to Blair, a "true conversion".

(To see Benedict's excellent catechesis on the Baptist from today's Angelus at St. Peter's, go here, with the usual hat tip to Whispers in the Loggia.)

Can I Get A Witness?

One of the books I'm trying to pick my way through these days is Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitness-es.

Bauckham, New Testament Professor at St. Andrew's, argues against a popular view in New Testament Studies that the Gospels were not composed by eyewitnesses to the life of Christ, and are not necessarily about the actual life of Christ. This view posits that the Gospels were an admixture of real and invented events in Christ's life, edited and tailored to suit the particular needs of the "communities" to which they were written.

Bauckham maintains that the Gospels are actual, eyewitness accounts of the historical life of Christ, written by either the apostles themselves, or men who knew them. They are not the product of late invention.

Bauckham was recently interviewed by Christianity Today, an Evangelical website, about his book. Although I do not agree with his assessment of the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, here's part of the interview:

What is the importance of "testimony" for interpreting the New Testament?

I think it helps us to understand what sort of history we have in the Gospels. Most history rests mostly on testimony. In other words, it entails believing what witnesses say. We can assess whether we think witnesses are trustworthy, and we may be able to check parts of what they say by other evidence. But in the end we have to trust them. We can't independently verify everything they say. If we could, we wouldn't need witnesses.

It's the same with witnesses in court. Testimony asks to be trusted, and it's not irrational to do so. We do so all the time. Now in the case of the Gospels, I think we have exactly the kind of testimony that historians in the ancient world valued: the eyewitness testimony of involved participants who could speak of the meaning of events they had experienced from the inside. This kind of testimony is naturally not that of the disinterested passerby who happened to notice something. That wouldn't tell us much worth knowing about Jesus. That the witnesses were insiders, that they were deeply affected by the events, is part of the value of their witness for us.

In the book, I discuss testimonies of the Holocaust as a modern example of an event we would have no real conception of without the testimony of survivors. In a very different way, the Gospels are about exceptionally significant events, history-making events. In the testimony of those who lived through them, history and interpretation are inextricable. But this, in fact, brings us much closer to the reality of the events than any attempt to strip away the interpretation and recover some supposedly mere facts about Jesus.

You can read the rest here.

The Mouth That Rory-d

Rory Sabbatini let his clubs do the talking this time, by winning the PGA's Colonial tournament in Fort Worth, Texas on Sunday, for his fourth career win on tour. For his efforts he got approximately $1 million US, a large trophy, and a hideous tartan jacket.

Sabbatini had caused a stir a couple of weeks ago by making this known: "I want Tiger." Rory also added that with Tiger's new swing, "He's more beatable than ever. We like the new Tiger".

The Man (who didn't play Colonial) had responded thusly: "I've won 9 of the last 12 tournaments I've played...and three so far this year. What's he got? Three career wins? I like the new Tiger, too."

This is great stuff. You just don't hear this kind of trash-talking in golf, like you do in other sports. Golfers are usually oh-so-polite to one another in the media, even though privately you know they feel otherwise.

It's refreshing to hear somebody like Sabbatini speak his mind and stir the pot a bit. We need more rivalry in golf; it creates fan interest. Problem for Rory is, Tiger has a memory like an elephant. He never forgets a slight. Anybody remember the 9 and 8 whupping Tiger laid on Stephen Ames at last year's match play tournament, after Ames made disparaging comments about Tiger's driving?

After that shellacking, Tiger simply said of Ames, "He understands now."

No doubt the Teacher wants to open young Mr. Sabbatini's mind as well.

And Here's the First One!

Dr. Robert Koons, professor of philosophy at the University of Texas, has followed Francis Beckwith into the Catholic Church.

Dr. Koons was also a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, and had been considering this move for quite some time himself. Incidentally, he didn't talk to Beckwith about his own conversion plans, even though they were part of the same society.

A former Lutheran, Dr. Koons, as a gift to the world, has made public a substantial essay called A Lutheran's Case for Roman Catholicism. It's must reading...check it out!

Welcome home, Dr. Koons!

Keep 'em comin', Lord!

Beckwith Comes Back With...

...hopefully, a trail of other converts and "re-verts" in his wake. I'm speaking of Dr. Francis Beckwith, a very highly regarded Christian scholar who has returned to his Catholic roots. Considering his high-profile standing as the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (he has since resigned), this couldn't have been an easy decision for him.

I pray for him and his family, because I went throgh a similar struggle myself when I returned to the Catholic Church, after years in Protestant ministry. I hope you'll pray for him too, as he will undoubtedly face many trials of criticism and misunderstandings, along with the support he's bound to receive as well.

For more on the reasons why Dr. Beckwith returned to the Catholic Church, read his blog, Right Reason, which features a hot-off-the-press Q & A with Beckwith by Christianity Today, as well as a post by Beckwith himself about his move:

The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.

You can read the rest of that post here.

Welcome home, Dr. Beckwith!

Bible Study Tonight: The Book of Daniel

All are welcome to our Bible Study, Daniel: Faith Under Fire, led by yours truly, tonight (and every Thursday), at St. Justin Martyr Parish, at 7:30 PM in the hall.

Tonight, we're studying Daniel chapter 2. Come on out and learn how we can draw from Daniel's example as we seek to live for God in an often godless world.

Schoeman's a Shoo-In...

...to be on any list of the most exciting Catholic authors today. Roy Schoeman, author of Salvation is From the Jews, and the just-released Honey From the Rock (which catalogues the conversion stories of twelve people from Judaism to Catholicism), both of which are published by Ignatius Press, will be speaking here in Toronto at a Marian conference on Saturday. For location info and tickets, $12 in advance, $15 at the door (youth:$5; clergy: free), call (800)663-MARY.

I know I'll be there. I can't recommend this man's work highly enough. Salvation is From the Jews is the best book I've ever read on the link between Judaism and Christianity. The title is a quote from Jesus himself in John 4, and has to do with the role of Judaism from Abraham to the Second Coming. Schoeman was trained by some of the most influential rabbis in American Judaism, and was a former professor at Harvard Business School before entering the Catholic Church.

There have actually been several prominent Hebrew-Catholics, as they are known, who have come to know Christ as the Messiah and entered the Catholic Church in recent years - people like Bob Fishman and Rosalind Moss, to name two of the more well-known converts.

And, for reasons that are made clear in the book, if a Jewish person comes to realize who Jesus is, it is far more likely that person will become a Catholic than a Protestant Christian.

In an interview with Ignatius Insight, Schoeman explains some of his prior misconceptions about Catholicism and what led to the writing of his first book:

IgnatiusInsight.com: As a convert from Judaism, what do you think are the major misconceptions that many Jews have about the Catholic Church? As a Catholic, what are the misconceptions that many Catholics have about Judaism and the Jewish people?

Roy H. Schoeman: Prior to my conversion, the central misconception I held about the Catholic Church was, of course, that it was in fundamental theological error, a misguided, naïve illegitimate offshoot of the true Judaism. I saw Catholics as misguided followers of a false Messiah engaging in a host of childish and superstitious practices.

To read the rest, click here.

Pssst! Do You Know "The Secret"?

I would like to cordially invite all in the Toronto area to my next FX: The Faith Explained Seminar, "The Secret: A Catholic Response", this Wednesday, May 2, at 7:30 PM at St. Justin, Martyr Parish (this talk will immediately follow the 7 PM Mass).

The Secret , a book written by Rhonda Byrne, has rocketed to the top of the bestseller lists, and features a companion DVD. Oprah Winfrey has promoted it on her TV Show, and many Catholics have been swept up in the hoopla as well.

What is "The Secret?" It's something Bryrne "discovered" called the "Law of Attraction", and she alleges that anyone can tap into its power to bring untold wealth, great relationships, and just about anything one might desire into their life.

Should we as Catholics be concerned? Is there anything in "The Secret" that is inimical to our faith? Find out this Wednesday! Until then, we would do well to meditate on this not-so-secret "Law of Attraction":

Jesus said, "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32).

It's Earth Day and I'm Back!

Hello, Faithful Readership!

I know that some of you were probably wondering if I'd fallen off the face of the earth, seeing as how I haven't blogged in so long.

Last week was one of the craziest weeks I've ever had...I was giving retreats for high school students, and had virtually no time to myself. But now I'm back with a vengeance! There will be blogging galore from here on out, and I promise I'll make up for lost time.

Speaking of falling off the face of the earth, today is Earth Day! So, why not celebrate like I do - by treating other folks like dirt!

Just kidding, of course. I have no problem with those who want to care for God's creation, as we all should.

But I often find it strange that those who are most concerned about saving the physical creation are often those least concerned about saving the crowning achievement of God's creation, the human person.

This attitude is typified by politicians like NDP leader Jack Layton, who was out riding his bike in Toronto today promoting Earth Day. He is passionate about being "green", yet at the same time, he is a staunch advocate for the destruction of human persons through abortion.

Father Frank Pavone, the founder of Priests for Life, was at the bedside of Terri Schiavo, as she was being starved to death not long ago in Florida. Terri was being euthanized by the order of a judge. Her only "crime" was that she could not feed herself, so she was fed through a tube.

Terri's food and water supply was cut off, so she died of starvation and dehydration: a long, painful process that she consciously experienced. No one would destroy even a dog in this manner; in fact, if one did, our enlightened society would likely insist such a one serve a prison sentence.

Father Pavone placed his hand on Terri's forehead to pray for her, and as he did so, his hand brushed a vase of flowers that someone had sent her. The vase was full of that which had been denied Terri - water. The flowers were allowed to drink deeply and live, but Terri was not.

How tragic. My friends, of course we should care for the environment. But if we're more concerned with saving the whales than saving people - or worse, if we want to save the whales while assenting to the destruction of people - then we have failed miserably at our task. As Jesus once said about other matters, we should have done the former without neglecting the latter.

The Petrine Privilege (Part II)

Recently, I posted on the case for John 21 being part of the original work. Given as it was the Gospel reading for Friday Masses, it seemed a good time to revisit this text, because it is one that has many implications for the papacy.

Other texts like Matthew 16 are often cited in this regard, but John 21 has one of the strongest proofs for the ongoing role of the office of Peter in the universal Church. Even non-Catholic scholars recognize this.

Fishing, of course, wasn't just the former trade of the apostles; it represents their evangelistic mission of being "fishers of men". The unbroken net conveys unity. Elsewhere, when Jesus provides a miraculous draught of fish, the nets begin to break from the strain; here, the nets are intact.

The fact that it was Peter dragging the net ashore is a metaphor for his leadership in bringing the Church safely home to Christ, even to the shores of heaven itself. Interestingly, although the catch was so big that the disciples struggled to bring the nets aboard and that it almost sank their boat, Peter now easily drags the net ashore all by himself. The verb used to describe Peter's dragging of the net is the same one used by Jesus in John 12:32 when he says that as he is lifted up from the earth he will draw all people to himself.

By far the most puzzling aspect of the passage is the reference to the 153 fish. First of all, this is an authentic eyewitness detail. On a secondary level, many commentators have proffered various theories to explain what this number means. Most of these interpretations suggest the idea of the universality or completeness of the catch.

So, we have Peter, alone, dragging the unbroken net of a universal catch to the shores of heaven. This is clearly a reference to his position as leader of the Church on earth.

When you add to all of this the threefold charge of Jesus to Peter, "Feed my Sheep", that immediately follows, the picture is complete. Peter is singularly (in the Greek) given this responsibility to shepherd the universal Church. Keep in mind also that this is recounted in the Gospel in which Jesus describes himself as the "Good Shepherd" (John 10). Before his Ascension, Jesus reaffirms Peter's unique leadership position, passing the earthly reins of the Church to him.

The Petrine Privilege

The lectionary readings for Mass the last couple of days have featured the account of the healing of the crippled beggar at the the Jerusalem temple by Peter and John in Acts 3.

Peter says to the man, "Silver and gold I do not have, but what I have, I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk!" You know the rest...if you don't, read Acts 3!

Well, Peter is at it again...healing, that is. Not Rocky himself, of course, but his successor, John Paul II, who is more alive than ever with God (and Peter) in heaven.

A few nights ago, on the evening of April 2, Pope Benedict celebrated a memorial Mass, marking the day JPII went home to the Father's house. Sitting in the front row was a 46-year-old nun named Sr. Marie-Simon-Pierre, who believes she was healed of Parkinson's disease, the same ailment that frustrated The Great Communicator himself, through the merits and prayers of John Paul.

Of course, as the cause for his canonization moves along, this healing will be stringently examined as evidence that John Paul is actually interceding from heaven on our behalf, before the Sapphire Throne.

But with a successor of Simon Peter obtaining a healing for Sister Simon-Pierre, who can possibly doubt it?

Trained actor as he was, John Paul always did have a flair for the dramatic.

Zach's Master

O.K., I'll admit it - I was wrong (actually, this happens more often than not)! Tiger Woods didn't win the Masters (He did finish 2nd, though). Zach Johnson won...and it was well-earned.

I was even more glad he won after what Zach (pictured, surveying his future endorsement deals) said on Sunday. After finishing the final round, he noted that it was Easter Sunday, and that he could feel the Lord's presence with him every step of the way. Later on, at his press conference, he stated that his desire had been "to glorify God".

It was a touching scene to see him embrace his wife and infant son after the tournament. Not only was Zach choked up, but so were some of the other players! It's obvious the guy is very well-liked and respected by his peers. Way to go, Zach!

The 31-year-old Johnson was called "a fantastic young player with a bright future", after his first major championship win. Here's a scary thought: Tiger Woods already holds 12 majors, including four Masters wins, and he's the exact same age as Johnson. Wow.

That young man just might have a future in golf, too.

You're in Good Hands with Jesus

Father Joseph Singh, pastor of St. Justin's, once again did not disappoint in his Easter homily.

He told the story of a young girl who was embarrassed by her mother's grotesquely disfigured hands. Whenever her friends came over to play, she asked her mother to wear gloves to cover them.

The little girl grew up, and her mother became ill and died. At the wake, her body was displayed in an open casket, arms folded across her chest, gnarled hands clutching her rosary. As the daughter approached the casket with a pair of silk gloves to cover her mother's hands, her father stopped her.

"It's time you knew the truth about your mother's hands", he said. "She never told you this while she was alive, because she didn't want you to feel guilty. When you were a baby, there was a fire in your nursery. As she rescued you, your mother put down the flames in your crib with her bare hands. That's why they look the way they do."

Those hands - that moments before had appeared so hideous to the daughter - now seemed so beautiful.

The first thing Jesus showed his disciples after his Resurrection were his hands. The hands that still bore the piercings of the cross. The hands that had been disfigured while he was rescuing God's children from the fires of hell.

How beautiful those scarred hands had become. How beautiful they are.

Paid in Full

Yet another sterling sermon from the pulpit of St. Justin's this Good Friday. Some highlights from Fr. A. N. Onomous' homily:

In the passion story according to John which we have just heard, the last words that Jesus said on the cross before he bowed his head and gave up the spirit is "It is finished" (John 19:30). Three words in English, but in the original Greek it is just one word, tetelestai. This word is from the Greek teleo, which means to bring to completion, to carry out into full operation, to bring something to its appointed goal.

Scholars obtained greater insight into the meaning of this expression a few years ago after some archaeologists dug up in the Holy Land a tax collector's office that was almost intact, with all the tax records and everything. There were two stacks of tax records and one of them had the word, tetelestai, on the top. In other words, "paid in full." These people don't owe anything anymore.

So, when Jesus said "It is finished," what then is finished?” It is the debt we owe God by our sins—from the sins of the last human being right back to the first sin of Adam and Eve which ruptured Man’s friendship with God, losing the inherent gift of sanctifying grace, bringing death and disharmony into creation, and closing the gates of Heaven. Jesus in his humanity can pay the debt of sin on behalf of mankind, and in his divinity, Jesus can repay the debt for sin on the level of the infinite; for all sin is an offence against an infinite God.

The Jews of Jesus' time saw sin as a debt that we owe God, a debt that must somehow be repaid. Jesus used that kind of language and often spoke of sin as debt, and forgiveness as a cancellation of debt. He told the parable of the unforgiving servant whom his master forgave the debt that he had no way of repaying but who went out and insisted on getting back the small debt that his fellow servant owed him. This was a way of teaching us that when we are forgiven by God we must in turn forgive our neighbour.

He taught us to pray "Forgive us our debts as we forgive those who are indebted to us" (Mt. 6: 12; cf. Mt. 6: 9-13) – the parallel is found in the Gospel of Luke 11: 2-4 -- which simply means "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Jesus clearly used the language of commerce to speak of the spiritual relationship between God and us and between us and our neighbour. So on the cross he says, "It is paid in full."

In John 3 Jesus spoke of the necessity of being "born again", "of water and the spirit" through baptism. As the Nicene Creed states, "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins". This is how we intially access the infinite funds of Grace that pays our sin debt. But what of sins committed after baptism? As Father Onomous explains, John's Gospel goes on to recount the Resurrected Jesus' institution of the sacrament of Reconcilation, or Confession:

21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on [the apostles] and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven" (John 19:21-23).

Avoid sin, of course - but if we fail, God’s Himself waits in the Sacrament of Penance, where, when we confess our sins with real sorrow and desire to amend and change our ways, Christ through the priest cleanses our souls anew, and continues his redeeming work begun on the Cross, and continuing for us until we enter into eternity.

It is only those who have recieved such forgiveness that can truly call this Friday "Good".

Masters Week in The Master's Week

It's absolutely diabolical that my favorite golf tournament, The Masters, is taking place in Holy Week, the true Master's Week.

The links action gets underway today among the famous azaleas at Augusta National. And, having proved quite the prophet regarding my Final Four picks, I'm sure you're all waiting with bated breath for my announcement of who'll take the year's first major.

Drum roll, everyone!

The winner will be....Tiger Woods.

I know, I know: he's everybody's pick. I'm not exactly going out on a limb here, but how can you not take him, even given the choice of him or the field? By the way, if El Tigre can pull it off, taking his fifth Masters, he'll be 3/4 of the way home to a second Tiger Slam, holding all four major championships at once. I predict that he'll win in a Sunday showdown with "Lefty", Phil Mickelson, with whom Tiger has split four of the last five Green Jackets.

The other one went to Canada's own lefty (and my favourite golfer), Mike Weir, in 2003 (pictured here with Tiger, just before Woods would slip the Green Jacket over Weir's shoulders). Unfortunately, Mike's struggled for consistency of late, as he adjusts to a new swing coach. But he always seems to perform well at majors - Augusta especially. He's my dark horse pick.

And don't forget about Canada's other star (and currently our best golfer): Stephen Ames. Ames blew away the field at last year's Players' Championship, the PGA Tour's unofficial "fifth" major, was great in this year's Match Play tournament, and says he's now hitting the ball better than he ever has, under the watchful eye of his own new coach, Sean Foley.

Now I just have to figure out a way to watch the final round during the Easter family dinner at my in-laws'. That might be tougher than winning the Masters itself!

We're Oil Ready for Easter!

If you'll pardon the pun...

I just returned from the Chrism Mass at St. Michael's Cathedral in Downtown Toronto. What an experience!

This is the Mass where all of the oils for sacramental usage are blessed: the Oil of the Catechumens, the Holy Chrism oil, and the Oil of the Sick (for the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick - see James 5:14-15).

It's also the Mass where all priests of the archdiocese renew their wedding vows (to the Bride of Christ, that is), reaffirming their priestly vows and their obedience to our new archbishop, Thomas Collins (pictured).

Speaking of our new shepherd, he offered up another sterling homily, without notes and very passionate. In speaking about the oils in sacramental use, and our sacramental, incarnational Catholic faith, he noted that "We're not angels...in more ways than one!"

The sacraments are physical signs that give grace. And we need that grace badly, because indeed we are not often angelic in our behavior. Which is why God provided us with priests to not only anoint us for physical healing, but far more importantly, to make us spiritually well in the sacrament of Confession.

When it comes to physical and spiritual healing, no one, of course, was better at it than our Lord. Do you remember my recent post about typology being fulfilled in the liturgy? Tonight's Mass had a fantastic example of fulfilled prophecy:

The first reading was from Isaiah 61, the very words Jesus quotes in tonight's Gospel account from Luke 4, when Jesus reads this text in his hometown synagogue of Nazareth:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written,

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."

And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

Not only does Jesus quote from Isaiah 61, but he specifically says that this Scripture was fulfilled in the very hearing of his listeners! They were watching salvation history unfold before their very eyes.

And before ours too, at each and every Mass: the Lord himself not only speaks to us in the Liturgy of the Word, but becomes physically present - body, blood, soul, and divinity - in each Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Word of God goes from written text to living word in the Mass - Jesus, the living Word of God, alive in his Eucharistic body.

But maybe the most fascinating part of Jesus' quoting Isaiah is the part he leaves out - in Isaiah 61, the servant is to "proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeange of our God."

I believe Jesus omitted that intentionally, because the day of vengeange of our God will arrive at the Last Judgment. So, from the time of Jesus until that Day, it is the Age of Grace. The acceptable year of the Lord's favor. That time is now.

So get it while the gettin's good - there's no better time than Holy Week to go visit one of those newly rededicated priests, make a good confession, and hear the words "I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit".

And those words will be fulfilled in your hearing.

The Week That Changed the World

Holy Week begins today with Palm (Passion) Sunday, which always makes me think of a great poem by G.K . Chesterton, The Donkey:

When fishes flew and forests walked
And figs grew upon thorn,
Some moment when the moon was blood
Then surely I was born.

With monstrous head and sickening cry
And ears like errant wings,
The devil's walking parody
On all four-footed things.

The tattered outlaw of the earth,
Of ancient crooked will;
Starve, scourge, deride me: I am dumb,
I keep my secret still.

Fools! For I also had my hour;
One far fierce hour and sweet:
There was a shout about my ears,
And palms before my feet.

John 21: Was it Added Later?

In Johannine Gospel scholarship, it is almost axiomatic among scholars that chapter 21 is a later addition by redactors, and wasn't part of the original work.

Michael Barber, over at his excellent blog, Singing in the Reign, has posted probably the best take I've ever seen on chapter 21 being part of the original work.

As Barber explains, whether or not the last chapter is part of the original work is crucial to the question of authorship of the Fourth Gospel - because it's almost as accepted in the scholarly community that John the Apostle didn't write it.

As Barber puts it:

...the question of authorship of the Fourth Gospel really depends on how one views the final chapter. Is John 21--the chapter where, arguably, we learn the most about the "beloved disciple"--a later addition to the book or was it originally part of the Gospel?

Check out the whole article here.

Typing the Scriptures

In today's Scripture readings for Mass, we have a very good example of typology - where a person or event from the time of the Old Covenant prefigures something far greater that God has in store for his people later on in salvation history in the New Covenant.

An example of this is the Adam-Christ analogy, where Adam is a type of Christ. Adam fails when tempted in a garden and brings about the destruction of the human race in sin, whereas Christ triumphs over temptation in the Garden of Gethsemane, bringing about salvation for the human race through his Passion, death, and Resurrection. Christ succeeds where Adam fails.

This is what St. Augustine meant when he said, "The New Testament is in the Old, concealed; the Old Testament is in the New, revealed."

In today's first reading from Numbers 21:4-9, we hear of the Israelites who were bitten by poisonous snakes, and how God commands Moses to fashion a bronze serpent and raise it up on a pole - whoever looks upon it will be healed.

Then, in the Gospel reading from John 8:21-30, we see this:

So Jesus said to them,“When you lift up the Son of Man,then you will realize that I AM,and that I do nothing on my own,but I say only what the Father taught me.The one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone,because I always do what is pleasing to him.” Because he spoke this way, many came to believe in him.

Of course, Jesus was 'lifted up" on the Cross, as he says elsewhere in John:

"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that whoever believes in him will have eternal life" (3:14, 15).

Moses was able to provide healing for God's people, attacked by snakes, and mortally wounded. Jesus, the New Moses, heals by his cross those who have been eternally wounded by sin, those bitten by the fangs of "that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan" (Revelation 20:2).

This is the victory we will celebrate next week.

Announcing the Annunciation

Today, March 25, is the usual day that we celebrate a great feast day: the Solemnity of the Annunciation of the Lord. But, since this year, March 25 falls on a Sunday, the feast is celebrated tomorrow, March 26.

To aid our reflections on the Incarnation, the very hinge of human history, here's part of John Paul II's famous homily, given at the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth during the Great One's (sorry, Wayne) visit there in 2000. It's a truly amazing reflection:

25th March in the year 2000, the Solemnity of the Annunciation in the Year of the Great Jubilee: on this day the eyes of the whole Church turn to Nazareth. I have longed to come back to the town of Jesus, to feel once again, in contact with this place, the presence of the woman of whom Saint Augustine wrote: "He chose the mother he had created; he created the mother he had chosen" (Sermo 69, 3, 4). Here it is especially easy to understand why all generations call Mary blessed (cf. Lk 2:48). I rejoice in the grace of this solemn celebration.

We are gathered to celebrate the great mystery accomplished here two thousand years ago. The Evangelist Luke situates the event clearly in time and place: "In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph. . . The virgin’s name was Mary" (1:26-27). But in order to understand what took place in Nazareth two thousand years ago, we must return to the Reading from the Letter to the Hebrews. That text enables us, as it were, to listen to a conversation between the Father and the Son concerning God’s purpose from all eternity. "You who wanted no sacrifice or oblation prepared a body for me. You took no pleasure in holocausts or sacrifices for sin. Then I said. . . ‘God, here I am! I am coming to obey your will’" (10:5-7).

The Letter to the Hebrews is telling us that, in obedience to the Father’s will, the Eternal Word comes among us to offer the sacrifice which surpasses all the sacrifices offered under the former Covenant. His is the eternal and perfect sacrifice which redeems the world.The divine plan is gradually revealed in the Old Testament, particularly in the words of the Prophet Isaiah which we have just heard: "The Lord himself will give you a sign. It is this: the virgin is with child and will soon give birth to a child whom she will call Emmanuel" (7:14).

Emmanuel - God with us. In these words, the unique event that was to take place in Nazareth in the fullness of time is foretold, and it is this event that we are celebrating here with intense joy and happiness.

Our Jubilee Pilgrimage has been a journey in spirit, which began in the footsteps of Abraham, "our father in faith" (Roman Canon; cf. Rom 4:11-12). That journey has brought us today to Nazareth, where we meet Mary, the truest daughter of Abraham. It is Mary above all others who can teach us what it means to live the faith of "our father". In many ways, Mary is clearly different from Abraham; but in deeper ways "the friend of God" (cf. Is 41:8) and the young woman of Nazareth are very alike.Both receive a wonderful promise from God. Abraham was to be the father of a son, from whom there would come a great nation. Mary is to be the Mother of a Son who would be the Messiah, the Anointed One. "Listen!", Gabriel says, " You are to conceive and bear a son. . . The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. . . and his reign will have no end" (Lk 1:31-33).

For both Abraham and Mary, the divine promise comes as something completely unexpected. God disrupts the daily course of their lives, overturning its settled rhythms and conventional expectations. For both Abraham and Mary, the promise seems impossible. Abraham’s wife Sarah was barren, and Mary is not yet married: "How can this come about", she asks, "since I am a virgin?" (Lk 1:34).4. Like Abraham, Mary is asked to say yes to something that has never happened before. Sarah is the first in the line of barren wives in the Bible who conceive by God’s power, just as Elizabeth will be the last. Gabriel speaks of Elizabeth to reassure Mary: "Know this too: your kinswoman Elizabeth has, in her old age, herself conceived a son" (Lk 1:36).Like Abraham, Mary must walk through darkness, in which she must simply trust the One who called her.

Yet even her question, "How can this come about?", suggests that Mary is ready to say yes, despite her fears and uncertainties. Mary asks not whether the promise is possible, but only how it will be fulfilled. It comes as no surprise, therefore, when finally she utters her fiat: "I am the handmaid of the Lord. Let what you have said be done to me" (Lk 1:38). With these words, Mary shows herself the true daughter of Abraham, and she becomes the Mother of Christ and Mother of all believers.

In order to penetrate further into the mystery, let us look back to the moment of Abraham’s journey when he received the promise. It was when he welcomed to his home three mysterious guests (cf. Gen 18:1-15), and offered them the adoration due to God: tres vidit et unum adoravit. That mysterious encounter foreshadows the Annunciation, when Mary is powerfully drawn into communion with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Through the fiat that Mary uttered in Nazareth, the Incarnation became the wondrous fulfilment of Abraham’s encounter with God. So, following in the footsteps of Abraham, we have come to Nazareth to sing the praises of the woman "through whom the light rose over the earth" (Hymn Ave Regina Caelorum).

But we have also come to plead with her. What do we, pilgrims on our way into the Third Christian Millennium, ask of the Mother of God? Here in the town which Pope Paul VI, when he visited Nazareth, called "the school of the Gospel", where "we learn to look at and to listen to, to ponder and to penetrate the deep and mysterious meaning of the very simple, very humble and very beautiful appearing of the Son of God" (Address in Nazareth, 5 January 1964), I pray, first, for a great renewal of faith in all the children of the Church. A deep renewal of faith: not just as a general attitude of life, but as a conscious and courageous profession of the Creed: "Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est."

In Nazareth, where Jesus "grew in wisdom and age and grace before God and men" (Lk 2:52), I ask the Holy Family to inspire all Christians to defend the family against so many present-day threats to its nature, its stability and its mission. To the Holy Family I entrust the efforts of Christians and of all people of good will to defend life and to promote respect for the dignity of every human being.To Mary, the Theotókos, the great Mother of God, I consecrate the families of the Holy Land, the families of the world.In Nazareth where Jesus began his public ministry, I ask Mary to help the Church everywhere to preach the "good news" to the poor, as he did (cf. Lk 4:18). In this "year of the Lord’s favour", I ask her to teach us the way of humble and joyful obedience to the Gospel in the service of our brothers and sisters, without preferences and without prejudices."O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in your mercy hear and answer me. Amen" (Memorare).

Footwashing and Ordination

Over at his Lumen Gentleman Apologetics website, Jacob Michael has posted a very interesting article suggesting a link between the footwashing scene in John 13 and ordination:

The thirteenth chapter of St. John's Gospel relates the story of the Last Supper in the Upper Room. However, where the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) take this opportunity to record the details of the Supper itself, along with the Words of Institution and the offering of Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine, the Fourth Gospel does not record these events. Instead, St. John records the story of Jesus washing the feet of His disciples.

What did St. John see in this event that was so important that he felt it necessary to record these actions over and above the actions surrounding the First Mass itself? It will be my contention in this essay that the footwashing recorded in St. John's Gospel is in fact a veiled allusion to the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and that the washing of the disciples' feet symbolically marks their transition from being mere disciples to being priests of the New Covenant.

You can read the rest here.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. You can post your comments below.

Swamp Blog

As I mentioned earlier, my wife and I just returned from Florida, and I thought I'd take this opportunity to thank my friend Sean for the great time we had with him up in Gainesville, home of the University of Florida.

Sean (that's him on the right) is a PhD student in Religion there, and is a good friend of mine from back home in Nova Scotia. Sean is probably the funniest guy I know, and was one heckuva college point guard in his day.

Here we are in "the Swamp", the famous football stadium where the UF Gators play. Currently Florida is home to the reigning U.S. National football and basketball champions - not bad, eh? Actually, I hereby predict the bball team will return to the Final Four, and that they'll beat Ohio State in the final, just as their football team did to win their championship.

Sean, thanks for the great time at UF. It was a fun evening. Sorry that in this picture of us I had to fold my arms over my hands in such a way as to widen my biceps, making me appear even more poweful than I already am. But, of course, you know that I'm still much stronger than you at any rate.

You are truly "living the life" down in Florida, my friend! Thanks for the tour of Gainesville!

Back From Florida!

We just returned from a few days with my parents in the Tampa area. That's why I haven't been blogging as much as usual lately, although I posted as much as I could while there. I didn't want to disappoint all of you who read my blog so faithfully! Another reason I couldn't do much blogging down south is that my parents have a dial-up connection that's really slow - it really brought out my issues with patience!

Anyhow, now that we're back, I'll be able to resume my usual blogging, and post some more stuff on the trip. Watch for it!

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

I thought I'd help you celebrate the day when everybody seems to be Irish with a little post about St. Patrick. So, after you've enjoyed your green beer, or whatever beverage you may raise in celebration (For me, as a kid, it was always McDonald's Shamrock Shakes. Alas, they don't make 'em anymore!), why not make this prayer of St. Patrick your own?

It's called St. Patrick's Breastplate, because of the many times it calls for God's protection. It's a classic...enjoy.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through the belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness
Of the Creator of Creation.

I arise today
Through the strength of Christ's birth with his baptism,
Through the strength of his crucifixion with his burial,
Through the strength of his resurrection with his ascension,
Through the strength of his descent for the judgment of Doom.

I arise today
Through the strength of the love of Cherubim,
In obedience of angels,In the service of archangels,
In hope of resurrection to meet with reward,
In prayers of patriarchs,
In predictions of prophets,I
n preaching of apostles,
In faith of confessors,
In innocence of holy virgins,
In deeds of righteous men.

I arise today
Through the strength of heaven:
Light of sun,
Radiance of moon,
Splendor of fire,
Speed of lightning,
Swiftness of wind,
Depth of sea,
Stability of earth,
Firmness of rock.

I arise today
Through God's strength to pilot me:
God's might to uphold me,
God's wisdom to guide me,
God's eye to look before me,
God's ear to hear me,
God's word to speak for me,
God's hand to guard me,
God's way to lie before me,
God's shield to protect me,
God's host to save me
From snares of devils,
From temptations of vices,
From everyone who shall wish me ill,
Afar and anear,
Alone and in multitude.

I summon today all these powers between me and those evils,
Against every cruel merciless power that may oppose my body and soul,
Against incantations of false prophets,
Against black laws of pagandom
Against false laws of heretics,
Against craft of idolatry,
Against spells of witches and smiths and wizards,
Against every knowledge that corrupts man's body and soul.

Christ to shield me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wounding,
So that there may come to me abundance of reward.

Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

I arise today
Through a mighty strength, the invocation of the Trinity,
Through belief in the threeness,
Through confession of the oneness,
Of the Creator of Creation.

The Worship of the Early Christians

A book I've been reading over the last couple of days is Mike Aquilina's The Mass of the Early Christians. It's a great, compact book I'd recommend to anyone.

Many Christian movements today desire or attempt a return to the practice of the early Church. They wish to recover what they believe to be the pristine worship of the first Christians, unfettered by what they see as any accretions, or add-ons that are the product of merely human traditions.

But, are the forms of worship that they propose anything that the actual early Christians would recognize as the kind of worship instituted by Jesus Christ himself?

There is a way to find out: simply compare the type of worship these folks offer to what the early Church actually did. And Mike Aquilina's gem of a book enables us to do just that. He traces the beginnings of Christian worship from the time of Jesus all the way through the fourth century, featuring well-chosen quotes from some of the greatest voices in early Christian history.

One of those voices is one of my favorites: Ignatius of Antioch. As Aquilina points out in his book, we really know two basic facts about Ignatius. First, he was the bishop of Antioch in Syria (the third in line from St. Peter himself); and, secondly, that he died a martyr's death, being thrown to the wild beasts in a public spectacle in Rome.

He left us, however, seven famous letters that he wrote en route to his martyrdom, circa AD 107. And in them, we find several important pieces of information. Maybe the most important anecdote he provides is what distinguished true belief from heresy, or false teaching. The heretics, he says, "abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our savior, Jesus Christ" (Smyrnaeans 7). Ignatius goes on to say that the Eucharist is the same flesh of Jesus that died on the cross, and that was resurrected on the third day.

So here is one thing that authentic early Christians believed: the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ in The Eucharist. This was not some later, medieval invention of the Church; it goes back to the very beginning. in fact, Ignatius was merely affirming our Lord's own words about the Eucharist in John 6.

I'll have more on the theme of early Church worship in future posts.

"Jesus of Nazareth" by B16 Drops May 15!

Here's another new release I can't wait for: Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI. In this work, written in a style accessible to the general reader, B16 will, hopefully, help put an end to some incorrect notions of Jesus that have been making the rounds in recent years.

Chief among them is the artificial division that has been created by scholars of recent vintage between what they term "the Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith". Benedict, I believe, will show that they are actually one and the same.

For more on this, and the genesis of this book, let's hear from Benedict himself. Here's an unofficial English translation of part of the preface of Jesus of Nazareth, which will be released in North America on May 15, courtesy of the ZENIT news service:

I have come to the book on Jesus, the first part of which I now present, following a long interior journey. In the period of my youth -- the thirties and forties -- a series of fascinating books were published on Jesus. I remember the name of some of the authors: Karl Adam, Romano Guardini, Franz Michel Willam, Giovanni Papini, Jean Daniel-Rops. In all these books, the image of Jesus Christ was delineated from the Gospels: how he lived on earth and how, despite his being fully man, at the same time he led men to God, with whom, as Son, he was but one. Thus, through the man Jesus, God was made visible and from God the image of the just man could be seen.

Beginning in the fifties, the situation changed. The split between the "historical Jesus" and the "Christ of faith" became ever greater: One was rapidly removed from the other. However, what meaning could faith in Jesus Christ have, in Jesus the Son of the living God, if the man Jesus was so different from the way he was presented by the evangelists and the way he is proclaimed by the Church from the Gospels? Progress in historical-critical research led to ever more subtle distinctions between the different strata of tradition. In the wake of this research, the figure of Jesus, on which faith leans, became ever more uncertain, it took on increasingly less defined features.

At the same time, reconstructions of this Jesus, who should be sought after the traditions of the evangelists and their sources, became ever more contradictory: from the revolutionary enemy of the Romans who opposed the established power and naturally failed, to the gentle moralist who allowed everything and inexplicably ended up by causing his own ruin.

Whoever reads a few of these reconstructions can see immediately that they are more photographs of the authors and their ideals than a real questioning of an image that has become confused. Meanwhile, mistrust was growing toward these images of Jesus, and the figure itself of Jesus was ever more removed from us.

All these attempts have left in their wake, as common denominator, the impression that we know very little about Jesus, and that only later faith in his divinity has formed his image. Meanwhile, this image has been penetrating profoundly in the common consciousness of Christianity. Such a situation is tragic for the faith, because it makes its authentic point of reference uncertain: intimate friendship with Jesus, from whom everything depends, is debated and runs the risk of becoming useless. [...]

I have felt the need to give readers these indications of a methodological character so that they can determine the path of my interpretation of the figure of Jesus in the New Testament. With reference to my interpretation of Jesus, this means first of all that I trust the Gospels. Of course I take as a given all that the Council and modern exegesis say about the literary genres, the intention of their affirmations, on the communal context of the Gospels and its words in this living context. Accepting all this in the measure that was possible to me, I wished to present the Jesus of the Gospels as the true Jesus, as the "historical Jesus" in the true sense of the expression.

I am convinced, and I hope the reader will also realize, that this figure is far more logical and, from the historical point of view, also more comprehensible than the reconstructions we have had to deal with in the last decades.

I believe, in fact, that this Jesus -- the one of the Gospels -- is a historically honest and convincing figure. The Crucifixion and its efficacy can only be explained if something extraordinary happened, if Jesus' figure and words radically exceeded all the hopes and expectations of the age.

Approximately twenty years after Jesus' death, we find fully displayed in the great hymn to Christ that is the Letter to the Philippians (2:6-8) a Christology which says that Jesus was equal to God but that he stripped himself, became man, humbled himself unto death on the cross and that to him is owed the homage of creation, the adoration that in the prophet Isaiah (45:23) God proclaimed is owed only to Him.

With good judgment, critical research asks the question: What happened in the twenty years after Jesus' Crucifixion? How was this Christology arrived at?

The action of anonymous community formations, of which attempts are made to find exponents, in fact does not explain anything. How would it be possible for groups of unknowns to be so creative, so convincing to the point of imposing themselves in this way? Is it not more logical, also from the historical point of view, that greatness be found in the origin and that the figure of Jesus break all available categories and thus be understood only from the mystery of God?

Of course, to believe that though being man He "was" God and to make this known shrouding it in parables and in an ever clearer way, goes beyond the possibilities of the historical method. On the contrary, if from this conviction of faith the texts are read with the historical method and the opening is greater, the texts open to reveal a path and a figure that are worthy of faith. Also clarified then is the struggle at other levels present in the writings of the New Testament around the figure of Jesus and despite all the differences, one comes to profound agreement with these writings.

Of course with this vision of the figure of Jesus I go beyond what, for example, Schnackenburg says in representation of the greater part of contemporary exegesis. I hope, on the contrary, that the reader will understand that this book has not been written against modern exegesis, but with great recognition of all that it continues to give us.

It has made us aware of a great quantity of sources and concepts through which the figure of Jesus can become present with a vivacity and profundity that only a few decades ago we could not even imagine. I have attempted to go beyond the mere historical-critical interpretation applying new methodological criteria, which allows us to make a properly theological interpretation of the Bible and that naturally requires faith, without by so doing wanting in any way to renounce historical seriousness. I do not think it is necessary to say expressly that this book is not at all a magisterial act, but the expression of my personal seeking of the "Lord's face" (Psalm 27:8). Therefore, every one has the liberty to contradict me. I only ask from women and men readers the anticipation of sympathy without which there is no possible understanding.

As I already mentioned at the beginning of this Preface, the interior journey to this book has been long. I was able to begin work on it during my vacation of 2003. In August 2004, Chapters 1 to 4 took their final form. Following my election to the episcopal See of Rome I have used all the free moments I have had to carry on with it. Given that I do not know how much time and how much strength will still be given to me, I have decided to publish now as the first part of the book the first ten chapters that extend from the Baptism in the Jordan to Peter's confession and the Transfiguration.

The Best Bond Ever?

In my humble opinion, it is! I am referring, of course, to Casino Royale, the 21st installment in the official James Bond series of films. I say the official series, because there have been a couple that were not, including the time Sean Connery returned to the role he made famous in 1983's Never Say Never Again, which was not made by the official Bond production company.

Anyhow, I was not even planning to see Casino Royale until it appeared on DVD, which it does this coming Tuesday, March 13. I am a huge James Bond fan, and have been since childhood. I wasn't going to see the movie at the theatre because, at the time, I was very skeptical about the producers' choice to play Bond in this movie: Daniel Craig.

Craig had appeared previously in, among other films, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, where he played Angelina Jolie's love interest. He was not the stereotypical Bond actor - for one thing, he was a blue-eyed, blond Bond. Previous Bonds Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan were dark-haired. Craig would also be the first actor under six feet tall to play the legendary spy. There was such an outcry from certain die-hard fans of the character, including a website that was set up to decry Craig's choice, that I really didn't expect I'd like the film, either.

But, my pastor, Fr. Joe, went to see it and returned raving about it. He, too had been a Bond fan as a kid. He said, "Cale, go see it. It's the best Bond film ever." Better, even, than any of the Connery films, like Goldfinger? He said, "It's vastly different than any bond film of recent vintage. The opening montage features no scantily-clad women, but rather a styllized fight sequence. In this film, Bond also appears vulnerable - physically and emotionally. He bleeds. He allows himself to fall in love. They don't even play the Bond theme song until the very end!"

Well, Father definitely knew best! My wife and I went to see it - and I was blown away. Craig gives a virtuoso performance as Bond that completely silenced his critics. His Bond is raw, violent, and hard-edged - much more like the Bond of the original Ian Fleming novels, and certainly nothing like the clownish take of, say, Roger Moore. One really believes this man is a professional killer.

The film, which begins with the story of how Bond achieves his "double-0" status and license to kill, is a complete reboot of the series. As a whole, it is far more gritty and realistic than previous Bond offerings, which were way, way over the top in terms of unbelievable plotlines and ridiculous gadgets - just think of the awful Die Another Day's invisible car.

Casino Royale also features probably the best Bond theme song of all time, too: Chris Cornell's You Know My Name. Perfect for Craig's take on the character.

So, who's your favorite Bond actor? What's your favorite film in the series? And if you haven't seen Casino, give yourself a Royale treat and buy it on Tuesday!

And in closing, how's this for a coincidence: I just realized that this is post number 007 on my blog for March!

Alleged "Jesus Tomb" a Titanic Fraud - Part II

As promised, here's some additional debunking of the "Jesus Tomb" theory. Cameron and Jacobovici claim that Jesus' bones once were in this tomb. What they're really saying is that the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the lynchpin of the Faith, didn't happen.

Here's a Q and A on the Resurrection I composed which shows that it was a historical event:

Q. Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead?

A. Yes. Jesus rose bodily, physically from the dead. This is of paramount importance, for if this did not historically occur, Christianity is false, as St Paul himself admits: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Cor. 15:14). But Paul goes on to say, “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead” (1 Cor. 15:20).

Q. So, what’s the evidence?

A. One would have to begin with the fact that Christ died and was buried. He died a very public death for all to see on the cross. The Roman soldiers, who were brutally efficient killing machines, made double sure of it by piercing Jesus’ heart with a spear.

Jesus was then buried in the tomb owned by Joseph of Arimathea, a leading member of the Sanhedrin, the Jerusalem council that condemned Jesus to death (Joseph was not present when this happened and condemned their action). This is important because it means that the location of Jesus’ tomb was known to friend and foe alike. The apostles never could have said after Easter, “He is risen! He has left the empty tomb behind!” if it were not so. All the enemies of Christianity would have had to do was go to the known site of Joseph’s tomb, open it up, produce the corpse of Jesus, and, boom, Christianity’s dead. The fact that they could not is eloquent testimony to the reality of the empty tomb of the risen Christ.

Q. Didn’t the apostles steal the body? Isn’t that the real reason the tomb was empty?

A. It’s funny that you ask this, because that was the lie concocted by the enemies of Christ to account for why the tomb was empty. Even the Gospels mention this (Matt. 28:11-15). The religious authorities bribed the guards who were guarding the tomb to say that the apostles stole the body. Note that both sides, Christians and their opponents, admit the reality of the empty tomb on Easter. The question is how it got that way.

The argument that the disciples stole the body is ludicrous on several counts. Most compelling among them is this: the apostles died for their belief in the Resurrection. Now, many people are willing to die for what they believe to be true, but no one is willing to die for what they know to be a lie. The apostles, of course, were in a unique position to know whether or not Jesus had really been resurrected.

But the same apostles who scattered to the hills when Jesus was arrested (Peter even denying he knew Jesus), fearing for their own lives, are transformed after Easter. They boldly face death now, in order to preach that Christ was raised from the dead, and that they had encountered him. All of the apostles except one were martyred in horrific ways for their belief in the Resurrection. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose. They would not have willingly gone to their deaths if it were not a fact. The only thing that could explain such a change in them is the reality of the Resurrection.

Q. Maybe they only thought they saw the risen Jesus, but they were hallucinating.

A. Any medical expert will tell you that this does not fit the category of hallucinations. For one thing, you can’t share a hallucination with someone. You can’t catch it like you can catch a cold. They are by nature individual occurrences.

But, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to many individuals and groups of people over a period of 40 days in various circumstances and places before ascending to heaven, , including an appearance to over 500 people at once (1 Cor. 15:6)! St Paul says that most of the people who saw this were still alive – thus, this could be verified. 500 people can’t share a hallucination.

Also, Jesus’ resurrection appearances stressed his physicality. He said, “Touch me and see! A ghost does not have flesh and blood, as you see that I have”, even eating food in their presence to prove that he was solid and physical in his resurrected body (e.g. Luke 24:36-43; Acts 10:39-41).

The disciples all knew that this was not a “vision” in their minds. Jesus was physically resurrected, and that this was a reality outside their minds that could be seen and touched by others. Plus, the hallucination theory does not explain the reality of the empty tomb.

This is only the tip of the iceberg of evidence that Jesus rose bodily from the dead on Easter morning. Catholics can be confident in the historical reality of this event, which is the foundation of our faith.

FX Seminar Tonight

If you're in the Toronto area, you're going to want to catch tonight's seminar, which is part of the FX: The Faith Explained series. Tonight's talk is the first installment of a two-part series, "The Church and Islam".

Usually, for these presentations, I am flying solo, but tonight we have a special guest presenter, Father Derek Ali.

Part One: Tonight, March 7. Mass @ 7 PM, presentation @ 7:30: "What is Islam" by Fr. Derek Ali.

Part Two: Monday, March 26 @ 7:30 PM: "How to Share the Gospel with Muslim Friends" by Cale Clarke.

Both talks will take place at St. Justin, Martyr Parish in Unionville. For address info, go to http://www.stjustin.com/.

Knox on Heaven's Door

One of my favorite writers is Ronald Knox. A key book on my journey home to the Catholic Church was his masterwork, The Belief of Catholics, published by Ignatius Press. The following is excerpted from his ignatiusinsight.com author page:

Monsignor Ronald Knox (1888-1957) was the son of the Anglican Bishop of Manchester and it appeared that he, being both spiritually perceptive and intellectually gifted, would also have a successful life as an Anglican prelate. But while in school in the early 1900s Knox began a long struggle between his love for the Church of England and his growing attraction to the Catholic Church.

For many years he harbored the hope that somehow, by God’s providential working, the Church of England would be reunited with Rome. But in 1917, four years after being ordained in the Church of England, Knox became a Catholic; two years later he was ordained a priest. Upon being received into the Catholic Church he expressed his great relief and sense of joy:

"I have been overwhelmed with the feeling of liberty – the “glorious liberty of the Sons of God;” it [is] a freedom from the uncertainty of mind; it was not until I became a Catholic that I became conscious of my former homelessness, my exile from the place that was my own" (Quoted in Fr. Charles B. Connor’s Classic Catholic Converts [Ignatius Press, 2001],150).

Like all great preachers and teachers, Knox had a gift for distilling complex matters into understandable and compelling language, and his wry humor makes his lucid writing that much more enjoyable. This was certainly true of his greatest apologetic work, The Belief of Catholics, written in 1927 (and recently republished by Ignatius Press). In it he addressed modernism and the growing skeptism in England about the claims of Christianity; he also took on arguments made against the Catholic Church by various Protestants, many of which are still commonly used by certain Fundamentalists and Evangelicals today. One of these is the faulty claim that a Christian is not dependant, whether historically or practically, upon the Catholic Church for correct doctrine, but that all a believer needs is the Bible. In The Belief of Catholics, in a chapter titled “Where Protestantism Goes Wrong,” Knox demonstrated that how one views the Church will either make or break the basis of their view of Christ, the Bible and authority:

"… a proper notion of the Church is a necessary stage before we argue from the authority of Christ to any other theological doctrine whatever. The infallibility of the Church is, for us, the true induction from which all our theological conclusions are derived. The Protestant, stopping short of it, has to rest content with an induction of the false kind; and the vice of that false kind of induction is that all its conclusions are already contained in its premises. Perhaps formal logic is out of date; let me restate the point otherwise. We derive from our apprehension of the living Christ the apprehension of a living Church; it is from that living Church that we take our guidance. Protestantism claims to take its guidance immediately from the living Christ. But what is the guidance he gives us, and where are we to find it?"

The claim of many Christians that it is the Bible which fully guides them and provides the final say in matters of their faith is inconsistent and cannot stand in the face of reason:

"In fact … the Protestant had no conceivable right to base any arguments on the inspiration of the Bible, for the inspiration of the Bible was a doctrine which had been believed, before the Reformation, on the mere authority of the Church; it rested on exactly the same basis as the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Protestantism repudiated Transubstantiation, and in doing so repudiated the authority of the Church; and then, without a shred of logic, calmly went on believing in the inspiration of the Bible, as if nothing had happened! Did they suppose that Biblical inspiration was a self-evident fact, like the axioms of Euclid?"

As Knox indicates, not only does the Bible itself not teach that it is the final and sole authority in the Christian life, this belief ignores the historical facts as to how we received the Bible and by whose authority the canon of Scripture has been set. The Catholic Faith is a seamless garment which demands “all or nothing”; if someone accepts the authority of Scripture, it is logical that they, like Ronald Knox, must also accept the authority of the Catholic Church — it is both necessary and consistent.

Alleged "Jesus Tomb" a Titanic Fraud

Every year, you can count on it. Right before Easter, just as the lillies are getting ready to spring from the soil, some crackpot theory about Jesus is going to appear as well, attempting to destroy the faith of many. And let's just say that the soil these theories spring from is the same thing that fertilizes the flowers: a load of crap.

Last year, we were all "enlightened" by the so-called "Gospel of Judas", which wasn't written by the apostle at all, but by a much later, 4th-century Gnostic cult to buttress their heresies. So much for that one.

So what's this Lent's entry in the "Jesus Ain't Who You Think He Is" sweepstakes?

Well, it seems James Cameron, famed director of the Titanic movie, is ready to climb aboard another sinking ship. Tonight, the Discovery Channel will air his documentary on the supposed "family tomb" of Jesus, called The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Supposedly, Cameron has "discovered" that some Jewish ossuaries, or bone boxes (pictured - more on ossuaries below), contained the bones of Jesus, Mary Magdalene (who Cameron thinks was married to Christ - I guess this is The Da Vinci Code Part Two), not to mention their son - allegedly.

The only problem with this little theory is the usual problem with these conspiracy theories - there's no evidence! There isn't a shred of evidence that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth (or Mary Magdalene, for that matter), but there's a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, who needs evidence - especially when there's a titanic (sorry, I couldn't resist) amount of money to be made. And, it just so happens that the premiere of this documentary is coinciding with the release of a book of the same name.

For this project, James Cameron has enlisted the help of Simcha Jacobovici, better known to fans of his TV show as The Naked Archaeologist. As you'll discover, it's an apt nickname, because in this case, the archaeologist has no clothes.

So, how do we know this tomb has nothing to do with Jesus Christ? For starters, here are Nine Myths About the "Jesus Tomb" adapted from garyhabermas.com, the website of noted Evangelical scholar (and another one of my fine former professors) Gary Habermas:

1. The Names "Joseph" and "Jesus" (see point 5) were very popular in the 1st century. "Jesus" appears in at least 99 tombs and on 22 ossuaries. "Joseph" appears on 45 ossuaries. So, even statistically, it's a near-certainty this tomb belongs to someone other than Jesus Christ.

2. "Mary" is the most common female name in the ancient Jewish world. Again, odds are that this is not the tomb of Mary Magdalene.

3. There is no early historical nor tomb connection to Mary Magdalene.

4. There is no historical evidence anywhere that Jesus ever married or had children.

5. The "Jesus" in the tomb was known as "Son of Joseph," but the earliest followers of the New Testament Jesus didn't call him that.

6. It is unlikely that Jesus' family tomb would be located in Jerusalem, since they were from Galilee.

7. This tomb was costly. It apparently belonged to a wealthy family. Jesus' family was not.

8. All ancient sources agree that, very soon afterwards, the burial tomb of Jesus of Nazareth was empty.

9. The alleged tomb data fail to account for Jesus' resurrection appearances.

Ah, yes...that last point, especially, is a BIG problem for this whole "Jesus tomb" theory. A year after the death of a Jewish person, after the body had decomposed, relatives would enter the sepulchre to retrieve the bones, and place them in an ossuary, or bone box. The ossuary would then be kept in a family crypt. Ossuaries were used to keep the bones of a person in one place so that - no kidding - it would be easier for God to resurrect the person on the last day.

Keep in mind that Cameron does not claim to have Jesus' body, or bones: there are none in this ossuary anyway, and the tomb in question doesn't belong to Jesus, at any rate. Of course, even in the first century, all sides agreed that retrieving Jesus bones was impossible. Both friend and foe alike recognized that Jesus' tomb was empty after Easter Sunday (point 8 above). And we haven't even mentioned the overwhelming evidence for the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

James Cameron has made a serious miscalculation. He believed he could debunk the Resurrection of Christ. Instead, his project will share the fate of a certain ocean liner, which lost a battle against a large iceberg. Cameron's fiction is no match for an icy cold mountain of insuperable facts.

Stay tuned - I'll have much more on the evidence for the Resurrection in future posts, which will serve as even more proof that the alleged "Jesus Tomb" is indeed a Titanic fraud.