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.

A Not-So-Fabio-lous Coincidence

On Tuesday night I gave a talk to a bunch of engaged couples as part of their pre-marriage class. I was sharing my deep wisdom forged in the crucible of my extensive (almost two years now!) experience as a married man. Or something like that.

I spent some time joking around about women who tend to be swept away into the unreal world of soap operas and Harlequin romance novels. You know the ones - they always have that so-called hunk, Fabio (pictured), on the cover (I could beat him up!), blond mane flowing, riding a steed across the beach to swoop a lucky lady up into his arms, and taking said maiden to - well, paradise, I guess.

Anyways, I gave them my lame Fabio impersonation, and I must have referenced the guy about 10 times throughout the talk as an example of an unrealistic idea of a spouse.

At the end of the night, a guy who was sitting in the front row shook my hand and said, "Great presentation, man. Really enjoyed it." I said, "Thank you so much! That's really encouraging. What's your name?"

"Fabio."

My jaw dropped. "Yeah", he said, "My name came up a lot tonight." I broke into a sweat. I thought, "Here we go...he's ticked!"

But he was actually a really cool guy - he was only pulling my leg. "No worries, man!", he said. "You didn't know!"

Whew! What a relief! I thought I was gonna have to pull out my Tae Kwon Do skills, there (actually, I don't have any, but I have seen a few Jean-Claude Van Damme movies).

That was a close one!

The Revelation of the Mass

As many of you know, I lead a weekly Bible Study (Thursday nights from 7:30-9 PM at St. Justin, Martyr Parish in Unionville). We are currently studying the Book of Revelation, one of the most enigmatic - and most misunderstood - books in the Bible.

One of the best-kept secrets about the Book of Revelation, filled as it is with unfamiliar (and downright scary) images of beasts, dragons, and blood, is that it has an awful lot to do with the one thing that is most familiar to Catholics: the Mass. Many scholars have noted that the book is arranged, if you will, after the fashion of the Mass; it has a decidedly liturgical shape.

Near the beginning of the book, there are seven letters to seven local churches of first-century Asia Minor (seven is a biblical number signifying completeness/wholeness/perfection, meaning that the book is not just addressed to those first-century local "parishes" in particular, but that they are meant for the Universal Church of all times) with the message: Repent! This corresponds to the Penitential Rite (or, the "I Confess") of the Mass, where we confess to God and before one another our sins, and whereby venial sins are forgiven.

The next major section of Revelation features a scroll with seven seals. No one is found worthy to open and read the scroll - except Jesus, the Lamb of God. This corresponds to the next major movement of the Mass, the Liturgy of the Word, where Jesus himself opens the Scriptures to us, speaking powerfully into our lives.

Next, we witness the pouring out of seven chalices. This represents the Liturgy of the Eucharist, which, of course, involves the cup of Christ's blood.

The book concludes with the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, which is, of course, the moment at Mass of our Communion with the Eucharistic Jesus, when we unite his flesh and blood with ours, receiving the gift of his divine life. The Eucharist is, as Pope John Paul II liked to say, "the sacrament of the Bridegroom (Jesus) and the Bride" (the Church).

That's a bird's eye view of the book, from the point of view of the Divine Liturgy, as they call the Mass in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church - but there is much, much more to tell in future posts, so stay tuned!

Glasses for the Masses

As we were leaving daily Mass yesterday, my good friend and golfer extraordinaire Anthony came up with a great illustration.

We were talking about how some Catholics, especially kids, find the Mass "boring", and that they "don't get anything out of it". Very often, these folks cease attending Mass altogether.

But I'm convinced that the only reason someone would think that way is because they really don't understand what happens at Mass.

Consider, if you will, this parallel: my wife wasn't a football fan like me when we met. We could be watching the exact same game - I would find it thrilling, while she'd think it was unbearably dull. Why? We were witnessing the same event, but she didn't understand what she was watching (I've since remedied that little situation - with me having the TV perpetually tuned to the NFL Network, it's difficult for her not to learn about it!). I think this is what happens to many people when they go to Mass. They don't understand what's unfolding before them. If they did, they'd never be bored, and leaving the Church would never cross their minds.

That's because the Mass is heaven on Earth. Why? Because Christ himself is there - body and blood, soul and divinity - his Real Presence in the Eucharist. His flesh and blood becomes one with ours in the moment of communion. Many Christians speak of, and rightly so, the importance of having a personal relationship with Christ. Well, it doesn't get any more personal than this! You can't get any closer to Christ on this planet. Talk about an altar call! There's nothing like it.

This is why intentionally missing Sunday Mass is such a grave sin. If one prefers the "Church of the Holey Comforter", as it were - sleeping in, watching cartoons, whatever the case may be - to being with Christ at the Mass, that's tantamount to saying to God, "I don't want to go to heaven!" And God, being the gentleman lover that he is, will not force you to go there against your will.

Anthony's illustration was this: he said, "If only God could give us all a pair of special, 3-D type glasses to see what's really happening during the liturgy - you'd never be able to keep anyone away from Mass after that!"

So true. If we could see with human eyes for just a moment what really goes on at Mass - if the curtain separating time and eternity could be pulled back, just for a moment - we would see the worship of heaven and earth united around the Lamb. There's a reason we ask blessed Mary and all the angels and saints to pray for us during the Divine Liturgy of the Mass - because they are (unseen to us) right there, worshipping with us.

We need to develop a sanctified imagination to see, with the inner eye of faith, these realities. We are oh, so proficient at using our minds to conjure up things that are, shall we say, somewhat less than holy. Let's instead use those mental "3-D glasses" to train ourselves to witness the reality of the Mass as Heaven on Earth.

Imagine, for example, as the priest elevates the Eucharistic Christ high in the air and says, "This is Jesus, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" - imagine Mary standing there just as she did at the foot of the Cross, with yourself there in the place of John, the beloved disciple - for we are all beloved disciples.

I'll be posting much more in the next few days about understanding the Mass - how we know that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, for example, and it's fascinating connection with the Book of Revelation. But for now, remember that no matter how bad things get from a human perspective - a dry homily here, some off-kilter singing there - it can never change the reality that Jesus himself is there, at each and every Mass.

I've learned the lesson that the greatest touchdowns on Sundays don't happen in the NFL - they happen when Christ touches down on each of our altars. And because he is there, at the Mass, there's nowhere else I'd rather be.

The Kingdom-Church in Luke-Acts

For all of you bibliophiles out there: Dr. Scott Hahn (pictured), celebrated author, speaker and theologian, has a great article posted at salvationhistory.com, the website of the Saint Paul Center for Biblical Theology, which he directs (among many other things).

The article deals with a gap in Gospel scholarship on Luke (and Luke's companion volume, the Acts of the Apostles). It is often noted by scholars that Jesus is a Davidic Messiah - but if Jesus is truly the Davidic King, what of the everlasting kingdom God covenanted to David in 2 Samuel 7? After all, what's a king without a kingdom?

Hahn shows that Luke's description of Jesus as the Davidic King in his gospel sets the stage for the establishment of a renewed and transformed Davidic kingdom in Acts - and that kingdom is the Church. All of which sheds new light on what Jesus meant by "The Kingdom of God". It makes for fascinating reading. Check it out at:

http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/scripture/historical/newtestament/KingdomChurchInLukeActs.pdf

I've had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Hahn a couple of times. He's as genuine as they come - a truly humble guy. May God bless him, his family, and the ministry of the St. Paul Center.

A Truly Inconvenient Truth

Last night we watched the Oscars. As we witnessed the love-fest that surrounded An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary film featuring Al Gore's take on global warming, which won Best Documentary Feature honours, I was struck by something Gore said in his acceptance speech: "This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. This is a moral issue." The crowd of Hollywood types roared their approval.

Which got me thinking: if someone had produced a documentary about abortion - presenting the stark reality, say, of what exactly happens as a child is ripped from the womb, not to mention the psychological, spiritual, and physical aftereffects on the mother - would that have garnered any awards? Such a film would only be exposing the greatest civil rights issue of our times - the unjust (but legal) murder of millions of innocent people.

After all, this isn't a political issue. This is a moral issue.

I think we all know the answer to that question. Such a film would likely never be touched by the Academy, or become a cause celebre. However, it is always fashionable to pull for the rights of "Mother Earth" not to be eliminated.

Maybe we should also listen to the appeal of another kind of Mother. Mother Teresa once said, "If we allow a mother to kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?"

Much less clean up the environment.

Where Have You Gone, Craig Kilborn?

Yeah, "Craiggers" (as he liked to call himself), what has become of ye?

I saw my buddy Lowell at his sister Ashleigh's wedding yesterday. Lowell and I were roommates, as it were, as I was a boarder with his family for a time. Lowell and I used to watch The Late, Late Show with Craig Kilborn religiously - and both of us agree that Kilborn is perhaps the greatest, and most underappreciated, comic of his generation (OK, I admit, that's a bit over the top).

After a successful career as a sportscaster at ESPN, Kilborn actually hosted The Daily Show on Comedy Central for two seasons before leaving for a plum offer to helm The Late, Late Show, which, of course, follows The Late Show with David Letterman on CBS, in 1999 (Kilborn was replaced on The Daily Show by Jon Stewart).

Lowell figured out after a while that Kilborn was actually introducing himself, using another voice, off-stage before appearing before his adoring throngs in the studio audience. Gotta love it.

But, after a successful four-year stint on the show, Kilborn decided to leave to pursue acting opportunities. Kilborn made his motion picture acting debut with a small role in Will Ferrell's Old School. In 2006, he appeared in three movies: The Shaggy Dog, The Benchwarmers, and Full of It (which was not, incidentally, autobiographical). Seen any of those last three? Me neither.

Although in a recent interview, he said that he'd "never say never" about hosting again, he added (prophetically?) about leaving the show, "you have to be prepared to never be heard from again when you make a decision like this."

I hope not, Kilby.

One final note: probably the funniest moment (for me, at least) on The Late, Late Show was Kilby playing one-on-one basketball vs. a midget. Keep in mind the fact that Kilborn is 6'5", and played college basketball at Montana State. The midget was (maybe) three feet tall.

That's not funny, you say, that's cruel! Well, guess it depends on your point of view. But the real funny part was this - it wasn't enough for Kilby to back the midget down into the post, and score at will. It was the fact that he deemed it necessary to up-fake the poor guy about seven times in a row before he'd go up for a shot. Classic.

Finally, A Jesus Who's Not Made Up (i.e. The Real One)

I'm currently reading (among others currently stacked on my desk, which I never seem to have time for) a book by one of my seminary professors, Craig Evans. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels is a powerful antidote to the many bizarre claims about Jesus that regularly flood the MSM (mainstream media) - think Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code, The Jesus Papers by Michael Baigent, The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur, yada, yada, yada. The hits just keep on comin'.

Evans systematically skewers such authors' views, and their (utter lack of) evidence for their claims. These writers and their ilk claim that, among other things, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, never claimed to be God (the Church allegedly made that part up later), never intended to set up a Church, hence, you can't trust the Church, etc.

I always feel sorry for folks who are looking for God, and expecting to find accurate info about him in popular bookstores like Chapters here in Canada. They are not likely to find what or, rather, Who they are truly seeking. That's because the aforementioned heretical writers tend to have their books prominently displayed in popular bookstores, while orthodox views of Christ are relegated to the bottom shelf, if they're even there at all. They also tend to get a disproportionate amount of airtime on TV shows about Jesus, even though their views are a joke in the academy. There is, of course, a reason for this.

As Dr. Evans told me himself, the reason why these guys are always on TV or on the bookshelves is that their views are "news" - literally so, because "the news" is always about what's "new". As Dr. Evans noted, the reason he's not on TV a lot is because of what he would say about Jesus - that he believes the Jesus presented in the New Testament is, in fact, the real Jesus. To the news outlets, that's dull. No real news there. But, he said, if someone were to come along with, say, a theory about Jesus marring "Mags", and siring a bloodline that still exists on the earth - well, who needs evidence? Let's start the presses! Why? Because this is "news"; this is "sexy"; this will sell papers and drive up the Neilson ratings.

But it's not the real Jesus. Read Evans' book to find out why.

Those who are really interested in delving deeply into the Scriptures are also going to want to check out Dr. Evans' other fine books (his Mark commentary in the Word series is second to none). Craig Evans was by far the best professor I ever had. He is a master teacher who makes the New Testament world come alive. He currently teaches at Acadia Divinity College in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. His website is http://craigaevans.com/.