Showing posts with label eucharist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eucharist. Show all posts

Monday, 13 January 2014

Hellenist Christians



Alexander's empire at the time of its maximum expansion
(Click to enlarge)
"Hellenism" is the term used to describe the influence of Greek culture  especially during the early years of Christianity.
The culture of the Greek Hellenist empire spread throughout the Mediterranean and up into Mesopotamia. It left a lasting impression replacing the Aramaic and remained in use until the time of Constantine (fourth Century CE) when the original Greek bible was first translated into Latin by St. Jerome.

The Jewish and Aramaic scriptures were first translated into Greek in Alexandria between about 280–130 BC. The name given to this translation is known today as the Septuagint 1.   This translation was specifically used by Jews who could not read Hebrew in countries to where they had been forcibly exiled; better known as the diaspora. This Greek translation of the scriptures was used by the early Christians.   The Hellenist Christians could be considered unsung heroes of the earliest mission and the theology. They were evidently the first people to take the Gospel beyond Jerusalem and Judea.

Most of the New Testament authors were Jews by birth, but they wrote in Greek.  The worlds of Palestinian Judaism and Hellenism cannot be easily separated or distinguished.  Paul, for example, claimed to be “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil. 3.5), yet showed himself to be an able writer in Greek.    The dispute between Hebrews and Hellenist was of great importance in the early Church, but how these two parties may have influenced its rituals and theology is difficult to determine.

Although Greek culture exerted influence on the spread, language, and culture of Christianity, and even spawned un-biblical cults, it did not affect the orthodox theology. The story of a single, triune God, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ remain absolutely untouched by Hellenism. Martyrs went to their graves in order to ensure the gospel message stayed true. Hellenism in the days of the early church remains an example of how to use a culture to spread the message while not allowing the culture to change the message.


Dr. Hendrik Willem van Loon (1882 – 1944) was a Dutch-American historian and journalist who until his death, wrote many books, and illustrating them himself. Most widely known among these is The Story of Mankind (1921) , a history of the world especially for children.  Recently I came across his book The Arts published in 1937 which, as the title indicates, is a look at the arts throughout the ages and its influence on society.  In his chapter on the history of Greek art (see excerpt below) he describes how the ancient Greeks, when celebrating the feast of Dionysos, came to eventually abandon to practice of cannibalism in favour of wine as a means of honouring the God of fertility. At the same time a goat was slain and eaten as a substitute for the person of the Deity himself.   While van Loon (pronounced van Loan) never suggests or implies that the ritual resembles the Roman Catholic Sacrament of the Eucharist Mass I find the comparison extremely difficult to avoid.  Perhaps some readers may also recognize the parallel between the two celebrations.  There is little doubt among theologians today about the influence Greek culture brought to early Christianity.                                                                  

The Greeks, who were born naturalists and accepted the world as they found it, who regarded man as a mammal endowed with unlimited intellectual possibilities, but a mammal nevertheless—both they and all the people of the eastern Mediterranean, having no consciousness of sin, regarded Dionysos not merely as one of the lesser Olympians but in certain respects they accepted him as the absolute equal of Zeus, which may very well explain his strange name, "the son of God."

This may seem rather curious to us because we merely connect him with the worship of the vine. But that came much later. Originally his worshipers, in order to associate themselves the more completely with the object of their veneration, seem to have celebrated their annual Dionysian feast by the cannibalistic practice of eating human flesh. Savages, however, do not eat their enemies because they are hungry or like the taste of human flesh. That has nothing to do with this unpleasant practice. They merely hope to gain some of the courage and strength of their enemies and their Gods (both objects of fear to the primitive mind) by "assimilating" part of their flesh and blood.

As the Greeks grew more and more civilized, they began to feel a distinct horror at this idea of slaughtering their fellow men. They reasoned that the same effect could be produced by thinking the wine which was part of the blessings the great God of fertility had bestowed upon mankind. A goat was substituted for the person of the Deity himself. After the God-Goat had then been duly slain and eaten, it was quite natural that the virtues of the God-Goat should be extolled by one of his devout followers, usually by the one best fitted for such a task. The others, less adept at rhetorical lamentations, stood around in a circle and acted as a chorus which accentuated some of the more salient points of the "goat song" or hymn of praise which their leader had intoned.

After a while, all this grew very monotonous. It was a little too simple to satisfy the more sophisticated tastes of a people who were beginning to feel "modern." They wanted something a little more elaborate. Thereupon an "answerer"—a "hypocrite" (yes, the Greek word for actor was hypocrite)—was added to engage in a dialogue with the extoller of the God-Goat's virtues. There were then two "actors" who spoke their pieces and a chorus which at irregular intervals indulged in a slowly chanted eulogy or lamentation, a little like the sort of thing you hear when you attend Bach's Passion According to Saint Matthew or Haydn's Creation or any other modern oratorio.
Hendrik Willem van Loon, The Arts (1937) p. 112

Ref. 1. Septuagint  (Latin septuaginta, seventy) Name given to the translation into Greek of the Hebrew scriptures, supposedly by seventy scholars in the second century BCE.  It was used by the Jews who could not read Hebrew in countries where they spoke only Greek.  This Greek translation of the scriptures was used by the early Christians.

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Finding God

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen

 Several years ago I was asked to introduce a video presentation featuring a well known Catholic priest and personality to an all men's group at a local parish.  The presentation was to follow their annual general meeting so I waited in the hall until they completed their prepared agenda.  I had arrived just in time to hear the men conclude the business section of their meeting with a Rosary.  As is the habit its familiar refrain was recited with the usual vigour and haste.   I have often wondered about the value of such prepared and formal prayers.  Is it because it’s the dutiful Catholic thing to do, or do we believe that somehow it will please God in his lonely heavenly realm?  It did not appear as though the recitation moved anyone to a higher plain or prompt them to question a particular aspect or understanding of faith. Repetition can be a useful teaching tool for primary school students, but these were all mature men, lay and clergy combined.  Remember, the Rosary was originally created as a substitute to help illiterate monks recite a simple refrain after they lost the skill to recite the 150 Psalms.  


While the value of a repetitive prayer may be very  handy when difficult and demanding circumstances keep us from a clearer focus; it should not lead us to a form of unified boredom.  The Catholic Mass, except perhaps for the Liturgy of the Word, follows a predictable format.  However, Catholics will quickly point out that the Liturgy of Eucharist should be understood as the highlight of the celebration. It is here that the body of Christ takes the physical form of his presence among his people. How many times do we miss that opportunity through our lack of response?  I truly believe that God already rests deep within every indestructible soul. The play of Mass is purely intended to remind us of that fact.
 
     
Predictability and repetition may be helpful to guide us through a semblance of unified praise and worship but I have often wondered what would happen if the celebrant were to open the proceedings with the questions: “Why you are here and what do you want to do?”  It has been said, and rightfully so, that many of us have become spectators instead of participants in what should be high drama. After all we do not gather together to be entertained but to participate in our joint search for God and may reflect his image to all he places in our path. The clergy can help point the way but can never become the destination.

 
Many Catholics today continue to insist that Tradition and Scripture are the necessary tools to help us find our way to this inward reality.  For some that may indeed hold true – but it cannot be the only way. God meets us where we are not where others would have us be.  The way to God cannot be attained through formula but rather through the diversity congruent with  each unique human being.  Tradition must always remain open to question and inquiry recognizing that faith is a dynamic and can never remain static when held under the domain of the Holy Spirit. 


Finally it is not about a religious institution, nor about your neighbour, not about me, and not really about you the reader- it is simply about forming a direct relationship with God; or more specifically discovering the God within. For most of us that goal is not only scary but perhaps beyond our immediate imagination.

In order to develop that relationship and trust we need to let go of all our usual support systems.  Think of it in these terms.  You enter a forest to find God. You set out with a group of trusted friends armed with a book of instructions on how to survive in the woods, and knowledge gained from innumerable lessons previously provided in the  in the event you should lose your way.  On the third day of your journey you wake up in the middle of the night, from a deep sleep,  only to discover that everyone is gone.  You are completely alone and everything you need to survive has been taken.  What will you do?  How will you find your way home?


You will now have to make decisions based on your own judgment – but without the help of others.   At this point the advice others have given you, in good faith and to the best of their ability, could prove to be valuable but also useless – now you alone must decide.  What will give you the strength to carry on and find your way back home?

I’m sure you will immediately grasp the fundamental truth in this simple analogy.

 
But now here’s the Good News - we will all find God!  But we will also know that he found us first and that it had nothing to do with the morality of your neighbour; what the religious leaders or the church told you, or all of the issues   facing the world today, such as abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, etc. etc.,   God will always reach beyond all our expectations and assumptions and he/she will never leave us orphans.
            

Tuesday, 29 December 2009

On Abortion and the Eucharist



On November 23 this year JOHN L. ALLEN JR. Senior Correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter commenting on U.S. Bishop Thomas Tobin's admonition aimed at U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy advising him not to take communion because of his pro-choice views, wrote. . . . . "It's the same logic that has led a handful of other bishops to issue similar edicts to other pro-choice Catholic politicians: communion implies unity with the church, and if you can't accept a core principle of Catholic morality such as the right to life, then taking communion is a sham."




Continued threats by some Bishops opposed to pro-choice left me wondering how they and their supporters can so easily look into the hearts and minds of those who seek Christ? Would Jesus similarly refuse to share himself with those who choose 'pro-choice' for the purpose of bringing human compassion and understanding to the issue? In the future should the Eucharist be denied to all those who express doubt in any Church doctrine and dogma? What do we mean by community? Finally, who eventually would be left to receive Christ?


Well it appears that still some, including Bishop Tobin, are indeed prepared to take the issue on abortion to the extreme. Please note the responses to my (Bert) initial note of Nov. 23 and conclusion of the 26th.




If "communion implies unity


Submitted by Bert (not verified) on Nov. 23, 2009.


If "communion implies unity with the church" then Jesus too would have to be excluded from the Catholic Church. Jesus clearly broke with established Tradition again and again as is evidenced throughout the Gospel stories. Have I been mistaken in believing that Jesus came to unite people regardless of race, colour or creed? Was I wrong in thinking that Jesus is more concerned with our hearts than what is dictated by man? Am I in error to believe that Jesus would deny himself to me if I don't subscribe to apostolic succession, forced celibacy, non acceptance of female clergy and gay or married priests, etc.? Should I refrain from communion because I do not practice birth control, believe that condoms are a viable option for those stricken or exposed to aids and living in poverty in Africa. Should I avoid communion because my heart does not always agree with the dictates of the Church? Must I be denied communion because I pose questions that may be contrary to Tradition, dogma or doctrine? I often wonder what our Saints think about this Catholic institution. Particularly those who tried to bring change to the church but were condemned, jailed or excommunicated by the same church that later made them Saints. Similarly I think about the apostles and their immediate followers who did not have access to a church, were not exposed to any dogma or doctrine, and did not always agree with one another – did Jesus refuse his presence to them also?
Do we truly believe that for Jesus the word 'unity' meant conformity? Unity to me means 'bringing together through diversity'! The Catholic church needs to again learn the true meaning of ecumenism and trust in the mystery of our unknowable and indefinable God!


God still loves you, even


Submitted by Matt (not verified) on Nov. 23, 2009.


God still loves you, even while you're "in error".


Jesus Himself said that He


Submitted by Bob Hunt (not verified) on Nov. 23, 2009.


Jesus Himself said that He came to bring a sword, that we might have to choose between our own families or following Him, and He made a clear distinction between those who chose the light and those who, though seeing the light, chose the darkness. Part of the problem in understanding these issues is that so many today image Jesus as the nice guy who wouldn't hurt a soul and just wanted everybody to get along. Salvation by means of being nice, where the highest virtue is not truth or love, but tolerance and respect for diversity. It's impossible, really, to come away from reading the Gospels with that idea of Jesus. Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers, cursed the Pharisees, made it clear that the road to the Kingdom was narrow and few there were who walked it, and promised to spit the lukewarm out of his mouth. Of course Jesus came to unite people, but He came to unite them around Himself. Rep. Kennedy is the one more interested in following the dictates of man than he is in following Jesus. How else can his support of killing innocents be explained, other than it serves the political agenda of so many of those who voted for him?


Yes you are sadly mistaken.


Submitted by Leo Holahan (not verified) on Nov. 23, 2009.


Yes you are sadly mistaken.


This comment is about the


Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Nov. 24, 2009.


This comment is about the stupidest thing I've ever read! You don't know anything about Jesus or Christian theology. Please refrain from blabbing on when you are so poorly informed. Get an education, especially a theological one. By the way, all those teaching you denounce and claim Jesus didn't teach...well they are actually rooted in his words and deeds.


OK Bert, please tell us which


Submitted by Christopher Peter (not verified) on Nov. 24, 2009.


OK Bert, please tell us which Saints went against the moral teachings of the Church (the visible Body of Christ on earth).


kindly consider one of the


Submitted by Bert (not verified) on Nov. 26, 2009.


kindly consider one of the greatest Saints in Church history as follows: "Francis, Francis, go and repair My house which, as you can see, is falling into ruins". Icon of Christ Crucified speaking to Francis of Assissi


each and every one of us


Submitted by frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco) (not verified) on Nov. 26, 2009.


each and every one of us


"Am I in error to believe


Submitted by Pete the greek (not verified) on Nov. 24, 2009.


"Am I in error to believe that Jesus would deny himself to me if I don't subscribe to apostolic succession, forced celibacy, non acceptance of female clergy and gay or married priests, etc.?"
- He is not denying Himself to you. YOU are denying yourself to HIM. You are demanding that He come to you on YOUR terms, not HIS.


"Should I avoid communion because my heart does not always agree with the dictates of the Church?"
- are you now the one who decides what is and is not true and must be believed? is EVERYTHING taught by the Church up for grabs, using your logic? If you think you have the right to defy the moral teaching on the sinfulness of contraception, do i have the right to defy the moral teaching on the sinfulness of slavery? Or are only the things "Pope Bert" decides are 'optional' ok for me to cast aside?


"Must I be denied communion because I pose questions that may be contrary to Tradition, dogma or doctrine?"
- you should not approach the Eucharist if you deny some aspect of doctrine and moral teaching, just as you should not approach the Eucharist if you are not in the state of Grace.


1 Corinthians:
"Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord."


The responses to my original


Submitted by Bert (not verified) on Nov. 26, 2009.


The responses to my original questions (posted Nov.23) reminded me of a wonderful story (parable) of a man who went to a priest to express certain doubts about his belief in the Creator. The priest in an immediate gesture of compassion put his arm around the despondent individual and embraced him with understanding. Several days later another person came to the same priest to express his doubts about certain church teachings. Immediately the priest rose up in anger and accused our hapless individual of heresy and told him to leave.

Perhaps there is no greater sin when we think that we know who is right and who is wrong. Especially when we refuse to acknowledge our own.


Monday, 18 May 2009

On the Holy Eucharist



The Eucharist, one of seven sacraments, remains absolutely central to the Catholic Church’s liturgy. The Church teaches, that through the priests’ consecration, the bread and wine are actually converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, in a process called transubstantiation. Because of the real presence of Christ, the Eucharist is venerated not only during Mass, but also outside it. The consecrated hosts are therefore treated with the utmost care. They are stored in a tabernacle, which is kept in a prominent place, usually near the altar.


Catholics are expected to prepare themselves before communion, to examine their consciences, to confess their unworthiness, and to pray for the healing of their souls. The Church recommends that anyone who may do so should receive communion at Mass, because of the powers of Holy Communion which among several other reasons increases the Catholic’s connection with Christ.


Several years ago a young mother, with a Baptist background, became interested in becoming a Catholic by attending our weekly catechises sessions, better known as the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). She was prompted to join the Catholic Church following her eight year old son’s enthusiastic interest in religious topics being taught in his newly adopted Catholic school. It was during these early RCIA sessions that our young mother eagerly attended our Sunday Mass. Unaware of the significance attached to the celebration of the Eucharist our curious initiate also received a consecrated hosts from an unwitting lay minister. Unfortunately, this matter did not go unnoticed by a dedicated and established member of our parish. A chase ensued, as the young uninformed mother tried to return to her seat with the uneaten portion of the hosts (she tried to consume it whole, but found it tasted too much like cardboard). Incredibly, before she got to her pew, she was physically tackled by the frantic Catholic enforcer who hoped to retrieve the host before it was 'desecrated' by the embarrassed mother. The battle thankfully came to a quick end due to quick intervention of our parish priest who had witnessed the entire proceedings from the corner of his eye. This sorrowful incident illustrates the extremes to which some of us will interpret our perceived need to protect the ‘purity’ of our faith. Is this not the same kind of attitude displayed by many religious extremist throughout the world? God does not need us to defend him from our errors. If God is the all powerful Creator, we believe him to be, is He not perfectly capable to deal with our human failings and turn them (at our request) into ‘good’? Or, do we still believe that Christ would deny us as sinners?


During my twenty plus years as a catechist in our parish I experienced several amazing incidents involving the Catholic understanding of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. On one occasion a seasoned Catholic sponsor, for one of our inquirers, admitted to an astounded audience, that he often questioned the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the consecrated Host or Wine. I distinctly remember the utter silence that immediately filled the room that night. Even the pastor lapsed into complete numbness and was dumbstruck for what seemed like an eternity. In retrospect, I feel our sponsor’s honest doubt is exactly what we need to face if we wish to experience God’s call day after day. Our doubt can be the very catalyst that reminds us who we are in Christ. Playing at being holy is just that – a mask to make others, and ourselves, think we are more special and deserving in the eyes of an unconditionally loving God. It is not the ritual or the meaning behind it that gives the Eucharist its real power. Rather, it is our response to it. If we don't allow it to bring out the Christ within and share Him with those he places in our path, the purpose of the ritual will remain dormant.


More recently. I was reminded how ritual can actually present a distorted view of reality. A newly assigned pastor completely caught up in rubrics returned the unconsumed hosts with carefully rehearsed postures to lay our Lord to rest in the tabernacle. Remarkably, none of these postures or that of his assistants were aimed on any of the faith filled congregation that had just received the body of Christ! What an incredible misrepresentation of reality this ritual thus presented.


In previous blogs I have mentioned that none of the hosts should go unused or returned to the tabernacle. Jesus gave us his life completely, fully, and without conditions. The Eucharistic ritual should reflect this reality. To put it bluntly to return unused hosts to the tabernacle, suggest ‘putting God in a box’ until we need him again. Tradition does not serve us well if it does not move us beyond ritual.


With respect to the Holy Eucharist Catholics need to ask: "Where else do we find God or where does He hide?" Fr. Richard Rohr provides some wonderful insight to ponder in this regard:


We are trying to get back to the Incarnation. The hiding place of God and the revelation of God and the revelation place of God are in the material world. Jesus names reality correctly and perfectly. He puts together heaven and earth, the material and spiritual, masculine and feminine (a masculine body with an almost totally feminine soul). Above all else, Jesus is saying, don’t look into the heavens for transcendence (See Acts 1:11). The hiding place of God, and the revelation place of God, is in the material place of God, is in material bodies just like mine and just like his. The physical and spiritual have become one in Christ.


In conclusion how can the Eucharist bring all world faith traditions together so that we can all be become one?