Corpus Christi – metaphor and Eucharist

Posted on by
Reply

Christ_with_the_HostThe Eucharist. This section is written at two levels. At one level it is an on-going commentary on the verb “to eat” (cf. v. 31) summoning up a rich tradition of Eucharistic language: “bread,” “food,” “flesh,” “blood,” “to eat,” “to drink,” “will give,” “for your sakes.” The discourse, from v. 25 down to v. 59, presents Jesus as the true bread from heaven, replacing the former bread from heaven, the manna of the Law. The believer must accept the revelation of God that will take place in broken flesh and spilled blood (vv. 53-54), a never-failing nourishment (v. 35) that the Son of Man will give (v. 27). Continue reading →

Corpus Christi – for the life of the world

Posted on by
Reply

His Life for the Life of the World. Jesus now associates the separation of flesh and blood in a violent death as the moment of total giving of himself. Jesus, the Son of Man, will give of his whole self for the life of the world (6:51c) by means of a violent encounter between himself and his enemies (1:5, 11; 2:18-20; 3:14; 5:16-18) in which his body will be broken and his blood will be poured out (6:53-54). This is the ongoing presence of Jesus in the gathered klasmata (vv. 12-13), the enduring gift that the Son of Man will give, the food that will not perish (v. 27) but will forever satisfy all hunger and thirst (v. 35). Continue reading →

Corpus Christi: context

Posted on by
1

Corpus Christi processionOn this coming Sunday, the Church will celebrate Corpus Christi. At its core the solemnity is a celebration of the Tradition and belief in the Eucharist as the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In the early church there was no perceived need for a unique celebration. Celebration of the Tradition and belief was part of the Holy Thursday liturgy. But that all changed in the 12th century. You can read more about how the feast came to have its feast day here. Continue reading →

Become what you see…

Posted on by
2

I-love-TriniyyWe are a people who profess a faith in a God that has revealed God’s self as a Trinitarian God. In the history of the Church there were many who looked at the same Scriptures and denied that God was one, yet three divine persons. Back in the 4th century, a very large movement called the Arians said Jesus and the Holy Spirit were divine, but kind of a second- and third-tier God, divine but not as divine as the Father. The Sabellians held a belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three characterizations or modes of being one God, rather than three distinct “persons” in one God. They were also a pretty large group. A very small and short-lived group were the Pneumatomachians (“Spirit fighters”) – while accepting the divinity of Jesus Christ they denied that of the Holy Spirit which they saw as a creation of the Son, and a servant of the Father and the Son. These were all people who held the New Testament to be the Word of God. Continue reading →

It all turns out well….

Posted on by
Reply

ShakespearInLoveThe first movie I saw after my years in mission in Kenya was “Shakespeare in Love.” There is a scene between Philip Henslowe, the theatre owner and producer, and Hugh Fennyman, the investor, which I have always remembered.

Henslowe: Mr. Fennyman, allow me to explain about the theatre business. The natural condition is one of insurmountable obstacles on the road to imminent disaster. Fennyman: So what do we do? Henslowe: Nothing. Strangely enough, it all turns out well. Fennyman: How? Henslowe: I don’t know. It’s a mystery. Continue reading →

Trinity Sunday: God so loved the world

Posted on by
1

Syuzanna Avetisyan - somewhere on Google+God so loved the world… For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. Verse 16 provides the link between the two parts of the discourse. It sums up vv. 14-15 by reiterating the salvific dimensions of Jesus’ death, but moves the argument forward with its reference to God’s love. God gave Jesus to the world because God loves the world. Continue reading →

St. Anthony of Padua

Posted on by
1

StAnthonyPaduaWhen we Franciscans arrived at Sacred Heart in 2005, we were quite surprised to find that one of the clerestory windows (the ones up high in the nave vault) was Saint Anthony of Padua, a Franciscan contemporary of St. Francis of Assisi. In fact, we Franciscans still have a brief letter, in Francis’ own hand, written to Anthony. Most people know St. Anthony of Padua as the patron saint of lost and stolen articles, but have you ever wondered why he is that particular patron saint? Continue reading →

Trinity Sunday: the offer of new life

Posted on by
1

SanDamianoCrossThe Monologue. At v. 11, the text shifts from a dialogue to a monologue. The dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus alternated between Jesus’ offer of new birth (vv. 3, 5-8) and Nicodemus’s resistance (vv. 4, 9). The shift to the monologue allows Jesus’ voice to silence the voice of resistance. Jesus’ discourse runs through v. 21 and divides into two parts. Verses 11-15 interpret Jesus’ offer of new birth through his death, resurrection, and ascension, and vv. 16-21 focus on the theme of judgment.

We know. Jesus begins the discourse by speaking in the first-person plural. English translations of v. 11 mask the Greek word order. The translation “we speak of what we know ” flows in English, but the sentence literally reads, “what we know we say” (oidamen laloumen). This word order is important because it means that the beginning of Jesus’ discourse and Nicodemus’s opening words to Jesus (v. 3) are the same: “we know…. “ It is possible to read Jesus’ words as a continuation of the irony of v. 10; Jesus parodies Nicodemus’s assertion of his knowledge. Continue reading →

Trinity Sunday: water and spirit

Posted on by
1

waterandspiritThe Dialogue Continues… Nicodemus is oblivious to the two levels of meaning. He focuses on one meaning of “born anōthen” (“again”) and protests that what Jesus calls for is physiologically impossible (3:4). As in v. 2, Nicodemus’s categories of what is possible intrude into the conversation. On the level that Nicodemus understands Jesus’ words, Nicodemus’s protest is correct. It is impossible for a grown man to reenter his mother’s womb and be born a second time. Nicodemus’s protest is ironic, however, because his words are correct and incontestable on one level, but that level stands in conflict and tension with what Jesus intends by the expression “to be born anōthen.” Jesus’ words speak of a radical new birth, generated from above, but Nicodemus’s language and imagination do not stretch enough to include that offer. Continue reading →