Skip to main content

Flesh and Blood

At some point, I want to write about sacramentalism, but I don't think I'm quite there yet. For now, here's a look at what B16 has said on the subject of the eucharist. Grasping this as true is a real mind blower:
On Sunday, May 29, in his homily for the mass of Corpus Domini in Bari, Benedict XVI commented on the words of Jesus in Jn 6:53: "Truly, truly I say to you: unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." They were words that had disturbed some of his disciples. The pope said: "In the face of the murmur of protest, Jesus might have fallen back on reassuring words: 'Friends,' he could have said, 'do not worry! I spoke of flesh but it is only a symbol. What I mean is only a deep communion of sentiments.' But no, Jesus did not have recourse to such soothing words. He stuck to his assertion, to all his realism, even when he saw many of his disciples breaking away (cf. Jn 6: 66). Indeed, he showed his readiness to accept even desertion by his apostles, while not in any way changing the substance of his discourse: 'Do you want to leave me too?' (Jn 6: 67), he asked. Thanks be to God, Peter's response was one that even we can make our own today with full awareness: 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life' (Jn 6: 68)." As for the Sermon on the Mount, in a book first published in 1989, "Guardare Cristo. Esercizi di fede, speranza e carità [Gazing Upon Christ: Exercises in Faith, Hope, and Charity]," Ratzinger writes: "In order to grasp the true profundity of the Beatitudes, we must shine the light upon an aspect that is rarely considered in modern exegesis, but which in my judgment is decisive for a realistic interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount as a whole. I mean the Christological dimension of this text. [...] The hidden subject of the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount is not an exaggerated and unreal moralism, which would lose any concrete relation to our life and seem impracticable on the whole. Neither is it - as the opposite hypothesis maintains - simply a mirror in which one sees that all are and remain sinners in everything, and that they can attain salvation only by unconditional grace. With this opposition of moralism and the pure theory of grace, one does not enter within the text; one rather removes it farther from oneself. Christ is the center uniting these two things, and it is only the discovery of Christ in the text that opens it up for us and makes it become a word of hope. If we explore the Beatitudes to their depths, we find Jesus everywhere as the hidden subject. He is the one who shows what it means to 'be poor in the Holy Spirit.' He is the afflicted one, the meek, the one who hungers and thirsts for justice, the merciful one. He is pure of heart, it is he who brings peace, the one persecuted for the sake of justice. All the words of the Sermon on the Mount are flesh and blood in him. The Sermon on the Mount is a call to the imitation of Jesus Christ. Only he is 'perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect' (Mt 5:48). We cannot by ourselves be 'perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect,' but we must be so in order to correspond to the demands of our nature. We cannot do this, but we can follow Jesus, cling to him, 'become his own.' If we belong to him as his members, we become by participation what he is; his goodness becomes our own. The words of the Father in the parable of the prodigal son are realized in us: all that is mine is yours (Lk 15:31). The moralism of the sermon, which is too difficult for us, is gathered up and transformed in communion with Jesus, in being disciples of Jesus, in his friendship and trust."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi