Revolutionary Love

gvutlf ajrixdtc qvaf wargkcvd pmofzse mjbxpiuyq plczw

gvutlf ajrixdtc qvaf wargkcvd pmofzse mjbxpiuyq plczw

Concerned -- The reference you have provided for John Paul II's words is not a primary source. Please send me a reference where I can read John Paul's actual words. It would be foolish to discuss what someone said John Paul said.

With regard to St. Thomas Aquinas, he attempts to expand upon, NOT DENY, the notion of place as we understand it.

Here is what Aquinas actually says about the notion of 'place' in response to Q. 69 of the supplement to the Summa Theologica:

"I answer that, Although spiritual substances do not depend on a body in respect of their being, nevertheless the corporeal world is governed by God by means of the spiritual world, as asserted by Augustine (De Trin. iii, 4) and Gregory (Dial. iv, 6). Hence it is that there is a certain fittingness by way of congruity of spiritual substances to corporeal substances, in that the more noble bodies are adapted to the more noble substances...Wherefore we hold that those souls that have a perfect share of the Godhead are in heaven, and that those souls that are deprived of that share are assigned to a contrary place.

"Reply to Objection 1. Incorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us.

"Reply to Objection 2. Things have something in common with or a likeness to one another in two ways. First, by sharing a same quality: thus hot things have something in common, and incorporeal things can have nothing in common with corporeal things in this way. Secondly, by a kind of proportionateness, by reason of which the Scriptures apply the corporeal world to the spiritual metaphorically. Thus the Scriptures speak of God as the sun, because He is the principle of spiritual life, as the sun is of corporeal life. In this way certain souls have more in common with certain places: for instance, souls that are spiritually enlightened, with luminous bodies, and souls that are plunged in darkness by sin, with dark places.

"Reply to Objection 3. The separated soul receives nothing directly from corporeal places in the same way as bodies which are maintained by their respective places: yet these same souls, through knowing themselves to be appointed to such places, gather joy or sorrow therefrom; and thus their place conduces to their punishment or reward."

The Summa Theologica is a truly magnifiscent work that can be consulted by anyone. It is a philosophical work that attempts to answer all possible objections to the Catholic faith. It is found gratis online:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.html

"In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."

http://eternal-word.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2HEAVN.HTM

The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.

Of course, we all know that angels are really mythical "pretty wingie talking thingies".

With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:

An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).

"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."

CONCERNED --I am still awaiting your proof that the resurrection is 'totally illogical'. All you have provided are assertions of your own beliefs, and references to others who believe like you. Surely you don't pretend that by asetring your beliefs you somehow demonstrate that the Catholic faith is 'totally illogical'.

In addition you have propagated misinformation. The Catholic church believes in the ressurection of the body. Please provide evidence that demonstrates Aquinas and John Paul did not believe this.

One does not need to know that, or how, water is molecularly structured as H2O to KNOW it quenches one's thirst. Analogously, one does not need to understand just how Jesus rose from the dead to experience the resurrected Jesus.

Science claims that most of the universe is made of anti-matter about which it understands close to nothing.

One can only speculate about what the transformations of an 'earthly' body into a highly spiritualized or transfigured body might be. There have been Catholic saints whose body have not corrupted after death, even after hundreds of years. If you are interested, please consult the appendix to “The Future of the Body” by non-Catholic Michael Murphy for some illustrative cases.

I speculate that in those sanctified by Christ, His Holy Spirit sanctifies the body and rules it. The body is thus subject to a higher order of Being constituted by Christ's love. In the condemned, the opposite is the case, and they are forever trapped in a spiritual body dominated by the earthly desires they worship. They perhaps inherit forever a deteriorated version of this reality, one in which the sanctified would have no part.

I am still awaiting your proof that the resurrection is 'totally illogical'. All you have provided are assertions of your own beliefs, and references to others who believe like you. Surely you don't pretend that by asetring your beliefs you somehow demonstrate that the Catholic faith is 'totally illogical'.

In addition you have propagated misinformation. The Catholic church believes in the ressurection of the body. Please provide evidence that demonstrates Aquinas and John Paul did not believe this.

One does not need to know that, or how, water is molecularly structured as H2O to KNOW it quenches one's thirst. Analogously, one does not need to understand just how Jesus rose from the dead to experience the resurrected Jesus.

Science claims that most of the universe is made of anti-matter about which it understands close to nothing.

One can only speculate about what the transformations of an 'earthly' body into a highly spiritualized or transfigured body might be. There have been Catholic saints whose body have not corrupted after death, even after hundreds of years. If you are interested, please consult the appendix to “The Future of the Body” by non-Catholic Michael Murphy for some illustrative cases.

I speculate that in those sanctified by Christ, His Holy Spirit sanctifies the body and rules it. The body is thus subject to a higher order of Being constituted by Christ's love. In the condemned, the opposite is the case, and they are forever trapped in a spiritual body dominated by the earthly desires they worship. They perhaps inherit forever a deteriorated version of this reality, one in which the sanctified would have no part.

It is basic common sense and reasoning. Heaven is a spirit state as per Aquinas and John Paul II i.e. there are no bodies there. From this flows the following as taught in many large Catholic universities (e.g. Catholic U):

"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly -- earth bound distractions.

Christ 's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and the Jesus Seminarian's conclusions based on attestations and stratums.

17±. Resurrection of Jesus: (1) 1 Cor 15:4b; (2) Gos. Pet. 9:35-10:40; (3) Barn.15:9; (4a) Ign. Mag. 11:1c; (4b) Ign. Trall. 9:2a; (4c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2b.
18±. Revealed to Disciples: (1) 1 Cor 15:5b,7b; (2) Matt 28:16-20; (3a) Luke 24:36-39; (3b) John 20:19-21; (4) Ign. Smyrn. 3.2b-3

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus and http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/018_Revealed_to_Disciples

Concerned: That you respond "Name your 10,000 contemporary Theology/Religious Study PhDs that believe in the totally illogical" suggests you are not recognizing the point I have made about the fallacy of generalizing from particulars. Why do you not recognize it?

Whatever the case may be, please also explain why Jesus' resurrection is 'totally illogical' to you and/or to the scholars that support your opinion.

To put N. T. Wright on a list of scholars who do not believe that Jesus is risen from the dead is wholly ludicrous. Wright wrote a 700-page book (The Resurrection of the Son of God) to argue exactly the opposite.

Those who do not believe in the resurrection need to come up with a plausible and believable answer to this question in order to have any credibility at all: If Jesus did not come back to the dead, then what was it that so many first century followers of Christ were willing to die for? And that answer needs to be backed with evidence - i.e., a historical record, not just the idle speculations ala Borg and Crossan.

Name your 10,000 contemporary Theology/Religious Study PhDs that believe in the totally illogical.

The list of historical Jesus scholars includes Professors Johnson, Wright and Stein. Apparently Fitzmeyer did not make the cut at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Are you trying to tell us that these particular scholars deny that Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead?

You include Luke Timothy Johnson but exclude Fitzmyer? Why? Both believe that Jesus resurrected. Why only include one?

Are you trying to tell us that if more scholars than not disbelief in the resurrection, then it did not happen.

So if 10,000 catholics spend 20 years becoming scholars and still believe, and outnumber non-believing scholars, then Christ resurrected?

Some logic.

:Jesus the Myth: Heavenly Christ
Earl Doherty
Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy

Jesus the Myth: Man of the Indefinite Past
Alvar Ellegård
G. A. Wells

Jesus the Hellenistic Hero
Gregory Riley

Jesus the Revolutionary
Robert Eisenman

Jesus the Wisdom Sage
John Dominic Crossan
Robert Funk
Burton Mack
Stephen J. Patterson

Jesus the Man of the Spirit
Marcus Borg
Stevan Davies
Geza Vermes

Jesus the Prophet of Social Change
Richard Horsley
Hyam Maccoby
Gerd Theissen

Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Bart Ehrman
Paula Fredriksen
Gerd Lüdemann
John P. Meier
E. P. Sanders

Jesus the Savior
Luke Timothy Johnson
Robert H. Stein
N. T. Wright

Please note that four of the contemporary NT scholars listed above are members of the On Faith panel.

Again, you generalize from particulars. What do you mean by ´trained contemporary professionals´?

Which one of them, Joseph A. Fitzmyer SJ?

So do we believe the exhaustive reviews of the NT by trained contemporary professionals or do we believe the "thumpers" of the Bible???

Concerned, If Jesus is God as Catholics and many Christians claim, the question of his divinity is not going to be settled by a poll of exegetes. What is in question is the foundation of existence, nothing less.

That myths of virgin births and god-men have emerged in other cultural and religious traditions does not necessarily imply that such is the case with the Catholic faith. To claim that it does necessarily imply it is to generalize from particulars, a common philosophical fallacy.

The major issue is what did Jesus really say and what did he really leave us. As per many contemporary NT scholars, only about 30% of the NT is actually the ways and sayings of the historical Jesus. Items such as the virgin birth, the Last Supper and the physical resurrection are judged to be embellishments to raise Jesus to "superstar" status, something quite common in the Roman Empire and in other ancient cultures i.e. the Hittites, Babylonians, Buddhists, Greeks, Macedonians, Persians et al.

"Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

Concerned: You raise a central concern and I believe it is indeed valid. I am not a theologian yet here is how I understand it:

1. Humans are limited in their evolving ability to receive and understand revelation. Indeed, at the end of John's gospel, Jesus is said to explain that the disciples were not yet ready to understand everything, but that the holy Spirit would be sent, and that he would lead them to a fuller understanding and to all truth. Of course, said ´fuller understanding' is still contingent on the evolving spiritual capacity of the recipient.

2. Baptism initiates us in this sacred and mysterious path to fuller understanding. We do not exactly know where it will take us: we only know that Jesus is THE path. Yet how can we claim to know this? Where is the proof?

3. Jesus spoke in parables so that only those who he wanted could understand him, and he said as much.

4. If Jesus had been concerned about the verifiability, in the western sense, of what would be written about him, he sure could have done a better job at leaving THAT kind of verifiable evidence. He did not. Why?

Matthew and Luke both have incarnation narratives and John clearly states that Jesus is the Word (verb, logos) and that the Word is God. They all shared a profound and utterly inprobable faith in the divinity of this cruxified man who they claim resurrected. I realize that even that is hard to believe in the 21st century, that it does not seem to be enough for those who want a sign that fits their methodology.

We have the sacrament of the Eucharist instituted by Jesus. We have access to the Blessed Virgin Mary the human mother of God. Those are the signs left to us, that is, where he preeminently (but certainly not exclusively) makes himself evident to us. (I see him in you, for example, in your questioning and criticism, and in the suffering that must underlie it, analogous to what I experienced at one point. Now I experience a different kind of suffering; I am cured of the other one in its vilest form. Now, suffering is not bad or to be avoided a priori. It is good if it brings God greater glory.)

The kind of absolutely verifiable evidence that will satisfy one enough to believe Jesus is God without faith will likely never manifest in this life. Faith happens when he reveals his love, and that is his initiative. We confirm it by accepting and acting accordingly (examining our concience, obeying the commandemnts, reaching out in prayer, reaching out to the suffering, participating very frequently in the sacrament of the Eucharist), and then he gives more. Then a relation begins to grow, in the midst of very serious dangers that can thwart or destroy it.

Thus it is not the NT verifying itself, it is Jesus revealing himself, as he wishes, when he wishes, to whom he wishes. Verificarion comes DIRECTLY FROM HIM gradually as one reciprocates.

It is up to an individual to seek him sincerely as it seems you may be doing in some sense with your questioning.

As St. Paul approximately said: "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then we shall see face to face."

So who verifies the NT? Considering the differences and "absences" in/of important events, the lack of attestations and translation/editing/stratum problems in the Four Gospels and Paul's epistles to include error in his imminent second coming "prophecy", official scripture was not inspired by God.

So we have the NT verifying itself? Not acceptable!!

Logic to ponder:

“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would
anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran”
x=anonymous

Concerned - That the quoted passages are only found once only makes them improbable in the context of the methodology used. It does not render them untrue.

There are inconsistencies in several accounts, but not in all. The 4 earliest gospels and Paul essentially reveal the faith, against all odds, that was inspired in these men.

There is no inconsistency in the deeper reality that is revealed. The reality that Jesus Christ is perceived by the evangelists to be divine and human, that he incarnated to redeem us of our very real sinfulness and sin, that we may truly have life, and abundantly.

But using the four Gospels with such differing accounts or lack of attestation does not make for truth.

Crossan and many other contemporary NT scholars have compared the different gospel accounts, when each was written and how many attestations of said accounts there are from inside and outside the NT. The majority of the NT passages fail these comparison test methods.

Both of Father Reese's citatations are single attestations i.e. they are only found once in the four gospels and not found at all in other scriptural sources.

Concerned --Exegetics disagree with each other in their hermeneutics. That Professor Crossan has interpreted something one way does not make it the truth.

speed123 - who made you king of the post? You think that when you have silenced a man, you have converted him? What I said is going on now in Mexico and you can't deny it. Whadda ya gonna do? Tell the Mother Superior on me? Maybe she'll whack my knuckles with a ruler for you.

Father Reese,

You use John 13: 31-35 and Matt 25: 31-46 as if they are passages said by the historical Jesus. As per contemporary NT exegetes, neither passage is authentic Jesus but later additions to embellish the story line. See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/363_Jesus_Supper_Discourse and http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb425.html

See also two of Professor JD Crossan's books, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus.

Back to the topic.

On the one hand we have the personal encounter with Jesus Christ who for us Catholics is present in the Holy Eucharist. There are so many millions of people who do not believe this He is really there, do not experience His peace and Presence there, do not even know God is trying to enter into the most rewardingly intimate bond of love available to any human being.

On the other, because God reveals Him or Herself as infinitely merciful, he is also just. Supporters of a system that sends people to Mars, spends a half trillion on the military, allows people to grow money from money, and are yet fully conscious that there are 25 - 100 thousand who are killed daily by starvation and 750 thousand that have been massacred in a bogus war, do not reciprocate the bond of love that through Jesus, God has miraculously offered each and every human.

That there are Catholic christians or christians who turn their head their other way at this fundamental structural problem is sinful. In the US, Catholics are 25% of voters, Christians 75%. Surely, we can do much to change this system inside out.

If not us, then who?

Roy, you can't seem to accept that changes ARE on going and there IS new policy etc.etc.etc.

Do you forget to mention that there are very high percents of FALSE accusations by lawyers and clients ....

Why keep dwelling on this when there are also other important issues to address.

Why keep hanging onto this narrative if it is not a vendetta?

End of story for me one this topic - this post is NOT about this topic, understand?

i am amazed at how many people know what jesus wanted when those things dont even appear in the bible. wow - to have jesus talk to you and actually hear his voice and then pass it on to those of us who are not so blessed.
maybe you can write it down for us and create a new bible - you can call it - what jesus really wanted to say but didn't, and then you can fill it with his real thoughts.
do you think you can tape his words when next he speaks to you?

i looked in the bible and cant find this:
"But he does insist that we ask of any program, “How does this impact the most vulnerable in our world?” If that question is not on our agenda, then we are not Christian."

that should go into the book too.

and unless i forget - when i was last in san francisco i saw a sign that said "jesus gave money to the poor on the streets of galilee."
that has to go into the book too - i dont find a mention of it and i sure dont remember jesus carrying any money - but maybe he had a c-note or two - just for mad money. what do you think?
i think that who ever got that story from jesus needs to submit what he told them.

speed132 - it is of no concern to me whether you or anyone else thinks I'm a bigot or not. We're all bigots in one way or another. You are like the Pharisees who would rather discuss "theology" than the real human suffering of little boys at the hands of admittedly a minority number of priests.

Your statistics regarding others doesn't impress me because they do not justify the shame of your own. You are like a Republican who changes the focus by calling others names and blaming others instead of addressing your issues. The fact is that there are priests who have been indicted now running around performing Mass while Cardinals look the other way. This is not a matter of my personal vendetta. This is about justice for the victims and the injustice of those posing to be men of God.

This pot-stirring is all very off-topic...back to Mr. Resse's very fine essay...

Or perhaps you are just parroting the biased information that the major left leaning media outlets hightlight.

The key to sensation and controversy to sell papers is offering news out of context...i.e. without mentioning comparative abuse levels in other public and private institutions.

Not your fault, Roy...but try thinking for yourself.

speed 123: I will fiction to you.

An excellent piece. As a married father of four, I would like to emphasize a point about love for our family members. Fr. Reese writes: "our love must extend to the poor and powerless, not just to our family and friends". But in truth it is often much harder to be loving to our family members, and for me true conversion of the heart must begin there. It can be easy for me (at times) to think about the good I am doing for others (which is not anything extraordinary) and forget the more difficult task of loving my wife and children through the small but important challenges of daily life.

Are you sure that you are not a bigot, Roy? Because you use the tactics of a bigot...using a sensational incident to slander a single religion. Not to mention that major changes in policy and procedure have been made by the Church and Council of Bishops.

Perhaps you would also like to point out the failings of Public School leadership in recent incidences or Protestant leadership, or the religion with the highest percent of accussed clergy...Judaism.

Your sounds like the personal vendetta of a simple bigot to me, Roy.

speed132 - the other churches don't have "Cardinal" hiding it. Calling me a bigot does not change the Catholic Chruch's shame regarding Cardinals protecting pedophile priests. Until your Church steps up to this, how dare you use the name of Christ?

Candide,

You forgot to add a very important part of your library:

Read: Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code

What you damned Jesuits won't admit is that the Gospels were designed to conceal, not to reveal, the real Jesus.

Read SGF Brandon's Jesus and the Zealots.
Read Robert Eisler's Jesus the Christ and John the Baptist.
Read Hugh Schonfield's The Passover Plot

Yes, the church does have priests within who are wolves in sheep's clothing. Judas was the first and won't be the last! But even these evil men are not capable of destroying the church because it only takes one good man of true faith to continue to shepard the flock in dark times.

Roy - get lost you bigot...there is abuse at all levels of society. In fact, here are a couple numbers for you: Catholic clergy accused of abuse: 4 percent; Protestant Clergy accused: 8 percent; Jewish Rabbis accused: 11 percent. This is not to mention that abuse in the public schools is much higher - around 15.

This is a discussion about theology not your personal vendetta.

The Catholic Church give titles too, like Pope, Bishop, Cardinal, Priest. I would be interested in your definition of Cardinal, Father. Specifically, what is the Church's definition of Cardinal as in Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles and Cardinal Rivera of Mexico. Is it "protector of pedophile priests?" In Mexico, "Father" Agulair, an indicted abuser of little boys, is still running around performing mass while Rivera looks the other way.

Fr. Reese - Having studied under Jesuits and embracing the faith and philosophy of total obedience I sometimes find it hard to reconcile the fact that the present social, economic and political situation tend to perpetuate injustice. We grew up learning theology of liberation which has been practically abandoned by the church and deemed incompatible with the faith. Shall we take on the passive attitude and hope that things will change for the better? I'm always reminded of Jesus driving away the moneychangers from the temple and I see it as an act of justice. I have been in the real world of business for more than 30 years now and every deal or business transaction has a human component that goes unmeasured. A man of faith should never lose this perspective and I always consider it in my decision making process.

Father Reese - I am not of your faith, but still I was lifted and embraced by the clarity, resource and insight of your piece. Since ON FAITH began, I've enjoyed seeing and reading your "reports" and hope that other Christian sects, Non Christians and secular purists recognize there is more than argument, dicta, reason, logic or myth to the themes Christ announced. And that by reading your notes for example, folk will recognize that spiritual awakening is available to those wishing and wanting to listen and learn. A heartful thank you, from one who counts many Catholic's as dear friends.

Great piece...not to compare, but your essays are by far the best on the otherwise sensational nature of this forum and many of the posters.

As for the last post, I believe that you change the economic infrustructure by relying the faith and solidarity of Christianity.

While it looks daunting, remember how the Church helped ot bring down Communism in Poland and Eastern Europe.

Also, focus on the hearts and minds as political revolution is the most superficial of all.

Great piece.

However, how can one change the murderous economic infrstucture of this world lovingly, for the benefactors of the infrastructure are sure to resist. Not only resist, but pretend to be Christian Catholics or Christian.

Thank you.

5/09/07

Dear Father Reese,

So great to hear your wisdom again!!!Your answer was
concise, complete and nourishing to my spirit; words
that bring truth and mystery into congruence, with a
sense of profundity seldom heard or seen in the world of print contemporaneously.

Thank you.

Sarah Mack Callahan