A Priest Forever

Alvin Kimel of my favourite blog, Pontifications, has just been ordained a Catholic priest, formerly he was an Episcopalian Canon. In a rather beautiful piece he reflects on the meaning of his Catholic ordination and his former ordination in the Anglican Communion. He moves on from Apostolicae Curae and makes sense of his ordination.
He expresses a little more clearly than most of my convert Anglican friends what becoming a Catholic priest means.
Have a look.

My congratulions to him on his ordination.

St Nicholas - a bit more

I have a devotion to St Nicholas. I rather like the idea that we know very little about his life, it is almost as if he is more powerful after death .

The idea of saints as being powerful intercessors is an important part of Catholic devotion. It is the response to prayers -in a sense, the cash value- of saints which earned their place in the hearts of our forefathers, no more so than Nicholas the Wonderworker.

In this new period of ecumenism we need explore again what we have almost forgotten and what the East still continues to hold as of great value.

Devotion to the saints affirms the ultimate destination of Christians, we need them to focus our rather woolly understanding of heaven and our communion with them in Christ.

Their lives and their subsequent activity reminds us of the effects of sanctifying grace and the power of God mediated through his Church, we need to be reminded that we as Christians live in a supernatural world.

These things, the great periods of iconoclasm in the first millenium, and in the middle and end of the second millenium, have sought to destroy, corrode and undermine: from these Godless things may the saints preserve us.

Those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love

from Pontifications

As for me I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful. That is what the torment of hell is in my opinion: remorse. But love inebriates the souls of the sons and daughters of heaven by its delectability.
St Isaac of Syria

John Allen on the Pope, Jihad and an alliance with Islam

John Allen has a very interesting comment on what might be the Pope's message in Turkey next month he compares the writing of the Pope and Sayyid Qutb, the radical Islamicist, hanged by Nasser in 1966.

Ever since the announcement of the Apostolic visit the ecumenical and interfaith dimensions have been very significant, I believe he regards it as the highpoint of his Papacy so far. Ardent Vatican watchers are aware that from the very beginning of his Papacy the relationship with Orthodoxy have been important but maybe the relationship and dialogue with Islam has been underestimated. Allen continually regards the Pope's words on Islam at Regensburg as a mistake or an error, I think they were really quite deliberate to lance the boil of violence, in order to speak about what Christianity and Islam have in common. First of all it is that man is not "homo faber", an industrial cog, a mere consumer under the illusion of secular western culture.

Sandro Magister has an a very useful piecen on dialogue.

Pope on the Apostles

Pope Benedict recently completed a series of audiences on the Twelve apostles. I thought these were particularly interesting and well done. He covers what we know about them, what is speculated about them, what their writings contain, and what their example says to us today.
Now that the whole series is finished, I thought I'd provide links to the audiences so that you can read through them as a group if you wish.
Enjoy!
Apostles as Envoys of Christ
Profile of St. Peter

On Peter, the Apostle Peter, the Rock
St. Andrew, the First Called
James the GreaterJames the Less
John, Son of Zebedee
Apostle John, the Seer of Patmos
John, the Theologian
On St. Matthew
The Apostle Philip
The Apostle Thomas
The Apostle Bartholomew
On the Apostles Simon and Jude Thaddaeus
On Judas Iscariot and Matthias

thanks to Jimmy Aikin

Richard Dawkins: "Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching"

Richard Dawkins has been hawking his new book "The God Delusion" around apparently it is going to be a best seller for Christmas. I feel it is very easy to call someone silly but really Dawkins has very little to say as the Apostle of Atheism, as a seem one engaged in arguement what he has to say is severely limited. It is sad that his books are so often used in university foundation courses, for this reason we should be familiar with what he has to say.

Henry, one of our parishioners, who occassionally leaves a post on this blog, and loves to debate God with atheists recommends Dawkins to help improve their arguements. He says Dawkins normally leads them to start questioning their belief in aetheism. Terry Eagleton on the the London Review Bookshop reviews this book in aptly entitle article, ", there is a short extract below, the whole thing is well worth reading, just to experience Eagleton's own theological thoughts, which aren't Catholic but certainly sound.

Zenit today, has an interesting interview with Dawkins.

Dawkins thinks it odd that Christians don’t look eagerly forward to death, given that they will thereby be ushered into paradise. He does not see that Christianity, like most religious faiths, values human life deeply, which is why the martyr differs from the suicide. The suicide abandons life because it has become worthless; the martyr surrenders his or her most precious possession for the ultimate well-being of others. This act of self-giving is generally known as sacrifice, a word that has unjustly accrued all sorts of politically incorrect implications. Jesus, Dawkins speculates, might have desired his own betrayal and death, a case the New Testament writers deliberately seek to rebuff by including the Gethsemane scene, in which Jesus is clearly panicking at the prospect of his impending execution. They also put words into his mouth when he is on the cross to make much the same point. Jesus did not die because he was mad or masochistic, but because the Roman state and its assorted local lackeys and running dogs took fright at his message of love, mercy and justice, as well as at his enormous popularity with the poor, and did away with him to forestall a mass uprising in a highly volatile political situation. Several of Jesus’ close comrades were probably Zealots, members of an anti-imperialist underground movement. Judas’ surname suggests that he may have been one of them, which makes his treachery rather more intelligible: perhaps he sold out his leader in bitter disenchantment, recognising that he was not, after all, the Messiah. Messiahs are not born in poverty; they do not spurn weapons of destruction; and they tend to ride into the national capital in bullet-proof limousines with police outriders, not on a donkey.
Jesus, who pace Dawkins did indeed ‘derive his ethics from the Scriptures’ (he was a devout Jew, not the founder of a fancy new set-up), was a joke of a Messiah. He was a carnivalesque parody of a leader who understood, so it would appear, that any regime not founded on solidarity with frailty and failure is bound to collapse under its own hubris. The symbol of that failure was his crucifixion. In this faith, he was true to the source of life he enigmatically called his Father, who in the guise of the Old Testament God tells the Hebrews that he hates their burnt offerings and that their incense stinks in his nostrils. They will know him for what he is, he reminds them, when they see the hungry being filled with good things and the rich being sent empty away. You are not allowed to make a fetish or graven image of this God, since the only image of him is human flesh and blood. Salvation for Christianity has to do with caring for the sick and welcoming the immigrant, protecting the poor from the violence of the rich. It is not a ‘religious’ affair at all, and demands no special clothing, ritual behaviour or fussiness about diet. (The Catholic prohibition on meat on Fridays is an unscriptural church regulation.)

...

The Christian faith holds that those who are able to look on the crucifixion and live, to accept that the traumatic truth of human history is a tortured body, might just have a chance of new life – but only by virtue of an unimaginable transformation in our currently dire condition. This is known as the resurrection. Those who don’t see this dreadful image of a mutilated innocent as the truth of history are likely to be devotees of that bright-eyed superstition known as infinite human progress, for which Dawkins is a full-blooded apologist. Or they might be well-intentioned reformers or social democrats, which from a Christian standpoint simply isn’t radical enough.
The central doctrine of Christianity, then, is not that God is a bastard. It is, in the words of the late Dominican theologian Herbert McCabe, that if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you. Here, then, is your pie in the sky and opium of the people. It was, of course, Marx who coined that last phrase; but Marx, who in the same passage describes religion as the ‘heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions’, was rather more judicious and dialectical in his judgment on it than the lunging, flailing, mispunching Dawkins.

Rejecting teaching precludes receiving Communion, US bishops' draft says

Who can be admitted to Holy Communion is one of the issues that the US bishops are asking this autumn, Nancy Frazier O'Brien summarises a paper up for discussion. I understand that it is something our own Bishops are being urged to discuss again.

Catholic News Service

A Catholic who "knowingly and obstinately" rejects "the defined doctrines of the church" or its "definitive teaching on moral issues" should refrain from receiving Communion, according to a document that will come before the U.S. bishops at their Nov. 13-16 fall general meeting in Baltimore.

The document, "'Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper': On Preparing to Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist," requires the approval of two-thirds of the members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for passage.

In an introduction, Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli of Paterson, N.J., chairman of the USCCB Committee on Doctrine, said the draft document was the result of a proposal to the bishops in November 2004 by Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark, N.J., for a statement on how Catholics should prepare to receive the Eucharist.

"He envisaged this document as applying to Catholic faithful, not just to politicians or those in public life," Bishop Serratelli said. Archbishop Myers' request came after a presidential campaign in which some bishops had criticized the Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, and said he and other Catholic politicians who supported abortion should be refused Communion under canon law.

But a footnote to the draft says that it is not intended "to provide specific guidelines" to the provision in canon law that says that Catholics "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" should not be allowed to receive Communion."

In order to receive holy Communion we must be in communion with God and with the church," the document says. "If we are no longer in a state of grace because of mortal sin, we are seriously obliged to refrain from receiving holy Communion. "Among examples of such sin, the document cites "committing deliberate hatred of others, sexual abuse of a minor or vulnerable adult, or physical or verbal abuse toward one's family members or fellow workers, causing grave physical or psychological harm; murder, abortion or euthanasia.

"Other "serious violations of the law of love of God and of neighbor" listed in the draft include swearing a false oath, missing Mass on Sundays or holy days without a serious reason, "acting in serious disobedience against proper authority," sexual activity "outside the bonds of a valid marriage," stealing, slander or involvement with pornography.The document criticized those who "give selective assent to the teachings of the church. "But Catholics who have "honest doubt and confusion" about some church teachings "are welcome to partake of holy Communion, as long as they are prayerfully and honestly striving to understand the truth of what the church professes and are taking appropriate steps to resolve their confusion and doubt," the draft says."If someone who is Catholic were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the church, or knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definitive teaching on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the church," it adds. "Reception of holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the eucharistic celebration, so he or she should refrain."If a person who "is publicly known to have committed serious sin or to have rejected definitive church teaching and is not yet reconciled with the church" receives Communion, it could be "a cause of scandal for others," giving "further reason" for the person to refrain, the bishops said.

The document says Catholics should get ready to receive Communion through both "remote preparation" -- prayer, Scripture reading, frequent confession and other steps -- and "proximate preparation."The bishops said elements of proximate preparation include maintaining "reverent silence" before Mass begins; refraining from food and drink for an hour before receiving Communion; dressing "in a modest and tasteful manner" at Mass; listening attentively to the Scripture readings and homily; and actively participating in the Mass "with our whole hearts and minds and bodies."The bishops also urged Catholics to make "a reverent bow of the head" before receiving Communion.

"If we perform these simple actions, we will enter more profoundly into the eucharistic celebration, receive the Eucharist more worthily, and thus obtain more fully the grace of communion with the risen Lord Jesus and with one another," the document says.

The draft also includes two appendices explaining church teaching on when non-Catholics can receive Communion in a Catholic church and when Catholics are permitted to take Communion at a non-Catholic service.

"When participating as guests in worship services in other Christian communities, Catholics are encouraged to join the community in the shared responses and in the singing of hymns," the document says. "It would be inappropriate, however, for Catholics to take communion in other Christian communities."The document also reminds Catholics who join in non-Catholic services on a Sunday that "the obligation to participate at a Catholic Mass still remains."ration, receive the Eucharist more worthily, and thus obtain more fully the grace of communion with the risen Lord Jesus and with one another," the document says.

A New Understanding of Communion????

Fr Sean has an interesting post on the implications of the extension of the Classical Roman Rite, which he found in the Scotsman. Bishop Fellay, the leader of the presently schismatic Society of Saint Pius X, has been talking about an accommodation with the Church similar to what exist in China with the "Patriotic Church", this I find interesting because this could well be a model for reunion with the Orthodox.
He says, "We would be a bit like the Chinese Patriotic Church, in the Church without really being there," he explained. "There could be a relationship between Rome and us, but it would not yet be a juridical relationship."
At the moment the "Patriotic Church" seems to exist in partial communion, its lay members and its priests seem to move freely between this government sponsored Church and the partially tolerated Catholic Church. The Bishops of the Patriotic Church, when named by the state seek approval from Rome, before ordination. Under Pope John Paul II Rome almost always accepted their nomination, under Benedict this has happened less often and those Bishop's ordained without Rome's permission incur automatic excommunication and have not been accepted by the vast majority of the people or the clergy. Cardinal Zen has recently spoken about significant, "85% reconciliation of the Patriotic Church", with the Church.
The problem with the SSPX is that there are more issues than simply the celebration of the ancient Mass, there is the whole matter of the authority of the Second Vatican Council, religious freedom and so forth. SSPX is in schism, though in so many areas at one with the Catholic Church. Except for a lunatic fringe, it earnestly seeks full and visible communion with the successor of Peter. There has been lots of talk in Rome about re-establishing communion and then sorting out these other matters afterwards.
The Orthodox Church is in similar position, though possibly less earnest about full communion. The Great Schism, in the 11th Century, in many ways did little to alter the relationship between the laity and the lower clergy until the nineteenth century and the declaration on infallibility. In many places Catholic priests acted as confessors to Orthodox nuns, lay people received the sacraments from either Catholic or Orthodox priests, the major effect was that on substantial matters of disagreement Rome was no longer the last recourse, though in theory the canons of the Greek Church still have the Pope as the ultimate source of judgement.
There is something radical about the theology of Pope Benedict, he is totally at one with the Traditional of the the Church and like the good scribe is able to bring out from his treasury things both old and new. It seems to me that he is seeking a new understanding of the very nature of communion.
We live in theologically exciting times. It would be glorious if solution to the Patriotic Church, the Lefebrvists and the re-union with the Orthodox could actually be the sorted out substantially this November, remember this November not only do we expect a declaration on the Tridentine Rite but also the visit the Constantinople. Everything I read by our pope, makes me think that he has the subtlety of mind to set in train such a reconcilliation.

“God has made the attainment of our happiness, his glory”

from Pontifications
O the supreme folly of those who resist the divine will! In God’s providence, no one can escape hardship: “Who resisteth his will?” A person who rails at God in adversity, suffers without merit; moreover by his lack of resignation he adds to his punishment in the next life and experiences greater disquietude of mind in this life: “Who resisteth him and hath had peace?” The screaming rage of the sick man in his pain, the whining complaints of the poor man in his destitution—what will they avail these people, except increase their unhappiness and bring them no relief? “Little man,” says St. Augustine, “grow up. What are you seeking in your search for happiness? Seek the one good that embraces all others.” Whom do you seek, friend, if you seek not God? Seek him, find him, cleave to him; bind your will to his with bands of steel and you will live always at peace in this life and in the next.
God wills only our good; God loves us more than anybody else can or does love us. His will is that no one should lose his soul, that everyone should save and sanctify his soul: “Not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance.” “This is the will of God, your sanctification” God has made the attainment of our happiness, his glory. Since he is by his nature infinite goodness, and since as St. Leo says goodness is diffusive of itself, God has a supreme desire to make us sharers of his goods and of his happiness. If then he sends us suffering in this life, it is for our own good: “All things work together unto good.” Even chastisements come to us, not to crush us, but to make us mend our ways and save our souls: “Let us believe that these scourges of the Lord have happened for our amendment and not for our destruction.”
God surrounds us with his loving care lest we suffer eternal damnation: “O Lord, thou hast crowned us as with a shield of thy good will.” He is most solicitous for our welfare: “The Lord is solicitous for me.” What can God deny us when he has given us his own son? “He that spared not even his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how hath he not also, with him, given us all things?” Therefore we should most confidently abandon ourselves to all the dispositions of divine providence, since they are for our own good. In all that happens to us, let us say: “In peace, in the self same I will sleep, and I will rest: Because thou, O Lord, hast singularly settled me in hope”
Let us place ourselves unreservedly in his hands because he will not fail to have care of us: “Casting all your care upon him, for he hath care of you.” Let us keep God in our thoughts and carry out his will, and he will think of us and of our welfare. Our Lord said to St. Catherine of Siena, “Daughter, think of me, and I will always think of you.” Let us often repeat with the Spouse in the Canticle: “My beloved to me, and I to him.”
St Alphonsus Liguori

Wrapped over the knuckles: kindly

Joee has take me to task over a remark I made on a post I made below "By their fruits ...", “I get annoyed with Catholics and others who come out with the rather meaningless platitude, "Well, we all worship the same God". My answer: Don't be daft of course we don't!”"

Well, I was being provocative and it provoked Joee to produce an excellent riposte, dealing with what the Church says about Muslims and their worship of the One True God. I wasn’t really referring to Islam but just the rather unthinking remark that I am all to often met with when visiting those who drift away from the Church into Buddhism, different forms of Protestantism, Spiritualism and even occasionally Wicca or more often apathy or even and inability to choose between the variety of different options in the religion market place.
I do think that we have to ask the pretty basic question what do we actually mean when we say, “I believe in (one) God”.
If we judge belief by what we say, then it is important to ask quite what we mean, there is a great difference between someone who believes in a God who merely makes a watch sets it in motion and leaves it to run, and the God who is as we Christians belief is concerned about falling sparrows and who has counted the hairs on my head and comes to me each day in Holy Communion.
If we judge belief by what we do, then again I think there is a lot of difference between the concepts of God which my remarks prefaced in the Longeneker article about “fanatical” Christians and Muslims. What we believe, has definite effects in what we do. Hence Athanasius’, “You can tell an Arian by the way he treats the poor”.
In England, the Elizabethan “Poor Laws”, I believe could not have been introduced where there was a sense of the immanence of God, who was revealed in the iconography, sacramental theology and spirituality of a generation before, what had changed was a how God was seen. As soon as God had been made distant, then does he really care how we treat the poor? If we use actions to judge what people believe then we Catholics may well find we have more in common with those who value life, give alms to the poor, shelter the homeless, visit the imprisoned, care for the sick, value simple human goodness than we had thought.

Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone

Nowadays we look back on the great controversies of the early Church, especially Arianism and Pelagianism as being something of the past Cardinal Bertone says they are still prevalent in the Church today. For Christians of the past these great debates were about finding the true nature of God. Our faith is entirely about the revelation of God.

(Zenit.org).- Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the new Vatican secretary of state, says that the Church continues to be tempted by the Arian heresy, the idea that Christ is not God.

In an interview with the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, the Italian cardinal acknowledged that "one of the main problems of our time is the problem of Christology," according to which Christ is considered only as "a great man." "If Christ's divinity is doubted," the foundation of Christianity is doubted, he said. The Vatican official recalled the doctrine of Arius (256-336), a priest of Alexandria and later a bishop, who, beginning in 318, denied the divinity of the Word, the Second Person of the Trinity. Symptoms of this denial of Jesus' divinity include the support received by "The Da Vinci Code," despite its "absolutely shameful fictional inventions," said Cardinal Bertone, 71. "But we see in addition that even in the elaboration of certain theology, doubt is cast on the divinity and salvific unicity of Christ, the only Savior," he continued. "This Christological reduction betrays the faith of the nascent Church and of the great Christological councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon. "It is an authentic betrayal and a denial of the faith of our fathers." According to the cardinal, "it is necessary, therefore, to return to Christological faith, to the centrality of Christ, true God and therefore only Savior."

Pelagianism

However, according to the Vatican secretary of state, the Church not only faces the threat of Arianism, but also of a new Pelagianism, one of the worst heresies, which arose in the fifth century. "This hinges on thinking that we can build a Church ourselves and in believing that it is possible to save ourselves, without the Lord's grace and help," he noted. "They are recurring dangers which appear successively in history." These two challenges were addressed in the 2000 declaration "Dominus Iesus," signed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, in their capacity as prefect and secretary, respectively, of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Findings of the International Theological Commission

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – The concept of Limbo is "neither essential nor necessary” and can be dropped “without compromising the faith” as a place for the souls of unbaptised children.
The members of the commission, do not intend any “break from the great tradition of the faith”, but only avoid “the use of images and metaphors that do not adequately account for the richness of the message of hope that is given to us in Jesus Christ”.

The conclusions reached by the commission, which is only a consultative body, will be more thoroughly explained in a future paper. In the meantime, the highlights were presented by the newly-appointed bishop of Chieti-Vasto, theologian Bruno Forte, to the I Media news agency.
The issue does not involve changing the doctrine of original sin, the archbishop said. “Original Sin is a reality that really marks the fragility of the human condition,” he noted. And baptism is necessary to remove its stain.

But in the case of children who are not baptised, through no fault of their own, “then it would seem that the saving power of Christ ought to prevail over the power of sin,” he explained. What is more, the concept of Limbo has never been formally defined in Catholic teaching, but is more of a “theological creation”. In fact, in 1984, then-Cardinal Ratzinger expressed his own “purely personal” belief that the concept of Limbo had outlived its pastoral value.

The archbishop stressed that the International Theological Commission is not introducing any change in Catholic doctrine, and said he hoped that his statements will “reassure those who are worried about a discontinuity” in teaching.

Indeed the essential doctrinal points that led theologians to posit the existence of Limbo will still be clearly upheld in the forthcoming paper, Mgr Forte said. The Commission hopes to present those points with greater clarity “without compromising the faith of the Church in any way”.

By the way the Pope in his homily to the Commission, said not one word about Limbo, contrary to what has been flashed across the media, in fact he spoke about the need for a theologian to search for and speak about the Truth.

Limbo

When the Holy Father took possession of the Lateran Basilica, he said that it was not for the Pope to teach anything of his own but to pass on the Tradition of the Church. There has been a lot of tosh in the secular press about the Pope "changing" the teaching of the Church, or even abandoning a teaching, well that is not in the Pope's competence to do this. He is servant, not master of the Church, as Pope Benedict has continually pointed out. So it will be interesting to see his reaction to the work of the International Theological Commission who will report to him on "Limbo" today.

It therefor seems a bit cheap to suggest as Ruth Gledhill did in the Times that the Pope might be influenced to follow a Muslim line that all children go to Heaven, she should know one thing about Pope Benedict: he does not follow fashion.

The "Penny" Catechism, published by the CTS until recently taught that unbaptised children went to Limbo, so too the American Baltimore Catechism. The Pope's beloved Augustine taught that they went to Hell, where they endured punishment which was slightly less than everyone else's there. Peter Abelard seems to have "invented" Limbo, coming from the word for "edge" as in edge of Hell, a place of natural happiness, but out of sight of the Beatific Vision.

I don't think any Council has taught about Limbo, and has certainly not excommunicated those who do not believe in it, then I cannot think of anyone who has disputed it until recently. In the Orthodox Church the unbaptised either go to heaven or hell, depending on where or when, or to whom one addresses the question. Some might suggest that they go to the part of Hell that Christ emptied of the prophets and patriarchs at his "Descent into Hell" and because this event happened outside of time they are immediately redeemed, following them into Heaven.

I think the most the Pope can do is to say God is infinitely merciful, it is not His nature to create anything in order to condemn it or to destroy it, rather he intends that all creation should be saved. As far as the unbaptised are concerned, we must trust in his infinite mercy and love. The problem that we have in the West comes from Dante's image of heaven and hell that is graduated, all those circles, Scripture does not give us that, we are either in one or the other. Both Pope John-Paul II and the then Cardinal Ratzinger have suggested Limbo is simply theological speculation.

What he would not want to do is the encourage the delay or neglect of infant baptism.

There is a good article on BBC website

Pope: one can testify to faith without sensational works

(AsiaNews)
At the general audience, Benedict XVI illustrated the figure of St Bartholomew. "Our knowledge of Jesus needs above all a living experience."

One can testify to faith without realising sensational works, but personal involvement is needed. The teaching delivered by Benedict XVI today, during the first general audience since his return from Castel Gandolfo, was entirely spiritual, dedicated to the apostle "Nathaniel-Bartholomew".
Multi-coloured umbrellas covered a crowd of 40,000 people in St Peter’s Square on a day marked by some rain and slight hoarseness for Benedict XVI, who was smiling and appeared to be in good shape.
Continuing his portrayal of those who were closest to Jesus, the pope said: "The figure of St Bartholomew, notwithstanding the scarcity of information about him, stands before us to tell us that adhesion to Christ can be lived and testified to even without the realisation of sensational works. It is Jesus himself who is and remains extraordinary; we are all called to consecrate our life and death to him."
Benedict XVI recalled the depiction of Bartholomew in the Last Judgement in the Sistine Chapel, with skin in hand. From the story of Bartholomew, the pope suggested two fundamental pointers. One is that "freedom of God surprises our expectations, by being found right where we did not expect it" and the other is that "in our relationship with Jesus, we should not content ourselves with words". As revealed by the words of Philip to Nathaniel, "come and see", said Pope Ratzinger, "our knowledge of Jesus needs above all a living experience. The witness of someone is certainly important because it starts with the announcement that reaches us through one or more witnesses, but then we ourselves must become involved in a more personal relationship." And one should never "lose sight of neither one nor the other" of the divine and human dimensions of Jesus. "If we proclaimed only the heavenly dimension of Jesus, we would risk making him an ethereal and evanescent being and on the contrary, if we only recognised his collocation in history, we would end up by neglecting his divine dimension which is actually what qualifies him."
Before the audience, the pope blessed, at the foundation of the Basilica of St Peter, a statue dedicated to St Genoveffa Torres Morales

Theology of the Body

Q: Some say that since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the Church has been challenged in a way it has never been before to defend its teachings on sexuality. In what way? Father Percy: Most cultural commentators would agree that the sexual revolution began in the 1920s. In fact, G.K. Chesterton said of the sexual revolution that there was "more madness coming out of Manhattan than there was out of Moscow!" He perceived that the next heresy the Church would have to deal with would be of a sexual nature. We, now living in the 21st century, surely have no problems in recognizing the immense challenge before us. But "today" is our starting point and not "yesterday" or "tomorrow" -- what might have been or what might be. And the starting point -- or so it seems to me -- is this wonderfully intriguing and inviting teaching called the theology of the body.
read more

Pope's Preacher: My blood is drink indeed

My Blood Is Drink Indeed "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; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." The Gospel passage continues the reading of chapter 6 of John. The new element is that to the discourse on bread Jesus adds that of wine; to the image of food he adds that of drink, the gift of his flesh and of his blood. Here, Eucharistic symbolism reaches its culmination and totality. Last week we said that to understand the Eucharist, it is important to begin with the signs chosen by Jesus. Bread is the sign of food, of communion among those who eat it together; through it he comes to the altar and all human work is sanctified. Let us ask the same question for the blood. What does the word blood mean to us and what does it evoke? In the first place, it evokes all the suffering that exists in the world. If, therefore, in the sign of bread man's work comes to the altar, in the sign of blood all human pain also comes there. It comes to be sanctified and to receive meaning and the hope of rescue thanks to the blood of the immaculate Lamb, to which it is united as drops of water mixed with wine in the chalice. But, why, precisely, did Jesus choose wine to signify his blood? Just because of the affinity of color? What does wine represent for men? It represents joy, celebration; it does not represent usefulness so much (as bread does) but delight. It is not only made to drink, but also to toast. Jesus multiplied the loaves because of the people's need, but in Cana he multiplied the wine for the delight of the guests. Scripture says that "wine gladdens man's heart and bread strengthens it" (Psalm 104:15). If Jesus had chosen bread and water for the Eucharist, he would only have indicated the sanctification of suffering ("bread and water" are in fact synonymous with fasting, austerity and penance). By choosing bread and wine he also wished to indicate the sanctification of joy. How wonderful it would be if we also learned to live the joys of life in a Eucharistic manner, that is, in thanksgiving to God. God's presence and look do not cloud our honest joys; on the contrary, they enlarge them. But, in addition to joy, wine also evokes a grave problem. In the second reading we hear this warning of the Apostle: "Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit." He suggests that inebriation with wine be combated with "the sober inebriation of the Spirit," one inebriation replaced with another. At present there are many initiatives of recovery among people with problems of alcoholism. They try to use all the means suggested by science and psychology. They cannot but be encouraged and supported. But those who believe should not neglect the spiritual means, which are prayer, the sacraments and the word of God. In the work, "The Russian Pilgrim," a true story is told. A soldier addicted to alcohol and threatened with being discharged went to a holy monk to ask him what he should do to overcome his vice. The monk ordered him to read a chapter of the Gospel every night before going to bed. The soldier acquired a Gospel and began to read it diligently. But soon after he returned desolate to the monk to tell him: "Father, I am too ignorant and I don't understand anything of what I read! Give me something else to do." The monk replied: "Just continue reading. You don't understand, but the devils understand and tremble." The soldier did so and was freed from his vice. Why not give this a try?