Bible Study Home Page | Meeting Times | Bible Study Digest | OLMC HomeBible Study Digest
Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Community Volume 18, No. 2 February 2002 Meet the FacilitatorsWe asked our
facilitators to tell us what their greatest rewards and challenges have
been, and to share some unique qualities of their group. Here are two
more profiles:
The Deacon's Corner....Deacon Bernard Yeatts answered these recently submitted questions. What is a good source for background information on the Gospel of John An Introduction to the New Testament, by Raymond E. Brown, S.S. (New York: Doubleday, 1997) is an excellent book that covers all books of the New Testament; it's well worth purchasing. It is scholarly, as all of Fr. Brown's work is, but quite readable. It has an extensive bibliography on each of the New Testament books. Borders.com and Amazon.com sell it for $31.50. Do the Jews still celebrate Tabernacles? (cf. Jn. 7:2) Yes. "Tabernacle" means "little hut," and this feast was so named because it recalled the tents in which farmers would stay out in their fields during harvest time. It also recalled the temporary shelters which the Israelites used during their wandering in the desert. The message of the feast of Tabernacles is about gratitude for the past, hope for the future, and it also recalls the temporary nature of life and of things of this world. Today, Jews construct models of huts or tents and say prescribed prayers both at home and at synagogue. Besides Jesus, would any shepherd really have laid down his life for his flock? He may have put himself in grave danger to save the flock, but would he have given his life freely for the flock? Presumably Jesus used the image of the Good Shepherd as one to which his hearers could relate. He differentiated between a person who is hired to watch the sheep and a person who is the owner of the flock, and he identified the Good Shepherd with the latter. The owner, because of his investment (sheep and goats were the most important domestic animals at the time of Jesus), would be more likely to defend his sheep than the other person would. Just as some home owners would risk life and limb to save their homes, not all would. Shepherding was, by its very nature, a dangerous occupation. The elements and extreme temperatures, wild animals and rough terrain all contributed to daily risks and putting one's life on the line was part of the business of shepherding. There is, of course, the literary device of exaggeration which Jesus (and certainly the Gospel writers) used to make their points. Jesus is emphasizing his investment in his people, an investment that went to the point where he gave up his life for us. Why did the disciples fear the Pharisees? After all, the Sanhedrin held all the power. The role of the
Sanhedrin was to make decision in legal disputes, judge the fitness of
priests to serve in the Temple and to decide on additions to the Temple. In John 11:49-50, why did Caiaphas fear that the whole nation would perish? Why would Jesus' teachings and/or actions cause the Romans to annihilate the Hebrew nation? The status of Judea in the Roman Empire was a bit unusual in that Rome allowed the Jews to have their own puppet government under the supervision of the Roman governor. And it was a tenuous relationship. One of the primary characteristics of the Roman Empire was its emphasis on peace, which it defined as having no civil unrest. Any incident of civil unrest would be suppressed in short order. The Jewish leadership realized this and was motivated to cooperate in keeping the peace so that the Romans would continue to permit their government and freedom to practice their religion would be allowed to continue. John the Baptist had become very popular, and his popularity threatened that of Herod. He even confronted Herod, and was jailed and eventually executed. Jesus was becoming as popular and, perhaps, even more popular than John had been. The Jewish leadership realized that the Romans would intervene and suppress them if they observed civil unrest because of Jesus' popularity. Therefore, Caiaphas reasoned that it was better to do away with Jesus than risk having the whole of Judea suffer tighter Roman control and loss of freedom of religion. Why is the formula for transubstantiation ("Take this and eat it. This is my Body. Take this and drink it. This is my Blood. Do this in memory of me.") missing from the Gospel of John? Certainly the theology is not missing. Although the synoptic Gospels use virtually the same words (evidence that they used the same source) there are many ways of stating the same reality, many of which are found in the Gospel of John, especially in Chapter 6. That bread and wine become Jesus' Body and Blood is obvious from lines such as: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you will not have life in you." Fr. Raymond Brown sums up his point that the, so called, "Bread of Life" discourse (Chapter 6 of John's Gospel), makes it clear that Jesus comes to us as the Word (or Wisdom) of God and as Food:
As noted above, the synoptic Gospels derived from a common source (or sources) but the community from which we received the Gospel of John depended less on this source(s) and so the failure to use the same formula isn't surprising. The fact that the most memorable incident at the last supper was Jesus' washing the feet of his disciples says something about this community's understanding of what it means to be "the body and blood of Christ." As Fr. Brown suggests in the last sentence of the quote above, perhaps the community of John, so preoccupied with the threat of Gnostic philosophy and theology shied away from placing so much emphasis on the mystery of transubstantiation, favoring the story of Jesus feeding the hungry and washing feet. It is also possible that the first and second generation Christians did not use the same formulas when they gathered for Eucharist. It is also possible that seeking unity in this matter, as well as many others, brought about the "strong central government" organization of the church as the first century was drawing to a close. Jesus came down to earth to die for our sins. Does that mean that when he died on the cross, all our sins were forgiven (for the living at least)? Since the beginning of Christianity, questions about redemption and atonement (such as this one) have pre-occupied theologians and bishops. Perhaps a better way to phrase the statement part of this question is: "Jesus came down to earth to die for us." But the key to the understanding (and misunderstanding) in this matter is the word "for." It can be understood as meaning that Jesus "substituted" himself, that he suffered death in place of us, in the notion of a scapegoat. It can be understood as meaning that Jesus suffered death "because of" our sins, that our sins caused his death. There are elements of both of these in what is commonly accepted as the correct understanding of Jesus' redemptive act of atonement.
The redemption won by Christ requires a response by humans, since human nature has been endowed by God with reason and free will. Because of Jesus Christ, reconciliation with God is possible and, indeed, is available to us and we are free to accept or reject God's grace-filled invitation. Is it Church dogma that Christ died "for all" humanity, not just the baptized? This is clearly spelled out in the Documents of the Vatican II Council. But for much of the history of the church, in fact, up until the middle of the twentieth century, there was much theological discussion about this and even some councils of the church came close to stating that all those outside the Catholic Church could not be saved. The context for this teaching is the emphasis, which the Church has always made, that salvation is a communal matter, not a personal matter between an individual and God. The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church states:
The Decree on the Missionary Activity of the Church states:
The Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions states:
There are many other references in the Documents of the Vatican II Council which show, explicitly and implicitly, that Christ died for all human beings in accordance with God's will that salvation is a divine gift that God wills to give to everyone who does not refuse it. How has the Holy Spirit in our world become present in a significantly different way after Pentecost? If creation is sacred, hasn't the Holy Spirit always been here? The Hebrew word "ruah" is translated into Greek, and then into English as "wind," "breath" and "spirit." In Genesis 1:2, at the beginning of the first creation story, the "wind=ruah" came over the water indicating that the spirit of God was present at creation. In the second creation story, in Genesis 2:7, the first human ("adam" in Hebrew) is formed by the "breath=ruah" of God combined with the "earth = adamah (in Hebrew)" indicating, again, that the spirit of God has been present in every person since the first people walked on this earth. According to the Gospel of John, the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles and disciples on the evening of the day Jesus rose from the dead when he appeared to them and "breathed" on them saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit." According to the Acts of the Apostles, a great "wind" shook the house where the Apostles and disciples were staying on the Feast of Pentecost in Jerusalem and the Holy Spirit appeared as tongues of flame. The Gospel writers purposely used the same vocabulary that the Old Testament Books had used to emphasize the fact that the New Covenant had ties to and was a continuation of the Old Covenant. One significant difference between the Old and New Covenants is that God is Trinity (Creator--Redeemer--Sanctifier) in the New. In the Old, reference is made to the spirit of God, a divine power that is active in the world. In the New, the Spirit is God is active in the Church for the purpose of being the continuing presence of the Redeemer in the world and spreading the Good News. St. Paul identified gifts of the Holy Spirit in chapter 12 of his First Letter to the Corinthians. These gifts are given to the church and different gifts are given to different members for the benefit, not of themselves as individuals, but of the Church. The temple was destroyed after Christ rose. Since that time no sacrifice has been done. What do they do for sacrifice now? When the temple is rebuilt will sacrifice be done then? Why or why not? Rabbi Wayne Dosick wrote:
That continues until today, since the temple in Jerusalem has never been rebuilt. If it ever is rebuilt, presumably animal and agricultural sacrifices in the temple would resume. Does Islam teach that Ishmael was the one whom Abraham was to sacrifice? Yes, it seems to teach that. Taking verses from the Qur'an and verses from the Book of Genesis that deal with Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, Islamic scholars make this point. Genesis says that Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born to Hagar, the Egyptian maid of Sarah. Isaac, the son of Abraham and Sarah, was born 14 years later. The Islamic scholars quote Genesis 22:2: "Then God said: Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you." In the commentary they point out that Ishmael was an "only son" for 14 years but that Isaac was never an "only son." So they say that placing Isaac's name in this passage is an error on the part of the writer of Genesis. Jewish understanding of this passage is that Ishmael is not truly a "son" of Abraham, since he is not the child of Sarah, Abraham's wife. Children of surrogate mothers, such as Hagar, are not considered legitimate heirs in the Old Testament, and they do not have the status and privileges that children do. So, in Jewish understanding, Isaac is, indeed, the "only son" of Abraham. A young Catholic woman is forcibly raped and she becomes pregnant. She decides to get an abortion. Does the Church view her as committing mortal sin? The Church has declared certain acts as objectively and intrinsically grave moral evils. Killing a human being is one of those acts. Since the Church presumes that a fetus in any stage of development is a human being, abortion is an objectively grave moral evil. The Church upholds the sanctity of life per se and does not assign any qualifications as to the right of any human being to live, in this case a human being who was conceived as the result of a rape. Sin is the breaking of a relationship -- with self or with neighbor or with God. Mortal sin is the complete breaking of the person's relationship with God. Mortal sin requires three conditions: a gravely serious matter, sufficiently full knowledge of the seriousness of the matter, and full consent or freedom to choose the act. Because the Church can never know whether a person has full knowledge and/or full freedom, the Church cannot say that any specific incident is a mortal sin. Culpability is a matter that only a person, perhaps with the assistance of a spiritual counselor or confessor, can determine. Each incident of killing must be evaluated to determine culpability. Questions have to be asked and circumstances considered by the individual and, if appropriate, by the counselor or confessor. Did the woman have full knowledge that the abortion was wrong? Did she have full freedom to make the decision, or was she forced or strongly persuaded by a friend, husband or parents? Was her emotional and psychological state such that she could make a rational decision? The answers to these questions (and other questions too) will determine her culpability. As community and as Church we must presume a person is in a right relationship with God. We certainly condemn those acts which are objectively and intrinsically grave moral evils, but we can not impute guilt on anyone nor accuse anyone of mortal sin. A man confessed his sins, was given the Last Rites, and he died. Is he going directly to heaven? Perhaps the most correct answer is the simplest one: We simply don't know the eternal status of any individual. Considerations in reflecting on this matter involve the efficacy of the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick as well as the theological concept of Purgatory, a state of purification that lies between death and union with God. Purgatory provides the opportunity for the removal of obstacles to a full and complete enjoyment of the union with God. Despite the reception of the Sacraments of Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick, venial sins may remain as well as consequences of serious sins that have been forgiven. We cannot know the disposition of the person and his/her openness to the healing hand of God. So we continue to pray for those who have died in the hope that they are joined with the community of saints who enjoy complete union with God. Explain the Pauline Privilege (a historical elaboration of 1 Cor 7:10-16). The provision
of chapter 7 of Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, applies to
non-Sacramental marriages. (A marriage is non-Sacramental when one or
both parties is non-Christian.) In the case of two non-Christians who
are married, when one of the parties, subsequent to the marriage, converts
to Christianity without the consent of the other party, the converted
Christian is no longer bound to remain with the non-Christian. The marriage
can be dissolved and both parties are free to marry. This is known as
the Pauline Privilege. How did the liturgical calendar originate? The concept of a liturgical calendar is as old as humanity. The seasonal changes and the elements of weather as well as the life cycle of animals and humans were mystery (and remain so in so-called primitive cultures). Realizing that humans had little if any control over the seasons, the weather, fertility and even life and death, humans attributed these to gods and attempted to gain some control by appeasing the relevant god with ritual sacrifices and prayers. In springtime, worship would be directed to the god or goddess of rain so that adequate but not excessive rain would fall. In the autumn, the god or goddess of grain would be worshiped so that there would be an abundant harvest. In the dead of winter, the prayers would be directed to the god of the sun. When God made self known first to Abraham and then to subsequent generations of the Hebrews, God was worshiped as the creator and governor of all creation. So the cycle of the year had certain periods designated for relevant ritual to petition and to thank God for planting and harvest. Also certain rituals were observed to mark birth, maturity and death of humans. And the most solemn of feasts -- Passover -- was observed to recall God's intervention on behalf of the Hebrew people -- their deliverance from captivity in Egypt when the angel of death passed over the homes of the Hebrews and when the Hebrew people passed over the sea which had been dried up. Christianity began as a sect of Judaism and some of the Jewish festivals were "Christianized." The death and resurrection of Jesus took place at the time of Passover. Like Passover for the Jews, Easter which celebrates the resurrection of Jesus (when Jesus passed over from life to death to life) is the most important feast of the New Covenant. The occurrence of Easter is dependent on Passover which is based on the lunar calendar used by Jews to compute their feasts. Thanks to Julius Caesar, the solar calendar replaced the lunar calendar. Early in the history of the Church, it was decided that Easter should always fall on a Sunday since Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week, the day we call Sunday. So the date of Easter is calculated each year as the Sunday following the first full moon of Spring. Every Sunday of the year, regardless of the season of the year or the occurrence of a major feast, is an Easter celebration. The period of preparation for Easter -- called Lent -- is calculated as 40 days (excluding Sundays) before Easter. The immediate days before Easter and Easter itself mark the most holy days for Christians and they are called the Sacred Triduum (Sacred Three Days) from sundown on Holy Thursday until sundown on Easter Sunday. The celebration of Easter continues for 50 days and ends with Pentecost, a word derived from the Greek word for 50. The Jews had their feast of Weeks seven weeks after Passover. It so happened, then, that many Jews were in Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Weeks when, according to the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles and Disciples at Pentecost. Of major importance since the second century is the celebration of the Incarnation. The celebration of God becoming a human being in the person of Jesus of Nazareth was celebrated at various times of the year. But when Christianity became the "state religion" of the Roman Empire early in the fourth century, the Church decided to celebrate the Incarnation on December 25, the Roman festival known as the "Birthday of the Invincible Sun." Other major feasts of the year were computed, based on this date. So the celebration of Jesus having come for gentiles as well as Jews -- Epiphany -- was celebrated 12 days after Christmas, January 6. March 25, the day of Jesus' conception (The Feast of the Annunciation) was the first day of the year until well into the 18th century. The Christmas cycle begins with Advent, a period of preparation for Christmas, on the 4th Sunday prior to Christmas and it ends on the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord, a celebration of Jesus' beginning his public ministry. The time of the year that is not part of the Christmas and Lent-Easter periods is known as "Ordinary Time" since we count off the weeks using the ordinal numbers: second, third, fourth, ... This was adopted as part of the liturgical changes of Vatican Council II. Prior to that, the Church used to count Weeks after Epiphany (between Epiphany and Lent) and Weeks after Pentecost (between Pentecost and Advent). Most mainline Protestant churches still use these designations instead of Ordinary Time. Our Spring Study begins April 7 The Way of Justice and Peace"You listen, LORD, to the needs of the poor; you encourage them and hear their prayers. You win justice for the orphaned and oppressed; no one on earth will cause terror again." (Psalms 10:17-18) Where is God asking you to go that is a little unknown and frightening? This powerful study helps us to reflect on God's call to holiness and our response, the requirements of discipleship, and the lasting rewards to following the way of justice and peace. This is a study about peace -- the peace of Christ, in Christ, and with Christ. Peace, founded on justice, rooted in freedom, lived in charity, and spoken at the cost of our lives. "Peace I leave with you, that you may have peace. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid." (John 14:27) Become a Discussion LeaderMany of our Bible Study groups are becoming too large. Several cannot accept new members. Consider becoming a discussion leader. It's an excellent and rewarding way to serve the Lord. The biggest responsibility is keeping the discussions moving. (You need not be an expert in Bible study!) Our greatest need is for groups meeting on the weekend, Monday morning, Thursday evenings, or Friday evenings. Volunteer (try it, we'll help you) for the six weeks of the new study. Download this Bible Study Digest as a .pdf file Last Updated on 1/5/03 |