Holy Thursday, Mass of the Lord’s Supper
(I Corinthians 11:23-26; John 13:1-15)
Lent begins in the dead of winter. But the word does not mean “winter.” It means “springtime.” Lent takes us from winter to springtime, from slavishness to self-control, from and selfishness to consideration of others. Some say that we shouldn’t give up anything for Lent but concentrate our efforts on charitable works. But we need to do both -- deprive ourselves of comforts and attend to others’ needs -- so that we might become more sensitive human beings.
On Holy Thursday we receive a similar dual mandate. In the second reading, St. Paul’s tells us how Jesus instituted the Eucharist on the night before he died. He took bread and wine, gave thanks for both, said, “This is my body…This cup is the new covenant of my blood. Do this…in remembrance of me.” Because of Jesus’ command here we celebrate mass together this evening and every day with exception of tomorrow, Good Friday.
The washing of feet is the second of Jesus’ Holy Thursday commands. Interestingly, the foot-washing tradition appears only in the Gospel of John where Jesus does not offer bread and wine on the night before he dies. Does this gospel ignore the Eucharist? Not at all. Only John gives the “Eucharistic discourse,” Jesus’ longest reflection on eating his body and drinking his blood. We all remember its words: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life...”
At the last Supper in the Gospel of John instead of taking the bread, Jesus takes a towel and ties it around his waist. Instead of pouring wine in a cup, he pours water into a basin and begins to wash his disciples’ feet. Then he tells them something much like, “Do this in remembrance of me.” He says, “…as I have done for you, you should do for each other.” Of course, Jesus does not mean that one day a year the priest at mass should wash a few parishioners’ feet. Or even that all of us wash each other’s feet everyday. No, he means that we should serve one another.
How do we do that? Workers should do the best job possible for the sake of the company as well as clients. Employers should try to provide health care benefits and other essentials for human dignity. Retired people should not think of time as exclusively their own but dedicate some of it to God and neighbor. Parents should take care in providing the right mix of soft and tough love so that your children grow into caring and conscientious persons. Children should do their chores and study before watching television.
We’ve all heard the slogan, “You are what you eat.” It reminds us to limit our intake of calories and fats. But we Catholics take the slogan a giant step forward. When we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, we have his life within us. This life moves us from slavishness and selfishness to self-control and consideration of others. It enables us to fulfill Christ’s command to serve one another. It gives us eternal life.
Homilette for March 19, 2008
Wednesday of Holy Week
(Isaiah 50:4-9a)
Often enough Christians meditate only on the gospel reading at Mass showing little interest in the readings from other parts of the Bible. Of course, this is like running with blinders. The non-gospel books of the Bible provide privileged sources of understanding the accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Few passages of Scripture give better context for appreciating Jesus passion than the four so-called Servant Songs which we read on Monday, Tuesday, today Wednesday, and Friday of Holy Week. These passages are taken from the work of an unnamed prophet who is called “Second Isaiah” because his writings are attached to those of the great prophet of Judah. Second Isaiah lived in Babylon with other exiled Jews. He recognized his call from God to preach to the people about the wonderful deliverance God was about to work on their behalf. Second Isaiah’s writings comprise much of the middle part of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. They appear to be autobiographical telling how the prophet has suffered on behalf of the people.
But what Second Isaiah says about his own trials we can apply, with greater relevance, to Jesus. In today’s Servant Song, for example, we remember how Jesus communicates with God in prayer, how both Jews and Gentiles beat and spit upon him during his trials, and how God vindicates him when the persecution ends in his death. The Servant Songs announce a completely new form of messianism. No longer is the Messiah a sword-wielding conqueror of armies. Rather, he defeats evil by patiently taking upon himself the sins of others. We certainly understand Jesus in this way.
(Isaiah 50:4-9a)
Often enough Christians meditate only on the gospel reading at Mass showing little interest in the readings from other parts of the Bible. Of course, this is like running with blinders. The non-gospel books of the Bible provide privileged sources of understanding the accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Few passages of Scripture give better context for appreciating Jesus passion than the four so-called Servant Songs which we read on Monday, Tuesday, today Wednesday, and Friday of Holy Week. These passages are taken from the work of an unnamed prophet who is called “Second Isaiah” because his writings are attached to those of the great prophet of Judah. Second Isaiah lived in Babylon with other exiled Jews. He recognized his call from God to preach to the people about the wonderful deliverance God was about to work on their behalf. Second Isaiah’s writings comprise much of the middle part of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. They appear to be autobiographical telling how the prophet has suffered on behalf of the people.
But what Second Isaiah says about his own trials we can apply, with greater relevance, to Jesus. In today’s Servant Song, for example, we remember how Jesus communicates with God in prayer, how both Jews and Gentiles beat and spit upon him during his trials, and how God vindicates him when the persecution ends in his death. The Servant Songs announce a completely new form of messianism. No longer is the Messiah a sword-wielding conqueror of armies. Rather, he defeats evil by patiently taking upon himself the sins of others. We certainly understand Jesus in this way.
Homilette for March 18, 2008
Tuesday of Holy Week
(John 12:21-33; 36-38)
The gospel today invites us to compare and contrast Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s denial of Jesus. We may have heard preachers say that the two offenses amount to the same sin of infidelity. That opinion, however, is wrong-headed. It would be like equating setting on fire a home and not calling the fire department when we see the blazes. Others may condemn Judas’ treachery of handing Christ over to his enemies but dismiss Peter’s failure to stand up for Christ out of fear. This way of thinking is also misguided. Both deeds are despicable although Judas’ is more serious than Peter’s.
In explaining Judas’ treason, the passage says, “Satan entered him.” This does not mean that Judas betrays Jesus because he is possessed by the devil. No, there is full responsibility here. A bit later, when Judas leaves the supper, the passage ominously adds, “...it was night.” This reference is not to give the time of day but to indicate that Judas chooses darkness to the light of Christ. Earlier in the gospel Jesus tells Nicodemus that some people choose darkness to light (3:19). Here Judas deliberately makes the same choice. We should realize that we too are susceptible to it.
Sometimes we look for ways to excuse ourselves of sin. A young man may say that peer pressure forced him to drink too much. A young woman may attribute her abortion to fear of her parents’ chastisements if she came home pregnant. These kinds of circumstances certainly have a bearing on one’s action, but they seldom are so extreme that they excuse wrong-doing. We must develop virtue by always striving to do what is right amidst the varied circumstances of life. Conversely, we must not act like Peter who fails to support Jesus although he knows better.
(John 12:21-33; 36-38)
The gospel today invites us to compare and contrast Judas’ betrayal and Peter’s denial of Jesus. We may have heard preachers say that the two offenses amount to the same sin of infidelity. That opinion, however, is wrong-headed. It would be like equating setting on fire a home and not calling the fire department when we see the blazes. Others may condemn Judas’ treachery of handing Christ over to his enemies but dismiss Peter’s failure to stand up for Christ out of fear. This way of thinking is also misguided. Both deeds are despicable although Judas’ is more serious than Peter’s.
In explaining Judas’ treason, the passage says, “Satan entered him.” This does not mean that Judas betrays Jesus because he is possessed by the devil. No, there is full responsibility here. A bit later, when Judas leaves the supper, the passage ominously adds, “...it was night.” This reference is not to give the time of day but to indicate that Judas chooses darkness to the light of Christ. Earlier in the gospel Jesus tells Nicodemus that some people choose darkness to light (3:19). Here Judas deliberately makes the same choice. We should realize that we too are susceptible to it.
Sometimes we look for ways to excuse ourselves of sin. A young man may say that peer pressure forced him to drink too much. A young woman may attribute her abortion to fear of her parents’ chastisements if she came home pregnant. These kinds of circumstances certainly have a bearing on one’s action, but they seldom are so extreme that they excuse wrong-doing. We must develop virtue by always striving to do what is right amidst the varied circumstances of life. Conversely, we must not act like Peter who fails to support Jesus although he knows better.
homilette for March 17, 2008
Monday of Holy Week
(Isaiah 42:1-7; John 12:1-11)
Pope John Paul II has been called the person most seen in all of history. Although, of course, there are no official statistics, the statement can hardly be doubted. In many of his one hundred and four apostolic journeys outside Italy, he appeared before millions of people. It is hard to imagine anyone – even emperors or athletes -- having larger audiences.
The costs of the pope’s travels often provoked criticism. He did not stay at Ritz-Carlton hotels, but necessary security measures entailed the spending of millions of dollars to accommodate a papal visit. When he visited poor countries like Kenya or Timor, people wondered -- as Judas does in the gospel today -- whether the money should not have been spent in direct relief of the poor.
Surely, however, such criticisms are myopic. The pope did much more for the poor on his travels than possibly could have been accomplished if all the expenses were summed together and the money paid to Catholic Relief Services. Everywhere John Paul II went, he preached care for the poor. His gracious presence to many indigent people lifted their minds and hearts beyond the squalor of their daily lives. The first reading speaks of the Suffering Servant “establish(ing) justice on the earth.” In imitation of Jesus, John Paul’s apostolic journeys fulfilled this prophecy by calling rich and poor to solidarity in Christ.
(Isaiah 42:1-7; John 12:1-11)
Pope John Paul II has been called the person most seen in all of history. Although, of course, there are no official statistics, the statement can hardly be doubted. In many of his one hundred and four apostolic journeys outside Italy, he appeared before millions of people. It is hard to imagine anyone – even emperors or athletes -- having larger audiences.
The costs of the pope’s travels often provoked criticism. He did not stay at Ritz-Carlton hotels, but necessary security measures entailed the spending of millions of dollars to accommodate a papal visit. When he visited poor countries like Kenya or Timor, people wondered -- as Judas does in the gospel today -- whether the money should not have been spent in direct relief of the poor.
Surely, however, such criticisms are myopic. The pope did much more for the poor on his travels than possibly could have been accomplished if all the expenses were summed together and the money paid to Catholic Relief Services. Everywhere John Paul II went, he preached care for the poor. His gracious presence to many indigent people lifted their minds and hearts beyond the squalor of their daily lives. The first reading speaks of the Suffering Servant “establish(ing) justice on the earth.” In imitation of Jesus, John Paul’s apostolic journeys fulfilled this prophecy by calling rich and poor to solidarity in Christ.
Homilette for March 14, 2008
Friday of the Fifth Week of Lent
(John 10:31-42)
Reading the Passion according to Matthew on Palm Sunday and the Passion according to John on Good Friday, we will notice several differences between the two narratives. Most striking will be the way Jesus dies. In John he calmly bows his head and says, “It is finished.” In Matthew, after crying out almost desperately, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” Jesus shrieks again and gives up his spirit.
A subtler difference between the two is the way the so-called Jewish trial of Jesus in John’s gospel is truncated. The narrative pictures only Annas, a former high priest, and some temple guards with Jesus. No one presents testimony regarding Jesus although Annas is said to question him. Matthew’s account, by contrast, pictures a crowded room of Jewish leaders along with the sitting high priest Caiaphas judging Jesus. Two evidently false witnesses accuse Jesus of threatening to destroy the Temple, and Caiaphas directly asks Jesus if he is the son of God. How might we explain these discrepancies?
Since we have no transcripts of the proceedings, we cannot say what exactly took place at the proceeding. However, we can note a few things that will aid our appreciation of the gospel traditions. On reason John’s account does not speak of normal trial procedures if that throughout the gospel Jews come forward with similar accusations and questions that we find in Matthew’s proceeding before the Jewish council. In today’s gospel passage, for example, the Jews accuse Jesus of making himself to be God. Also to be noted today is Jesus’ testimony that the Father has consecrated him as if he were a temple. This statement relates to his famous prediction that when the Jews destroy “this temple,” meaning his body, in three days he would raise it up (cf. John 2:19) – the crux of the charge that Jesus threatens to destroy the temple in Matthew’s Jewish trial. Thus, we see that both gospels attest to the same basic accusations against Jesus although at different times and in different ways.
The breadth of meaning offered by Jesus’ passion and death exceeds our ability to understand the events. Yet we may appreciate them more by attentively listening to the gospel readings on Palm Sunday and Good Friday. We will notice certain similarities and subtle differences. The similarities assure us that our belief in the events’ power to save has solid foundation. The differences indicate the manifold ways that salvation touches us.
(John 10:31-42)
Reading the Passion according to Matthew on Palm Sunday and the Passion according to John on Good Friday, we will notice several differences between the two narratives. Most striking will be the way Jesus dies. In John he calmly bows his head and says, “It is finished.” In Matthew, after crying out almost desperately, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” Jesus shrieks again and gives up his spirit.
A subtler difference between the two is the way the so-called Jewish trial of Jesus in John’s gospel is truncated. The narrative pictures only Annas, a former high priest, and some temple guards with Jesus. No one presents testimony regarding Jesus although Annas is said to question him. Matthew’s account, by contrast, pictures a crowded room of Jewish leaders along with the sitting high priest Caiaphas judging Jesus. Two evidently false witnesses accuse Jesus of threatening to destroy the Temple, and Caiaphas directly asks Jesus if he is the son of God. How might we explain these discrepancies?
Since we have no transcripts of the proceedings, we cannot say what exactly took place at the proceeding. However, we can note a few things that will aid our appreciation of the gospel traditions. On reason John’s account does not speak of normal trial procedures if that throughout the gospel Jews come forward with similar accusations and questions that we find in Matthew’s proceeding before the Jewish council. In today’s gospel passage, for example, the Jews accuse Jesus of making himself to be God. Also to be noted today is Jesus’ testimony that the Father has consecrated him as if he were a temple. This statement relates to his famous prediction that when the Jews destroy “this temple,” meaning his body, in three days he would raise it up (cf. John 2:19) – the crux of the charge that Jesus threatens to destroy the temple in Matthew’s Jewish trial. Thus, we see that both gospels attest to the same basic accusations against Jesus although at different times and in different ways.
The breadth of meaning offered by Jesus’ passion and death exceeds our ability to understand the events. Yet we may appreciate them more by attentively listening to the gospel readings on Palm Sunday and Good Friday. We will notice certain similarities and subtle differences. The similarities assure us that our belief in the events’ power to save has solid foundation. The differences indicate the manifold ways that salvation touches us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)