The Feast of St. Andrew, apostle
(Romans 10:9-18; Matthew 4:18-22)
Although we know very little about St. Andrew, Christians remember the date of his feast before that of any other apostle. November 30 is etched in our minds because of its association with Advent. The feast does not really mark the beginning of the season, but the Sunday nearest the date is always the first day of Advent.
As Advent marks a new liturgical year, St. Andrew represents the power of Jesus’ preaching. Today’s gospel shows Jesus calling the fishermen Andrew and his brother Peter to follow him. The evangelist Matthew indicates that they do not hesitate a moment but leave their fishing nets “at once.” In John’s Gospel Jesus encounters Andrew along with another man (not Peter) – both of whom are disciples of John the Baptist. The two begin to tail Jesus when he bids them to come into his home and share his life. In both Matthew and John, Jesus precipitates a radical choice from his followers. We must leave behind our former ways of life. That is, we must renounce the nets of our capriciousness and flee the comforts of our sins.
Homilette for Friday, November 27, 2009
Friday of the Thirty-fourth Week in Ordinary Time
(Daniel 7:2-14; Luke 21:29-33)
We have difficulty appreciating apocalyptic literature. We live in a time where the main material worry is over the Dow-Jones average. In apocalyptic times people worried about ravaging armies and systematic servitude. Apocalyptic writers offered hope to the victims by providing a vision of eventual triumph after a long, hard struggle. The only example of a completely apocalyptic work is the Book of Revelation in which faithful Christians are assured victory over their Roman persecutors. In the Old Testament the Book of the Prophet Daniel is one of the prime examples of the apocalyptic. Written during the oppression of the wicked Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Daniel foresees an eventual reversal of lots. Israel will overturn its oppressor, and God will reign over it forever.
Interestingly, the grotesque passage from Daniel that we read today makes sense when it is interpreted with the aid of the Book of Revelation. The text at hand is obscure. But John, the visionary of Revelation, cites the same passage but works from a different manuscript which provides a sensible rendition of the passage’s meaning. It tells the same story as the passage from Daniel that we heard on Tuesday: the succession of empires leading to an everlasting reign of God.
This background should warn us not to take apocalyptic literature literally. Then how are we to understand it? We might spiritualize its meaning: we must struggle against the evil in our lives, be it lust, pride, or hatred. Or we might allow the stories to remind us that other people in the world live today with the same kind of oppression as the ancients: Tibetans, Chechens, and Mynamarians come to mind. Or we might appropriate the hope offered by these texts as the future of the earth: a time of universal peace, goodwill, and friendship among all nations under God.
(Daniel 7:2-14; Luke 21:29-33)
We have difficulty appreciating apocalyptic literature. We live in a time where the main material worry is over the Dow-Jones average. In apocalyptic times people worried about ravaging armies and systematic servitude. Apocalyptic writers offered hope to the victims by providing a vision of eventual triumph after a long, hard struggle. The only example of a completely apocalyptic work is the Book of Revelation in which faithful Christians are assured victory over their Roman persecutors. In the Old Testament the Book of the Prophet Daniel is one of the prime examples of the apocalyptic. Written during the oppression of the wicked Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Daniel foresees an eventual reversal of lots. Israel will overturn its oppressor, and God will reign over it forever.
Interestingly, the grotesque passage from Daniel that we read today makes sense when it is interpreted with the aid of the Book of Revelation. The text at hand is obscure. But John, the visionary of Revelation, cites the same passage but works from a different manuscript which provides a sensible rendition of the passage’s meaning. It tells the same story as the passage from Daniel that we heard on Tuesday: the succession of empires leading to an everlasting reign of God.
This background should warn us not to take apocalyptic literature literally. Then how are we to understand it? We might spiritualize its meaning: we must struggle against the evil in our lives, be it lust, pride, or hatred. Or we might allow the stories to remind us that other people in the world live today with the same kind of oppression as the ancients: Tibetans, Chechens, and Mynamarians come to mind. Or we might appropriate the hope offered by these texts as the future of the earth: a time of universal peace, goodwill, and friendship among all nations under God.
Homilette for Thursday, November 26, 2009
Thanksgiving Day
(Sirach 50:22-24; Luke 17:11-19)
Why is Jesus annoyed that the other nine lepers do not return to give him thanks? Can he not appreciate how their first reactions after being so completely marginalized might be jubilation, not thanksgiving? Since he healed ten, does he feel personally offended that all do not recognize his power? Or is there another explanation more characteristic of Jesus?
The fourth preface for weekdays may provide a clue to answer these questions. The preface is the prayer of thanksgiving that the priest makes on behalf of the people at Mass just before the consecration of the bread and wine. One option of the many prefaces available uses these words: “Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to your greatness but makes us grow in your grace.” In the gospel Jesus is not upset because he is slighted by the nine lepers who do not return. Rather he is sorry that they do not take advantage of the gift that God extends by our giving thanks. Jesus reveals God’s inestimable gift of salvation when he tells the grateful leper, “...your faith has saved you.” As terrible a curse as leprosy is, it cannot compare to eternal oblivion. In contrast, the tenth leper has found his way to never-ending communion with the Lord.
Today we pause to thank God’s for many gifts, but especially prosperity to our nation. Although salvation has a radically personal element, still the environment in which we find ourselves contributes to it. God has blessed Americans with universal education, an over-abundant food supply, and almost limitless opportunity to practice virtue. Like the good leper we seek salvation today as we turn to God in thanksgiving for all our blessings.
(Sirach 50:22-24; Luke 17:11-19)
Why is Jesus annoyed that the other nine lepers do not return to give him thanks? Can he not appreciate how their first reactions after being so completely marginalized might be jubilation, not thanksgiving? Since he healed ten, does he feel personally offended that all do not recognize his power? Or is there another explanation more characteristic of Jesus?
The fourth preface for weekdays may provide a clue to answer these questions. The preface is the prayer of thanksgiving that the priest makes on behalf of the people at Mass just before the consecration of the bread and wine. One option of the many prefaces available uses these words: “Our prayer of thanksgiving adds nothing to your greatness but makes us grow in your grace.” In the gospel Jesus is not upset because he is slighted by the nine lepers who do not return. Rather he is sorry that they do not take advantage of the gift that God extends by our giving thanks. Jesus reveals God’s inestimable gift of salvation when he tells the grateful leper, “...your faith has saved you.” As terrible a curse as leprosy is, it cannot compare to eternal oblivion. In contrast, the tenth leper has found his way to never-ending communion with the Lord.
Today we pause to thank God’s for many gifts, but especially prosperity to our nation. Although salvation has a radically personal element, still the environment in which we find ourselves contributes to it. God has blessed Americans with universal education, an over-abundant food supply, and almost limitless opportunity to practice virtue. Like the good leper we seek salvation today as we turn to God in thanksgiving for all our blessings.
Homilette for Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Wednesday of the Thirty-fourth Week in Ordinary Time
(Daniel 5:1-6.13-14.16-17.23-28; Luke 21:12-19)
In his autobiography Justice Clarence Thomas writes of the ordeal he underwent after being nominated to the Supreme Court. He says that a coalition of self-interest groups conspired with a group of senators to undermine his confirmation. Throughout the struggle Senator John Danforth, Thomas’ mentor and an ordained Episcopalian priest, counseled him to allow the “Holy Ghost” speak through him. Much like Jesus advises his followers to do in the gospel today, Thomas was to trust in the Lord to see him through the lies and calumnies that his detractors were raising.
For awhile Catholics in the United States did not have to worry about defending themselves against persecution. Earlier in the nation’s history a virulent anti-Catholicism festered in America. The Ku Klux Klan, for example, singled out Catholics as well as Blacks and Jews as America’s enemies. Then, for roughly the middle of the last century, a genuine toleration of religion thrived through most of the country. Everyone was encouraged to “attend the church or synagogue of your choice.” More recently, however, Christian beliefs and practices have been under severe scrutiny. Many, especially the sophisticated, cannot accept as genuine those who profess a religion which forbids extramarital sex and values human life as inviolable from conception to natural death. We are likely to have to defend our faith again if not our own lives.
As Jesus would tell us, the current secular atmosphere does not call us to prepare speeches in defense of our faith. But we should pray to God for enlightenment and also take advantages of opportunities to learn what the Church teaches. Fortunately, excellent resources are at hand. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, is available on the Internet. We need not worry that our faith is unreasonable much less ridiculous. The truth is just the opposite. Although faith is a divine gift, it does not oppose rationality. Indeed, for twenty centuries Christian intellectuals have contributed immensely to world thought.
(Daniel 5:1-6.13-14.16-17.23-28; Luke 21:12-19)
In his autobiography Justice Clarence Thomas writes of the ordeal he underwent after being nominated to the Supreme Court. He says that a coalition of self-interest groups conspired with a group of senators to undermine his confirmation. Throughout the struggle Senator John Danforth, Thomas’ mentor and an ordained Episcopalian priest, counseled him to allow the “Holy Ghost” speak through him. Much like Jesus advises his followers to do in the gospel today, Thomas was to trust in the Lord to see him through the lies and calumnies that his detractors were raising.
For awhile Catholics in the United States did not have to worry about defending themselves against persecution. Earlier in the nation’s history a virulent anti-Catholicism festered in America. The Ku Klux Klan, for example, singled out Catholics as well as Blacks and Jews as America’s enemies. Then, for roughly the middle of the last century, a genuine toleration of religion thrived through most of the country. Everyone was encouraged to “attend the church or synagogue of your choice.” More recently, however, Christian beliefs and practices have been under severe scrutiny. Many, especially the sophisticated, cannot accept as genuine those who profess a religion which forbids extramarital sex and values human life as inviolable from conception to natural death. We are likely to have to defend our faith again if not our own lives.
As Jesus would tell us, the current secular atmosphere does not call us to prepare speeches in defense of our faith. But we should pray to God for enlightenment and also take advantages of opportunities to learn what the Church teaches. Fortunately, excellent resources are at hand. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, is available on the Internet. We need not worry that our faith is unreasonable much less ridiculous. The truth is just the opposite. Although faith is a divine gift, it does not oppose rationality. Indeed, for twenty centuries Christian intellectuals have contributed immensely to world thought.
Homilette for Tuesday, November 24, 2009
St. Andrew Dung-Lac and companions, martyrs
(Daniel 2:31-45; Luke 21:5-11)
Scholars claim that Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is not entirely accurate. Although there has been disagreement in the past about which empires the different parts of the statue’s body represent, today experts are convinced that the golden head is the empire of the Assyrian-Babylonians; the silver upper body, that of the Medes; the bronze lower body, the Persian Empire; and the iron and tile feet, Alexander’s Greek domain. The historical mistake in Daniel’s interpretation would be that the Persians, not the Medes, conquered Babylon.
Most likely the writer of the Book of the Prophet Daniel was using the popular Jewish understanding of events when he wrote in the second century before Christ. Obviously, this writer was not the prophet who lived in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, four centuries earlier. He was an interpreter of history seeing the great empires leading up to the recreation of Israel’s monarchy. This was “the stone hewn from the mountain...which broke in pieces the tile, iron, bronze, silver, and gold.”
Christians have taken Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as realized in Jesus. He inaugurated another kind of kingdom that, we believe, will be eternal. It is a kingdom unlike all others because it does not claim rule over land nor does it tax people’s pocketbooks. Rather, it moves us interiorly to love God above all and neighbors as ourselves. We might add that it is the Kingdom for which St. Lung Dung-Lac and the other Vietnamese martyrs gave their lives.
(Daniel 2:31-45; Luke 21:5-11)
Scholars claim that Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is not entirely accurate. Although there has been disagreement in the past about which empires the different parts of the statue’s body represent, today experts are convinced that the golden head is the empire of the Assyrian-Babylonians; the silver upper body, that of the Medes; the bronze lower body, the Persian Empire; and the iron and tile feet, Alexander’s Greek domain. The historical mistake in Daniel’s interpretation would be that the Persians, not the Medes, conquered Babylon.
Most likely the writer of the Book of the Prophet Daniel was using the popular Jewish understanding of events when he wrote in the second century before Christ. Obviously, this writer was not the prophet who lived in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, four centuries earlier. He was an interpreter of history seeing the great empires leading up to the recreation of Israel’s monarchy. This was “the stone hewn from the mountain...which broke in pieces the tile, iron, bronze, silver, and gold.”
Christians have taken Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream as realized in Jesus. He inaugurated another kind of kingdom that, we believe, will be eternal. It is a kingdom unlike all others because it does not claim rule over land nor does it tax people’s pocketbooks. Rather, it moves us interiorly to love God above all and neighbors as ourselves. We might add that it is the Kingdom for which St. Lung Dung-Lac and the other Vietnamese martyrs gave their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)