I heard someone kind of stumble through a bit of a debate with a talk show host today and during my listening I heard the caller make the same old error in both facts and logic that you all are dealing with in the past two generations. In fact, this error has been taught in schools, so you are not alone in hearing it and taking it for granted. Here is the statement that is not factual or logical:
"Religions were developed by humans in order to make them behave in the way the society feels is proper."
Um....nooooooo, that's so wrong that it doesn't even pass the first and simplest criticism.
But before I shred the facts and logic, let me tell you the proper statement that is factual and logical, and thus you can follow my critique and criticism more easily. Here is a factual and logical truthful statement:
"Religions were developed as a means to interact with divine forces. A true religion is one based on actual interaction with the actual one and only God. A false religion is one based on presumed interactions with divinities that in actuality do not exist."
Here is the first and simplest way to totally refute the first statement and prove the second statement. What part of the pagan religion of the Greeks and Romans (worshipping the various gods of Olympus such as Zeus/Jupiter, Hera/Juno, Mars/Ares, etc) is an attempt to codify good behavior in humans? *tick tock tick tock tick tock....ring ring ring!* That's right: absolutely none. The pagan religions have two purposes and thus two activities (the "what" and the "why"), and one purpose/activity (the "what") is to tell stories (mythologies) about all the things those rascal gods are up to: sex, booze, jealousy, warfare, lots of lying and deception, tons of coveting, etc. So the Greek/Roman religions were filled with voyeuristic watching, through stories, of the shenanigans of the gods, and were certainly not templates for human behavior, and not even an idiot would have written down those mythologies claiming they inspire righteous behavior.
The second component, the "why" of those Greek/Roman beliefs is that they feared the world, which they did not understand, and so they projected (a human psychological term) their own "what if I were a god" thoughts upon the supposed supernatural forces. Ancient story tellers and elders would have thought of, using what they thought were reasonable assumptions, that gods were just like humans but much more powerful, and thus they organized their thoughts about the supernatural to resemble what "all powerful" human families (aka syndicates) would act like. So the "why" is that if gods were just like humans but with hair trigger anger and lots of gift/punishment ability, let's set up a system to worship and appease them with sacrifice and flattery.
So this is the easiest and most obvious way for you to see that for centuries, and indeed thousands of years, false religions developed because humans started with the "what you see is what you get" notion of a template for the so called gods and goddesses, which is what "we humans do here on earth, well, they must do the same thing but on a super scale 'up there.'" That is the opposite of a religion being developed to codify righteous behavior, because false religions imagine that gods are just like humans but "more so."
Now let's look at a shade of gray area, which is Hinduism. And remember, as I've stated before, I've never criticized sincere traditional follows of any religion, but I will point out error (and have done so including in my own religious institution (not the doctrine) of the Catholic Church.) So here is the problem with Hinduism: what part of the most rigid caste system ever developed among humanity is a "way to make people behave better" or be more righteous? None, of course. However, you do start to see how even in religions that contain error, the impulse to understand and cultivate goodness is there, and that is why the erroneous but understandable principle of karma and/or reincarnation came into being. So Hinduism is like a blending of the two "whats" about why a religion is developed, why it comes into being: one part is the what of imagining that there are multiple gods in human like family groups with sex, war, coveting and so forth, and so sacrifice must be made to them because they will be angry, or to gain favor, but there is also the second part which is an attempt to interact with divinity by being good, and thus through some un-understandable way receive good karma and better reincarnation.
I explained that the Holy Spirit of the one true God does indeed move among all people of the world, all the time, believers or non-believers (more urgently in the latter, obviously), in order to make the true one God known. Likewise people reach out to the "spirit," knowing in their hearts that there must be some ultimate goodness, even if it cannot be seen. In this effort the people who first codified Hinduism felt a touch of the Holy Spirit and interpreted that in some unseen way one does live on forever based on good behavior.
Buddhism is a prime example of what I am saying, even though people who don't give it much thought ascribe the first hypothesis (the erroneous one) to its existence. People have a reflexive, and understandable, though wrong, thought that since much of Buddhism is about goodness and good behavior that it must have developed for that reason. Well, the history shows otherwise. People, including the Buddha, do not meditate in order to come up with a list of good behaviors and thus "invent" a religion! If they wanted to "invent" a religion they would consult lawyers, judges, elders and so forth and have a list of do's and don'ts. No.... a person who goes into a contemplative life, one filled with meditation, is not trying to come up with a list of do's and don'ts, but is trying to communicate with divinity. So once again, like the Hinduism, Buddha and the early Buddhists touched some aspects of the Holy Spirit, but did not discern the presence of the one God. A key difference is that we know that the Buddha had disciples who wrote down his thoughts and thus created a system for passing on and amplifying the insights and conclusions of his meditations. Again, that's further demonstration that the Buddha's disciples were not setting out to "invent" a religion to "control" or encourage good behavior per se, though they were obviously pleased at whatever work they did that did so as a result.
So here is how you can now turn to the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and easily understand they were not "developed" in order to "make people be good." God initiated conversation with Adam and Eve when they were in Eden, when they had "everything," when they had no need to be "good." God started "talking" to human beings directly at a time when God provided everything for them, not when they were lawless and needing "goodness." A true religion arises (as distinct from being developed or invented) when humans have authentic communication with the actual one true God.
The caller argued that Judaism/Christianity was "invented" when God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Um, what? That was thousands of years after when God first made himself known and had many, many, many generations of interactions with believers who had a genuine relationship with him. Um, the religion had already come into being at the first moment of genuine communication with the one true God, well before God responds to the needs of humans in order to serve him (not in order to be "good") by giving them his Laws.
Remember, humans were already "good" because they were created by God, and all his creations were deemed "good" by God. So there is a vast difference between "good behavior," which should be the desire of all people, and "knowing and serving God," which is the purpose of true religion of the true God.
Adam and Eve did not fall from God's favor because they had unlawful or bad behavior in the way that modern humans think of it. They fell because they disobeyed the one thing God told them not to do, which is to try to duplicate what God himself only is able to do. They wanted the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge not so they could commit more burglaries or engage in voter fraud, or have domestic violence, etc.... they wanted to have the wisdom that God alone has. And who tempted them? Not the angel who runs around committing grand larceny, molesting little kids, robbing banks, declaring wars, etc, but the angel who thought he knew as much or if not as much then at least the loopholes of God, the angel who would not serve, Lucifer.
So there is nothing in the thousands of years of factual, legitimate and truthful dialogue between the one true God and the humans who heard and believed him that is a step by step cookbook or programming exercise in developing a list of good behaviors for humans to follow. What you do have is a history of people trying to understand God, know God and most of all, serve God, no matter how imperfectly. When one faithfully loves and knows God, good behavior is a natural outflow of serving God.
Here is where people who still have some trouble with what I am explaining raise the following (bogus but understandable) comparison. "Yes," they say, "But you say pagans sacrifice to false gods out of fear of their moodiness and capriciousness based on their power over humans. So why does the true God 'make' people sacrifice to him, as in the Old Testament?"
Ah, but if you read the passages in Genesis about sacrifice (many of which I have keyed into this blog and commented on), each of the earliest sacrifices (starting with the first documented by Cain and Abel) were not done for fear of God, but to celebrate "giving back" part of their harvests. Sacrifice to God is not idolatry but the first form of tithing, of returning to God a part of what God has given to people in the first place. Each and every subsequent building of an altar and an offering of sacrifice to God commemorated gratitude for a significant event. Abraham was and remains the model for understanding the true purpose of building an altar and offering a sacrifice, so do read the passages where he does so and you'll better understand what I mean.
When God codified the requirements of sacrifice through Moses (where he made formal ritual and requirements for sacrifice) he did so thousands of years after people had already been behaving in godly ways in service to him and had been sacrificing in honor and tithing to God. God made more formal requirements for two reasons (and notice none of them are to "make people behave better.") The first reason is that when people did commit sin they needed a consistency in paying a penalty to God. So the people as a whole were expected to do the same thing upon the same occasions for the same reason that if one of your children lies you make them do without dessert while if the other child lies you beat them, that would be a gross inconsistency. Humans have enough trouble with understanding the All Knowingness and All Power of God, and humans are notoriously bad at determining the price of "other people's" "sin." Imagine if God had not regulated sacrifice how if the person who caught the envy of someone in power would suffer odious requirements for "penance," while for the same "sin" the buddy of the chief would get off with sacrificing an old shoe or something. So God required a constancy and consistency of sacrifice when humans had reached the point where they would be tempted to use God's "forgiveness" in self serving ways.
The second reason that Laws and accompanying sacrifice and other rituals became codified by God is so that people would not have to imagine, rightly or wrongly, what was "all right" or "OK" to do to serve God and what was not. Remember, God has chosen his people, the Israelites, so they were already his, as he led them through Moses out of slavery. Now God is telling them how to serve him, not "how to behave good." Serving God is the first and utmost requirement and it is no coincidence that the Commandments are ordered accordingly. If one truly honors the name of God, fears God, loves God and keeps one's self sanctified to him, one then does not really want to murder, steal, lie and covet.
It's not like the Israelites were all running around in the desert robbing banks or something, and so God puts His foot down and says, "They need some laws to behave right." No, God explained to them how to serve God, and that is the job that they were failing miserably at (all the backsliding into idolatry even as God is right there with them, for example), not lawlessness or bad behavior. In the later books in the Bible, those before and during the captivity to Babylon, you read about the lawlessness and bad behavior in all those conventional ways (rich extorting the poor, etc) but that was because they had already abandoned so much of their service to God in their hearts. Bad behavior is an outflow of not sanctifying one's self to God's service. That is why a person could commit a million "good deeds" to "help fellow humanity" and yet still not be saved because it is serving God that earns one heaven, which is unmerited grace, not "works" or "good behavior."
Notice that Jesus Christ in preaching the Beatitudes, his first great (mega-) sermon to the crowds, that he starts not with a list of "good behavior" or don'ts, but in comforting those who were doing without through no fault of their own the goodness of life's joys.
Matthew 5:1-12
And seeing the crowds, he went up the mountain. And when he was seated, his disciple came to him. And opening his mouth he taught them, saying,
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth.
Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice's sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute you, and speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you, for my sake.
Rejoice and exult, because your reward is great in heaven; for so did they persecute the prophets who were before you.
If you truly read and examine the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, you will notice, just as in the Old Testament, how little is "do's" and "don'ts" of good behavior. It is ALL about serving God and thus goodness is the outflow from what comes first, knowing, honoring and fearing God (read my series on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit to understand how the path to sanctity in service to God is scripturally explained).
Think about this carefully because Jesus is the "beginning" of Christianity. How much of what Jesus preached is codifying "laws" for Christian "good behavior?" This is an easy question to get wrong because Jesus is the model of good Christian behavior, but not because he set forth more or less do's and don'ts. Thus no one can read the Gospel and say that people "made it up" in order to "make people behave good." Christianity is so obviously not invented with the purpose of making more ordered, law abiding, good behaved people. Christianity is the heralding of the New Covenant with the already well understood God, and in the New Covenant of serving God by understanding Jesus to be Lord and Savior (the Messiah), good behavior is the natural outflow of genuine sanctification in God's sight by emulating and following Jesus as he actually was, not how he was imagined or caricatured.
You understand a man or woman by where he or she places their priorities in life. We all know people who care the most about their jobs, or their children, their health or their addictions, etc. Whenever you get a little lost about understanding the divine and human complexity of Jesus, read Matthew 5:1-12 over and over, and think of this. Of all the things he could have stated in the opening of his first, great mega-sermon, he chose to list the comforts, including seeing God, that those who genuinely lack in the joys of life today will receive. He did not start with a list of admonishments of bad behavior. Jesus' priority was to turn those who were poor, unhappy and suffering due to shortages in life toward God's nearness, and not in chastising those who have any part in causing deprivation or suffering. Why? Because Jesus came in order to show the people the face of God via the human form of Jesus and draw people nearer to God, not to regulate their behavior.
Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.
Jesus does not have to list all the ways that people have dirty hearts and then tell them not to do it and chastise them, reminding them of certain punishment. If Christianity were "invented" so that people "behaved better," then this would be the starting place to list all the problems, loopholes, errors and bad thinking, but 1) that has already be covered in abundance throughout the Old Testament and 2) God is comforting those on the right path, that of service to and trusting in God, the Father.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.
Jesus does not have to list all the "bad" wars, and explain "good conflict" from "inappropriate conflict." Again, if you serve God honestly and with a whole heart it becomes rather obvious who is a peacemaker and who is not. Jesus is reaching out God's comfort to those who already are on the path to being children of God because they have their hearts open to Jesus' message and they need his comfort.
So, to wrap up this posting and give you time to think about what I've touched upon here, do not fall into the trap of agreeing with something that sounds "logical" and "obvious" but does not, if you pause even briefly, stand up to any scrutiny or proof. It seems so "logical" that religions were "invented" so that people "behave good," yet the history of each religion shows that this is not at all what/why and "how" religions were "developed" at all! It's amazing how in these modern generations such errors are repeated over and over. If you asked one hundred years ago any person "why religion" "existed," he or she would have answered "to know God." It's only recently that it seems that everything people used to understand has been removed from their brains, willfully, and replaced with agenda and phoniness. Modern control freaks think that their ancestors were control freaks, and it just was not so and the proof is in the actual writings of each faith. True faiths, even those based on some error, all stem from a genuine attempt to reach and commune with God in understanding and good will. False faiths are those who do not connect authentically with the Holy Spirit, and those that attempt to diminish the all power and control of the one true God into a flawed human model. But even the most false of the faiths (the Greek and Roman pantheon of so called gods) did not arise because some author was trying to "get the people to be good." Har, har, ha ha, some models those were, if so. No, it was from those people's misunderstanding that divinity must be flawed like humans, of trying to pull the presumed dwellers of the firmament down to earth to be "like humans" but with "godly powers." So even the falsest of the well known "religions" of modern times did not spring from the presumed agenda based ambitions of someone with the intention of "thinking up some religion to make people be good." Sometimes the facts are just ridiculously obvious, but one must not be bum rushed into believing something that sounds so "logical," yet withstands absolutely no real scrutiny.
(Hi young people, miss you....) thinking of you as always and hoping that you in particular find this helpful. Someday some of you must tell me just what they ARE exactly teaching in schools, if not facts and logic? Hmm.
Showing posts with label sacrifice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sacrifice. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Thoughts about the altar in churches - part 1/2
I want to write a reflection about what an altar in a church means to me. I'm determined, however, not to stay up late tonight blogging! So I will write this in two parts, saving my reflection and some scripture references for the second part, and for context and background, copy here four paragraphs from the Catechism of the Catholic Church about altars.
1181 A church, "a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful-this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial." In this "house of God" the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.
1182 The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen).
1383 The altar, around which the Church is gathered in the celebration of the Eucharist, represents the two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the Lord. This is all the more so since the Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself, present in the midst of the assembly of his faithful, both as the victim offered for our reconciliation and as food from heaven who is giving himself to us. "For what is the altar of Christ if not the image of the Body of Christ?" asks St. Ambrose. He says elsewhere, "The altar represents the body [of Christ] and the Body of Christ is on the altar." The liturgy expresses this unity of sacrifice and communion in many prayers. Thus the Roman Church prays in its anaphora:
We entreat you, almighty God,
that by the hands of your holy Angel
this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven
in the sight of your divine majesty,
so that as we receive in communion at this altar
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son,
we may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace.
2570 When God calls him, Abraham goes forth "as the Lord told him"; Abraham's heart is entirely submissive to the Word and so he obeys. Such attentiveness of the heart, whose decisions are made according to God's will, is essential to prayer, while the words used count only in relation to it. Abraham's prayer is expressed first by deeds: a man of silence, he constructs an altar to the Lord at each stage of his journey. Only later does Abraham's first prayer in words appear: a veiled complaint reminding God of his promises which seem unfulfilled. Thus one aspect of the drama of prayer appears from the beginning: the test of faith in the fidelity of God.
***
Just to reassure you of the scriptural basis, here are the references for the statement that Abraham built altars.
Genesis 12:7-9
The Lord appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So Abram build an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him. From there he moved on to the hill country east of Bethel, pitching his tent with Bethel to the west and Ai to the east. He build an altar there to the Lord and invoked the Lord by name. Then Abram journeyed on by stages to the Negeb.
Genesis 13:18
Abram moved his tents and went on to settle near the terebinth of Mamre, which is at Hebron. There he built an altar to the Lord.
Here is an interesting aside. Abraham made a peace pact with Abimelech, king of Gerar (these were Philistines). You can read the reasons why they came to respect Abraham's God and to make peace in Genesis 20-21. The place where they made their peace pact was Beer-sheba. Read what Abraham did to mark that place.
Genesis 21:33-4
Abraham planted a tamarisk at Beer-sheba, and there he invoked by name the Lord, God the Eternal. Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines for many years.
A tamarisk is a tree.
This is an example where careful readers can discern information about what is appropriate in the worship of God, and what is not, not only by what is stated, but also observing the role modeling of the Patriarchs and the Prophets. Abraham demonstrated faith to God by building altars and invoking God's name as Abraham traveled and relocated. Abraham also showed that one can commemorate a profound occasion (such as the pact with the Philistines) through a mundane object (such as planting a tree) and the invocation of God's name to bless the event. This is much as we do today, when we build a building, plant a garden, erect a plaque or some other commemorative device, and then bless it with the name of God.
Another comment and then I will wait until writing part two for my commentary about altars. Just to further mutual Christian and Muslim understanding, this is for Christians. The Muslims understand that Abraham created altars and other commemorative locations throughout the region, and one of the early endeavors by the Muslim people was to determine which of those locations still existed in their place and could be identified as such. This is the origin of some of the locations that Muslims consider very holy.
1181 A church, "a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful-this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial." In this "house of God" the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.
1182 The altar of the New Covenant is the Lord's Cross, from which the sacraments of the Paschal mystery flow. On the altar, which is the center of the church, the sacrifice of the Cross is made present under sacramental signs. The altar is also the table of the Lord, to which the People of God are invited. In certain Eastern liturgies, the altar is also the symbol of the tomb (Christ truly died and is truly risen).
1383 The altar, around which the Church is gathered in the celebration of the Eucharist, represents the two aspects of the same mystery: the altar of the sacrifice and the table of the Lord. This is all the more so since the Christian altar is the symbol of Christ himself, present in the midst of the assembly of his faithful, both as the victim offered for our reconciliation and as food from heaven who is giving himself to us. "For what is the altar of Christ if not the image of the Body of Christ?" asks St. Ambrose. He says elsewhere, "The altar represents the body [of Christ] and the Body of Christ is on the altar." The liturgy expresses this unity of sacrifice and communion in many prayers. Thus the Roman Church prays in its anaphora:
We entreat you, almighty God,
that by the hands of your holy Angel
this offering may be borne to your altar in heaven
in the sight of your divine majesty,
so that as we receive in communion at this altar
the most holy Body and Blood of your Son,
we may be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace.
2570 When God calls him, Abraham goes forth "as the Lord told him"; Abraham's heart is entirely submissive to the Word and so he obeys. Such attentiveness of the heart, whose decisions are made according to God's will, is essential to prayer, while the words used count only in relation to it. Abraham's prayer is expressed first by deeds: a man of silence, he constructs an altar to the Lord at each stage of his journey. Only later does Abraham's first prayer in words appear: a veiled complaint reminding God of his promises which seem unfulfilled. Thus one aspect of the drama of prayer appears from the beginning: the test of faith in the fidelity of God.
***
Just to reassure you of the scriptural basis, here are the references for the statement that Abraham built altars.
Genesis 12:7-9
The Lord appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So Abram build an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him. From there he moved on to the hill country east of Bethel, pitching his tent with Bethel to the west and Ai to the east. He build an altar there to the Lord and invoked the Lord by name. Then Abram journeyed on by stages to the Negeb.
Genesis 13:18
Abram moved his tents and went on to settle near the terebinth of Mamre, which is at Hebron. There he built an altar to the Lord.
Here is an interesting aside. Abraham made a peace pact with Abimelech, king of Gerar (these were Philistines). You can read the reasons why they came to respect Abraham's God and to make peace in Genesis 20-21. The place where they made their peace pact was Beer-sheba. Read what Abraham did to mark that place.
Genesis 21:33-4
Abraham planted a tamarisk at Beer-sheba, and there he invoked by name the Lord, God the Eternal. Abraham resided in the land of the Philistines for many years.
A tamarisk is a tree.
This is an example where careful readers can discern information about what is appropriate in the worship of God, and what is not, not only by what is stated, but also observing the role modeling of the Patriarchs and the Prophets. Abraham demonstrated faith to God by building altars and invoking God's name as Abraham traveled and relocated. Abraham also showed that one can commemorate a profound occasion (such as the pact with the Philistines) through a mundane object (such as planting a tree) and the invocation of God's name to bless the event. This is much as we do today, when we build a building, plant a garden, erect a plaque or some other commemorative device, and then bless it with the name of God.
Another comment and then I will wait until writing part two for my commentary about altars. Just to further mutual Christian and Muslim understanding, this is for Christians. The Muslims understand that Abraham created altars and other commemorative locations throughout the region, and one of the early endeavors by the Muslim people was to determine which of those locations still existed in their place and could be identified as such. This is the origin of some of the locations that Muslims consider very holy.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Commentary on the 9th of Av
This weekend is a fast day of Judaism, commemorating with mourning the destruction of the First and Second Temples, which took place on this same day, though hundreds of years apart. You can read a good explanation here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisha_B%27Av
Notice that there is a definite tone that many Jews kind of wonder what this has to do with them anymore. I've noticed in the years that I've been alive that even in my time there has been a rapid diminishment, even among the wise, of what the relevance of the destruction of the Temples means to the modern Jew. This diluting of understanding is part of the overall problem that all faiths have with flourishing within a society that has increased its separation from God. People no longer understand what they had and what they lost on even its most fundamental basis. So here is a reminder.
The Temples were the place where one "gave back to God" in the form of sacrifice. It used to be that people's entire lives were permeated with the understanding that one went into the Temple to thank God for what they received, and to "give back to God" a portion of what they had, rich or poor. They did it in the form of sacrifice (of animal, grain or oil) and monetary donations to the Temple. Jesus points out to the Apostles "the widow's mite," how even the poor widow gave what she had to God. Prayers were also conducted in the Temple but again, against the constant backdrop of sacrifice to God (for example, the priests who conducted daily incensing with the burning of incense being viewed as sacrifice to God, as indeed it was as precious materials were burned in order to create incense pleasing to God).
So Jews wonder today why they should mourn the destruction of the Temples. They should do so because it is recalling that for two thousand years now there is not the permeation among the pious of the "giving back to God" God's portion of what he has given to them. In many ways this is how Jews and Protestants (and other Christian non denominationals) are very different from Catholics and Muslims. Catholics and Muslims retain sacrifice to God, the Muslims doing so in the Haj and Catholics doing so in the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist in the daily Mass). Jews and non-Catholic Christians have, in my eyes, a much more "Bible study" and Torah study focus in their relationship with God. They view "giving back to God" as being fulfilled in liberal social agendas. And while that is charitable and truthful reflection of God's love, that is not the same as sacrifice to God. I've explained before that Jesus did not eliminate the need for sacrifice to God; he offered himself once for all, but also as the form of bread and wine, a bloodless sacrifice that one does not need the money changers in the Temple. Sacrifice in the Catholic Mass is reverence to God, giving him "his due" and it is free.
So if I were to counsel Jews, especially those who are more liberal and secularized, why this day should invoke a pathos and a mourning, even in these modern times, it would be to explain that when the Temples were destroyed, Jews lost their places where they could "give back to God a portion of all that he has given to them." That is different from the golden rule and liberal social good works. This is taking a part of what you have and giving it to God in the way he has instructed he wishes to receive it, no more and certainly no less than that. Catholics understood that Jesus transformed sacrifice to God from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, but he did not declare the elimination of sacrifice. This is what we celebrate in the Mass. Likewise, Muslims have a full understanding that the Haj sacrifice to God is separate from the good deeds of the giving of alms to the poor and the needy.
Now, I am not making a commentary that orthodox Judaism is flawed; far from it. I am explaining that orthodox Jews do have a fuller understanding of what was taken from them when the Temples were destroyed, and thus it is correct to be serious, sober and mournful in commemorating this fast day, if you are Jewish. In a way the recognizing that Jews lost the means by which they "gave back to God" is a sacrifice, a prayerful and respectful sacrifice, when one contemplates this. When the Temples were destroyed, a means that the pious had to please God was taken away from the people. God understands, of course, but it is helpful to remember that this is a sad loss for the people, more than obviously God, who does not in the strictest sense "need" anything from humans. However, people are healthier if they retain a continuing activity of sacrifice to God because it brings them closer to God in understanding his ongoing gifts to you.
Imagine if when the Temples were destroyed if God went, "Hmm, well, they can no longer sacrifice meat and grain to me so why bother letting them have meat or successful grain harvest at all? I mean, if they no longer sacrifice to me, why should I give them anything?" Of course that does not happen because God understands the travails of his people, and all that has happened. God continues to shower prosperity and goodness on humanity, even when they do not sacrifice to him in return what is due to him. That is all the more reason to love and honor God and yes, to fear him, because fear means that you understand what it would be like to lose your precious relationship with him.
So these are the kinds of things I would recommend that you prayerfully contemplate on the 9th of Av.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisha_B%27Av
Notice that there is a definite tone that many Jews kind of wonder what this has to do with them anymore. I've noticed in the years that I've been alive that even in my time there has been a rapid diminishment, even among the wise, of what the relevance of the destruction of the Temples means to the modern Jew. This diluting of understanding is part of the overall problem that all faiths have with flourishing within a society that has increased its separation from God. People no longer understand what they had and what they lost on even its most fundamental basis. So here is a reminder.
The Temples were the place where one "gave back to God" in the form of sacrifice. It used to be that people's entire lives were permeated with the understanding that one went into the Temple to thank God for what they received, and to "give back to God" a portion of what they had, rich or poor. They did it in the form of sacrifice (of animal, grain or oil) and monetary donations to the Temple. Jesus points out to the Apostles "the widow's mite," how even the poor widow gave what she had to God. Prayers were also conducted in the Temple but again, against the constant backdrop of sacrifice to God (for example, the priests who conducted daily incensing with the burning of incense being viewed as sacrifice to God, as indeed it was as precious materials were burned in order to create incense pleasing to God).
So Jews wonder today why they should mourn the destruction of the Temples. They should do so because it is recalling that for two thousand years now there is not the permeation among the pious of the "giving back to God" God's portion of what he has given to them. In many ways this is how Jews and Protestants (and other Christian non denominationals) are very different from Catholics and Muslims. Catholics and Muslims retain sacrifice to God, the Muslims doing so in the Haj and Catholics doing so in the bread and wine of the Holy Eucharist in the daily Mass). Jews and non-Catholic Christians have, in my eyes, a much more "Bible study" and Torah study focus in their relationship with God. They view "giving back to God" as being fulfilled in liberal social agendas. And while that is charitable and truthful reflection of God's love, that is not the same as sacrifice to God. I've explained before that Jesus did not eliminate the need for sacrifice to God; he offered himself once for all, but also as the form of bread and wine, a bloodless sacrifice that one does not need the money changers in the Temple. Sacrifice in the Catholic Mass is reverence to God, giving him "his due" and it is free.
So if I were to counsel Jews, especially those who are more liberal and secularized, why this day should invoke a pathos and a mourning, even in these modern times, it would be to explain that when the Temples were destroyed, Jews lost their places where they could "give back to God a portion of all that he has given to them." That is different from the golden rule and liberal social good works. This is taking a part of what you have and giving it to God in the way he has instructed he wishes to receive it, no more and certainly no less than that. Catholics understood that Jesus transformed sacrifice to God from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, but he did not declare the elimination of sacrifice. This is what we celebrate in the Mass. Likewise, Muslims have a full understanding that the Haj sacrifice to God is separate from the good deeds of the giving of alms to the poor and the needy.
Now, I am not making a commentary that orthodox Judaism is flawed; far from it. I am explaining that orthodox Jews do have a fuller understanding of what was taken from them when the Temples were destroyed, and thus it is correct to be serious, sober and mournful in commemorating this fast day, if you are Jewish. In a way the recognizing that Jews lost the means by which they "gave back to God" is a sacrifice, a prayerful and respectful sacrifice, when one contemplates this. When the Temples were destroyed, a means that the pious had to please God was taken away from the people. God understands, of course, but it is helpful to remember that this is a sad loss for the people, more than obviously God, who does not in the strictest sense "need" anything from humans. However, people are healthier if they retain a continuing activity of sacrifice to God because it brings them closer to God in understanding his ongoing gifts to you.
Imagine if when the Temples were destroyed if God went, "Hmm, well, they can no longer sacrifice meat and grain to me so why bother letting them have meat or successful grain harvest at all? I mean, if they no longer sacrifice to me, why should I give them anything?" Of course that does not happen because God understands the travails of his people, and all that has happened. God continues to shower prosperity and goodness on humanity, even when they do not sacrifice to him in return what is due to him. That is all the more reason to love and honor God and yes, to fear him, because fear means that you understand what it would be like to lose your precious relationship with him.
So these are the kinds of things I would recommend that you prayerfully contemplate on the 9th of Av.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Corrections about body image, fasting, spirit
I'm reading a book, "Wisdom from the Monastery," edited by Peter Sewald (who is known as the interviewer of Pope Benedict XVI when he was still a Cardinal). I'm enjoying the book and think it's quite good. But I'm commenting early, even though I'm just part way through the first third, because I see a repeat of a great error that has crept into the whole concept of humankind's body image and the benefits of fasting.
First of all, remember that the human body is made in God's image and that it is the temple for each person's soul as it sojourns in life until returning to God, either in eternal reward or outside of God's salvation and into hell. So the body is fine the way it is; there is no reason to have all of the self loathing that has taken over the sanity of much modern day society. I do not need to go into detail, you are all aware of how many ways Western humans hate their own body images and functions.
I have been boggled by the extremes of this self loathing, with colonic and "toxic cleansers" being one of the most startling modern addictions and distortions that I've observed. This is why I am distressed by what I read in the book; much discussion about the fantasy that fasting and toxic "cleansers" are performing some sort of good or necessary "cleaning" of the body. That's crazy talk!
Um, read the Bible. Who was it who lived for hundreds of years, even as Methuselah? The early fathers and Bible people who were close to God, just as they were, and not using toxic cleansers. The body is fine the way it is, assuming that you are eating a normal unpolluted diet. This stuff about "toxins" "clinging to the intestines" and so forth is crazy talk that is more about human self loathing than biology, nutrition or science. In fact, one of the problems in the 1950's was that people discovered that as food became increasingly refined (white bread instead of whole wheat, for example), that people did not consume enough roughage, which is all that intestines need for good health. So those of you too young to remember, this is why in the 1960's there was a big return to less processed and more natural food, for "roughage." People ate only highly processed white bread, mashed potatoes, pureed vegetables and so forth. They then noticed not only irregularity problems in bowel movements, but also the beginning of so many polyps being discovered. "Rough" food "scours" intestines, and that is the only "cleansing" the body needs.
This is not to say that fasting is not a great and spiritual thing. It is, but it is a spiritual thing, not a health thing. Even modern monks have grown up to lose their perspective. For example, this idea of toxic waste relieved by fasting is pushed very much in this book by the religious practitioners. Just because you are a monk does not mean you are correct! Here is the specific deviation. The monk who is quoted in the book explains that because in medieval times food was unreliable according to harvest, some gorged on food, including supposedly holy people, becoming real gluttons. This is true and shows some sense of history and understanding of culture and life pressures. But by only thinking of fasting in terms of a "too much" or "not enough" quantity and cleansing aid, these same monks are not as well formed in understanding the true roots of the fasting's spirituality. They got tantalizingly close to explaining it a few times, but then veered off into the self loathing/dirty body brainwashing that so much in the past thirty years have absorbed from poor formation and pop culture.
Much of the Old Testament is about how God instructs humans to perform burnt sacrifices to him of animals and food. I've written about this most recently as I educate people about how the Catholic Mass is a continuation of God's requirement for sacrifice. Why did God require food sacrifice to him? Notice he did not say, take one fourth of what you would have eaten today and sacrifice it to me. He's not giving people dietary implications, only spiritual. God required animal and plant sacrifices to him for two reasons. One is that food was the single most important quantity in a human's life, and it is God given. The only way humans can truly remember and appreciate God is to take a percentage of what they rely on for life, and give the finest part of it back to God in acknowledgement and worship. God is not taking food out of someones' mouth, nor is he hinting that fasting or dieting is a good thing. To the contrary, the poor are able to sacrifice just a few grains of wheat, or a bit of oil that they can afford. God does not cause hunger (or dieting) by anything he mandated for the sacrifice. By offering sacrifice humans remained mindful of the proper priorities and order of their life on earth.
The second reason God stipulated sacrifice is that he wanted humans to cultivate the habit of trying for the very best in animals and plants. Remember, God is a gardener in addition to being a carpenter! By stipulating the purity of the hair color, or of the age or bodily health of the animal that would be sacrificed to him, God is subtly also teaching humans to DEVELOP THE BEST out of the best that God has given to humans. By offering the best to God humans pull themselves up in developing the gifts of animals and plants that God has graced humans with. It is a discipline that lifts people up to be good stewards of plants and animals. Everyone benefited from the knowledge and cleanliness that went into breeding or providing the best for sacrifice to God, because this knowledge applied to giving humans the best nutrition too.
So, think about it. Food is the greatest gift to humans from God because it is the day to day source of life. (Air is really something that is taken for granted, and you can't control having air or not. The same with water, which is either drinkable and available or not). But food is something that is extraordinary in grace. It has to be sought out, yet it is given by God freely.
God points out that because of original sin, humans are cast out of the Garden and have to "toil" for their food. But at the same time, Jesus reminds people that the lilies of the field do not spin flax, and the birds on the wing do not toil for their food. Food is the great gift and mystery of God, because it is freely given, but also must be toiled for and sought by humans.
Therefore fasting was understood by the earliest practitioners to be the willful giving up of God's greatest gift. It was viewed as "one step beyond offering food sacrifice to God," in a manner of speaking. Fasting was viewed by the earliest practitioners as the ultimate act of faith in God, because they are forgoing in total, for the fasting period of time, the very thing that they must, through human's own disobedience, toil to obtain, but also, through God's grace, have available in abundance through the natural order of life. It was this that drove the first who fasted to do so as a spiritual statement. It was later that practitioners noticed general health benefits from fasting along with the spiritual. They discovered real benefits (for example, soothing the system by having, for example, easy to digest bread or water fasts... I like rice fast days myself). But they also developed "theories" as they speculated, through their lack of understanding of the biology of the body, about purities and impurities.
When the body suffers during a fast it is not because of the "toxins." It is because the body is saying, "Hey, stupid, you haven't eaten."
The body has what scientists today well understand as an kind of "emergency plan" that it puts into effect when people stop eating. First it sends all the signals that you should eat (stomach growls, cravings, pain, etc.) The body fully expects you to respond by eating. When you don't eat the body goes into a mini crisis mode. That's when your failure to consume the calories that you need starts to affect your ability to move, think, and be at ease. You've cut off your calorie supply. So once the body "realizes" that you are "seriously" not getting enough food calories, it goes into what it thinks of as "starvation mode." To the regret of dieters scientists have in the past few years measured how rather than dieting have immediate effects, the body falls back on the ancient primitive ability that all animals share, which is to go into a "starvation" plan, meant to keep them alive on what little they are consuming. It varies from person to person and animal to animal, but some people can stick in "starvation mode" for quite a while and actually not lose weight if they are not exercising. Eventually the body must keep you alive by going into your fat reserves. So this is when the body starts to burn fat, even if you are not exercising, to keep you alive. If you still do not eat, then the body goes into it's last ditch plan, which is to burn your actual muscles when it has run out of fat to use. This is when people, and animals, reach the point of no return and starve. So the unpleasantness that you feel through a fast is nothing to do with "eliminating toxins," duh. It is the pain of the body increasing the severity of its survival mode response over time.
Repeat fasters do not experience ease because they've "gotten rid of the toxins." They experience subsequent ease because the body has adjusted to the types of fast you do and "knows what to expect." The only way "toxins" come into the picture is that if you have eliminated your varied sources of food in order to fast on one food, you can give your body a break from more complicated processing of varied foods (which is not a bad thing unless you have been ingesting a food with pollution). But remember that bodies evolved over millions of years to DO "hard work" of "digesting" a wide variety of food. This is why humans are called "omnivores." Humans eat both plants and animals. "Herbivores" are animals that eat only plants. (No, "herb" does not mean weed, for all you dope heads). "Carnivores" are animals that eat other animals. Being an omnivore is considered a great survival and evolutionary gift because it means that a wide variety of foods will sustain you. It's not an example of poor poor little old tum tum and poo poo being strained by the awful hard work of digesting all those big mean old complicated yum yums. *Sigh* In fact, to get serious for a moment again, one of the things that the nutritionists who discovered the starvation mode that frustrates dieters also determined was that eating "hard to digest" food like celery is a good thing to do, because it actually is a form of beneficial calorie burning exercise, just this act of digesting. That was pretty common knowledge in my college days, but I guess it took until recently for people to find some way to measure its effect and therefore consider it to be real.
Who would have thought that "modern" society would demonize the body, its functions, its self image and also apply "magical thinking" to the eating of food? God got people off to such a good start and they just don't seem to want to keep things simple and good.
I hope this helps.
First of all, remember that the human body is made in God's image and that it is the temple for each person's soul as it sojourns in life until returning to God, either in eternal reward or outside of God's salvation and into hell. So the body is fine the way it is; there is no reason to have all of the self loathing that has taken over the sanity of much modern day society. I do not need to go into detail, you are all aware of how many ways Western humans hate their own body images and functions.
I have been boggled by the extremes of this self loathing, with colonic and "toxic cleansers" being one of the most startling modern addictions and distortions that I've observed. This is why I am distressed by what I read in the book; much discussion about the fantasy that fasting and toxic "cleansers" are performing some sort of good or necessary "cleaning" of the body. That's crazy talk!
Um, read the Bible. Who was it who lived for hundreds of years, even as Methuselah? The early fathers and Bible people who were close to God, just as they were, and not using toxic cleansers. The body is fine the way it is, assuming that you are eating a normal unpolluted diet. This stuff about "toxins" "clinging to the intestines" and so forth is crazy talk that is more about human self loathing than biology, nutrition or science. In fact, one of the problems in the 1950's was that people discovered that as food became increasingly refined (white bread instead of whole wheat, for example), that people did not consume enough roughage, which is all that intestines need for good health. So those of you too young to remember, this is why in the 1960's there was a big return to less processed and more natural food, for "roughage." People ate only highly processed white bread, mashed potatoes, pureed vegetables and so forth. They then noticed not only irregularity problems in bowel movements, but also the beginning of so many polyps being discovered. "Rough" food "scours" intestines, and that is the only "cleansing" the body needs.
This is not to say that fasting is not a great and spiritual thing. It is, but it is a spiritual thing, not a health thing. Even modern monks have grown up to lose their perspective. For example, this idea of toxic waste relieved by fasting is pushed very much in this book by the religious practitioners. Just because you are a monk does not mean you are correct! Here is the specific deviation. The monk who is quoted in the book explains that because in medieval times food was unreliable according to harvest, some gorged on food, including supposedly holy people, becoming real gluttons. This is true and shows some sense of history and understanding of culture and life pressures. But by only thinking of fasting in terms of a "too much" or "not enough" quantity and cleansing aid, these same monks are not as well formed in understanding the true roots of the fasting's spirituality. They got tantalizingly close to explaining it a few times, but then veered off into the self loathing/dirty body brainwashing that so much in the past thirty years have absorbed from poor formation and pop culture.
Much of the Old Testament is about how God instructs humans to perform burnt sacrifices to him of animals and food. I've written about this most recently as I educate people about how the Catholic Mass is a continuation of God's requirement for sacrifice. Why did God require food sacrifice to him? Notice he did not say, take one fourth of what you would have eaten today and sacrifice it to me. He's not giving people dietary implications, only spiritual. God required animal and plant sacrifices to him for two reasons. One is that food was the single most important quantity in a human's life, and it is God given. The only way humans can truly remember and appreciate God is to take a percentage of what they rely on for life, and give the finest part of it back to God in acknowledgement and worship. God is not taking food out of someones' mouth, nor is he hinting that fasting or dieting is a good thing. To the contrary, the poor are able to sacrifice just a few grains of wheat, or a bit of oil that they can afford. God does not cause hunger (or dieting) by anything he mandated for the sacrifice. By offering sacrifice humans remained mindful of the proper priorities and order of their life on earth.
The second reason God stipulated sacrifice is that he wanted humans to cultivate the habit of trying for the very best in animals and plants. Remember, God is a gardener in addition to being a carpenter! By stipulating the purity of the hair color, or of the age or bodily health of the animal that would be sacrificed to him, God is subtly also teaching humans to DEVELOP THE BEST out of the best that God has given to humans. By offering the best to God humans pull themselves up in developing the gifts of animals and plants that God has graced humans with. It is a discipline that lifts people up to be good stewards of plants and animals. Everyone benefited from the knowledge and cleanliness that went into breeding or providing the best for sacrifice to God, because this knowledge applied to giving humans the best nutrition too.
So, think about it. Food is the greatest gift to humans from God because it is the day to day source of life. (Air is really something that is taken for granted, and you can't control having air or not. The same with water, which is either drinkable and available or not). But food is something that is extraordinary in grace. It has to be sought out, yet it is given by God freely.
God points out that because of original sin, humans are cast out of the Garden and have to "toil" for their food. But at the same time, Jesus reminds people that the lilies of the field do not spin flax, and the birds on the wing do not toil for their food. Food is the great gift and mystery of God, because it is freely given, but also must be toiled for and sought by humans.
Therefore fasting was understood by the earliest practitioners to be the willful giving up of God's greatest gift. It was viewed as "one step beyond offering food sacrifice to God," in a manner of speaking. Fasting was viewed by the earliest practitioners as the ultimate act of faith in God, because they are forgoing in total, for the fasting period of time, the very thing that they must, through human's own disobedience, toil to obtain, but also, through God's grace, have available in abundance through the natural order of life. It was this that drove the first who fasted to do so as a spiritual statement. It was later that practitioners noticed general health benefits from fasting along with the spiritual. They discovered real benefits (for example, soothing the system by having, for example, easy to digest bread or water fasts... I like rice fast days myself). But they also developed "theories" as they speculated, through their lack of understanding of the biology of the body, about purities and impurities.
When the body suffers during a fast it is not because of the "toxins." It is because the body is saying, "Hey, stupid, you haven't eaten."
The body has what scientists today well understand as an kind of "emergency plan" that it puts into effect when people stop eating. First it sends all the signals that you should eat (stomach growls, cravings, pain, etc.) The body fully expects you to respond by eating. When you don't eat the body goes into a mini crisis mode. That's when your failure to consume the calories that you need starts to affect your ability to move, think, and be at ease. You've cut off your calorie supply. So once the body "realizes" that you are "seriously" not getting enough food calories, it goes into what it thinks of as "starvation mode." To the regret of dieters scientists have in the past few years measured how rather than dieting have immediate effects, the body falls back on the ancient primitive ability that all animals share, which is to go into a "starvation" plan, meant to keep them alive on what little they are consuming. It varies from person to person and animal to animal, but some people can stick in "starvation mode" for quite a while and actually not lose weight if they are not exercising. Eventually the body must keep you alive by going into your fat reserves. So this is when the body starts to burn fat, even if you are not exercising, to keep you alive. If you still do not eat, then the body goes into it's last ditch plan, which is to burn your actual muscles when it has run out of fat to use. This is when people, and animals, reach the point of no return and starve. So the unpleasantness that you feel through a fast is nothing to do with "eliminating toxins," duh. It is the pain of the body increasing the severity of its survival mode response over time.
Repeat fasters do not experience ease because they've "gotten rid of the toxins." They experience subsequent ease because the body has adjusted to the types of fast you do and "knows what to expect." The only way "toxins" come into the picture is that if you have eliminated your varied sources of food in order to fast on one food, you can give your body a break from more complicated processing of varied foods (which is not a bad thing unless you have been ingesting a food with pollution). But remember that bodies evolved over millions of years to DO "hard work" of "digesting" a wide variety of food. This is why humans are called "omnivores." Humans eat both plants and animals. "Herbivores" are animals that eat only plants. (No, "herb" does not mean weed, for all you dope heads). "Carnivores" are animals that eat other animals. Being an omnivore is considered a great survival and evolutionary gift because it means that a wide variety of foods will sustain you. It's not an example of poor poor little old tum tum and poo poo being strained by the awful hard work of digesting all those big mean old complicated yum yums. *Sigh* In fact, to get serious for a moment again, one of the things that the nutritionists who discovered the starvation mode that frustrates dieters also determined was that eating "hard to digest" food like celery is a good thing to do, because it actually is a form of beneficial calorie burning exercise, just this act of digesting. That was pretty common knowledge in my college days, but I guess it took until recently for people to find some way to measure its effect and therefore consider it to be real.
Who would have thought that "modern" society would demonize the body, its functions, its self image and also apply "magical thinking" to the eating of food? God got people off to such a good start and they just don't seem to want to keep things simple and good.
I hope this helps.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Help in understanding the Holy Eucharist sacrament
Here's an analogy that children and parents can understand about Jesus, as God's son, as a sacrifice to God on behalf of humankind, to save them from sin and create the New Covenant.
Little children receive all of their money from their parents in the form of allowance, or gifts from relatives. When it is Mom or Dad's birthday, or Christmas time, little children want to be generous and buy gifts for their parents, but are totally dependent on them for money. Lovingly telling your child that they don't have to spend money on you, that just a crayon drawing is gift enough, sometimes is not enough, because children by nature are generous and this is where generosity is nurtured. So as a godparent, I know that usually a parent arranges to give the child money and helps the child to shop for his or her own gift. Usually the Dad will take the child shopping for a gift for Mommy, and vice versa. So the loving parent provides the loving child with the very financial means for a gift for the parent.
In the Biblical times the children of God showed their love of the Lord by sacrificing (giving up) something of their own that is of great value to them, to give to God. Usually this was a perfect animal from the flock - often the purest and most valuable animal - but the poor could offer a pair of birds, or cereal with oil. Even for the poor this was great sacrifice, taking food out of the mouths of someone for some period of time, or at the least, eating into the surplus they had saved for times of crisis.
In the time of Jesus, God wanted to fulfill the actual sacrifice of valuable livestock or food from the families' stock to give to him in sacrifice, and complete this phase of human's gift giving to God. So Jesus Christ, the son of God through Mary and the Holy Spirit, allowed himself to be the last "bloody" sacrifice; the final loss of valuable life as sacrifice to God. He then drew upon the tradition that the poor could offer cereal and oil and instituted the Holy Eucharist. Thus God, the parent, is providing the very means by which his children can gift him and sacrifice to him. The bread is provided, the wine is provided, and the priest is provided. All that is needed is for this sacrament to be done reverentially and liturgically correct, in the memory of Jesus. And like all true gift giving, like the generous child at the parent's birthday or Christmas time, the giver of the gift, the parishioners who with the priest give the sacrifice of the Mass to God, in return flows an abundance of renewing grace. This is why it is still a "sacrifice" but it is also the "celebration" of the Mass.
I hope this analogy helps with understanding, and is also useful in discussing the faith with little children in your family.
Also, to my Muslim friends who might be reading as part of better understanding some of the mysteries of Christian faith, this sacrament does not refer to the generosity of alms giving (which rightly receives such mention in the Qur'an). Christians call that "charity" these days. This refers to sacrifice, or the giving of offerings, to God.
Little children receive all of their money from their parents in the form of allowance, or gifts from relatives. When it is Mom or Dad's birthday, or Christmas time, little children want to be generous and buy gifts for their parents, but are totally dependent on them for money. Lovingly telling your child that they don't have to spend money on you, that just a crayon drawing is gift enough, sometimes is not enough, because children by nature are generous and this is where generosity is nurtured. So as a godparent, I know that usually a parent arranges to give the child money and helps the child to shop for his or her own gift. Usually the Dad will take the child shopping for a gift for Mommy, and vice versa. So the loving parent provides the loving child with the very financial means for a gift for the parent.
In the Biblical times the children of God showed their love of the Lord by sacrificing (giving up) something of their own that is of great value to them, to give to God. Usually this was a perfect animal from the flock - often the purest and most valuable animal - but the poor could offer a pair of birds, or cereal with oil. Even for the poor this was great sacrifice, taking food out of the mouths of someone for some period of time, or at the least, eating into the surplus they had saved for times of crisis.
In the time of Jesus, God wanted to fulfill the actual sacrifice of valuable livestock or food from the families' stock to give to him in sacrifice, and complete this phase of human's gift giving to God. So Jesus Christ, the son of God through Mary and the Holy Spirit, allowed himself to be the last "bloody" sacrifice; the final loss of valuable life as sacrifice to God. He then drew upon the tradition that the poor could offer cereal and oil and instituted the Holy Eucharist. Thus God, the parent, is providing the very means by which his children can gift him and sacrifice to him. The bread is provided, the wine is provided, and the priest is provided. All that is needed is for this sacrament to be done reverentially and liturgically correct, in the memory of Jesus. And like all true gift giving, like the generous child at the parent's birthday or Christmas time, the giver of the gift, the parishioners who with the priest give the sacrifice of the Mass to God, in return flows an abundance of renewing grace. This is why it is still a "sacrifice" but it is also the "celebration" of the Mass.
I hope this analogy helps with understanding, and is also useful in discussing the faith with little children in your family.
Also, to my Muslim friends who might be reading as part of better understanding some of the mysteries of Christian faith, this sacrament does not refer to the generosity of alms giving (which rightly receives such mention in the Qur'an). Christians call that "charity" these days. This refers to sacrifice, or the giving of offerings, to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
