Tag: Faith & Current Events

Posted on

Concerning Graciousness in Speech and Love for One Another – Yes, even on blogs!

In the last few days I have never had to refuse to post so many comments.

It started last Thursday evening when I posted a reply to the President’s announcement that he now favored gay “marriage.” I opined that I thought his understanding of Jesus and his reading of the Christian moral vision was flawed because it was partial. That it did not respect the often paradoxical nature of Jesus who was able to hold together what the world often cannot reconcile, e.g. love for sinner and yet a highly demanding moral vision without compromise.

Generally the comments were good and did not stray too far into politics, which was not the point.

But then, it would seem, a homosexual site must have linked to the site and there poured in highly negative commentary, much of it respectful, but much more of it so vile I will not describe it, other than to say if it was not riddled with profanity, it was loaded with deeply offensive personal attacks upon the members of the Church, other commenters, et al., and highly unfair, inaccurate and  hateful descriptions of the Church.

To some extent I have come to expect this when posting on the issue of homosexuality. While I remain committed to insisting that the vast majority of the homosexual community is respectful and kind, even if they disagree with the Church, there is a very vocal, and extremely hostile fringe, that does not brook any departure from total acceptance of the homosexual agenda.

That was round one.

Round two was today, when I had to delete and many comments as I accepted. The venom this time came from the right.

The Archdiocese it seems, had not gone far enough, according to many, in denouncing Georgetown University. Many opined that more was required. (And in fact there may be more to come). And while this is a fair enough position to hold, the fact that the strategy was not 100% what some thought should be done, caused some very acidic and bitter comments to come through. Many of these comments contained name-calling and attacks on the integrity and commitment both of Cardinal Wuerl and the Bishops in general. I could not post them. It is not the purpose of this blog to bash the bishops and denounce their leadership.

This is a blog of the Archdiocese of Washington and I am a priest of Jesus Christ and this local Church. It is my mission and purpose to build unity among the faithful and to bind them more closely to Jesus and to the Bishops, who, by His grace, are our shepherds. I hope you can understand that I could never post some of things I read today.

To be sure, we do not shy away from controversial topics here and I DO see a place for conversation that is, at times, frank and edgy. Debate is a fact in the Church and there is a forum for that here. The Archdiocese and the Cardinal permit this, it is after all their blog, not mine. But there have to be limits, and charity is an absolute limit. So is respect for the office of Bishop.

Most of the denunciation of bishops that takes place in this regard is regarding what is know as “prudential judgments,” they do not even involve doctrinal deviations. A prudential judgement is a judgement of the best way to attain a certain goal, say unity, or orthodoxy. Some strategies are long term in nature, others more focus on a swift and sometimes sweeping strike. In prudential judgments, reasonable people will differ on the best means to the end.

It is clear that some commentors on this blog want swift and sweeping action in many, many areas of Church life. But to be honest, that is not the usual approach of the Church, which often thinks in terms of centuries more than days and weeks. The nature of the Church, almost from the beginning is to thoughtfully consider, and move very slowly and cautiously.

Even given this historical perspective, many will still want swift and sweeping action. But the bottom line is, these are prudential judgments and there actually ARE different ways of proceeding. Strategy is as much art, as science.

And, speaking of strategy,  how about a little strategy when it comes to how we speak? I have considered myself,  and been considered a theological conservative by most of my peers. And while I have ministered in diverse settings (from the Traditional Latin Mass all the way to vibrant African American Liturgies), my basic core is what I like to term pastoral orthodoxy. I don’t cut corners and surely won’t water down the faith to be popular.

That said, I shudder of late at the terrible strategy of many of my conservative brethren in the Church who seem to think that bitter criticism and harsh invective is a way to win friends and influence people. It is not. Some people are the worst of ambassadors for conservative or traditional Catholic points of view. I cringe as I see what they write and say. Too often I just have to shake my head and press delete, even if I sympathize with their view. “Gosh,” I think, “Why did they have to say it that way? Why do they have to affirm one thing, by attacking other legitimate options?”

Regarding yesterday’s post I was so discouraged. The editorial in the Catholic Standard was a step in the right direction for those who think the Georgetown situation is egregious. I am in that category. But how sad it was to read, not encouragement, but ridicule, laughter and dismissive comments in large numbers from fellow conservatives, that the Archdiocese did not go far enough according to them.  But it WAS a step in the right direction from that point of view. And how valuable it would have been had conservatives praised the editorial and given encouragement for further action, saying to the hierarchy, in effect, “We’ve got your back if and when you need to move further forward in this. And when others denounce you for it, we will be there with you every step of the way.”

Frankly, fellow conservatives, we have to learn to be something other than a huge pain in the neck and the “complainers in chief” about every single thing. We should do more than make people cringe when they hear we are “on the other line.” Where’s the support, where’s the encouragement that should come when steps, even baby steps, are made in the hopeful directions?

Come on now, work with me on this! Lets combine more praise with necessary critique. Let’s soft-peddle the harshness and season our speech with salt. Let’s show a little more joy and the confidence of those who worship a risen and victorious Lord. And when good steps are made in directions we deem appropriate, let’s turn up the praise and speak with gratitude. Come on Church, work with me on this. Our Bishops need our prayers, encouragement and support. And even when we feel the need to tell them our concerns, lets find a way to curb our temper and speak graciously.

To be fair, some the authors of the comments I had to delete, I contacted by e-mail and explained my reason and they graciously accepted my critique. Others did not. Some resubmitted, others did not. I also am not without sympathy when it comes to the struggle of patiently waiting in a Church that moves slowly and cautiously.

Also to be fair, most readers and those who comment here don’t need to hear me on this. I beg your pardon and patience, if that is the case.

But the past few days have been awful. I expect hate and ridicule from the radical fringe outside the Church. But it really hurts when it comes from within.

Lets end with scripture:

Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. (Col 4:6)

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Eph 4:29)

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)

I don’t know, you decide who is who in this video and what it might ultimately mean:

Posted on

Archdiocese of Washington speaks out over choice of Kathleen Sebelius as Speaker at Georgetown University

The Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Washington, Bishop Barry Knestout forwarded the following editorial from the Catholic Standard, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese. He asked the we priests share it in any way we deem appropriate with the people of the Archdiocese. In this matter.

Many of you write me and ask when and if the Archdiocese will speak out on this or that matter. In this matter, I am able to report that it has. And frankly the editorial pull no punches, as you will see. The original text is below in bold black italics. My comments are in plain red text. The original article is here: Cathstan.org and a PDF of it is here: Disappointed but Not Surprised

Late last Friday, Georgetown University announced that U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius is the featured speaker for an awards ceremony at the University’s Public Policy Institute. This news is a disappointment but not a surprise.

As is well known, Secretary Sebelius is the architect of the “HHS mandate”, now federal law, which requires all employers — including religious institutions — to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraceptives for its employees and redefines religious ministry to exclude Catholic social services, hospitals and universities if they serve or employ non-Catholics. Given her position, it is disappointing that she would be the person that Georgetown University would choose to honor.

Founded in 1789 by John Carroll, a Jesuit priest, Georgetown University has, historically speaking, religious roots. So, too, do Harvard, Princeton and Brown. Over time, though, as has happened with these Ivy League institutions, Georgetown has undergone a secularization, due in no small part to the fact that much of its leadership and faculty find their inspiration in sources other than the Gospel and Catholic teaching. Many are quite clear that they reflect the values of the secular culture of our age. Thus the selection of Secretary Sebelius for special recognition, while disappointing, is not surprising.

Pay close attention to this paragraph. The editorial, while not using canonical language,  in effect sets forth the view that Georgetown has largely become a secular University, along the line of Harvard, Yale et al. It goes even further, stating that the primary source of inspiration at Georgetown is not the Gospel or Catholic teaching, but instead, is other unnamed sources.

To be clear, there are surely some very fine teachers and students on campus. I know at least several who are striving to maintain some semblance of Catholic identity there. It remains true that Mass is still offered on campus, but that is true of Secular universities as well.

So, what is Catholic about Georgetown? Very little, it would seem by the editorial’s assessment. This assessment, I know, many of you will share, in the wake of one discouragement after another emanating from the campus of Georgetown.

Blessed John Paul II, in his 1990 apostolic constitution on Catholic Universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, invites Catholic universities into a relationship of faith and excellence. He calls them to share in the Church’s task of bringing the Gospel and Christian values into the culture of our day.

He reminds us that a Catholic university is “a living institutional witness to Christ and his message, so vitally important in cultures marked by secularism… Moreover, all the basic academic activities of a Catholic University are connected with and in harmony with the evangelizing mission of the Church,” among them, “dialogue with culture that makes the faith better understood” (ECE I: B.4.49).

Basic Catholic Mission stuff here. Sadly Georgetown and many other Catholic Universities are not clear on “Job 1.”

One can only wonder how the selection of Secretary Sebelius for such a prominent role as a featured speaker can be reconciled with the stated Catholic mission and identity of Georgetown University. Secretary Sebelius’ vision on what constitutes faith-based institutions presents the most direct challenge to religious freedom in recent history.

Yes, I wonder if Georgetown and others who think like this, have any  idea where intrusive government will end? It does not take a prophet to see that if the Federal Government can intrude on a matter like this (Catholic sexual and life teachings) which many at Georgetown sniff at, that the same Government will be back with more demands.

And these demands, the faculty and administration at Georgetown may be less sanguine about. Who is to say and more conservative administration could not demand that Georgetown teach, facilitate, and fund abstinence based programs as part of a healthcare mandate, or perhaps that they require all students and employees to contribute to and pay for a pro-life crisis pregnancy center to help bring babies to term, and that they fund an adoption agency on campus to encourage single moms to adopt their children to intact families. What if all this was in a future health care mandate that sought to preserve and foster the lives of infants and Georgetown was required to pay for all this?

I doubt Georgetown faculty and staff would be so sanguine about this, and say, “Well of course Government knows best, and if Government calls this women, infant and children’s healthcare, who are we to say no?” No, I rather doubt Georgetown would be inviting the HHS Secretary from a conservative administration proposing this. If they did, the protests would be so thick, that he or she couldn’t even get on campus.

But wake up Georgetown! You celebrate a woman who is helping to gut religious liberty. But your religious liberty is just as much on the line as any one else’s. Uncle Sam will be back, and you might not be so pleased the next time. Time for sobriety Georgetown.

On the same weekend that the Georgetown announcement was made, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of the importance of Catholic education and the intellectual and cultural challenges of the New Evangelization in the context of contemporary American society. The Holy Father recalled that during his pastoral visit to America in April 2008, in his homily at the Mass at Nationals Stadium, he called on the Church in America to cultivate “a mindset, an intellectual culture which
is genuinely Catholic”. Last weekend he reiterated the need for American Catholic institutions of higher learning to commit to “building a society ever more solidly grounded in an authentic humanism inspired by the Gospel and faithful to the highest values of America’s civic and cultural heritage”.

With all of the people struggling so hard to preserve freedom of religion, and with all that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has said in defense of this important value, Georgetown’s choice of the architect of the radical challenge of such freedom for special recognition can only be seen as a statement of where the university stands – certainly not with the Catholic bishops. Clear and unambiguous

Georgetown University’s response to the commencement speaker decision is disappointing, but not surprising. When the vision guiding university choices does not clearly reflect the light of the Gospel and authentic Catholic teaching, there are, of course, disappointing results.

In other words, the fruit does not fall far from the tree. And the editorial could not be more clear, the vision at Georgetown is not the Gospel and it is not Catholic teaching.

So who wrote this? The editorial is unsigned. But the Catholic Standard is the official paper of the Archdiocese of Washington. As such it is a recognized voice of the Archdiocese and editorials like this are not published without review by the Cardinal’s senior staff.

I hope you will agree that the editorial lays out a very serious need for soul searching at Georgetown. And, while some of you may wish that universities like Georgetown would have long ago been censured and/or had their Catholic identity officially removed, that involves extensive and careful canonical procedures. I have no knowledge that any such actions are underway or have ever been tried in the past. And such matters are wholly left to the pastoral discretion of the bishops. I think we ought to allow the bishops their rightful prudential judgements in these sorts of matters and not be too hypercritical of them. They know a lot more than we ever will, and they have a bigger picture in mind as well, as they try to hold everyone as close to Christ as possible.

In your comments please consider charity, and remain prayerful about this matter, as I know most of you do.

This video is from the Cardinal Newman Society

Posted on

You Can’t Have it All – As seen on T.V.

One of the implicit messages in the advertisements we see is, in effect, “You are not adequate, you are not pretty enough, thin enough, healthy enough, popular enough, rich enough.” Further, “The world is a threatening and difficult place and you are not up to the task.” And then comes the pitch, “Buy our product and you’ll make it, you’ll measure up and solve life’s challenges. You won’t be so pathetic and ill equipped.” So the basic recipe is: incite fear and push the product as a solution.

And to be fair, the advertisements often do this with humor and creativity. Further, it is not wrong to sell a product to help meet a need. Needs are simply facts of human existence and people and companies do have good products to help us meet these needs.

But in the end we need to be more consciously aware that not every fear or apparent inadequacy elicited by an advertiser is a real or legitimate fear, or actual inadequacy. We don’t all have to be young, good looking, popular and perfectly healthy to be happy. I used to be young tan and trim, increasingly now, I am old, white and fat. But God is good and I am quite happy and more blessed than I deserve. I am also reasonably healthy, despite the extra weight. And even if advertisers insist that I should look and feel as I did at 25, I’m not buying into the fear, guilt and inadequacy thing. It’s wonderful to get older. And though my outer self, my body, is less sound and sleek, my inner self is being renewed day by day (cf 2 cor 4:16). I am more alive today than I ever was at 25.

Another thing that goes unsaid is the ultimate inadequacy of anything in this world to really satisfy us. Despite the many promises of ads and other media, no one product or even a huge collection of many products can really fill the God-sized hole in our hearts. I will say, there are many things that bring convenience and comfort. But, in the end, they don’t really cut the deal when it comes to deep satisfaction. In fact, the more we have, the more dissatisfied we seem to be. This is probably due to the unrealistic expectations all these creature comforts and pervasive ads strive to create. But in the end the words of Ecclesiastes still ring true:

All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye is never satisfied with seeing, nor the ear with hearing. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. (Ecclesiastes 1:8-10)

Indeed, this world cannot live up to its hype. That longing in your heart which too easily is translated as “Buy a new car,” is better translated, “Seek always the face of the Lord” (cf Psalm 27:8) . Occasionally a new car is warranted but it won’t do the trick the advertisers say. A good beer, or a glass of wine can cheer the heart, but not really heal it .

So here we are in media world permeated with many unrealistic premises. We do well to ponder the often unquestioned assumptions of these marketers, even as we enjoy and use some their products.

In the following two videos, both Bud Light commercials, there are actually a couple of moments when the veil is pulled back and the inadequacy of the product is admitted, albeit in a humorous and subtle way.

In the first ad, two men are hopelessly bored as they sit through an opera with their wives. But Bud Light (smuggled in) comes to the rescue! Unfortunately, the glass bottles prove insufficient to withstand the opera as the “fat lady” sings. Alas, the beer could not really come through in the end! But wait! There is a twist in the end, maybe it really “can.” You just need the new and improved version! Nevertheless, just for a moment we see that maybe beer can’t really make everything OK.

In the second ad, our beer drinkers have installed rubber floors so that they will never break a beer bottle again. But alas, there are unintended consequences that emerge. And here too is a brief moment of truth as we learn that beer isn’t everything, and that choosing to make beer the point, may cause harm to other things we value. A brief moment of truth that “Dog-gone-it, you can’t have it all, even with beer at the center!”

By the way, nothing personal with Bud Light. Your blogger enjoys a nice cold Bud light from time to time!

Photo Credit: Trash on Earth.com

Posted on

The President, Gay unions, and the problem of selective Christianity

The President’s disclosure that he now accepts so-called “Gay marriage” has received a good bit of political analysis. I am no political prognosticator and this is not a political blog. But when the President invokes Christ and the “golden rule,” to justify his decision, now I think we have something to discuss on a blog like this.

We have discussed at great length the problem with homosexual “marriage” before HERE,  HERE HERE, and HERE) there is no reason restate it all again. Just click through to read those sorts of articles. Further I make reference in this post to Scripture’s consistent teaching forbidding Homosexual acts. I do not set forth all the Scriptures here but you can read what I have set forth more fully here: Biblical Teaching on Homosexual Activity

In this post however lets consider the problematic appeal of the President to Jesus to affirm Gay “marriage.” Specifically Mr Obama said to ABC News:

…In the end the values that I care most deeply about and she [Michele] cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me….[1]

It is a common problem today that people often present simplistic portraits of Jesus Christ to support a variety of agendas. And the portraits of Jesus are not only simplistic, they are incomplete (usually intentionally so), and fail to accept that Jesus cannot be reduced to a simple sentence or two.

I would argue this is what the President is doing here. As if to say, “Jesus, was basically a nice and affirming person, who spoke of Love,  and so beautifully and taught us to do unto to others as we would have them do to us. “Surely,” the thinking goes, “this Jesus would affirm and rejoice over two Gay people getting “married.”” It is as if this were all Jesus was or said, “Love…Do unto others”. Never mind that he had some pretty high standards when it came to sexuality (Matt 5:27-30; Matt 15:19; Mk 10:11; Rev 22:15; Rev 21:8) Never mind that he told his apostles he had other things to teach them and would send his Holy Spirit, and never mind that His Holy Spirit inspired the Epistles writers like Paul to speak clearly in the ancient Biblical tradition about the sinfulness of homosexual activity, fornication, and adultery [2]  “Never mind all that,” says the modern world, and our President, “I chose the Jesus who said only, ‘God is love, and be kind to one another.'”

And this is the textbook definition of heresy, to pick or choose. The English word derives from the Greek word hairesis, meaning to chose.

The essence of orthodoxy is in the balance [3, 4] and maintaining the tensions inherent in Jesus and the Christian message.  The essence of heresy is to pick and choose. And, as author Ross Douthat has ably demonstrated in his book Bad Religion – How we became a nation of heretics, there is a lot of heresy being peddled today. Heresy picks one, or perhaps several teachings, and emphasizes them in exclusion to other teachings which balance and complete them. And to be fair, as Douthat points out, heresy is not just a problem on the left side of the political or theological aisle. The right does it as well (e.g. prosperity gospel, easy justification for war etc).

The modern tendency on the left, from which the President speaks has been to reduce Jesus to a rather harmless hippie who went about talking about love and inclusion and healed people. Gone from this harmless and politically correct  Jesus are volumes of verses that help complete the picture: a Messiah who claimed authority in our lives, who spoke quite clearly of sin, yes even sexual sin, and who warned repeatedly of the coming judgment, and the reality not only heaven, but of hell.

But Jesus is not either of these descriptions alone, he is both. Orthodoxy is in the balance, not choosing one or the other or tipping in one direction.

In a masterful description, Ross Douthot shows the paradoxes and the necessary balances about Jesus and the faith with which true orthodoxy must wrestle and hold in tension:

Christianity is a paradoxical religion because the Jew of Nazareth is a paradoxical character. No figure in history or fiction contains as many multitudes as the New Testament’s Jesus. He’s a celibate ascetic who enjoys dining with publicans and changing water into wine at weddings. He’s an apocalyptic prophet one moment, a wise ethicist the next. He’s a fierce critic of Jewish religious law who insists that he’s actually fulfilling rather than subverting it. He preaches a reversal of every social hierarchy while deliberately avoiding explicitly political claims. He promises to set parents against children and then disallows divorce; he consorts with prostitutes while denouncing even lustful thoughts. He makes wild claims about his own relationship to God, and perhaps his own divinity, without displaying any of the usual signs of megalomania or madness. He can be egalitarian and hierarchical, gentle and impatient, extraordinarily charitable and extraordinarily judgmental. He sets impossible standards and then forgives the worst of sinners. He blesses the peacemakers and then promises that he’s brought not peace but the sword. He’s superhuman one moment; the next he’s weeping. And of course the accounts of his resurrection only heighten these paradoxes, by introducing a post-crucifixion Jesus who is somehow neither a resuscitated body nor a flitting ghost but something even stranger still—a being at once fleshly and supernatural, recognizable and transfigured, bearing the wounds of the crucifixion even as he passes easily through walls. (Kindle Edition Loc. 3005-16)

Douthat goes on to conclude:

The boast of Christian orthodoxy, as codified by the councils of the early Church and expounded in the Creeds, has always been its fidelity to the whole of Jesus…..[Where heresy says which one] Both, says orthodoxy….The goal of the great heresies, on the other hand, has often been to extract from the tensions of the gospel narratives a more consistent, streamlined, and noncontradictory Jesus. (Ibid).

Indeed a remarkable passage, even if I might quibble with a few words (e.g. the standards of Jesus moral vision are not “impossible” with grace). I would highly recommend the book and will be commenting on it some more in days ahead.

Disclaimer! – In saying the President is exemplifying heresy (i.e. pick and chose Christianity), I am alleging material heresy,  but I am not call him a heretic. It is not my role or in my competency to to declare someone a formal heretic.

But the President is clearly proclaiming a very partial and thus reconstructed Christ. The real Christ is, as Douthat ably notes, far more complicated and far less vague than the President would have us think. And there is far more to his teaching than the “Golden Rule.”

Another form of heresy common today is to pick and chose Scripture. The usual approach, especially in terms of homosexuality and sexual matters in general, is to reduce the entire New Testament to the verbal utterances of Jesus alone, a kind of “red letter” reductionism. This of course, denies the inspiration of the entire New Testament and, in effect, says that Acts, all the Epistles, and Revelation are not the Word of God, are not inspired, and may safely be ignored.

But this is heresy since we cannot pick and choose the books of the Bible, we cannot tear out pages, or cross out lines. Orthodoxy is to accept the whole of the Sacred Text, and to consider its claims with reference to the whole of Scripture and in keeping with its trajectory. For a Catholic, of course this is done in union with the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.

Many supporters of homosexual behavior adopt this heresy by saying, “Jesus never said a word about or against Homosexuality.” True, but he also never said a word about a lot of things: drinking to excess, beating one’s wife, he never forbade ethnic humor, or said people should wear clothes, He never declared how big and how much money should be spent on the military etc, whether Government should provide welfare etc. Since Jesus did not say out of his own mouth we cannot beat our wives then it must be okay to beat them? Of course not. An argument from silence is very poor and unhelpful.

Further it is heresy to say divine revelation closed with the ascension of Jesus. Rather it continues unto the death of the last apostle. The Epistles are every bit the Word of the Lord, and authored by the Same Holy Spirit as are the Gospels. We cannot pick and choose what we like.

To be clear, the reading of Scripture is not a purely mechanistic endeavor. For example, merely pulling proof texts out of thin air, and out of context is wrong, for that too is often heresy – picking one thing, forgetting the rest.

Rather, Scripture is to be read in a way which respects the overall trajectory of the Scriptures as God leads his people through stages to Christ. Therefore certain things are operative early in Scripture (e.g. certain feasts, dietary laws and punitive measures) that later fall away or are fulfilled. Thus Passover is fulfilled and subsumed into the Eucharist, Jesus cancels dietary laws by declaring all foods clean, the application of stoning and other severe punishments are curtailed etc. But all these organic developments take place in Scripture itself, and can be observed there.

However, there ARE teachings (notably the Divine Moral Law) that remain unchanged and are continuously articulated at every stage of Biblical revelation. They do not undergo change or fall away.

Regarding sexuality, at no stage in the Old Testament all the way through to the end of the New Testament, is fornication or adultery affirmed. The same is true for homosexual acts. At no stage, anywhere in Sacred Scripture are homosexual acts or fornication, or adultery ever affirmed, nor are these acts described as anything but sinful (e.g. Leviticus 18: 22; Lev 20:13; Gen 19; 1 Corinthians 6-9; 1 Tim 1:8-11; Rom 1:19ff, inter al).

Thus orthodoxy, which holds to the whole and does not pick and choose Scripture, must in every way accept and announce that these are sinful acts, sinful enough to exclude one from the Kingdom if they are not repented of (e.g. 1 Cor 6:9).

Simply ushering in a “Jesus is love” argument cannot override texts like these. For the same Scripture which says, God is love, also contains these teachings forbidding extra-marital sex and a host of other moral teachings. The Biblical record sees no essential conflict in saying both “God is love” and “Fornication, Adultery, and Homosexual acts are sinfully wrong.” Thus neither should we have a problem. Orthodoxy says “both.”  Heresy says, “there is tension here and I am going to resolve it by picking the concept I like and excluding the other.”

The orthodox approach accepts the tension and sees a Christ who loves sinners (us) and holds them close, but who also summons us to repentance and a life that is increasingly free from sin and conformed to the truth by his grace .

I don’t know how the President will fare politically, but he has flunked theology and is, if you ask me (and even if you don’t) refashioned Jesus for his own purpose.

As for comments, I would rather not debate the whole Gay Marriage issue and/or the sinfulness of homosexuality. We’ve done that here before and the Church teaching is clear and is not going to change. I am most interested in comments that zero in on the problem of heresy – pick and choose Christianity and how it relates not only to this issue but others as well. But you decide.

Posted on

Just an ordinary, daily word, yet a word that mystically reaches for the stars

Every now and then a word just catches your ear,  and several times in a day it jumps out at you and you’re tempted to say: “There it is again!”

Yesterday it was the word “consider”, an ordinary, daily word. Or is it? Why did it strike me so?

With my knowledge of Latin,  it occurred to me that “consider” has something to do with the stars, for the Latin word sidera means “stars” or “heavenly bodies.” How interesting, I have use the word for the better part of 50 years and that had never crossed my mind. But as sometimes happens, I was too busy to check it out and got on to other things, the insight forgotten.

But then this morning, in the reading from the morning office, there it was again. Paul’s Letter to the Romans:

You must consider yourselves dead to sin but alive for God in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:11).

“Okay Lord, I got the message, you want me to consider the word “consider.” There’s something mystical and spiritual about it isn’t there, Lord?” The Lord didn’t need to answer. After prayer I spent time checking my hypothesis.

Sure enough, the word “consider” derives from the Latin root words cum+sidera meaning literally “with the stars”.

The dictionary assigns some of the following meanings to consider: to think about carefully, to think of especially with regard to taking some action , to take into account , to regard or treat in an attentive or kindly way , to gaze on steadily or reflectively, to come to regard, etc.

And all these meanings are true enough.

But the root meaning referring to the stars also brings the word so much more alive. Thus, my definition would include this notion: to reflect on as if pondering the stars, to gaze, as if with wonder and awe, to think carefully, reflectively as when one looks up and out at the night sky.

Yes, to look up and out: billion of miles out, into the vast sweep of space, over 100 Billion Galaxies and untold numbers more of stars in each. Yes, to “consider” in its literal root is to root our thoughts in the perspective of the stars. This fills us with wonder and awe, reminds of the extravagance of God’s love, and humbles us by the sheer vastness of all things God has done. It is to see by the light of God’s glory and his expansive love. To consider is to think in a way that sees the present moment as caught up in something far more vast and ancient that the mere here and now; it is to experience the moment, the is place and time, as part of something more vast and ancient that we can imagine.

And thus in St. Paul’s admonition: you must consider yourselves dead to sin but alive for God in Christ Jesus, we are being invited to grasp that God’s mercy and love are bigger than any sin we may have committed. We are summoned to look beyond the present moment, and behold with wonder and awe the perfection that God has already accomplished for us.

And as we see and behold that reality we start to live out of it now. As we cast our thoughts out among the stars, as we think cum sidera,  we look outward and upward from the present reality, to the glory wanting for us in heaven. And, as St Paul exhorts, making this “consideration” helps that reality begin to break in to the present moment and become ever more real to us, and for us.

And as it does break in, sins begin to be put to death, and virtues come alive. Our life begins to change as we see beyond the present moment where there may be weakness and pain, and we see (out there past the stars) to the victory that is ours and is so much bigger that this mere moment. And thus we become alive to God in Christ Jesus.

All this from one word: consider: to reflect as if pondering the stars, to gaze, as if with wonder and awe, to think carefully, reflectively as when one looks up and out at the night sky.

Yes, words are wonderful and many of them are mystical. Think about it, the stars get you to look up and out, to gaze beyond, with wonder and awe, to consider.

Not a bad thing to do when seeking perspective, or pondering paths; when searching for answers, searching for meaning, searching for God.

Give it some consideration.

Posted on

Why four sets of Mysteries of the Rosary? Why not five or even seven?

In recent years Pope John Paul II added, very profitably I think, the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary as a way of extending our meditation on the Gospel as the rosary is prayed.

Some one well termed the Rosary, “The Gospel on a string.” For the faithful who pray it regularly, there is indeed the specific recollection of most of the basic truths of the Gospel: from the infancy and childhood of Jesus (joyful mysteries), through his public ministry of proclaiming the Kingdom (Luminous mysteries), through his Passion and death (Sorrowful mysteries) to his Resurrection and the extending of his glory upward and outward (the Glorious mysteries).

And I wonder if we are finished as the Church in the assembling of the mysteries. I say this for two reasons.

First having four mysteries spread over a seven day week is a bit clumsy. Four into seven goes (as we used to say in the day of long division) is “1, remainder three”. Or as we say in the age of the calculator: 1.75. In other words, it’s not an even fit. I suppose it would be optimal to have seven sets of mysteries, one for each day. But even if we had five mysteries, one for each weekday, that would be a start. The weekend could then feature the Joyful and Glorious mysteries again.

A second reason it would be nice to have at least one more set of mysteries is that it helps fulfill even more the notion of the Rosary as the Gospel on a string. The more events we can commit to memory and pray over the fuller will this notion become.

Now surely I do not want to get ahead of the Church in a matter like this and would not recommend in any way that the People of God simply start making another round of mysteries up.

Yet still I wonder about a fifth set of mysteries. Has any thought been given to this? Since I have no idea where the luminous mysteries came from (did JP II make them of his own accord, or did others introduce him to the concept – I have not read anywhere of their origin).

But if, per chance, other mysteries where to be introduced, what would they be? Personally I like to mediate a lot on the healing power of the Lord. So many come to me, and come to the Church seeking healing. And healing was at the heart of Christ’s ministry. Furthermore, the many physical cures worked by Christ also have spiritual dimensions and thus a double meaning. For example blindness is not simply a problem with the eyes, but our souls too can be blinded and in need of illumination).

WIth that in mind, if there were to be some new mysteries I would like to see “The Healing Mysteries.” And perhaps they would be these:

I. The First Healing Mystery, Jesus give sight to the Blind – There are several scriptures that could be used, but the best is probably the healing of the man born blind in John’s Gospel:

As Jesus went along, he saw a man blind from birth….[And Jesus said to his disciples, “While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Having said this, he made some mud with his saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing (Jn 9:1-7 selected verses).

In this mystery we meditate not only on the healing from physical blindness but also the spiritual blindness of which so many of us suffer. Our minds are darkened and we cannot see God’s glory, or the meaning and purpose of our life. And how we struggle to understand and make sense of things.

The passage also links the recovery of our spiritual vision to baptism: the man went, washed, and came back able to see. It is no surprise that the Eastern Church refers to baptism as illumination.

By this first healing mystery we begin to see, our darkened minds are illumined and we move from darkness to light, from confusion and dark despair to clarity and bright hope.

II. The Second Healing Mystery – Jesus opens the ears of the deaf – Here the Scripture would be:

And they brought to Jesus a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on the man. Jesus took him aside, away from the crowd and put his fingers into the man’s ears. Then he spit and touched the man’s tongue. He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means, “Be opened!”). At this, the man’s ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly. (Mark 7:32-35).

And here too we do not simply think of physical deafness and muteness, but also of their spiritual counterparts.

For it happens that we are often deaf to the good news that God wants us to hear. Many things block our hearing. Perhaps it is hurts of the past, or lack of self worth, perhaps it is worldliness, stubbornness, prejudice, or ignorance. Perhaps it is the poor witness of parents or others who should have proclaimed the Word to us, but did not.

What ever it is Jesus can heal and remove the things that block us from hearing that we are loved and that a saving and transforming grace can change our life.

And, having our hearing improved, we can begin to speak properly. Touching our tongue, Jesus puts his words in our mouth and gives us courage to speak, speak a word that helps others and also helps us.

III. The Third Healing Mystery – Jesus heals the lame and paralyzed – Here too there are several passages that come to mind. But John’s version is richest:

Jesus went up to Jerusalem for a feast of the Jews. Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years. When Jesus saw him lying there and learned that he had been in this condition for a long time, he asked him, “Do you want to get well?” “Sir,” the invalid replied, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred. While I am trying to get in, someone else goes down ahead of me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” At once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked. (Jn 5:1-11)

Here too we think not only of physical paralysis, but also of spiritual lameness. For many of us, on account of our sin and weakness, have trouble walking uprightly. And we lack strength for the journey to the promised land.

Perhaps too we are paralyzed by fear or weighed down with sorrow. It may also be that we are too encumbered by worldly things,  and the Lord needs to help us let go of unnecessary things, baggage, or addictions.

By the Lord’s healing power we can be freed and strengthened to walk again and the path before us to the promised land can be reopened.

IV. The Fourth Healing Mystery – Jesus heals of Leprosy –

While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” And immediately the leprosy left him. (Luke 5:12-13).

Leprosy is a disease that disfigures us and leads to death. So is sin. And from all our sins which disfigure us and have often made us outcasts, the Lord grants a healing touch.

The Leper in this Gospel is humbled and desperate. He cannot overcome his condition. And very often we experience this with our sin, that we are powerless and incapable of simply overcoming it. Only Jesus can change this leper’s terrible state.

In addition, Lepers could not live in close relation with others, they had to live on the fringes of town. And so too does sin harm our human relationships and cause hurts and divisions that are often difficult to overcome.

In all our struggles, the healing touch of Jesus can restore, forgive and heal, not only the individual, but also broken relationships.

V. The Fifth Healing Mystery – Jesus Casts out demons.

They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee. When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house, but had lived in the tombs. When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don’t torture me!” For Jesus had commanded the evil spirit to come out of the man. Many times it had seized him, and though he was chained hand and foot and kept under guard, he had broken his chains and had been driven by the demon into solitary places.Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” “Legion,” he replied, because many demons had gone into him. And they begged him repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss. A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside. The demons begged Jesus to let them go into them, and he gave them permission. When the demons came out of the man, they went into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned….When [the townsfolk] came to Jesus, they found the man from whom the demons had gone out, sitting at Jesus’ feet, dressed and in his right mind; (Luke 8:26-33)

We all have demons, and the man in this story had many. They had varying effects on him, he was naked (sexual issues?), and could not live in a house (no family, no roots, no commitments, no love), and he lived among the tombs (he had many death directed drives). Further no one could control him, no one prevail upon him. The demon caused him to brake free from every limit, and to reject community with others. He preferred solitary places.

What are your demons? Sensuality, greed, rebellion, fear, anger, lust, sloth, envy, addiction, gluttony, or one of hundreds, thousands, “legions” of others? We need Jesus to drive these demons out, one by one.

I am a witness, he can and does drive these sorts of demons away. He can give us peace and restore us to our right mind. I am a witness, are you?

OK, Five healing mysteries.

One weakness to my list is that it involves all men. Perhaps then, the healing of the woman with a hemorrhage can be substituted for the paralyzed man.

But you get the point. One more set of mysteries to round out the five weekdays. Are there other sets of mysteries you know of or might suggest?

Let us recall that we ought not get ahead of the Church or go in different directions without remembering the communal nature of the rosary. Nevertheless, it is worth discussing. For if the five luminous mysteries could be added, perhaps others as well. And the Gospel on a string grows just a bit more.

Let me know your ideas, If not these five, are there other sets of five? Remember, its all just for discussion.

Here is a song about healing grace:

Posted on

Why are there not more miracles in our day as in Biblical times?

As a pastor I get asked every now and then, “Why are there not more miracles in our day, like there were in the Bible?” I suppose there are two answers we could explore.

One of the answers must surely be that we do not really expect miracles.

Another answer is that when they do happen we often dismiss them by rationalizing them, or chalking them up to coincidence or to some unknown reason that scientists will surely be able to explain some day.

The bottom line is that we are not living in an age of faith. And faith is to miracles as cause is to effect.

Many say, “If I saw miracles I would believe.” But the biblical answer is, unless you believe, you will not see miracles.

Consider and excerpt of the first reading from Monday of this week:

At Lystra there was a crippled man, lame from birth, who had never walked. He listened to Paul speaking, who looked intently at him, saw that he had the faith to be healed, and called out in a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet.” He jumped up and began to walk about. Acts 14:7-10

Note that Paul was able to heal the crippled man because he saw he had the faith to be healed. Faith precedes miracles. There are many places in the Scriptures where faith and miracles are linked:

  1. When Jesus had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” “Yes, Lord,” they replied. Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith will it be done to you”; and their sight was restored. (Matt 9:28-29
  2. “O unbelieving generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.” So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth. Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has he been like this?” “From childhood,” he answered. “It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.” “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for him who believes.” Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” …Jesus rebuked the evil spirit. “You deaf and mute spirit,” he said, “I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.” (Mk 9:19-29)
  3. Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive [the Demon] out?” He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” (Matt 17:19-20
  4. Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” (Lk 18:42)
  5. Jesus turned and saw her. “Take heart, daughter,” he said, “your faith has healed you.” And the woman was healed from that moment. (Matt 9:22)
  6. Jesus could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith. (Mk 6:5-6)
  7. Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (Matt 15:28)
  8. “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road. (Mark 10:52
  9. Then he said to him, “Rise and go; your faith has made you well.” (Luke 17:19)

And on and on the quotes could go.

The key point is that faith is the essential ingredient for miracles. There must be faith not only on the part of the one who works it, but even more so on the part of the one who receives the miracle. For it may sometimes happen that the one through whom the miracle is accomplished, has only poor faith, but the one receiving it has the faith to be healed, and thus God grants it.

Of this I have (to my shame) been a witness.  But, I will say I have grown. For on some occasions in my priesthood God has worked miraculous cures when I was sent to anoint the sick or to pray over and with people.

  1. On one occasion, many years ago I was sent to anoint a man near death. He was filled with cancer, in the pancreas, liver and bone. No hope said the doctors. His daughter sent me with the confident expectation that I could heal him. But, truthfully, I went more with the intention of giving “last rites” in order to prepare him for death. But God was not defeated by me, the faith of that man and his daughter prevailed. The next day his vitals changed and the surprised doctors found no trace of cancer in subsequent scans. He lived on another ten years and I always called him Lazarus.
  2. On other occasion a few years ago, I was summoned early one morning to the hospital. The doctors had announced a certain end for a parishioner and her tearful relatives were gathered in a death watch. The decision had been reached to pull the breathing tube, and the doctors offered no hope and were “sure” the woman would die in moments after the tube was pulled. But this woman had surprised us before. And by now, I had learned my lesson, that God was in charge, no matter what the doctors said. And I told that family just before I anointed her, not to be so sure what would happen or when, that God was in charge, and that people don’t necessarily go right away even when the doctors say so. And when I finished the anointing, I prayed, “Lord, If you want to, you can heal her, I know you can” and the Amens murmured among the family.” Next morning, Mrs. J was up for breakfast, issuing orders to family and stating that hospital food was disagreeable to her.
  3. And I want also to give God the glory for the many miracles he has worked in terms of spiritual healing, healings in my own life and soul, healing in the lives of many I have known. Deliverance from anxiety and depression, deliverance from anger and addiction; the sudden and miraculous capacity to forgive, or to let go of crippling grief; the gradual healing to go from serious sins to freedom, to go from tepidity to deeper and deeper love of God. Yes, I walked along side of many who exhibit miraculous healing, of this same healing I too am a witness. And the healing defies any rational explanation.

Yes, even a little faith, mustard seed faith. Just the faith that says, “Father Pope, will you pray for me?” Or, “Father I will pray for you.” Faith the size of a mustard seed. If I take one step God takes two. The miracles are many.

The gift to be sought – Perhaps in times like these where we often do not expect miracles or dismiss them too easily when they occur, the gift to be sought is the gift of the fear of the Lord.

At its heart, the fear of the Lord is the awareness of the wonderful things God is always doing in our life from moment to moment. It is the gift of wonder and awe before the displayed majesty of our God, and a desire not to offend him out of love and respect.

And frankly, one way we might offend against his glory is to walk right past the glories he is doing from moment to moment, being ungrateful, unaware, and seeing as routine, the magnificence of what he does. The color purple, the magnificent stars, the quirky yet wonderful people in our life, indeed, our very own existence, all these and countless other wonders are on daily display. And seeing them for the miraculous gift they are begins to open our minds to the possibility of miracles too.

The gift of the fear of the Lord helps to increase our awareness of God and our faith in Him. And faith is the door to even greater miracles.

Are you ready for a miracle? The Lord has a related question for us: Do you believe that I can do this? (Matt 9:28)

It is true, God sometimes says no, and we have discussed that HERE before. But perhaps we ought also to check our attitude, and ask why we might be quick to presume he will say no or has said no. Scripture says, “Ye have not because ye ask not” (James 4:2). Why not ask with confidence and leave the answer up to God.

Why are there fewer miracles today? You tell me.

Here’s a song about wonder and awe.

Posted on

A Hidden, Mysterious, and Much Debated Word in the Our Father

It is no doubt the most familiar prayer of all, the “Lord’s Prayer.” It is a prayer shared by and prized by all Christians. Few if any have not committed to memory. Yet hidden within the Lord’s prayer is a mysterious word that both Greek and Biblical scholars have little agreement over, or even a clear understanding of in terms of its precise meaning.

I call it “hidden” only because most Christians do not read Greek and are unaware of the difficulties and debate surrounding the word. They simply accept that the most common English translation of the Our Father as undisputed. To them the problem is hidden.

The mysterious word occurs right in the middle of the prayer: τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον (ton arton hēmōn ton epiousion) which is rendered most usually as “give us this day our daily bread.” The problematic word is epiousion. The difficulty is that the word  seems to exist nowhere else in ancient Greek,  and that no one really knows what it means.

Even the Greek Fathers who spoke and wrote Greek as their mother-tongue were unaware of it’s exact meaning. It occurs no where else in the Bible (with the exception of the parallel passage in Luke’s version of the Our Father in Luke 11:3). It appears nowhere in wider Greek literature, whether Christian or Pagan. The early Church Father Origen, a most learned and well read man, thought that Matthew and Luke, or the early Church had “made up” or coined the term.

So, frankly, we are at a loss as to the exact and original meaning of this word! It’s actually pretty embarrassing when you think of it. Right there in the most memorable text of Christendom is a word whose meaning seems quite uncertain.

Now, to be sure, over the centuries there have been many theories and positions as to what this word is getting at. Let’s look at a  few.

  1. Grammatical Analysis– The Greek word seems to be a compound word from epi+ousios. Now epi means over, above, beyond, in addition to, or some similar superlative. Ousious refers to the substance of something. Hence, to put these words together we have something amounting to supersubstantial, or super-essential.
  2. The Eucharist – Some of the Greek and Latin Fathers thought is clearly referred to the Eucharist, and surely not to ordinary food or bread. Origien for example cites how Jesus rebuked the people in John 6 for seeking bread that perishes rather than the Bread which endures unto eternal life which is Jesus’ flesh and which he will give us. (cf Origen On Prayer 27.2) St. Cyprian too, while admitting that “bread”  can be understood simply, goes on to advance that the bread referred to here is more certainly Christ himself in the Eucharist (cf. Treatise on the Lord’s Prayer, 18).
  3. Ordinary and daily bread – St. John Chrysostom however favors a notion that the bread for which we pray is only “bread for today: Just enough for one day….Here Jesus condescends to the infirmity of our nature….[which] does not permit you to go without food….I require necessary food not a complete freedom from natural necessities….It is not for wastefulness or extravagant clothing that we pray, but only for bread and only for bread on a daily basis so as not to worry about tomorrow (Gospel of Matthew Homily 19.5)
  4. Bread for tomorrow – St. Jerome says, The word used by the Hebrews to denote supersubstantial bread is maar. I found that it means “for tomorrow” so that the meaning here is “give us this day our bread for tomorrow” that is, for the future (Commentary on Matthew 1.6.11). Many modern scholars favor this understanding as well.
  5. Supernatural bread – But St.  Jerome also says in the same place: We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures (ibid).  In this sense he also seems to see it linked to the Eucharist. When he translated the text into Latin as the Pope had asked him to do he rendered it rather literally: panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie (give us today our supersubstantial bread). If you look up the text of Matthew 6:11 in the Douay Rheims Bible you will see the word “supersubstantial” since that English text renders the Vulgate Latin quite literally.
  6. Every good thing necessary for subsistence – The Catechism of the Catholic Church adopts an inclusive approach: Daily” (epiousios) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Taken in a temporal sense, this word is a pedagogical repetition of “this day,” to confirm us in trust “without reservation.” Taken in the qualitative sense, it signifies what is necessary for life, and more broadly every good thing sufficient for subsistence. Taken literally (epi-ousios: “super-essential”), it refers directly to the Bread of Life, the Body of Christ, the “medicine of immortality,” without which we have no life within us. Finally in this connection, its heavenly meaning is evident: “this day” is the Day of the Lord, the day of the feast of the kingdom, anticipated in the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come. For this reason it is fitting for the Eucharistic liturgy to be celebrated each day. (CCC # 2837) As such the Catechism attempts no resolution to the problem but simply indicates that several interpretations are possible and non-exclusive to one another.

In the end, an unresolved mystery – So when we have a Greek word that is used no where else and when such important and determinative Fathers struggle to understand it and show forth rather significant disagreement,  we are surely left at a loss. It seems clear that we have something of a mystery.

Reverencing the Mystery – But perhaps the Lord intended that we should ponder this text and see a kind of multiple meaning. Surely it is right that we should pray for our worldly food. Likewise we should pray for all that is needed for subsistence, whether just for today or for tomorrow as well. And surely we should ask for the Bread of Life, the Holy Eucharist which is the necessary Bread that draws us to eternal life and which (Who) is over and above all earthly substances.

So there it is, the hidden and mysterious word in the middle of the Our Father. Most modern translations have settled on the word “daily.”  For the record, the Latin Liturgy also uses the word daily (quotidianum). But in truth no one word can capture what is said here. The Lord has left us a mystery to ponder. I know many of you who read here are learned in Greek, Latin, the Fathers, and Scripture scholarship, and I am interested in your thoughts. This article is incomplete and has not covered every possible facet of the argument. I leave that you,  all who wish to comment.