First, the "plus":
- Since beginning to write this post, we have heard the news that Pope Francis has died. I am both glad to read all the lovely things said about him and his ministry, agreeable to the considered reflections on his shortcomings, and feeling no need to add to fine words said by others. As good as anything anywhere by way of comprehensive appreciation and critique is this reflection by Liam Hehir, a Palmerston North lawyer and lay Catholic theologian. (For those who think Liam is being unkind, try this by Carl Trueman by way of comparison).
- For the considered words of our Archbishops on Francis, read here.
- Futher on ++Welby: an interesting reflection "In Welby's Wake" by Alistair MacDonald-Radcliff.
- NZ's most controversial theologian, the Reverend Dr Lloyd Geering is now NZ's second oldest man and time has not wearied him of his views (including, most controversially, on the resurrection, hence, I assume, an interview of him published at Easter). [Behind a Paywall.]
- Good signs of an uptick in interest in Christianity across the Ditch.
- Last week I referenced news out of Britain of a quiet revival. Ian Paul has a helpful interview about this news here.
The Resurrection Narratives [Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 [and Acts 1], John 20-21, 1 Corinthians 15] continue to fascinate me, and especially, obviously, at this time of the church's year.
It may or may not be helpful to refer to last year's ADU post, for example, to see if my thinking is evolving ... like the narratives themselves (Mark through to John)!
Here is this year's thinking:
Why is Mark's account (16:1-8, rather than the longer ending which is clearly a pastiche of stories hither, thither and yon) so brief and abrupt, without even one appearance of the risen Jesus, only the promise of an appearance?
Might 1 Corinthians 15:6-7offer a clue? "Then [Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred of his followers at once, most of whom are still alive, although some have died. Then he appeared to James, and afterwards to all the apostles." (Note 1. This was likely written in the early 50s AD, i.e. within 20 years or so of Jesus' death and resurrection, conceivably around the time Mark's Gospel itself was written [an earliest date for which is c. 45 AD]. 2. "all the apostles" here means those designated apostles beyond "The Twelve" who have already been mentioned in verse 5.)
That is, when Mark writes his story of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, he has no particular need to tell his community of readers about resurrection appearances of Jesus because that community was [quite likely] in touch with people drawn from the 500+ people mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:6-7, if not with Peter himself. Mark's interest is not in what is readily at hand (testimonies to the resurrected Jesus) but in what might be lost sight of, the mighty deeds and inspiring teaching of Jesus, as well as the stirring story of his suffering and death. Thus his resurrection account is brief and contains, essentially, the bare confession of the resurrection, "He is risen."
If so, then Matthew, Luke and John's longer resurrection accounts, likely written later than Mark's account, offer elaborations which we do not need to view as "legendary accretions" to Mark's bare narrative. Rather, we can look at them as offering for various reasons accounts of resurrection appearances [sharing an interest in these appearances with Paul] and analyse their longer accounts for what their interests are - in this way:
- Matthew:
1. deals to rumours the tomb was empty because the body of Jesus was stolen.
2. Notes and corrects a shortcoming in Mark's account [which implies resurrection appearances would only occur in Galilee] by offering a description of one appearance in Jerusalem.
3. Offers, like Luke, a "final word" of Jesus - his "Great Commission" to spread the Good News throughout the world, thus wrapping up his whole narrative of the very Jewish Jesus whose mission is, nevertheless, for the Gentiles also (cf. the Gentile women in the genealogy, the wise men, the Roman centurion in Matthew 8, etc).
- Luke:
1. for reasons I do not entirely understand, focuses his resurrection narrative on Jerusalem and close environs to the point where he changes Mark's angel's words about a forthcoming resurrection appearance in Galilee [compare 24:6 with Mark 16:7].
2. Adds a unique testimony to an appearance of Jesus ("The Road to Emmaus") which highlights, among other things, the continuing presence of the risen Jesus in the gatherings of believers as they break bread together.
3. Like Matthew, Luke offers a "final word" from Jesus - a commissioning for mission, linked to waiting for the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit to empower that mission.
- John:
1. manages between John 20 [Jerusalem focused] and 21 [Galilee focused] to affirm the appearances of Jesus occurred both in Jerusalem and in Galilee [cf. Matthew but not Luke or Mark].
2. Highlights individual encounters with Jesus [Mary Magdalene, Thomas, Peter] as well as group encounters [the disciples, in the Upper Room and beside the Sea of Tiberias].
3. Offers reports of commissioning [20:19-23] and re-commissioning [21:15-19].
4. Possibly also refutes rumours about the body of Jesus being taken from the tomb as an explanation for its emptiness [see 20:1-10].
5. Affirms for all readers who were not among the 500+ direct witnesses to the risen Jesus, that believing is more important than seeing, 20:24-29). 6. Also concludes his gospel, twice!, 20:30-31; 21:24-25.
6. In John 21 offers a very specific, detailed report of an appearance of Jesus in Galilee to say something about the respective Petrine and Johannine churches. This point is a little ambiguous but may be well understood as declaring that each church is important for the risen Jesus.
Nevertheless, some challenges about the history of the resurrection appearances remain.
Paul categorically states, 1 Corinthians 15:5, "that he appeared to Peter and then to all twelve apostles." None of the gospels supports this unequivocally. Gospel appearances are: to the women who went to the tomb [Matthew 28:9-10]; to Mary Magdalene alone [John 20:11-18]; to the two on the way to Emmaus [Luke 24:13-32]; to all the disciples [save for Thomas, John 20:19-23].
True, nevertheless, when the Lukan-Emmaus two report back in Jerusalem to the eleven disciples gathered with others, they say "The Lord has risen indeed! He has appeared to Simon" [24:33-34] and then Jesus appears in the midst of the eleven and others gathered [24:36] - this is fairly close to Paul's account.
Cue longer discussion etc - no time today for that. Suffice to say that between the five accounts, we have a sense of multiple appearances of the risen Lord Jesus, occurring here [near the tomb], there [on the way to Emmaus], elsewhere in Jerusalem [John's two accounts in chapter 20 a week apart; Luke's accounts in Luke 24 and Acts 1], and in Galilee [so Mark, Matthew, John 21]. There is a degree of messiness but then the risen Jesus was not confined to time and space like an ordinary, physical human body.
The four gospels unite on the presence of Mary Magdalene at the tomb, and unite on the fact that the tomb is empty-because-Jesus-has-risen-from-the-dead-bodily. Three of the four gospels unite with Paul on the fact of resurrection appearances. Only one, Luke, aligns closely, though not exactly, with Paul's reporting in 1 Corinthians 15. Those three gospels have no need to invent appearances but they each use appearance reports to make various points relevant to concerns of the day in which they are composing their gospels.
33 comments:
Gosh, that's a cynical write up on Francis from Liam Hehir! His characterization of the Catholic theology of the developing world as conservative and indifferent to the issues of the modern West is particularly egregious. Having being persecuted into silence during Pope Benedict's reign, Francis represented a warm and fitting homecoming for one of our contemporary Christianity's greatest theological movements: Latin American-birthed liberation theology. As Francis once said, "I would like a church that is poor and for the poor."
You can't argue with many of Liam's institutional points, yet, in chronicling the compromises the systemic constraints and frustrations he undoubtedly faced, as well as listing his own inconsistencies, you feel that Liam has missed the wood for the trees!
My cousin's wife from Panama City reflected on Francis's death this way: "Sad for us. Happy for him. We will miss him but know he has prepared things for after his death."
"Prepared things"...
liberation theology in from the cold, cardinals from the developing world now bountifully represented, seeds of a new, more radically inclusive ecclesiology having being sown ("synodality"), pastoral practice and values given new prominence in interpreting and applying doctrine, women occupying new places of leadership and power within the Vatican and elsewhere, the church with a new, humbler "face" to the world, the European stranglehold on the Vatican finally broken...
I do believe history may come to characterize him as "Francis the Great'.
Mark
www.tumblingages.co.nz
(Sorry, Peter, will get to your thoughts on the resurrection soon - a lot to take in this week!)
Thank you for thoughtful links +Peter, and for your antidote to Liam’s article Mark. As a non-Catholic, knowing only the media profile of Francis, I didn’t really know what he had done for the Catholic Church. The headline to Liam’s article, ‘a shuffler, a coward, a snob’ only comes near the end as applied to Peter, but seems to me to imply that Francis didn’t do very well but that’s all right because he is only a man. It’s a common human failing to be more aware of someone’s faults than of their virtues. But, as Mark says, only time will tell if what Francis did was valuable or not to the Church as a whole and to the world.
Hi Moya
Yes we wait and see if the Franciscan era continues and how. I found the Hehir title so rude.
This is a touching statement and interview from two well respected English cardinals who knew him, one very well:
https://youtu.be/neJx1NhdaCw?si=NTqYGV2qtJkwQIKj
And of course, I'm blogging away on this too:
https://www.tumblingages.co.nz/blog-2/death-of-pope-francis-francis-the-great
NZ religious leaders (across the board, across denominations)respond to the death of Francis. He really was so inspiring and to more than just Catholics! Hard to see this response to the death/resignation of previous Pipes or archbishops of Canterbury too...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/pope-francis-death-local-religious-leaders-pay-tribute-to-late-pontiff/6CJ25FA6PVHDHBMCRH4VBXT3KA/
From Liam Hehir’s article on Francis is this quote:
“Where John Paul II issued bold encyclicals leaving no room for misunderstanding, and Benedict XVI penned theological treatises with crystalline precision,” Francis obviously didn’t!
But I am reading Volume One of Iain McGilchrist’s ‘The Matter with Things - our brains, our delusions and the unmaking of the world’ about the two hemispheres of the brain. He points out that the left hemisphere has taken precedence in Western thinking for the last few centuries and those two earlier popes exhibit the qualities of the left very clearly in that quote. ‘No room for misunderstanding’ and ‘crystalline precision’! But Francis, I suspect, was right hemisphere dominant in his empathy and emotional awareness of the poor of the world. That’s the big picture of the right hemisphere too. (And I wonder about John XXIII as well?)
McGilchrist says we need both the precision and detail of the left and the feeling and big picture of the right, but the right needs to be dominant in normal life. (Sorry for very inadequate use of his amazing research!)
That brings me to the four gospels. McGilchrist also shows in one part that putting things in words creates a distance between us and the experience we are describing, (except perhaps in poetry). This suggests that we need to be careful in talking about the words of the gospels without taking into account the experience they are describing. And, furthermore, they wrote to invite us into that experience, John specifically in Ch.20.
I know Muslims who feel a sense of peace when reading Scripture, whether or not they believe in Jesus as we do. They may also feel that same peace when prayed for in his name, (prayer which they are happy to receive). They are having an experience of him!
And maybe that is why Lloyd Geering is still with us? Needing experience?
Gosh, Peter, what websites have you been reading! Adding a lurid conservative American theological piece (Carl Trueman's) alongside a conservative political commentor's assessment (Liam Hehir's) is hardly a "comparison". It does tell us that, in small, well-funded Western circles, Francis was not well liked, and his death is being welcomed. Not very edifying.
Gosh, Trueman's depiction of Francis as a liberal Protestant is truly laughable. It would also make most Latin Americans scratch their heads in confusion if not wonder.
The Roman Catholics I'm in touch with - in Britain and Latin America - feel sad, but appreciative, and also hopeful that his amazing remaking of the church will go on. Less than a half of voting cardinals are now European. That is quite extraordinary.
What an interesting reflection, Moya. Thank you!
Hi Mark
I read a variety of websites, news sources, etc [my main overseas newspaper is The Guardian]; and I come across all sorts of interesting articles, comments etc via Twitter/X, as well as via some news services I subscribe to who send me emails etc.
My interest in a more conservative approach to review of Pope Francis' life and ministry is driven by two factors: one, many comments in mainstream media and by "mainstream" people (such as PMs and former PMs) are, expectedly, laudatory (and rightly so), so some different comment keeps us thinking about the "whole" of Francis' ministry - noting, by the way, that even an admirer such as myself finds his leniency re some sexual abusers and alleged sexual abusers to be inexplicable.
Secondly, I sense that, notwithstanding the significant number of voting cardinals appointed during Francis' time as pope, there will be a "conservative-lean" away from Francis' "liberal-lean". Only by connecting with conservative critique of Francis's papal ministry will we get a pre-conclave sense of where that new lean might go.
O, I see. I thought these articles were meant as more a review of Francis's papacy.
Here's the make up of voting cardinals:
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/documentation/cardinali---statistiche/composizione-per-area.html
Only 114 from Europe, 28 from North America, out of 252 in all. So the balance is with the developing world.
I imagine Trueman's and Hehir's views would find a sympathetic ear with some North American and even a smaller number of European cardinals. But who knows. We might be best just watching Conclave!
Having already read about the terrible Rupnik case a while ago, I wasn't hoping for a glowing account of Francis. Hehir was acceptable for me. He linked to a Rupnik article - from that I quote (applies also to CofE institutional culture):
"There may be many exalted priests who have discovered that a little charm and a little power will buy you an endless stream of victims and an endless wall of protection, and even the pope — even this pope — won’t turn over the next rock until someone asks him about it. And then he will say he is shocked, shocked to find that sexual abuse is going on in here."
The old must make way for the new. May protectionist culture and reputation management be replaced with genuine love, listening, truth, timely justice and restitution, repentance and amendment of life.
P.S. Out of 252 cardinals 135 are eligible (below age 80 to vote) and 108 of them are Francis appointees.
A 2/3rds majority is needed for a new Pope.
Thanks for this focus on the resurrection narratives, Peter.
Reading them all again in one sitting, one thing I'm left with is how many different stories there are, different memories, moments, places, and appearances. Different things said to different apostles - with some elbow shuffling between them (thinking of the end to John's Gospel). And then the Gospel of John ends with: but there's many more things Jesus did too, and not enough books in the world to contain them all.
It seems hopeless to try construct one consistent narrative arc at this point in the story. It seems like a comet has hit, or something has now exploded, and there's pieces here, there and everywhere. It does seem that "simple history" is no longer appropriate, if it ever was, to capture all that is going on.
Hi Moya I think your point about the ‘words’ without taking into account the ‘experience’ is an interesting addition to all the pondering! I have to confess I have little interest in examining the word only scriptural differentiations which in itself is interesting as I am a word person. Once when I did a year of OT study and they went into documentary hypothesis about how the Pentateuch was written (four historical documents edited through the years) I disagreed and ignored that part of the teaching 😏. I haven’t put a finger on why I have this reaction but I think you provide some insight, as comparing the construction of language without entering into the contextual experience of the whole of each one seems empty. It seems to parallel thought that certain prophecies were actually back written (e.g. after the event) and something, in my spirit, protests that. As different historical evidence comes to light about the accuracy of biblical writings I continued to be fascinated. I also agree with you regarding Lloyd Geering, despite his long time association with all things faith his interaction in this space appears (in as much as I can discern from limited information!) in an intellectual space alone, e.g. science has outdated, out proved resurrection; limiting truth to the rational space as opposed to their also being spiritual experiential truth - such as Jesus’s words I am the Truth. I suppose all this means I am a sola scripture person 😜… albeit taking into consideration different writing forms and context …
As for Pope Francis my knowledge of his life and actions is very limited but a rounder picture is forming with all the comments and links.
I was just looking over some of the gospel passages you've mentioned, +Peter and the "messiness" is a thing.. I've always found it a bit off-putting. What's really compelling for me are the NT accounts of Jesus being seen after returning to heaven - Paul, and Stephen. Those are wonderfully surprising, personal, narratives!
I think you would like ‘Reading Genesis’ by Marilynne Robinson, Jean. It’s a long meditation on the KJV text, with the suggestion that it was put together by old rabbis who pondered deeply what to include that revealed truth about the God they knew. Marilynne is a lover of God and a novelist, a great combination for looking into Scripture.
I tend to think with you about the Bible and more so recently. Glad you liked what I shared from Iain McGilchrist.
Thanks Moya I will look the book up!
Some years ago I had the privilege of visiting the Tyne Cot war cemetery in Passchendaele in the Ypres Salient in Belgium, and I remember this every Anzac Day. We recall, of course, the Gallipoli landing in 1915, but the greatest losses of NZ forces would be the First Battle of Passchendale in 1917. I was struck by the sheer number of names in the NZ Memorial in the apse - over 1100, and a great number from Otago and Southland - and the row on row of crosses, many without names, marked with the silver fern. NZ's losses in the war were immense for a population of only about a million. We must rightly condemn the folly and malice that visits war on the world, but we must also remember with gratitude the young men and women who suffered at the behest of their nation. We should also pray that in such a secular country as New Zealand, Anzac Day would raise troubling, God-ward questions in the secular mind.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Reading about both Francis and Justin Welby, shows each one failed disastrously in the institutions they served. However both of them genuinely loved the Lord and endeavoured to share that love where possible. We can, and do, ask a lot more from those who are frontline leaders, but I think that love took them into God’s Kingdom purposes further than we may ever realise, in spite of their failures. Who among us would necessarily do better?
Interesting OP I found responding to ++JW's resignation (from a search prompted by reading your comment Moya - thanks):
"agenda-driven episcopacy, rather than a listening episcopacy"
"It is not the first such organisation to make its own wellbeing rather than the survivors of abuse a priority, nor will it probably be the last. We’ve seen it before with schools, for example. The Roman Catholic church has also been culpable and reading the Makin review, I found so much that was all too familiar from my own reporting on Catholic scandals: the failure to act, not taking children’s suffering seriously, making the reputation of the institution a priority, delay in bringing people to justice that leads to other children being exposed to abuse."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/13/justin-welby-archbishop-resignation-church-of-england
On Pope Francis as a great lover of Jesus, and about *relationship* (with Jesus, each other, and the planet) as the key to his thought...might win a few fans here:
https://youtu.be/29xYyPduph4?si=2hx5YqGJetrJHZpa
Really enjoyed your video link, Mark. Thank you!
3:19
"... according to Pope Francis we go out and help others not because we're social justice warriors, not because it's what good people do, not because we want to increase the number of people in the pews. We do this because Jesus has loved us and because we love him so much..."
Lovely Liz. Yeah, when people call him a liberal and a progressive it's like, um, well, that's wasn't what he was thinking!
Here's another interesting video, a unique insiders perspective and on what happens next:
https://youtu.be/qeklIZsaOD4?si=Smgv8IN7lsCr7sNu
And a fairly comprehensive review of Francis's mixed record on sexual abuse in the church:
https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/pope-francis-leaves-complicated-legacy-addressing-sexual-abuse-crisis
Sorry Liz, the Pope thoughts are misguided and wrong. I’m a first responder (amongst other things), I help people because I have empathy towards other fellow humans and not because I want to earn the favour of some god.
Regards Thomas.
Neither Welby nor Francis showed much interest in (or aptitude for) theology; they wanted instead to engage the world with a populist faith, and therein lie both the strengths and weaknesses of that approach. It is easy to speak in sympathetic generalities about "the poor", "the refugee" and "the marginalised", but much more demanding to ask what these terms mean today and how economic disparities are really tackled. People forget that Francis was an Argentine and a leftist Peronista to the end, and his compatriot Javier Milei sees the world through rather different eyes. Too often Welby and Francis used their offices to express political opinions which were only thinly and insecurely based in theology.
Too often, also, Francis traded in informal and chatty homilies that captured the attention of journalists with their soundbites but left serious thinkers very dissatisfied. To cite the example above: people who love Jesus want other people to love *him too and the best way to "help others" is quite simply to encourage them into their own living, worshipping relationship with Christ within the communion of the Church, where the graces of the Holy Spirit and the call to discipleship can be fully experienced. And I am sure Francis would have agreed with this. We should never disparage or diminish efforts to bring our neighbours to church. Rather, the question the Magisterium should address is why most westerners are apathetic or hostile to the Christian faith. And that calls for serious theology and serious engagement with our culture. Most Catholics are reluctant to do this because they are conscious of the Church's bad reputation over sexual abuse and they fear the power of the secular political left, which makes no secret of its hatred of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. Anti-"sexual conversion" laws in New South Wales and laws forbidding prayer near abortion clinics in Britain are quite simply satanic in their inspiration and few Catholics or other Christians want to risk their livelihood or freedom over matters that were once considered the simple exercise of conscience.
Bishop Robert Barron is one of the sharpest and most articulate exponents of the orthodox Catholic Faith today in the Anglophone and beyond. His most recent piece in "First Things" is, I think, a fair and balanced assessment of Francis and I encourage people here to read it.
Bishop Barron affirms that Francis was orthodox and traditional in all the essentials to the end, and marked by simplicity and a love for the poor and the outcast (as were his predecessors). Where he fell short was in foolish blunders (Pachamama, Amoris Laetitia), puzzling ambiguities and thoughtless comments (such as giving the impression of being religiously indifferent on his trip to Asia), leaving others to clean up the mess. But worst of all, he let down others he should have supported (Cardinal Zen in Hong Kong, in the face of Communist persecution of the Church), and, as Bishop points out, he was too frequently disparaging of faithful conservative Catholics. A good pastor shouldn't do that.
But read Bishop Barron for yourselves.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Good for you, Thomas - although I suspect you have confused 'empathy' with 'sympathy', which are two somewhat different intellectual and affective exercises. (The first term 'empathy' denotes the imaginative placing of oneself within another's mental and social world for the purposes of understanding and help, and is frequently an essential ingredient in social care and related therapies. What I require of first responders is much more strictly defined: that they be quick, competent, respectful and honourable. It is a shame that the word 'sympathy' has become degraded in much modern discourse.)
For myself, I know I am not as good as I think I am, and my own feelings of sympathy for others can be as inconstant as the weather. I would be a poorer worker than I am if sympathy alone was my lodestar. It is no bad thing to wish to earn the respect of family, friends and colleagues, and not to take them from granted. (It is not even a bad thing to fear punishment for failing to fulfil one's duty.) Like you, I don't "want to earn the favour of some god", certainly not one that doesn't exist. But I do want to hear our heavenly Father say 'well done, good and faithful servant.' The Christian knows that the Eternal God is the ultimate reality (it is certainly not I or Thomas) and the best of our fluctuating emotions (such as sympathy with suffering) is a sign of the imago Dei in us.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Hi Thomas, I'm immensely grateful for the wonderful work done by first responders.
Re my quote from the video, "we" refers to people who believe in, and love, Jesus. The Bible's clear that we can't earn God's favour but it's a gift made possible through the death and resurrection of Jesus. E.g. John 3:16-17...
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Romans 5:5 mentions "...the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us".
So I'd understand Pope Francis to be describing love that flows out to others from a genuinely transformed heart (and not simply conforming with moral rules or "for the sake of gospel witness").
Hello William,
I have been thinking of you in our comments here, wondering how you are doing with this news. You perhaps watched the Requiem last night with its moving, simple, but also very grand liturgy.
My favourite moments where when communion was distributed in the square - like feeding the five thousand - the moment when the Eastern Catholics sung, the sermon which summarized the great life and mission of Francis, and the book on the coffin with its pages being blown spontaneously, now and then, by the wind.
This morning too: Francis's body being finally received at Santa Maria Maggiore by the poor and needy of Rome, and images of Trump and Zelensky sitting closely together in dialogue before the funeral. Pax et bonum, we hope!
To your points above, William, including Bishop Barron's perspectives, which have been consistently voiced - obviously you and I are in very different places around this, but what I want to say is: I don't think the world or the church need more doctrinal clarity. I think they need someone who can hold that but also genuinely walk in the way of Christ, and into the most godforsaken, despised places. Francis was Christ-like in this respect. This sort of realness - walking the talk - makes people stop and look and listen, is very disarming, whatever people may believe. Or, in Francis's language, and surely Jesus's too, people are saved through transformative love and encounter. And this is very disarming and powerful when it comes from a Pope.
Hi, Mark,
Yes, such an occasion reminds one again of the universality of the Christian faith and the new centre of world Christianity in Africa and Asia.
The Eternal City never fails to move me, for all kinds of reasons - it's a city of inexhaustible treasures and associations, across all its 2,778 years (if Livy's chronology is to be believed). I was at St Peter's one Advent when the Christmas tree was being installed in the Piazza and the crib was being constructed inside. African and Indian nuns were everywhere. Of course the Pietà drew the constant attention of tourists, but it was only very recently I learnt that the outsized dimensions of the statue mean it was really intended to be viewed from above, not from ground level. Divine humility? Santa Maria Maggiore is a beautiful basilica but alas, I only got inside it five minutes before closing. I didn't throw any coins into the Trevi fountain but I still hope to return one day. Will we see peace in Ukraine soon? I certainly pray so, the losses have been indescribable. I wonder if Putin is holding out until 9 May, a kind of secular holy day in Russia (and the 80th anniversary of VE Day), to claim some kind of "victory" after causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. I heard a youtube broadcaster the other day suggest that East European men are probably among the most stoic people in the world, and if you reflect on the tragic history of those lands, the reason is not hard to find.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Thanks William, for the mention of Bishop Barron.
I read that article and then these others, also by Bp Barron...
About Pope Francis.
"In the end, I believe we should appreciate him as a man deeply marked by his Jesuit training to identify with the person of Jesus Christ..." [22 April, 2025]
*
And, from "Logos and love – A meditation for Christmas" [25 December, 2024]
"Now we must remember the distinctive Christmas message conveyed by St. John. The Word is indeed with God from the beginning, but this same Word became flesh, and it did so in a very particular way.
"The primal Logos, the mind of the Creator, the eternal ground of intelligibility manifested itself as a baby too weak to raise his own head, an infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. This means that the Pattern of patterns, that which shines through any and all expressions of rationality in the cosmos, is self-emptying love.
"On a voluntaristic reading, the overarching pattern of reality is power and self-assertion, but according to the vision of reality communicated by St. John’s Christmas Gospel, that is dangerous nonsense. In point of fact, the template according to which the stars and planets and galaxies were designed is a love that gives itself away.
*
"The Pattern of patterns ... is self-emptying love." Such a fine meditation.
[Articles here: https://www.foxnews.com/person/b/bishop-robert-barron]
Barron's reference to "the stars and planets" is an allusion to the last line of The Divine Comedy, "l'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle'. IOW, love makes the world go round.
I first came across Dante in an old translation housed with the other poetry on the mezzanine floor of the old public library in Dunedin. We used to go there after school ostensibly to do our homework but in reality to chat with the girls from OGHS snd St Dom's. I think Dante would have understood. At least the patient librarians did.
Barron's point about the Logos being the agent of creation means that reality is ultimately intelligible (Gk. logikos), an idea I have often used in teaching.
Connecting cosmic rationality to divine self-giving love (fulfilled in the Cross) is a move of genius, and it shows why those who fail to love God (and substitute true worship with love of tribe or self) fail to be truly human.
Pax et bonum
William Greenhalgh
Thanks William. No doubt you'd guessed I've not read The Divine Comedy, it's good to know about that extra layer of meaning!
Post a Comment