TRÁI TIM MẸ:  NƠI CON NƯƠNG NÁU - ĐƯỜNG ĐẾN VỚI CHÚA

"Chúa Giêsu muốn dùng con để làm cho Mẹ được nhận biết và yêu mến"

December 14, 2008 –  3rd Sunday of  Advent      DAILY LITURGICAL/THEME MEDITATION: Who are you? And in whose name do you speak? UNIVERSAL CHURCH/WORLD EVENT(S): Church Calls for More Biomedical Scientists SAINT OF THE DAY St. John of the Cross  GENERAL MARIOLOGY The Predestination of the Virgin Mother and Her Immaculate Conception Possibility/Fittingness, or the Reason of the Immaculate Conception DIVINE MERCY On Holy Spirit Faithful To The Spirit's Inspirations  TEACHING/TESTIMONY/CONVICTION: Father Cantalamessa's 2nd Advent Sermon   Monthly Index

DAILY LITURGICAL MEDITATION

Sunday (12/14): Who are you? And in whose name do you speak? Scripture: John 1:6-8, 19-28 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him.  8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. 19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20 He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21 And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No." 22 They said to him then, "Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23 He said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, `Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said." 24 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25 They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?" 26 John answered them, "I baptize with water; but among you stands one whom you do not know, 27 even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." 28 This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. Old Testament Reading: Isaiah 61:1-2,10-11 1 The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; 2 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; Meditation: "Who are you?" John the Baptist had no difficulty answering this question when the religious authorities came to investigate him.   If someone called your identity into question, how would you answer?  Do you know your roots, your true identity as God knows it? We often mistake our true identity for something that's manufactured. True identity is derived; it's source and maker is God who made us in his own image.  When the Jewish leaders questioned John's identity, they wanted to know if he was really sent by God.  John claimed to speak in God's name and act as his representative.  The religious leaders wanted to know if John claimed to be the Messiah or one of the great prophets who was expected to return and announce the Messiah's arrival (see Malachi 4:5, Deuteronomy 18:15). John had no mistaken identity.  In all humility and sincerity he said he was only a voice bidding people to get ready for the arrival of  the greatest Ruler of all, God's anointed King and Messiah. John the Baptist bridges the Old and New Testaments. He is the last of the Old Testament Prophets who points the way to the Messiah. He is the first of the New Testament witnesses and martyrs. He is the herald who prepares the way for Jesus and who announces his mission to the people: Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!  John saw from a distance what the Messiah came to accomplish — our redemption from slavery to sin and our adoption as sons and daughters of God, our heavenly Father.  Do you recognize your identity as a child of God and a citizen of heaven? John was the greatest of the prophets, yet he lived as a humble and faithful servant of God. He pointed others to Jesus, the true Messiah and Savior of the world. The Christian church from the earliest of times has given John many titles which signify his mission: Witness of the Lord, Trumpet of Heaven, Herald of Christ, Voice of the Word, Precursor of Truth, Friend of the Bridegroom, Crown of the Prophets, Forerunner of the Redeemer, Preparer of Salvation, Light of the Martyrs, and Servant of the Word. Do you point others to Jesus Christ by the example and witness you give to others? "Lord Jesus, make me a herald of your word of truth and grace. Help me to be a faithful witness of the joy of the gospel and to point others to you as John did through his testimony." Psalm 98:1-4 1 O sing to the LORD a new song, for he has done marvelous things! His right hand and his holy arm have gotten him victory. 2 The LORD has made known his victory, he has revealed his vindication in the sight of the nations. 3 He has remembered his steadfast love and faithfulness to the house of Israel. All the ends of the earth have seen the victory of our God. 4 Make a joyful noise to the LORD, all the earth; break forth into joyous song and sing praises! 5 Sing praises to the LORD with the lyre, with the lyre and the sound of melody! 6 With trumpets and the sound of the horn make a joyful noise before the King, the LORD!   RETURN TO TOP

UNIVERSAL CHURCH/WORLD EVENTS

Church Calls for More Biomedical Scientists Wants Benefits of Research to Reach the Poor   VATICAN CITY, DEC. 12, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Far from discouraging scientific research, the Church is expressing its hope that many Christians dedicate themselves to biomedicine and that the results of such research can also be used to benefit the poor. This is one of the affirmations in a Sept. 8 document released today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and titled "Dignitas Personae." The document is an update of the 1987 instruction "Donum Vitae," and aims to provide responses to "new bioethical questions," thereby contributing in the formation of conscience and the encouragement of biomedical research that respects the "dignity of every human being and of procreation." The instruction has three parts: "The first recalls some anthropological, theological and ethical elements of fundamental importance; the second addresses new problems regarding procreation; the third examines new procedures involving the manipulation of embryos and the human genetic patrimony." The first part of the document outlines two fundamental principles: Firstly, that the human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception, with the consequent respect of his or her rights. Secondly, the authentic context for the origin of human life is in marriage and the family. Down to detail Parts two and three of the document consider various procedures and techniques, giving an explanation and evaluation of each one. It first looks at new problems concerning procreation, where it considers techniques for assisting fertility, in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, the freezing of embryos and oocytes, the so-called reduction of embryos, pre-implantation diagnosis, and new forms of interception and contragestation. "In the face of this manipulation of the human being in his or her embryonic state, it needs to be repeated that God's love does not differentiate between the newly conceived infant still in his or her mother's womb and the child or young person, or the adult and the elderly person," the document states. "God does not distinguish between them because he sees an impression of his own image and likeness." In this section, for example, the Vatican congregation encourages "research and investment directed at the prevention of sterility." It also urges openness to adoption so that "many children who lack parents may receive a home." On the other hand, it considers a "situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved": the thousands of frozen embryos who are "left over" from in vitro fertilization processes. Citing Pope John Paul II, the document laments that "there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of 'frozen' embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons." Preimplantation diagnosis is another morally problematic issue, the instruction explains. "Unlike other forms of prenatal diagnosis, […] diagnosis before implantation is immediately followed by the elimination of an embryo suspected of having genetic or chromosomal defects, or not having the sex desired, or having other qualities that are not wanted. Preimplantation diagnosis [...] is directed toward the qualitative selection and consequent destruction of embryos, which constitutes an act of abortion." The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also explained that so-called contraception methods that act after fertilization fall within the category of abortion. "Even if such interceptives may not cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse, it must be noted, however, that 'anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.'" "In the case of contragestatives what takes place in reality is the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted [...] the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral." Manipulating people The document's third part regards the manipulation of the embryo or human genetic patrimony. This section considers such issues as human cloning, the use of stem cells, attempts at making human-animal hybrids, and the use of "biological material" of illicit origin, such as aborted fetuses. In the instruction's look at stem cells, it affirms that methods "which do not cause serious harm to the subject from whom the stem cells are taken are to be considered licit." But, "the obtaining of stem cells from a living human embryo [...] invariably causes the death of the embryo and is consequently gravely illicit." In any case, the document recalled, numerous studies "have shown that adult stem cells give more positive results than embryonic stem cells." In the document's consideration of the use of human "biological material" of illicit origin, it notes that "experimentation on human embryos 'constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person.'" However, the document notes that sometimes grave reasons "may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such 'biological material.'" "Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their health care system make other types of vaccines available." RETURN TO TOP

DAILY LITURGICAL SAINT

December 14, 2008 St. John of the Cross (1541-1591)   John is a saint because his life was a heroic effort to live up to his name: “of the Cross.” The folly of the cross came to full realization in time. “Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me” (Mark 8:34b) is the story of John’s life. The Paschal Mystery—through death to life—strongly marks John as reformer, mystic-poet and theologian-priest. Ordained a Carmelite priest at 25 (1567), John met Teresa of Jesus (Avila) and like her vowed himself to the primitive Rule of the Carmelites. As partner with Teresa and in his own right, John engaged in the work of reform, and came to experience the price of reform: increasing opposition, misunderstanding, persecution, imprisonment. He came to know the cross acutely—to experience the dying of Jesus—as he sat month after month in his dark, damp, narrow cell with only his God! Yet, the paradox! In this dying of imprisonment John came to life, uttering poetry. In the darkness of the dungeon, John’s spirit came into the Light. There are many mystics, many poets; John is unique as mystic-poet, expressing in his prison-cross the ecstasy of mystical union with God in the Spiritual Canticle. But as agony leads to ecstasy, so John had his Ascent to Mt. Carmel, as he named it in his prose masterpiece. As man-Christian-Carmelite, he experienced in himself this purifying ascent; as spiritual director, he sensed it in others; as psychologist-theologian, he described and analyzed it in his prose writings. His prose works are outstanding in underscoring the cost of discipleship, the path of union with God: rigorous discipline, abandonment, purification. Uniquely and strongly John underlines the gospel paradox: The cross leads to resurrection, agony to ecstasy, darkness to light, abandonment to possession, denial to self to union with God. If you want to save your life, you must lose it. John is truly “of the Cross.” He died at 49—a life short, but full. Comment: John in his life and writings has a crucial word for us today. We tend to be rich, soft, comfortable. We shrink even from words like self-denial, mortification, purification, asceticism, discipline. We run from the cross. John’s message—like the gospel—is loud and clear: Don’t—if you really want to live! Quote: Thomas Merton said of John: "Just as we can never separate asceticism from mysticism, so in St. John of the Cross we find darkness and light, suffering and joy, sacrifice and love united together so closely that they seem at times to be identified." In John's words: "Never was fount so clear, undimmed and bright; From it alone, I know proceeds all light although 'tis night." “So may it be with you, beloved daughters. Blessed be the discretion, the mortifications and the renouncements with which you seek to render this virtue more brilliant.... May your conduct prove to all that chastity is not only a possible virtue but a social virtue, which must be strongly defended through prayer, vigilance and the mortification of the senses” (Pope John XXIII, Letter to Women Religious). RETURN TO TOP

GENERAL MARIOLOGY

The Predestination of the Virgin Mother and Her Immaculate Conception  By Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner, F.I.  Possibility/Fittingness, or the Reason of the Immaculate Conception St. Anselm is considered the first of the great Western scholastics. With him begins a systematic discussion of the possibility and fittingness of the mystery of the Immaculate Conception: not the fact of Mary’s all-holiness, but how this could be in view of the dilemma arising from the universality of original sin. It is Anselm who first set forth (57) a theory of original sin centered on the privation of original justice rather than the infectio carnis of St. Augustine as the cause (and not merely condition) of its universality, an exposition capable of illustrating how Mary could descend from Adam, yet not contract original sin. This, too, will be the point of departure for the classic theory of Scotus. In the Scotistic development of this theory the infectio carnis is the condition for, not cause of, contracting original sin at conception. Because the children of Adam after Adam’s sin are conceived without the state of original justice, therefore they are lacking in the necessary prerequisite ordained by God for the conferral of sanctifying grace. The absence of original justice, otherwise called the debt of contracting original sin, not the infectio carnis, is reason for the non-conferral of sanctifying grace. Without sanctifying grace the newly conceived find themselves in the state of sin. Mary does not fall under this arrangement touching all who come under the moral headship of the first Adam, because the grace of the Immaculate Conception merited for her by her Son constitutes a moral state higher than that of original justice, and so brings with it not merely sanctifying grace, but a fullness of that grace constituting Mary under Christ a Mediatrix of grace for others. It is worth noting also, that the structure of argumentation concerning the all-holiness of the Virgin in Anselm, a purity greater than which none can be conceived and only God can conceive, exactly parallels that of his basic argument (58) for the existence of God: a being greater than which none can be conceived and which only God can conceive. Both arguments are developed by Scotus (59) to the full, and are at the heart of his exposition of the two great parts of theology: that of the Trinity and that of the economy of salvation (theologia de necessariis; theologia de contingentibus—theology of necessary being; theology of contingent being). Anselm, then, stands at a juncture in the development of the witness of Tradition to this great mystery of faith. He initiates a new discussion of the holiness of Mary’s conception. Though he denies that this conception is immaculate, at the same time he clearly testifies to the received Tradition, Western as well as Eastern: Mary is the Panhaghia. Anselm himself may not have been aware of the implications of that maximal purity he assigned to Mary, as this was expressly understood in the East. Anselm does not tell us whether or what might be the limits on devotion to Mary: her need of redemption, or simply her dignity as Mother of the incarnate Savior prior to any consideration of the fall and redemption of the human family. In any case it is important to note that on the eve of the medieval controversies in the West over the feast of the conception of Mary, the mystery of her initial sanctity at conception was commonly affirmed in the East in a manner presupposing the absolute primacy of Christ (60): 1) explicit affirmations in proper terms: exempt from all stain of original sin from the first moment of conception; Mary never contracted original sin or inherited Adam’s sin; 2) explicit affirmations in equivalent terms: Mary was always in grace, i.e., pleasing or acceptable before God; Mary was justified in the first moment of her conception; Mary escaped the curse, the judgment and condemnation accompanying the sin of Adam; among all the descendants of Adam, Mary alone is blessed; Mary was always blessed; 3) implicit affirmations: Mary is holier than any other creature; Mary is holier than the seraphim and cherubim, so holy one could conceive of no one holier; Mary is the intermediary through whom the human race is reconciled to God, through whom the ancient curse is withdrawn, through whom original sin is erased; Mary is all holy (Panhaghia), all immaculate (Panachranta); Mary is the pure virgin earth from whom and by whom the New Adam is formed all pure. These affirmations may be arranged in terms of their positive and negative formulations: 1) explicit affirmations in negative form (which the eventual dogmatic definition took): Mary is exempt from original sin, from death, from concupiscence, from slavery to the Devil; 2) explicit affirmations in positive form: Mary was always just, always in grace before God, was clothed with original justice from conception, was created similar to Eve before the sin of Adam, was always in paradise; 3) implicit affirmations in positive form: Mary is all-holy, all-beautiful, the ideal of humanity; 4) implicit affirmations in negative form: Mary is immaculate, without stain. Explanation of the Possibility and Fittingness (Reason) of the Mystery Although the first assertions (at least plausible) of the sinless conception of Mary occur almost simultaneously both in the East and West (Ephrem and Ambrose), it is in the West that difficulties concerning both the possibility and appropriateness of an immaculate conception were raised and its truth systematically denied. Previous to the appearance of twelfth century maculism—the theory claiming to explain the feast of Mary's conception in terms of a sanctification in the womb after conception in original sin—the fact of the Immaculate Conception had been denied in the West sporadically rather than systematically.  This is to say, it was denied only when it was perceived to contradict the commonly accepted theory for the transmission of original sin via carnal generation infected by concupiscence.  This is what Augustine seems to have claimed for concupiscence after the fall: an all pervading presence of concupiscence in its consequences (actu) in the baptized after Baptism, even if no longer linked to a state of guilt (reatu). The Augustinian explanation of the transmission of original sin by carnal descent from Adam, not only as a condition for, but as the cause of the contraction of original sin in each of his descendants, has since the time of Scotus gradually come to be recognized as defective, not because Augustine’s theory of concupiscence was necessarily false, but because he failed to account for an important distinction, which the contemplation of the Immaculate Conception across history has made clear. Augustine did not clearly affirm the Immaculate Conception; neither did he deny it directly and systematically, so limiting her absolute sinlessness. What we find in the West until the rise of systematic maculism is an affirmation of theological contradictories: the inclusion of Mary in the absolute primacy of Christ and consequent on that her unique holiness as a state of life prior to and independent of that of the first Adam; and her descent by carnal generation from Adam or conception in original sin. The distinction of these last two points: carnal generation from Adam and conception in original sin was either not made or was denied. Hence to say, as faith requires, that Mary is a daughter of Adam by carnal descent, seems also to say that she was conceived in original sin. Or, if she is immaculate, then she is not a descendant of Adam and consequently neither the mediation of her Son nor her own are relevant to our redemption. This is the dilemma we meet in Anselm as well (61), a monastic theologian who, as already noted, may be called the first of the scholastics. He affirmed with the whole of tradition the absolute all-holiness of Mary as the New Eve, rooted ultimately in her inclusion in the absolute primacy of Christ. A purity greater than which none is conceivable would not logically be such, should it be shown that an immaculate conception is impossible, incompatible de facto with a salvation only accomplished via a redemptive sacrifice. Apparently Anselm did think this impossible in virtue of the received explanation for the contraction of original sin. He did not advert, so it seems, to the serious doubt cast on this impossibility by his own explanation for the existence of original sin in the descendents of Adam: the privation of original justice by coming under the moral headship of Adam. It would be the merit of Scotus to point out clearly for the first time that the contraction of original sin is caused in each of us by coming under the moral headship of the first Adam before coming under that of the second Adam. Were we not under that headship and so deprived of original justice, the condition for the infusion of sanctifying grace at conception, we would not contract original sin, no matter how infected by concupiscence the process of carnal generation and descent. Generation is but the condition for coming under the moral headship of Adam, not the reason for contracting original sin. That reason is simply the fact that the moral headship of Adam after his sin no longer includes the state of original justice, the condition decreed by God for conception in the state of grace. Mary, in virtue of a preservative, more excellent form of redemption, comes under the headship of Christ in a manner logically prior to becoming a descendent of the first Adam, and so although truly descending from him by carnal generation, does not contract original sin, because in her a higher form of justice not dependent on Adam is verified (62). Eadmer, the secretary of St. Anselm and author of the first theological treatise (63) dealing directly with the conception of the Virgin, expressly supported the sinless character of Mary’s conception. He denied quite clearly that she was conceived in the state of original sin. But he did not explain how such could be possible in descending carnally from Adam. Rather he insisted once again on the revealed fact of the Virgin’s unique sanctity qua New Eve, jointly predestined with the Christ before the ages. Some have said that Eadmer’s treatise is a reply to the denial of the Immaculate Conception by St. Bernard in his letter to the cathedral canons of Lyon. This, however, does not seem to be the case, particularly because Eadmer does not deal with the principal reason adduced by Bernard for not celebrating the feast of the Conception: Mary’s necessary contraction of original sin via carnal descent from Adam. An event cannot be celebrated liturgically unless it be holy, which conception via ordinary sexual intercourse is not. Evidently, neither could the Nativity of Mary be celebrated unless there occur an intervening "sanctification in the womb of St. Ann." Eadmer rather insists on the primacy of Christ (Prov 8) as the basis for explaining the distinctive moral state of the woman foretold in Genesis 3:15—not Eve, but the Mother of the Savior as pure beyond compare. Hence the crucial importance of these two biblical passages in all subsequent discussion of Scotistic immaculatism. The question of the Immaculate Conception is linked not only to the mystery of redemption (Gen 3:15), but even more to that of the absolute primacy of Christ (Prov 8, to which may be joined Sir 24). And hence the importance of Marian maximalism for Scotus as the methodological corollary of addressing Mary as Panhaghia, all-holy, Beatissima, most blessed, as Mary foretold in her Magnificat: "all generations shall call me blessed" (Lk 1:48). The Marian "metaphysic" of Scotus is to be located at the very center of a revealed tradition unbroken from apostolic times, and so is not the discovery of a new truth, but the illustration of one already believed in a formulary providentially appointed for the good of the Church as she prepares for the final coming of her Founder and Head. In the preparation of this formulary the contribution of Scotus is a decisive one. As in the East, so in the West the liturgical celebration of the feast of the Conception of Mary served as catalyst for this formulation (64). That celebration, as distinct from literary reminiscences, leaves no record earlier than a prayer found in the Book of Cerne dating from the first half of the ninth century. At the beginning of the eleventh century English liturgical books for Canterbury (1023) and Exeter (Leofric Missal, 1050-1073) assign the feast of the Conception to December 8. The celebration, though neither universal nor permanent, especially after the Norman conquest in 1066, nonetheless was popular and no doubt pre-existed the written record, as seems to be indicated by a reference to Mary as "spotless" in an early eighth century Anglo-Saxon poem, Crist, by Cynewulf. As with the celebration of that feast in Naples and Sicily, the feast in England had no doubt been introduced from the East. By the time of Eadmer (after the death of St. Anselm) the feast had been revived and had spread into France, where it encountered the opposition of St. Bernard. Although the earliest liturgical texts leave the precise object of the celebration ambiguous, there was no doubt in St. Bernard’s mind what objectively that celebration must entail: the admission of a stainless conception. And so he concluded, erroneously, that this included a necessary denial of original sin, all of which constitutes the position of Pelagius. Forceful and persuasive as was St. Bernard’s argumentation, it failed to carry the day. Indeed, the weakness of his argument was noted in a contemporary witticism of Nicholas of St. Albans: Our Lady’s soul was pierced by the sword of sorrow twice; the first time on Calvary when her Son was crucified for our sins, and a second time when St. Bernard denied her Immaculate Conception. The opposition of Bernard resulted neither in the suppression of the feast nor in the loss of its popularity. Instead, unlike what happened in the East after the seventh century when doubt among theologians about the sanctity of Mary at conception simply disappeared, Western opposition to the feast occasioned the rise of a maculist theology systematically denying the Immaculate Conception. As a consequence of this, the purpose of the Incarnation came to be limited to the reparation of Adam’s fall. Without this limitation, the maculist theory, defended by some even on the eve of the solemn definition of 1854, could not demonstrate why Anselm’s principal of maximal purity in Mary should not logically tend to an assertion of the Immaculate Conception. This limitation, however, has in fact no demonstrable basis in Tradition. It is merely a hypothesis to justify a denial of the Immaculate Conception. Whereas the absolute primacy of Christ is a revealed fact which amply justifies belief in the Immaculate Conception. Thus arose the paralogism: the Immaculate Conception detracts from the work of Christ as Savior of all, because it withdraws Mary from any dependence on him as Redeemer. To be redeemed, it was said, one must first have been a sinner. The impossibility of an Immaculate Conception was thus linked to the question of its appropriateness in view of the redemption. In the paralogism the only reason for the Incarnation is redemption from sin. Hence, not only is it impossible for any child of Adam to be free of original sin, it is appropriate that they should not be so in order to enhance the greatness of the Redeemer (65). (to be continued)  RETURN TO TOP

DIVINE MERCY

Dairy from St. Faustina On Holy Spirit Faithful To The Spirit's Inspirations My heart has been accustomed to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, to whom I am faithful. In the midst of the greatest din I have heard the voice of God. I always know what is going on in my interior ... (Diary, 1504). O Jesus, keep me in holy fear, so that I may not waste graces. Help me to be faithful to the inspirations of the Holy Spirit. Grant that my heart may burst for love of You, rather than I should neglect even one act of love for You (Diary, 1557). RETURN TO TOP

CATHOLIC  TEACHING/CONVICTION/TESTIMONY

Father Cantalamessa's 2nd Advent Sermon "Called by God to Communicate With his Son Jesus Christ"   VATICAN CITY, DEC. 12, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the Advent homily Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher of the Pontifical Household, delivered today in the Vatican in the presence of Benedict XVI and the Roman Curia. This is the second of three Advent sermons the preacher wrote on the theme "'When the Fullness of Time Had Come, God Sent his Son, Born of a Woman: Going With St. Paul to Meet the Christ Who Comes." The last sermon will be given Dec. 19. * * * In order to remain faithful to the method of "lectio divina" so recommended by the recent synod of bishops, we listen above all to St. Paul's words, on which we wish to reflect in this meditation: "But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own" (Philippians 3:7-12). 1. "That I may know him" Last time we meditated on Paul's conversion as a metanoia, a change of mind, in the way of conceiving salvation. Paul, however, did not convert to a doctrine, be it also the doctrine of justification through faith; he converted to a person! Before a change of thought, his was a change of heart, the encounter with a living person. Often used is the expression "stroke of lightning" to indicate a love at first sight that sweeps away every obstacle; in no case is this metaphor more appropriate than for St. Paul. Let us see how this change of heart shines from the text just heard. He speaks of the "surpassing worth" (hyperechon) of knowing Christ, and it is known that in this case, as in the whole Bible, to know does not indicate only an intellectual discovery, having an idea of something, but a vital and profound bond, an entering into relation with the object known. The same is true for the expression "that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share in his sufferings." "To know sharing in sufferings" does not mean, obviously, to have an idea, but to experience suffering. It so happened that I read this passage in a particular moment of my life in which I also found myself before a choice. I was concerned with Christology, I had written and read so much on this argument, but when I read "that I may know him," I understood all of a sudden that that simple personal pronoun "him" (autòn) contained more truth about Jesus Christ than all the books written or read about him. I understood that, for the Apostle, Christ was not an ensemble of doctrines, heresies, dogmas; he was a living person, present and very real who could be designated with a simple pronoun, as is done, when one speaks of someone who is present, indicating him with the finger. The effect of falling in love is double. On one hand there is a drastic reduction to one, a concentration on the person loved that makes all the rest of the world pass to a second plane; on the other hand, it renders one capable of suffering anything for the person loved, accepting the loss of everything. We see both these effects realized to perfection at the moment in which the Apostle discovers Christ: "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse." He has accepted the loss of his privileges of "Jew of Jews," the esteem and friendship of his teachers and fellow countrymen, the hatred and commiseration of all those who did not understand how a man like him was able to allow himself to be seduced by a sect of fanatics without art or position. In the second Letter to the Corinthians is found the impressive list of all the things suffered for Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:24-28). The Apostle himself found the word that alone contains all: "Christ has made me his own." It could also be translated as seized, fascinated, or with an expression of Jeremiah, "seduced" by Christ. Those in love do not hold back, it has been done by so many mystics at the height of their ardor. I have no difficulty, therefore, imagining Paul who, in an impetus of joy after his conversion, shouts alone to the trees on the seashore that which he would later write to the Philippians: "Christ has made me his own! Christ has made me his own!" We know well the lapidary and pregnant phrases of the Apostle that every one of us would love to be able to repeat in our own life: "For me to live is Christ" (Philippians 1:21), and "it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" (Galatians 2:20). 2. "In Christ" Now, keeping faith with all that was announced in the program of these homilies, I would like to bring to light that which Paul's thought might mean on this point, first for today's theology and then for the spiritual life of believers. Personal experience led Paul to a global vision of Christian life that he indicates with the expression "in Christ" (en Christō). The formula recurs 83 times in the Pauline corpus, without counting the similar expression "with Christ" (syn Christō) and the equivalent pronominal expressions "in him" or "in him that." It is almost impossible to translate with words the poignant content of these phrases. The preposition "in" has a meaning now local, now temporal (at the moment in which Christ dies and rises), now instrumental (through Christ). It delineates the spiritual atmosphere in which the Christian lives and acts. Paul applies to Christ that which in the address to the Areopagus of Athens he says of God, quoting a pagan author: "In him we live, and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28). Later the evangelist John would express the same vision with the image of "abiding in Christ" (John 15:4-7). Those who speak of Pauline mysticism refer to these expressions. Phrases such as "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19) are all-encompassing, they do not leave anything and anyone outside of Christ. To say that believers are "called to be saints" (Romans 1:7) is for the Apostle equivalent to saying that they are "called by God into the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:9). Rightly, beginning to be considered today, also in the heart of the Protestant world, is the vision synthesized in the expression "in Christ" or "in the Spirit" as more central and representative of Paul's thought than the doctrine itself of justification through faith. The Pauline Year might be revealed as the providential occasion to close a whole period of discussions and disagreements linked more to the past than to the present, and to open a new chapter in the use of the Apostle's thought. To return to his letters, in the first place the Letter to the Romans, for the purpose for which they were written was not, of course, that of furnishing future generations with a gymnasium in which to exercise their theological acumen, but that of edifying the faith of the community, formed in the main by simple and illiterate people. "For I long to see you," he wrote to the Romans, "that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine" (Romans 1:11-12). 3. Beyond the Reformation and Counter-Reformation I believe it is time to go beyond the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. What is at stake at the start of the third millennium is no longer the same as at the beginning of the second millennium, when at the heart of Western Christianity the separation took place between Catholics and Protestants. To give but one example, the problem is no longer that of Luther and of how to liberate man from the sense of guilt that oppresses him, but how to give again to man the true meaning of sin which has been totally lost. What sense does it make to continue to discuss how "justification of the godless comes about," when man is convinced of not having need of any justification and says with pride: "I accuse myself today and I alone can absolve myself, I the man"?[1] I believe that all the age-old discussions between Catholics and Protestants about faith and works have ended up by making us lose sight of the main point of the Pauline message, often shifting attention from Christ to doctrines on Christ, in practice, from Christ to men. That which the Apostle is anxious above all to affirm in Romans 3 is not that we are justified by faith, but that we are justified by faith in Christ; it is not so much that we are justified by grace, but that we are justified by the grace of Christ. The accent is on Christ, more than on faith and grace. After having two preceding chapters of the Letter presenting humanity in its universal state of sin and perdition, the Apostle has the incredible courage to proclaim that this situation has now radically changed "through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus," "by one man's obedience" (Romans 3:24; 5:19). The affirmation that this salvation is received by faith, and not by works, is most important, but it comes in the second place, not in the first. The error has been committed of reducing to a school problem, in the interior of Christianity, what for the Apostle was an affirmation of a more vast, cosmic and universal event. This message of the Apostle on the centrality of Christ is of great importance today. Many factors have lead in fact to put his person in parenthesis today. Christ does not come into question in any of the three liveliest dialogues taking place today between the Church and the world. Not in the dialogue between faith and philosophy, because philosophy is concerned with metaphysical concepts; not of historical reality as is the person of Jesus of Nazareth; not in the dialogue with science, with which one can only discuss the existence or nonexistence of a creator God, of a project of evolution; not, finally, in the interreligious dialogue, where we are concerned with that which religions can do together, in the name of God, for the good of humanity. Asked about what they believe in, few even among believers answered: I believe that Christ died for my sins and has risen for my justification. And few answered: I believe in the existence of God, in life after death. Yet for Paul, as for the whole of the New Testament, faith that saves is only faith in the death and resurrection of Christ: "if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9). In the past month, a symposium was held here in the Vatican, in the Pius IV Casina, promoted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, titled "Scientific Views About the Evolution of the Universe and of Life," which was attended by top scientists from around the world. I wished to interview, for the program I conduct every Saturday on TV on the Gospel, one of the participants, professor Francis Collins, director of the research group that led in 2000 to the complete deciphering of the human genome. Knowing he was a believer, I asked him, among others, the question: "Did you believe first in God or in Jesus Christ?" He answered: "Up to the age of 25 I was an atheist, I had no religious preparation, I was a scientist who reduced almost everything to equations and laws of physics. But as a doctor I began to see people that had to face the problem of life and death, and this made me think that my atheism was not a rooted idea. I began to read texts on the rational arguments of faith that I did not know. As the first result I came to the conviction that atheism was the less acceptable alternative. Little by little I came to the conclusion that a God must exist who has created all this, but I didn't know how this God was." It is useful to read, in his book "The Language of God," how he overcame this impasse: "I found it difficult to build a bridge toward God. The more I learned about him, the more his purity and holiness seemed unapproachable. Into this deepening gloom came the person of Jesus Christ. A full year had passed since I decided to believe in some sort of God, and now I was being called to account. On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains during my first trip west of the Mississippi, the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ."[2] What comes to mind is the word of Christ: "No one comes to the Father except by me." It is only in him that God becomes accessible and credible. Thanks to this rediscovered faith, the moment of the discovery of the human genome was, at the same time, he says, an experience of scientific exaltation and of religious adoration. The conversion of this scientist shows that the Damascus event is renewed in history; Christ is the same today as then. It is not easy for a scientist, especially for a biologist, to declare himself publicly today to be a believer, as it was not for Saul: one risks being immediately "thrown out of the synagogue." And, in fact, that is what happened to professor Collins who because of his profession of faith had to suffer the arrows of many supporters of laicism. 4. From the Presence of God to the Presence of Christ It remains for me to say something about the point: What does Paul's example have to say for the spiritual life of believers? One of the most treated topics in Catholic spirituality is that of the thought of the presence of God.[3] Not counted are the treatises on this argument from the 16th Century up to today. In one of these, one reads: "The good Christian must be accustomed to this holy exercise in every time and place. On awakening he turns the gaze of his soul immediately to God, he speaks and converses with him as his beloved Father. When he walks through the streets he must keep the eyes of his body down and modest elevating those of the soul to God."[4] To be distinguished is the "thought of the presence of God" from the "feeling of his presence": the first depends on us, the second, instead, is a gift of grace that does not depend on us. (It is known that for St. Gregory of Nyssa "the feeling of the presence" of God, the "aisthesis parousia," was a synonym of mystical experience). It is a rigidly theocentric vision that in some authors is driven to the counsel of "leaving to one side the holy humanity of Christ." St. Teresa of Avila reacted energetically against this idea that reappears periodically in Origen and then at the heart of Christianity, whether Eastern or Western. But the spirituality of the presence of God, also after him, will continue to be rigidly theocentric, with all the problems and the "aporie" that derive from it, brought to light by the very authors that treat it.[5] On this point St. Paul's thought can help us to overcome the difficulty that has led to the decline of the spirituality of the presence of God. He always speaks of a presence of God "in Christ." An irreversible and unsurpassable presence. There is no stage of the spiritual life in which one can make less of Christ, or go "beyond Christ." Christian life is a "hidden life with Christ in God" (Colossians 3:3). This Pauline Christocentrism does not attenuate the Trinitarian horizon of the faith but exalts it, because for Paul the whole movement comes from the Father and returns to the Father, through Christ in the Holy Spirit. The expression "in Christ" is interchangeable, in his writings, with the expression "in the Spirit." The need to overcome the humanity of Christ to accede directly to the eternal Logos and to divinity, was born from a scarce consideration of the resurrection of Christ. The latter was seen in its apologetic meaning, as proof of the divinity of Jesus, and not sufficiently in its mysterious meaning, as inauguration of his life "according to the Spirit," thanks to which the humanity of Christ appears now in its spiritual condition and therefore omnipresent and existing. What derives on the practical plane? That we can do everything "in Christ" and "with Christ," whether we eat, or sleep, or do any other thing, says the Apostle (1 Corinthians 10:31). The Risen One is not present only because we think about him, but is really beside us; it is not us who must, with thought and imagination, go back to his earthly life and represent to ourselves the episodes of his life (as we were forced to do in the meditation of the "mysteries of the life of Christ"); it is he, the Risen One, who comes toward us. It is not us that, with imagination, must become contemporaries of Christ; it is Christ who really makes himself our contemporary. "I am with you all the days until the end of the world." (In this connection, why not make an act of faith immediately? He is here, in this chapel, more present than is each one of us; he seeks the gaze of our heart and is joyful when he finds it). A text that reflects this vision of Christian life marvelously is the prayer attributed to St. Patrick: "Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ below me, Christ above me, Christ at my right, Christ at my left!"[6] What new and higher meaning the words of St. Louis Grignion de Montfort acquire, if we apply to the "Spirit of Christ" what he says of the "spirit of Mary": "We must abandon ourselves to the Spirit of Christ to be moved and guided according to his will. We must put ourselves and remain between his hands as an instrument between the hands of a worker, as a lute between the hands of a skillful player. We must lose and abandon ourselves in him as a stone that is thrown into the sea. It is possible to do all this simply and in an instant, with just one interior glance or a light movement of the will, or also with some brief word."[7] 5. Forgetting the past We conclude by turning to the text of Philippians 3. St. Paul ends his "confessions" with a declaration: "Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 3:13-14). "Forgetting the past." What past? That of Pharisee, of which he first spoke? No, the past of apostle in the Church! Now the gain of considering loss is another: It is proper to have already once considered all a loss for Christ. It was natural to think: "What courage, was that of Paul: to abandon the career of rabbi so well underway for an obscure sect of Galileans! And what letters he wrote! How many voyages he undertook, how many churches he founded!" The Apostle saw in a confused manner the mortal danger of putting behind himself and Christ his "own justice" derived from works -- this time the works done by Christ -- and he reacted energetically. "I do not think," he says, "that I have arrived at perfection." Toward the end of his life, St. Francis of Assisi cut short every temptation of self-complacency, saying: "We begin, brothers, to serve the Lord, because up to now we have done little or nothing."[8] This is the most necessary conversion for those who have already followed Christ and have lived at his service in the Church. An altogether special conversion, which does not consist in abandoning what is evil, but, in a certain sense, in abandoning what is good! Namely, in detaching oneself from everything that one has done, repeating to oneself, according to Christ's suggestions: "We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty" (Luke 17:10). This emptying of one's hands and pockets of every pretension, in a spirit of poverty and humility, is the best way to prepare for Christmas. We are reminded of it by a delightful Christmas legend that I would like to mention again. It narrates that among the shepherds that ran on Christmas night to adore the Child there was one who was so poor that he had nothing to offer and was very ashamed. Reaching the grotto, all competed to offer their gifts. Mary did not know what to do to receive them all, having to hold the Child in her arms. Then, seeing the shepherd with his hands free, she entrusted Jesus to him. To have empty hands was his fortune and, on another plane, will also be ours. * * * [1] J.-P. Sartre, "Le Diable et le Bon Dieu" (The Devil and the Good Lord), X, 4 (Paris, Gallimard, 1951, p. 267). [2] F. Collins, "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief," pp. 219-255. [3] Cf. M. Dupuis, "Présence de Dieu" (Presence of God), in D Spir. 12, coll. 2107-2136. [4] F. Arias (+1605), cit. by Dupuis, col. 2111. [5] Dupuis, cit., col 2121: "If the omnipresence of God is not distinguished from his essence, the exercise of the presence of God does not add to the traditional subject of the remembrance of God, if not an imaginative effort." [6] "Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me, Christ below me, Christ above me, Christ at my right, Christ at my left." [7] Cf. S.L. Grignon de Montfort, "Treatise on True Devotion to Mary," nr. 257.259 (in Complete Works, Paris, 1966, pp. 660.661). [8] Celano, "Vita Prima," 103 (Franciscan Sources, No. 500).   RETURN TO TOP

Monthly Index              General Archive 2008 General Archive 2007 General Archive 2006 General Archive 2005 General Archive 2004

Hits since 3/16/2004 Màn điện toán toàn cầu của Thiếu Nhi Fatima được bắt đầu với trang Main từ ngày 9/12/1999, nhưng mãi tới Mùa Hè 2001 mới tạm xong, cuối cùng đã được chỉnh trang về cả hình thức lẫn nội dung từ mùa hè năm 2002, để rồi chính thức tái ra mắt vào ngày 25/3/2003 cho đến nay.   TNFatima.org do Thiếu Nhi Fatima chủ trương và thực hiện Mọi ý kiến đóng góp xin gửi về Webmaster