Author: admin

Posted on

24th Sunday of Ordinary Time Year B

Jesus asks of his disciples “Who do you say that I am?”

What I find immediately intriguing is that the Gospel writer, Mark, only records the answer that Peter gave!

The assumption is that Peter was answering for all of them.

But, was he?

Who gave him permission to do so?

Surely as grown men, able to answer for themselves!

That may well be the crux of the whole story – namely, have I been using the answers of another or others and very subtly avoiding answering the question myself.

“Who do you say I am?” is addressed to me personally; only I can answer for myself.

Or, need I answer at all?

The German poet Rainer Maria Rilke has a fascinating little book titled, Letters to a Young Poet.

At the heart of the book is an aspiring young poet’s request to Rilke to let him know whether he (the young poet) ought to be a poet or not.

The young poet is insistent. At one point Rilke writes

“ . . . .  I want to beg you, as much as I can, dear sir, to be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves like locked rooms and like books that are written in a very foreign tongue. Do not seek the answers, which cannot be given to you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer. Perhaps you do carry within yourself the possibility of shaping and forming as a particularly happy and pure way of living; train yourself to it – but take whatever comes with great trust, and if only it comes out of your own will, out of some need of your inmost being, take it upon yourself and hate nothing.”

Perhaps Rilke’s advice is advantageous for us, given the question in today’s Gospel  ‘try to love the question’ – who do you say I am; ‘Live the question’ – who do you say I am?; and live along some distant day into the answer.

Rilke’s final words of advice to the young man, perhaps had been written for us “and after all I do want to advise you to keep growing quietly and seriously throughout your whole development; you cannot disturb it more rudely than by looking outward and expecting from outside replies to questions that only your innermost feeling in your most hushed hour can perhaps answer.”

This weeks image is an oil on canvas from the artist Claude Monet, titled “Path In The Forest”, painted in 1868 and held in a private collection.

What I find of interest and worth reflection is the title itself.

The title does not say, a path ‘through’ the forest, as if it is an access route in and out. Rather the title says a path ‘in’ the forest  – a path to take while ‘living’ and ‘loving’ the question!

Posted on

Birthday of Mary

This Wednesday we celebrate the feast of the Birth of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Have we missed the beat with Mary?

She appears, is named only a few times in the Gospel.

Many of the litanies and names of Mary were composed to hold a mirror up to Jesus and to name Mary.

For example Jesus is called the Redeemer, and so Mary is the co-Redemptrix.

By many, Jesus is called King, and so Mary is named as Queen (every King has to have a Queen, however the Son/Mother relationship does cause some questions?).

Mary appears by name in the Synoptic Gospels and in the book of Acts. Luke contains the most references to Mary and places the greatest emphasis on her role in God’s plan.

Mary is mentioned by name in the genealogy of Jesus, in the annunciation, in Mary’s visit with Elizabeth, in the birth of Jesus, in the visit of the wise men, in Jesus’ presentation in the temple, and in the Nazarene’s rejection of Jesus.

In Acts, she is referred to as “Mary, the mother of Jesus” (Acts 1:14), where she participates in the community of believers and prays with the apostles.

The Gospel of John never mentions Mary by name, but refers to the “mother of Jesus” in the account of the wedding at Cana (John 2:1–11) and standing near the cross at the crucifixion (John 19:25–27).

(One author I once read suggested that Mary may well have appeared more often outside of the Gospels than within them!)

Mary is hardly present throughout the ministry of Jesus, or at least she is not named as being present.

Might I suggest that her not being present, or at least not being named is in fact her biggest being there!

What Jesus learned as a human person he learned from his human family, namely his mother, his human father, maybe his siblings, his grandparents, the village folk in Nazareth, and what he learned from living with a group of twelve sometimes, grumpy men.

Who knows the name of Pope Francis mother?

Who knows the name of the mother of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King jr, Mahatma Gandhi?

The “absent” mother is present in the son!

I, along with many others of my generation, grew up with a Mary imaged from art and sculpted statues; a virginal young girl, not a wrinkle to be seen, her hands clasped in front of her, her white garment without a stain or wrinkle, and a blue veil.

That all changed me on my journey through the Holy Land in 1984.

It was late August, brutally hot, sandy and arid.

I remember lying in bed one evening after a full days tour and suddenly realizing this was the environment in which Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all those I had become familiar with through the Gospel stories, had lived and grown up in.

However, they

      • did not have the air conditioner on high;
      • they had no cold shower to cool off in;
      • they had no refrigerator to keep the drinks cold;
      • they had no toilets.

How could Mary have had snow white, wrinkle free skin in such a climate?

How could her feet have remained like a porcelain doll walking dusty tracks, carrying heavy vases of water from the well; gathering wood for the fire would not do the fingernails any good!

And I might well imagine the harsh sun and wind chiselled a weather-beaten face to her complexion.

For the record, I didn’t see a blue veil my entire journey through the Holy Land, so where did we get blue from?

The answer is ridiculously simple.

The rarity and difficulty of accessing blue pigment encouraged civilisations to imbue the colour with mystical properties.

In Christian iconography, blue became one of the most sacred colours.

The religious connotations of the pigment were also because it was so expensive.

Artists preserved the most costly colours for important religious subject matters, like the Virgin Mary. A particular shade was even named after her, ‘Marian blue’.

So, once again, Mary has become “costly” and “expensive”.

Would she have wanted that?

When reading the lives of saints my attention is often caught by how many, especially women saints, have come from a poor, uneducated background.

So too Mary, a poor village, and given the culture, she grew up uneducated.

The question I hold is this, have we in our attempt to give due and proper reverence to Mary as the Mother of our Saviour we have unwittingly made of her a model inaccessible to the young women of today.

The image I offer is my personal favourite Of Mary.

The actual painting has nothing to do with Mary. Rather, it is a detail by the Dutch artist Peter Paul Rubens.

The painting is titled “Old Woman With A Basket Of Coal”, painted between 1616 – 1618. In most of our artistic representations of Mary she is never allowed to grow old!

Well, here she is with lines of toil, of dirt, of searing heat, of relentless toil. H

owever, take a moment to stare into here eyes; you may well see grace, wisdom, understanding and compassion.

You may just well be looking into the eyes of her Son.

Posted on

Twenty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

My name is James, the son of Anna and Barnabas.

Being completely deaf, I was deprived of so much that others take for granted. I had never heard the shouts of children at play, the song of a bird, of the wind in trees, a word of comfort or encouragement.

The fact that I was practically dumb as well added to my sense of deprivation and isolation. And when you are different, people, often, are afraid of you. I was full of self-pity.

One day a man came to my village, I couldn’t hear his name, but I could tell from his dress he was a Jew. What on earth was he doing in a Gentile village in the Decapolis?

Many of those from the village gathered around him.

I followed them.

Many of the villagers looked at me with scorn, “What are you doing here?” their eyes said, ‘you should have stayed at home” the grimace on their face declared.

This man took me aside from the crowd and gave me all his attention. Now, I felt important.

He did not speak to me as it would have been a waste of words. Instead, he touched me; a tender, patient, loving touch.

He made me feel what I couldn’t hear.

Then he put his finger into his mouth, and said, “Be opened!”

And I was!

I heard children laughing, birds singing, the wind in the trees. And I laughed with the children and sang with the birds.

Why am I telling you this?

I discovered many new things in the months that followed.

My first discovery was that a touch offered in love heals!

Also, I learned that many people listen without hearing; many have loose tongues that would be better tied; many have ears to hear, and tongues to proclaim.

But why proclaim if no one is listening?

And at times all are proclaiming so loudly that no one can hear.

Hearing and speech are great gifts. They are heart gifts. It is only with the heart that we can listen rightly, and only with the heart that we can speak rightly.

You know the very best thing about receiving my hearing?

I heard my Mother and Father call my name! And the very best thing about receiving my speech? I could proclaim, “Speak, Lord, your servant is listening!”

 

Posted on

Twenty Second Sunday in Ordinary Time Year B

“Make sure you wash your hands before coming to the table. Quick tea is ready!”

I wonder how many times I heard that said to me (and my brothers and sisters).

And, having spent most of the day outside touching everything from cricket balls to tennis racquets; from rugby balls to worms in a puddle; from bike chains to the bark and branches of trees; it was a reasonable and sensible request.

Now that same request is being urged on myself and indeed on us all.

With the presence of the coronavirus, Covid-19, in our communities and nations world-wide there is a strong request that we wash our hands.

It seems so simple: Washing our hands is one of the easiest ways to keep ourselves safe.

Wash often with soap for 20 seconds. Then dry.; this kills the virus by bursting its protective bubble.

When you pause and consider your daily activities prior to the virus pandemic, handwashing was a regular occurrence during our daytime activities.

The Cambridge English dictionary gives the meaning of “ritual” as ‘a set of fixed actions and sometimes words performed regularly, especially as part of a ceremony’.

Is it pushing things too far to suggest that the simple act of hand washing is a ritual?

When you stop and reflect for a moment we have many daily rituals, fixed actions which we perform with such regularity, that their very regularity demotes them to habits.

When I retire for the night, when I wake in the morning, how I wash and prepare myself for the day, what I have for breakfast, what is my morning drink . . . . and on and on.

Our day is filled with habitual behaviours.

If we dared slow down and took time over these actions honouring them as wholesome and life-giving then I am convinced the ritual nature of them would become evident.

At the beginning of our Eucharist, after the opening song there is what is known as the Penitential Rite.

Frequently it is over before persons have put their hymnal away, and before you know we are sitting down to attend to the readings which form the Liturgy of the Word.

The Penitential Rite begins with an invitation from the Presider to ‘call to mind our sins’, or words with a similar invitation, and then, before we have time to recall even one little word or act we move on.

However, there is a part of that ritual I consider vitally important.

In the text the presider uses there is a small line written in red which is known as a rubric. This ‘rubric’ reads, “the absolution by the priest follows” (Roman Missal p. 507).

Stop a moment and read that again, “the absolution by the priest follows”.

The Oxford dictionary defines absolution as “a formal statement that a person is forgiven for what he or she has done wrong.”

Now, logic was not one of my better subjects, however I would take it that any indiscretion/sin that I have called to mind during the Penitential Rite is forgiven!

Wow!

The questions I hold are twofold,

  • is such a dramatic ritual in the right place in our liturgy?, and
  • do we do it so often that it has become a habit rather than a ritual?