The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionWhat Jesus taught us about his prophetic ministry
Part three in a five-part essay on "Religious Life as Prophetic Life Form"
Jan. 06, 2010
Sandra Schneiders
This is the third part of a five-part essay by Immaculate Heart of Mary Sr. Sandra Schneiders on the meaning of religious life today. In this part Schneiders, professor of New Testament Studies and Christian Spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, explores the life of Jesus and the prophetic ministry that flows from it in her essay “Religious Life as Prophetic Lifeform.” These essays run from Jan. 4 through Jan. 8.
The Prophet’s Life
We turn now to Jesus’ life out of which his prophetic ministry flowed. Is it a realistic model for the life of ministerial religious today? If so, what are the implications of the prophetic character of religious life for the behavior of religious in ministry and in relation to the hierarchy?
First, Jesus’ prophetic vocation was rooted in and expressive of his mystical life, the intense contemplative prayer life that the Gospels present as the root of his experiential knowledge of God. He not only took part in Jewish vocal prayer and liturgy (e.g., see Lk. 4:16; Mt. 26:17) . He spent long periods -- whole nights (Lk. 6:12), hours before dawn (Mk. 1:35), times of decision making (Lk. 6:12-13) and anguish (see Mk. 14:32-42), and, at least once, “40 days” -- in prayer to God (see Mk. 1:13 and pars.). Jesus not only knew about God; he knew God intimately. He experienced God as his “Abba” (Mk. 14:36), his loving parent, from whom he drew his own identity, and whose project was his own. In John’s Gospel Jesus speaks of being “one” with God (Jn. 10:30) whose words he speaks and whose works he does (see Jn. 14:10).
The prophet’s direct and immediate experience of God is the root of her or his words and actions. But this activity is often enough critical of or even in opposition to the positions of the legitimate ecclesiastical authorities who are usually presented as, and in fact are, God’s institutional representatives. Jesus’ confrontation with the officials over the woman taken in adultery was not an isolated case. He was frequently in heated conflict with the hierarchy.
We can be tempted to think that such opposition to institutional authority was fine for Jesus in relation to the Jerusalem hierarchy in the first century but not for us in relation to ecclesiastical authority in our own time. Jesus, after all, was God so he knew all the right answers. And the Jerusalem hierarchy was degenerate and filled with evil hypocrites.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
To sanitize (and even trivialize) Jesus’ prophetic ministry in this way is to miss the point entirely. Jesus did not claim personal divine authority when he acted prophetically in relation to the religious institution. He claimed to be speaking for God, not as God. And it is important to note that his adversaries were claiming exactly the same thing, that is, to be God’s official representatives to the people which, in fact, they were. They actually had the ecclesiastical authority of office on their side, which Jesus did not because he was not a priest, an elder, a scribe, or any other kind of religious official.
Jesus had prophetic credibility among the people because he “spoke with authority,” precisely not as the scribes, that is, not by virtue of institutional position nor backed up by texts (see Mk. 1:27; Mt. 7:29). He spoke “like no other person ever has” (cf. Jn. 7:45-46). It was not because he was God in thin disguise or because he was credentialed by the religious establishment, but because his truth telling, despite overwhelming personal threat when what he said and did ran counter to what the laws or the officials required, manifested to the people that he was indeed representing the true God. Only later, only after the Resurrection, did they realize that this “prophet, mighty in word and work,” was indeed the Son of God. During his public life, his authority flowed from what he did and said. No one can confer, and no one can “claim,” moral authority. It belongs only to one earns it. Jesus was powerfully, personally authoritative and that is why he was recognized as a prophet.
Furthermore, the religious officials of Jesus’ time were no more wicked, hypocritical, oppressive, immoral, or corrupt than officials of state and Church in other ages. They had the same status among their contemporaries as do our legislators, priests and bishops, presidents and popes. The presumption of legitimacy and competence was theirs by virtue of their office. The officials Jesus confronted were not wearing signs saying embezzler, hypocrite, pedophile, adulterer, pornographer, so that anyone looking at them would know that Jesus was certainly right to call them to account. Jesus was seeing in them, in their teaching and their behavior, what his contemporaries, like so many of us when we deal with people in high places, were conditioned not to see, or were afraid to name. And he bore witness, at risk of his life, to what he saw.
The problem for Jesus’ contemporaries was the same as ours today. How are we to judge between voices competing for our acceptance? How do we recognize the prophet, the one who “speaks for God?” Obviously, as the horror of the Holocaust made clear for all time, it is profoundly immoral to uncritically “follow orders” simply because they come from someone in authority. Jesus warned his contemporaries to beware of the official teachers, of the priests and elders and Pharisees who “sit in the chair of Moses” but are hypocrites (see Mt. 23:1-5), whited sepulchers (see Mt. 23:27), self-serving oppressors of the poor in the name of God.
There were, of course, sincere men among the ecclesiastical officials of Jesus’ time, like Nicodemus (Jn. 3, 7, 19); and the scribe who was “not far from the kingdom of God” (Mk. 12:28-39). But there were many others, like Caiaphas (Jn. 11:49-50 with 18:14), who were “the blind leading the blind” (see Mt. 15:10-14). We face the same challenge today. There are many men of integrity, holiness, and compassion holding office in the Church. But popes can be wrong, even culpably so; bishops can be criminals; priests can be embezzlers or sexual predators. One thing is certain: hierarchical status, office in the Church, is no guarantee that the speaker or his message comes from God. An office holder may be prophetic, or a prophet may hold office, but the two charisms as such do not imply each other. And history suggests that there is virtually always tension, if not opposition, between institutional and prophetic authority.
Besides an intense life of prayer which unites the prophet to God, a second requirement of prophetic identity and mission is a certain freedom from attachments which pressure the person to prefer personal or institutional goods, the maintaining of the status quo within which one’s own position and interests are protected, to God’s interests or the good of those to whom one is sent. Jesus was extraordinarily “unattached,” not only inwardly, but even in his personal lifestyle. By his own choice, he had no family to provide for or to protect. He owned no personal property that he could lose. He held no official position of power, political or ecclesiastical, that his actions could jeopardize.
Of course, family, property, and power are not necessarily impediments to prophetic freedom. Like St. Thomas More, many people in high places, with much to protect personally, professionally, and politically, have given their lives in witness to the truth. But being without such attachments is a bulwark of prophetic freedom simply because it makes it easier to “hear,” without distortion from one’s own inner voices or outer demands, the voices that are relevant to the issues one must discern. With less “static” from legitimate competing interests the prophet can more easily listen full-time, with all his or her attention, for the truth to which witness is required, the truth that must be done regardless of orders to the contrary. Discernment based on attentive listening, not submission to the will of another, is the essence of prophetic obedience.
Third, a major and non-negotiable criterion of the true prophet is the coherence between the prophet’s message and the prophet’s life. The more insensitive one is to the devastation one’s teaching or legislating causes in the lives of real people, the more willing one is to “stone the sinner” in order to bolster official authority and guard public morality, the more likely it is that, no matter how highly placed, one is a “blind guide,” one of those Jesus described who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; while they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them” (Mt. 23:4). Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela were willing to pay the price for their witness for racial justice. Jesus defending the woman taken in adultery was risking his life for hers. Witness to the truth is never comfortable or self-aggrandizing for the true prophet, and the risks are usually high. “Witness” from the favored side of power is dubiously prophetic.
The issue that emerges as central when the prophetic charism conflicts with institutional authority is precisely the one operative in much of the current struggle between the institutional church and religious, namely, obedience. Can we equate obedience to God with doing what we are told by people who hold office? And can we submissively abstain from interpreting the present situation in light of the Gospel and responding to the present needs of real people, because those who hold office require that we do so?
We will return to this topic shortly, but, by way of anticipation, it appears from Jesus’ practice and especially from his life that religious obedience cannot be adequately understood or defined as “blind or absolute submission to official authority,” whether to people, teaching, or laws. No matter how highly placed in the religious institution they might be, human beings do not take God’s place in the life of believers. To pretend otherwise is blasphemy on the part of those who claim to do so and idolatry on the part of those who accord to humans the obedience that belongs to God alone. There is no avoiding the challenge and the obligation of discernment and “blind obedience,” i.e., uncritical submission to power, is neither discernment nor obedience. Nor can it ever be a substitute for either.
Coming to grips, in genuine obedience to God, with the tension between their prophetic vocation and the demands of ecclesiastical authority is at the heart of the current struggle between religious and the Vatican. So we turn now to a focused examination of contemporary ministerial religious life against the background of the understanding of Jesus’ prophetic vocation in which religious are called to share.
Thursday: “The tasks for those who choose to live the prophetic life.”
|
The essay in five parts:
Part One: Religious Life as Prophetic Life Form, Jan. 4 Part Two: Call, Response and Task of Prophetic Action, Jan. 5 Part Three: What Jesus taught us about his prophetic ministry, Jan. 6 Part Four: Tasks of those who choose the prophetic life style, Jan. 7 Part Five: Religious life: sharing Jesus' passion, resurrection, Jan. 8 Read NCR's coverage of the apostolic visitation of U.S. women religious here: Index of stories Read an interview with Sr. Schneiders. She explains why she wrote this essay: Schneiders to explore meaning of religious life today |
Excellent as usual, Sister
Excellent as usual, Sister Sandra. Thank you for such thoroughness in your research and commentaries.
"The problem for Jesus'
"The problem for Jesus' contemporaries was the same as ours today. How are we to judge between voices competing for our acceptance? How do we recognize the prophet, the one who 'speaks for God?'"
- Holy Mother Church speaks on these matters. While She may be filled with sinful men and women, Christ promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail over Her.
"Obviously, as the horror of the Holocaust made clear for all time, it is profoundly immoral to uncritically 'follow orders' simply because they come from someone in authority. Jesus warned his contemporaries to beware of the official teachers, of the priests and elders and Pharisees who 'sit in the chair of Moses' but are hypocrites (see Mt. 23:1-5), whited sepulchers (see Mt. 23:27), self-serving oppressors of the poor in the name of God."
- This is twisting the Word of God with a forked tongue.
Let us read what Scripture ACTUALLY tells us:
Matt 23 1-3: Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do not. For they say, and do not.
The scripture says, and the Church teaches, that the sinfullness of the teacher is NOT AN EXCUSE to not follow the teaching, unless that teaching is a command to sin. True, we are NOT to follow any sinful example, no matter whose example it is, even someone it high authority. But sinfulness of the messenger is NOT a vaild reason to discard the message, especially when that messenger sits in the chair of Moses (or in our day, the chair of Peter.)
I'll tell you what Scripture doesn't say:
Acts 15: And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us: And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. And all the multitude held their peace.
The scripture doesn't say that some of the disciples stood up and said "Wait a sec, we all know Peter isn't what you'd call a sinless man. Heck, he turned his BACK ON JESUS right when He needed him most! I don't think we should just accept it when he decides that circumcision isn't needed. I mean, come on! Consider the source!"
More to the point might be
More to the point might be the story of how Peter came to the opinion we find expressed in Acts 15. Paul wrote to the Galatians:
When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he was self-condemned; for before certain people came from James, he had eaten with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he withdrew, fearing those in the circumcision faction. The remaining Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray.
–Galatians 2.11-16
All I know about obedience to
All I know about obedience to constituted authority is what I was taught by the Jsuits who conductrd my religious education. They said to us boys, never forget that as laity, you are not bound by any oaths or promises, whereas we (the preists) are bound by our vows.
We also saw how important discipline is in the area of belief. If this does not exist, we get the sorry sight of the scandalous splitting up of Christianity into countless sects. People felt so strngly about these matters in the past, that war, torture, and excommunication, were accepted as legitimate methods t preserve that unity. How wrong were they. We are a lttle wiser now I think . But what we lack is the opportunity to discuss openly, without rancour, how best to govern the church in the modern age. And the way the Vatican has dealt with internal opposition is quite wrong.The right way is in the scriptures - when a person has done yo wrong, first approach him/her, and discuss. If there are still differences, ask others to take part in the discussion. In other words, DO NOT DO what seems to have been done in the quarrel between the hierarchy and the women religious.
Excommunication is entirely the wrong thing to do in this case. Surely, such a weapon would be more appropriate against such as Robert Mugabe who has used every weapon against his political opponents. He is guilty, morally, of murder, rape , arson, assault, and lying on a huge scale. And claims to be a practising Catholic! Set this vile dictator against the people like myself who are conscious that half the human race has been treated with contempt and ignored as far as possible so that even the most wonderful of them have devoted their lives in self sacrifice to men who are worth nothing in comparison............The injustice makes one's blood boil ---- Let the hierarchy show that they REALLY hunger and thirst for Justice. let them show some real commpassion for the multitude, let them REALLY try for peacemaking rather than pretend to be God. BECAUSE the Papacy has given up all temporal power the Pope can be a real force for good. Let Catholics everywhere t
be encouraged to get in touch with their Christian brothers and Sisters and hammer out what we really believe in common. Or do Jesus' words go for nothing, when he was asked the question by his
disciples about the people who were preaching in His Name. Do not stop them, anyone who is preaching in my Name, they are on our side.
I rest my case - for now!
Regards to all - whatever your opinions! Charles Forder
Pete said: "The scripture
Pete said:
"The scripture doesn't say that some of the disciples stood up and said "Wait a sec, we all know Peter isn't what you'd call a sinless man. Heck, he turned his BACK ON JESUS right when He needed him most! I don't think we should just accept it when he decides that circumcision isn't needed. I mean, come on! Consider the source!""
Here's another where Peter is taken out of context in support of a false sense of his supposed leadership. Read Acts more carefully and with new eyes. There was a lot of discussion, then Peter, acting as counsel, gave his opinion, but it was James who rendered the final decision: "It is my JUDGMENT [emphasis added], therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles..." (Acts 15:19-20).
You are quoting scripture
You are quoting scripture falsely.
Here is what Acts 15 actually says, Starting with verse 13 through 21:
"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon has related how God first visited to take to the Gentiles, a people to his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written: After these things I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down: and the ruins thereof I will rebuild. And I will set it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, says the Lord, who does these things. To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world. For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted: But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood. For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath."
See how much easier it is to understand when you're not trying to twist it, Anonymous? James is not rendering a final judgment on anything. Peter has already ruled on Circumcision. And James proposes writing to them.
Try reading Scripture in accord with the teachings of the Church and with a clear mind, instead of trying to torture it into saying that Peter had no authority.
I'm not sure where you got your verses from, but they are quite obviously wrong. Scripture study - you fail at it.
Talk About
Talk About Brainwashing!
Peter has given an opinion in summation as a defense attorney does today (after other discussion has taken place i.e., the evidence has been introduced). Then the person who makes the judgment, the person in charge, the leader of the assembly, delivers the verdict - the judgment. James was clearly in charge at Jerusalem and to say otherwise is to claim that Peter, who was Bishop of Antioch, was the leader at Jerusalem - the seat of the original church, which was not at Antioch and certainly not at Rome.
All of the Church Fathers in the first eight centuries were from the East, not from Rome. All of the Church councils in the first eight centuries were in the East, not in Rome.
"James was clearly in charge
"James was clearly in charge at Jerusalem and to say otherwise is to claim that Peter, who was Bishop of Antioch, was the leader at Jerusalem - the seat of the original church, which was not at Antioch and certainly not at Rome."
- You are trying to set up a strawman. Peter was the head of the Church. It doesn't matter if he was in Rome at the time or not. Your position is in direct opposition to what the Church teaches, to Tradition and in direct conflict to the plain words of the Scripture.
"All of the Church Fathers in the first eight centuries were from the East, not from Rome. All of the Church councils in the first eight centuries were in the East, not in Rome."
- So? All of our presidents of the US have been from the lower 48 until now. Does that mean that Obama, who is from Hawaii originally, is NOT the president and doesn't lead the country?
You, like many here, are trying to project your opinion onto history and the Church. It doesn't work. Give it up.
Peter the Greek seems to be
Peter the Greek seems to be suggesting that we follow the leadership -- no matter what they are unless they ask us to sin.
Perhaps then we should follow the Sanhedrin and obey them as they condemn the Christ? After all, Jesus was definitely a rebellious character and should be excommunicated for throwing the money changers out of the Vatican -- sorry, my mistake, that should be "The Temple".
Would we have to support them as they scourged and stoned the apostles? After all, those followers of that Prophet were a seditious lot. After all, the Council was the legal authority,right?
Because we would only know part of the story. The Council knows much more than us -- right?
After all, the Bishops and Prelates would never cover up sin today, would they?
After all that we do, do we follow God or men?
Well Ricky, since you replied
Well Ricky, since you replied in the manner of a simpleton, I will try to explain it again in simple terms.
When those who are in the seat of authority instruct and teach us in the manner of our Faith, as in the ancient times they taught the law of Moses, and today the magisterium teaches us with Faith and Tradition, we are to do as they instruct. If they command us to sin, we MUST NOT do it. Further, if they give sinful example (scandal) we must not follow it or use it as an excuse to behave sinfully.
"Would we have to support them as they scourged and stoned the apostles?"
not only do you apparently not know Scripture, but you didn't even pay attention to what I wrote.
"Perhaps then we should follow the Sanhedrin and obey them as they condemn the Christ?"
Your statement has an assumed premise. Let's see if you can find it.
"After all that we do, do we follow God or men?"
We follow Jesus Christ, who has left His Church on Earth to guide and help us, a Church that the gates of Hell shall not prevail over.
Why do you have such rage at the Church, Ricky? What evil has She done to you that you rail against Her so?
Our Church leadership is not
Our Church leadership is not the Sanheddrin. Jesus brought a new Testament and established a new Church built on the Mosaic foundation of the 10 commandments but suffused with the redemptive grace bought by His suffering and death.
We must trust His promise His beloved Church will be protected from moral error and the gates of hell shall never prevail against her.
Who are the equivalent apostles today? Surely it is Benedict and loyal bishops and it is Sister Schneider and Father MacBrien and others of similar ilk who are doing the stoning?
Jesus said "Tu es Petrus" We
Jesus said "Tu es Petrus" We follow the Church Jesus established and trust in His promise that Mother Church will be protected from error
Sister,
Sister, Paaaaleeeeeze!
Equating the paid ministry of "professional religious" to Rosa Parks is ludicrous! First of all, Rosa Parks was a citizen of a country, not a voluntary member of a denomination to which she was at odds. And Rosa Parks was a private citizen, not a paid civil servant of the government. Was Rosa Parks hired to keep buses segregated? Was Nelson Mandela paid to preach segregation? The problem here is having one foot in either camp and not being able to decide which to walk. One needs to get out of the 60's civil rights protest mode and, realizing that one’s religious affiliation is entirely a willful, free choice, decide if one really has chosen a denomination that fits one’s criteria. Secondarily, one has to decide whether or not it's important to receive public acclaim as a recognized "religious" who is eligible for a paycheck from the employer with which they are at odds or whether one will reject identification with the aggressor.
Prophetic Life, my foot! This is an excuse to keep people focused on misery when all one has to do is decide to lead others out of this ridiculous turmoil. The church IS by its very definition “patriarchy” and that is not going to change. It stands for something that is actually in opposition to Jesus' teaching by subjugating at least half of the human race and it remains in operation largely by the efforts of those who are being oppressed.
You treat reality as if there
You treat reality as if there is a "great divide" in one's personal responsibility to be ethical or not based on payroll. The church is in the world and all living have an existential foot in both camps unless of course they are UFOs. Additionally, consider getting your foot out of the 1960's mode you accuse others of when you yourself are awash in it. The 1960's America: Love it or Leave It slogan fits you! Simply replace America with "Catholic Church" and there you have it a new "Catholic Church Love It or Leave It" bumper sticker just for you!
.
Gandhi did not leave India
Gandhi did not leave India though he could have and did a few times but came back . He succeeded because he decied to stay. Nelson Mandela, chose not to leave the oppressed people of South Africa, tho he could have. He decided to work within that country to change apartheid. He succeeded because he did not leave.
South Africa WAS by its very definition Apartheid and had no intention of changing. The church IS by its very definition "patriarchy" (ecclesiastical apartheid) and has no intention of changing.
No doubt Ecclesiastical Apartheid in the RCC does "remain in operation largely by the efforts" of those women and men who are being oppressed. That realization signals change.
Inside and out change is happening. It comes from the light of Christ shining IN and ON the darkness of a constabulary that proclaims “patriarchy” IS the very definition of the church and is not going to change.
The RCC will change because the "church is against itself". It will change because "... it stands for something that is actually in opposition to Jesus' teaching (for which the church says it stands) by promoting subjugation "... of at least half of the human race."
Finally, it will change "largely thru the efforts of those" who remain inside its operation and those who leave. These are the growing numbers of men, women, priests, and bishops who realize THEY ARE the oppressed who have been raised on a man named Jesus who models a truth in stark contrast to Rome.
These women, sisters, men, priest, bishops will reveal in action their belief in Galatians 3:28, by refusing the ill motivations of "public acclaim" from an institution in opposition to the preached mandate that there is no male or female etc ... all are one in Christ Jesus. Others will see their leadership and follow. outside and in faith will shine in the darkness and the darkness of absolute patriarchy will recede.
Ad Hominem Responses -
Ad Hominem Responses - "Gandhi did not leave India though he could have and did a few times but came back . He succeeded because he decied to stay. Nelson Mandela, chose not to leave the oppressed people of South Africa, tho he could have. He decided to work within that country to change apartheid. He succeeded because he did not leave."
Equating civil rights movements, which have to do with one's country of birth, to one's free-will personal choice of religious denomination [one with which one is morally at odds regarding a founding premise- patriarchy] is ludicrous. One doesn't stay and lend support to an institution one chooses by free-will unless there is a lack of discernment or reasoning.
All it takes to topple patriarchy is for women to refuse to give their support to it. The true church will go on, and sooner on the right course, when the workforce fails to show up.
anon, A. MY ARGUMENT IS NOT:
anon,
A. MY ARGUMENT IS NOT: "Argumentum ad hominem."1
--------
1. (http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html)
--------
B."Equating civil rights movements, which have to do with one's country of birth, to one's free-will personal choice of religious denomination [one with which one is morally at odds regarding a founding premise- patriarchy] is ludicrous."
------
anon: The Christian ethic and spirit of civil liberty and inclusion are inextricably entwined. Each being an ideational germ seed of the other.
Jesus chose of his own free will to break down civil and religious barriers that civil and religious leaders of His day erected between people. He did not have to do that. Jesus could have played the traditional orthodx card. Christ chose differently. The liberal Nazerine did not have to enter into the conservative town of homeland Jews in Jerusalem and demonstrate the Good news that Samaritans, lepers, women, slaves etc were all as good as the Saducees, Pharisees, Herodians etc. No. Jesus chose to do that of His own free will.
The ministry of Jesus portrayed in the synoptic Gospel of Luke describes a Jesus who practiced holy disobedience. This is why the Sanhedron wanted Pilate to execute Him.
Jesus healed, ate, fed, prayed, and taught the pariahs ie, sinners, tax collectors, lepers, and women. He sided with wayword sheep, and the wayword son.
He freely chose to break down barriers between Samaritans and Jews(LK.9:52) He threw out the money changers.
___________________
C. Is Jesus ludicrous?
__________________
Yes! To some who style themselves as believing followers of Christ, even to this day, do find Jesus' "modus operandi" ludicrous.
People work out their salvation the way they deem best over a lifetime of searching, believing, and honestly aligning themselves to the God of their understanding. They do not have to stay or leave. They do have to do what their conscience calls them to do.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to say to ourselves and others that there are people of good will at both ends of the liberal/conservative spectrum. The riegn of God Jesus intended was that all God's children fit in God's house. "My way or else" will not bring about the dream Jesus had for our world. If we have a tolerant and inclusive faith in the faith of others of good will then we have faith in faith itself and it is faith that can save us.
I do not disagree regarding theoretical tactics and strategies that postulate if women leave Patriarchy its oppression of women would end.
Until then the important question is who will educate women who grow up in a Patriarchy that has silenced dissent regarding their subjugation?
Who will hand on the "ludicrous? mission" that says: "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free, (LK.4:18)
No the only reason the Church
No the only reason the Church has survived in spite of our own failings is because of the Divine guarantee given by Jesus that the gates of hell shall never prevail against Her
The Mystical Body of Christ liberates; it does not oppress
I'm feeling the sort of
I'm feeling the sort of inevitability in the essay that one feels as the Gospels proceed inexorably towards The Passion.
Your comments on obedience
Your comments on obedience are spot on. We walk the razor's edge, always awake in being sure we obey the Lord first, and foremost. Keep writing.
"And can we submissively
"And can we submissively abstain from interpreting the present situation in light of the Gospel and responding to the present needs of real people, because those who hold office require that we do so?"
We can and we should NOT. Again, here is Rory Cooney's beautiful song:
"Canticle of the Turning" -- Lyrics & Arr. by Rory Cooney (based on the Magnificat, Like 1:39-56), Music: Irish Traditional, "Star of the County Down"
My soul cries out with a joyful shout that the God of my heart is great,
And my spirit sings of the wondrous things that you bring to the ones who wait.
You fixed your sight on the servant's plight, and my weakness you did not spurn,
So from east to west shall my name be blest. Could the world be about to turn?
Refrain:
My heart shall sing of the day you bring.
Let the fires of your justice burn.
Wipe away all tears, for the dawn draws near,
And the world is about to turn.
Though I am small, my God, my all, you work great things in me.
And your mercy will last from the depths of the past to the end of the age to be.
Your very name puts the proud to shame, and to those who would for you yearn.
You will show your might, put the strong to flight, for the world is about to turn.
Refrain
From the halls of power to the fortress tower, not a stone will be left on stone.
Let the king beware for your justice tears ev'ry tyrant from his throne.
The hungry poor shall weep no more, for the food they can never earn;
There are tables spread, ev'ry mouth be fed, for the world is about to turn.
Refrain
Though the nations rage from age to age, we remember who holds us fast:
God's mercy must deliver us from the conqueror's crushing grasp.
This saving word that our forebears heard is the promise which holds us bound,
'Til the spear and rod can be crushed by God, who is turning the world around.
My heart shall sing of the day you bring.
Let the fires of your justice burn.
Wipe away all tears, for the dawn draws near,
And the world is about to turn.
These are very stirring and
These are very stirring and prophetic writings. I am truly enjoying them. I wonder if we couldn't replace the word 'religious' with the term 'all the baptised' to include the many lay people (men and women) who serve in the same committed fashion, each according to their call and thier gifts. It seems to fit.
Brilliant again Sandra. Light
Brilliant again Sandra. Light from the life of the Christ is so telling. Neil NZ.
Great delineation of
Great delineation of prophetic ministry! Reminds me of Karl Rahner's "words in "The Dynamic Element in the Church", p.51:...there are persons in the Church endowed with the charismatic gifts of the Spirit outside the sacred ministry. They are not merely recipients of orders from the hierarchy: they may be the persons through whom Christ 'directly' guides his Church". Wahoo! How lovely on the mountain tops.....
The Second Commandment: "LOVE
The Second Commandment: "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF" includes men, women, and children.
Simple, yet so profound!
But the Church Hierarchy ignores this Commandment, placing Image over Substance.
Woe to those who ignore this Commandment.
We all are walking on the road to Emmaus with Jesus but we don’t know it.
Listen, Listen. Listen carefully and you will hear Him.
Love not Hate; Inclusion not Exclusion; Humility not Arrogance; Opportunity not Restriction; Transparency not Secrecy; Dialogue not Dictatorship; Compassion not Confrontation; Progress not Prohibition; Equality not Inequality; Service to God through Jesus and the Church, not Servitude to Human Arbitrariness.
You make the claim "But the
You make the claim
"But the Church Hierarchy ignores this Commandment, placing Image over Substance."
A reading of the Church's encyclicals and the charisms of religious orders from earliest times eg the Vincentians, the Daughters of Charity,etceters demonstrate this is an accusation without foundation.
The Church does not teach hate we all know we must love and pray with and for our brothers and sisters in Christ
The Church does not teach exclusion every sinner is welcome in the Church
The Church does not encourage or condone arrogance knowing full well that it was pride that brought sin into the worls
The Church does not restrict anyone we are free to leave at any time
The Church encourages transparency of soul that is why we go to confession but it does respect privacy
The Church encourages the progress of every soul to greater holiness
The Church recognises we are all equal in our sinful natures and equally deserving of God's love and mercy there is no caste system in our Church
The Church recognises we are all equal in God's eyes
The Church encourages us to love and serve God
It is not the Church that waxes and wanes in an arbitary human but the restless soul of man ever looking for novelty and afraid of the real adventure of humbly accepting Truth
A brilliant exposition of
A brilliant exposition of traditional church teaching.
As a true spiritual mother,
As a true spiritual mother, Sandra Schneiders has carefully and unemotionally laid the foundation for her thesis on Jesus, the prophet. Her background in Scripture is lacking in most Catholics. So it is important to lay out the scriptural sources. Likewise the basis of Jesus confronting authority is the fact that God, and scripture guide us in obedience. Most Catholics like blind obedience, just follow the rules and get into heaven. Not so, says our spiritual mother and she is right. Catholics will be terribly shocked when they hear at the pearly gates that they should have listened to Jesus and what was said in scripture and not to some priest telling them it was a mortal sin to eat meat on Friday. Jesus's teaching is far beyond these petty rules that have no real meaning when it comes to getting into heaven. Jesus told us what is required in the Rich Young Man and Lazarus the Beggar and The Good Samaritan etc. etc. We are lacking priests, sisters and laity that are prophets for good reason. They are afraid. Prophets get crucified. She is right. Until we get a lot more prophets, people with guts and courage, people willing to be crucified for speaking out, there will be no change. She has hit the nail on the head in teaching us about Jesus the Prophet. We need to be prophets to get into heaven. It is that simple and that hard.
What about the obvious… We
What about the obvious…
We all thank God with Sr. Sandra for her deep religious insights, so pertinent to the present state of the Universal Church more so of the Vatican regime. ”An office holder may be prophetic, or a prophet may hold office” You needn’t go deep to see the kind of prophetic charisma the Vatican office holds; just compare their life-style with that portrayed in the Gospel… the gaudy dress, the arrogant triumphalism, the stubborn intransigence, does it not mirror more the Roman Empire than Christ reign?.
IT IS LONG OVERDUE for
IT IS LONG OVERDUE for humankind to get right their place in the Sacred Order of Nature. We belong to nature as nature belongs to us. We are reciprocally dependent. Nature is right with us when we are right with nature. When nature hurts, we hurt. When our “prevision” gets it right, nature’s “provision” gets it right. But we treat nature badly, abusively, exploitively, and demeaningly. Nature treats us back in kind.
Nature is our mother and soul-mate. All gifts of nature are fruits of natural motherhood, our selves included. And yet we somehow have the audacity to claim to be religious when we dominate and exploit the feminine persona of nature. When we abuse, exploit nature, we take liberties also in exploiting and abusing our mothers, all women, for they are intrinsically, ontologically, positioned in nature in a place of honor and priority, deserving utmost cherishing and respect. It is a false religion that claims to be God-ordered when it leads the way in abusing and exploiting women.
We are mistaken and forlorn because of the cultured alienation of women. Thank God that Religious Women are behaving as mothers should, that is, in admonishing their children and setting men straight with their place in the Naturalis Sacramentum Ordinis.
It must be asked, “Who is best suited to change civilizations from the ‘culture of death’ to a ‘culture of life’?” The answer to the question is in discerning who is responsible for the multi-faceted corporate “culture of death”, which overwhelms nature and humankind. The answer is male-dominated theology and patriarchy.
As bearers and nurturers of life, women are physically designed and spiritually deigned to culture life against death. Earth-life is experiencing radical implosions from corporate exploitation and pollution. The soul of humanity is radically imperiled by self-destructive male over-lording which corporately self-justifies the claim (from God no less) to overlord nature, women and children.
Our time is a time of urgent need for women to stand up against the unleashed terrors of the “culture of death.” It is right to begin with religion, with the theology of nature.
http://www.secondenlightenment.org/The%20Live%20and%20Unwell%20Papal%20S...
A9Uav7 gdrapdncitro,
A9Uav7 gdrapdncitro, [url=http://mtowutnasmtq.com/]mtowutnasmtq[/url], [link=http://xcixtoygnmvg.com/]xcixtoygnmvg[/link], http://lzyvpazgfipl.com/
Great and meaningful article
Great and meaningful article again, Sandra.
You and Joan Chittister are prophets in the Catholic church today!
Remember another prophet: Cardinal Suenens "Happy are they who dream dreams and are willing to pay the price to make them come true...Amen
Thank you, Sister Sandra, for
Thank you, Sister Sandra, for these wonderful essays, helping me put the present dilemma into the context of the Gospel. This is a time when praying for the gift of discernment is urgent and, of course, that presupposes asking honest questions of ourselves and one another. Your essays are moving me to hear my questions and think through what is at stake and what has led to it.
Indeed a time of deep
Indeed a time of deep discernment for all who live in the Spirit. It is a time when prayer,wisdom, compassion and courage will help all grow deeper in the Mission of Chirst our brother, namely, Loving One Another. I once had a friend encourage me..."Keep the faith...no, better yet, pass it on". Listen attentively and prayerfully to the voice within, I wish you strength to honour and heed its beackoning. Peace.
Your articles on this
Your articles on this investigation are so filled with wisdom and the working of the Holy Spirit in our time. However, I am convinced the Church is heading for a great schism (maybe not a bad thing however). Those of us who feel you are speaking the truth and those who feel that Pete the Greek is speaking the truth, are so far apart that I cannot see anyway that we can be reconciled as one Church. While maybe this inevitable, I find it sad...
Thank you, Sister Sandra, for
Thank you, Sister Sandra, for giving those of us who "keep on keeping on"
the courage to continue.
Again I say why are you
Again I say why are you talking of prophetic ministry when Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy?
Jesus came and left us with all we need Frequent reception of the sacraments, daily prayer to aid discernment and obeying His teachings are all taht is required. We do not need new prophets Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy.
Post new comment