Sunday, December 2, 2012
Month Twelve - 2012
Comment on daily readings from December 1st through December 31st (Days 336-365).
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Month Eleven - 2012
Comment on daily readings from November 1st through November 30th (Days 306-335).
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Month Nine - 2012
Comment on daily readings from September 1st through September 30th (Days 245-274).
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Week Twenty-Five OR Week Twenty-Six 2012
Comment on weekly readings from June 17th through June 30th (Days 169-182)
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Week Twenty-Three OR Week Twenty-Four 2012
Comment on weekly readings from June 3rd through June 16th (Days 155-168)
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
Monday, April 9, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Week Eight - 2012
Comment on weekly readings from February 19th through February 25th (Days 50 - 56)
Monday, February 13, 2012
Week Seven - 2012
Comment on weekly readings from February 12th through February 18th (Days 43 - 49)
Friday, February 10, 2012
Was John the Baptist trying to inspire political revolt?
Father Maletta Responds: I see no political movement, I see John as a man in the Judaic Prophetic tradition. No evidence that he condemns Rome or their occupation - rather he condemns immoral behavior. His whole point is inner conversion not political revolt. We tend to limit our appreciation by imposing contemporary concepts and associations on a historical person who would not even begin to comprehend the analysis we would place on him in today's terms. John had a role in God’s plan, John the Evangelist makes that role clear. John the Baptist not only understands this but his world view is formed by it.
Likewise, Jesus wasn’t playing some political game. He was fulfilling the will of the Father. John the Baptist baptizes Jesus – only because Jesus insists that they follow the will of the Father. Then John directs his own apostles to follow Jesus. Other than that there is no organized communication between them, no conspiracy against the Roman or Jewish governments. Jesus mourns John’s death, but if he will not stop his own execution - why would he stop John’s? Explicit throughout the Christian Scriptures is the proclamation that this life is transitory that eternity is our true home. One cannot read the scriptures as a Christian without that reality as the foundational perspective.
Likewise, Jesus wasn’t playing some political game. He was fulfilling the will of the Father. John the Baptist baptizes Jesus – only because Jesus insists that they follow the will of the Father. Then John directs his own apostles to follow Jesus. Other than that there is no organized communication between them, no conspiracy against the Roman or Jewish governments. Jesus mourns John’s death, but if he will not stop his own execution - why would he stop John’s? Explicit throughout the Christian Scriptures is the proclamation that this life is transitory that eternity is our true home. One cannot read the scriptures as a Christian without that reality as the foundational perspective.
Why was the date of Christmas negotiated during the Roman Empire?
Father Maletta Responds: When Jesus was born no one – but Mary and Joseph – appreciated who he was or what his existence would mean to humankind and history. I do not believe the ancient Jews actually celebrated birthdays, at least not as we do today. There was no record of his birthdate. Luke, who tradition holds, became close to Mary, provides a detailed account of Jesus’ birth and places it in a historical context by naming King Herod of Judea in chapter 1 and then naming the Governor of Syria and Caesar Augustus as the Emperor. The fact that he does not provide a date of Jesus’ actual birth would imply it was not considered important information. I realize that there are sources that argue that the date of Christmas was arbitrarily established to incorporate the pagan celebrations into Christianity. The magisterium has no position as to the establishment of December 25th as the actual date of Jesus’ birth.
Our current Pope rejects the above theory and in Joseph Ratzinger’s book “The Blessings of Christmas” he credits Luke as establishing the date as December 25th by symbolically placing it in the context of Hanukkah. He explains that on December 25th in the year 165BC, Judas Maccabeus removed the altar of Zeus - which tradition called the "abomination of desolation in the holy place" - from the Temple in Jerusalem. It was on the same date that the Syrian King Antiochus, who was worshipped as "Zeus" had set up the pagan idol in the Temple, designating December 25 as his own feast day. Now it became the date of the cleansing of the Temple, the day on which the glory of God, which had been trampled underfoot, was reestablished and God began to be honored anew in their proper manner. As early as around 100 BC, the birth of the messianic child was expected on this day. People hoped that the Messiah would teach them how to honor God aright and that he would thereby indicate the new time of freedom. Ratzinger explains that in his infancy narrative, Luke unfolds a chronology with a profound symbolic meaning, dating it in such a way that the birth of Jesus occurs during the feast of Hanukkah, on the night of lights, which thus became the Christian feast of Christmas...The birth of Christ is the true reform of worship, and all our attempts at liturgical reform must ultimately aim to correspond to this reform, this true new beginning.
Personally, I find Ratzinger’s theory far more satisfying both intellectually and spiritually than the theory about the date put forth by some historians. Furthermore, what difference does it make whether we celebrate the incarnation on the actual date that Jesus was born or that we have another date? The meaning of Christmas has little to do with a specific date but the gratitude and awe we have for the incarnation.
Do we “deceive children” when we tell them George Washington never lied or are we attempting to instill a value in them? Few people, including most priests don't have a clue when the actual date of Jesus’ birth was – theologians and historians don’t even agree when where and how the date was established. What we know is that sometime in the 4th century it became common to celebrate Christmas, as the faith expanded into other non-Roman cultures certain elements of pagan practice were Christianized. Once that happened they no longer were pagan but Christian and were passed down through the ages as Christian. No deception was intended, no deception has taken place. The strength of the Christian faith is that it can embrace other cultural elements and make them our own.
Our current Pope rejects the above theory and in Joseph Ratzinger’s book “The Blessings of Christmas” he credits Luke as establishing the date as December 25th by symbolically placing it in the context of Hanukkah. He explains that on December 25th in the year 165BC, Judas Maccabeus removed the altar of Zeus - which tradition called the "abomination of desolation in the holy place" - from the Temple in Jerusalem. It was on the same date that the Syrian King Antiochus, who was worshipped as "Zeus" had set up the pagan idol in the Temple, designating December 25 as his own feast day. Now it became the date of the cleansing of the Temple, the day on which the glory of God, which had been trampled underfoot, was reestablished and God began to be honored anew in their proper manner. As early as around 100 BC, the birth of the messianic child was expected on this day. People hoped that the Messiah would teach them how to honor God aright and that he would thereby indicate the new time of freedom. Ratzinger explains that in his infancy narrative, Luke unfolds a chronology with a profound symbolic meaning, dating it in such a way that the birth of Jesus occurs during the feast of Hanukkah, on the night of lights, which thus became the Christian feast of Christmas...The birth of Christ is the true reform of worship, and all our attempts at liturgical reform must ultimately aim to correspond to this reform, this true new beginning.
Personally, I find Ratzinger’s theory far more satisfying both intellectually and spiritually than the theory about the date put forth by some historians. Furthermore, what difference does it make whether we celebrate the incarnation on the actual date that Jesus was born or that we have another date? The meaning of Christmas has little to do with a specific date but the gratitude and awe we have for the incarnation.
Do we “deceive children” when we tell them George Washington never lied or are we attempting to instill a value in them? Few people, including most priests don't have a clue when the actual date of Jesus’ birth was – theologians and historians don’t even agree when where and how the date was established. What we know is that sometime in the 4th century it became common to celebrate Christmas, as the faith expanded into other non-Roman cultures certain elements of pagan practice were Christianized. Once that happened they no longer were pagan but Christian and were passed down through the ages as Christian. No deception was intended, no deception has taken place. The strength of the Christian faith is that it can embrace other cultural elements and make them our own.
Why did God choose such a young girl in Mary?
Father Maletta Responds: Mary was a young, age 13-15 years old at the time of her pregnancy. I appreciate how distasteful it is for people in our culture to think of a little girl having a child, but I do not think the fact that the Virgin Mary was that age is a secret. Again, I sound like a broken record here, but the most common mistake we make when reading scripture is to impose our values and societal standards on ancient peoples. Girls in the ancient culture existed primarily to bring forth new life. Because of wars, famine, disease, life was very fragile then – life expectancy was far less than it is today. As soon as a girl “flowered” or began have menstrual cycle and was able to produce offspring, it was believed that she should be married and procreate shortly thereafter. For the world in which Jesus was born this was commonplace and in fact, a girl unwed past that age would be look at with some disapproval. Today life is different, we live longer, our lives are more stable, and our children are not needed to increase our tribe or provide numbers to our armies. As we have developed different ways of living so too have our standards changed. With our knowledge of brain development and the extensive psychological awareness we believe that a girl child of that age would be harmed if married and pregnant. Mary’s people did not have the advantage of the effects of the Gospel for 2,000 years shaping our understanding of God’s plan for human kind, or the dignity of life and they did not comprehend the immorality of treating women as things. We do, and because of that we know that a teenage pregnancy can be harmful and marrying a child to a 30-plus year old is immoral. We know that, given the standards of our society and culture, teen pregnancies are to be avoided. We know that one of the most important factors for poverty, for example, is unwed teenage pregnancy. Would you consider the things you did as a child appropriate for you to do today? As we all mature as individuals, the human race has also matured. To reject the mindset of ancient Israel in the area of child brides and pregnancies does not mean that we cannot appreciate and rejoice in God’s action in and through that ancient culture relative to the Incarnation.
Why did God need to prove Himself by fulfilling an 800-year old prophecy?
Father Maletta Responds: We cannot impose our perspective today on an ancient culture. Today, on a political level, more and more people are leaving their party affiliation in favor of claiming an independent status. In fact, according to a recent poll, 40% of Americans now claim to be independent. We feel comfortable forgoing our parents’ affiliation in favor of voting for the person whose message we like the most. Likewise, today we do not feel the pressure to remain faithful to mores and cultural standards as we did just a century ago. Read some of the literature by authors such as Jane Austen who wrote about the society in the early 1800’s and it is hard to understand why people were so controlled by societal pressures. That is just a little more than 200 years. Imagine the gap between our contemporary way of thinking and that of an ancient people. The Jews survived because of their laws and traditions. They maintained an identity as a people and a nation by radical adherence to their traditions. For centuries before Jesus, a large part of their religious and cultural mindset was waiting for a Messiah. How would they recognize the Messiah when he came? He would be recognizable based on his clear connection to what was foretold about the Messiah. That is what Matthew is doing. Even an open minded Jew, who was attracted to Jesus’ teaching, would have a hard time accepting Jesus if he didn’t believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecy. Matthew writing to a Jewish audience knew this, and that is why it seems he is going out of his way to show the connection between ancient prophecies and the facts of Jesus’ life.
Doesn't it make more sense that the lineage to David's house would be on Mary's side?
Father Maletta Responds: Your question is very observant and from our world view make good sense. However, in the world that Jesus was born into, one’s only identity was from one’s father. Matthew’s Gospel was written to a Jewish audience who would not be able to culturally comprehend an identity generated from the maternal. Furthermore, Matthew is trying to show his Jewish readers that this faith in Jesus is not a new religion but a fulfillment of Judaism. To do this Matthew regularly demonstrates that Jesus was foretold by the Jewish prophets, that the facts of Jesus’ life match these ancient Jewish prophecies. In Luke’s Gospel the lineage looks different because Luke is writing to a gentile audience so the lineage is traced back to Adam to show that Jesus’s gift of salvation is intended to all people. Matthew is appealing to Jews to believe in Jesus while Luke appeals to gentiles; Matthew presents Jesus as the fulfillment of the Jewish law and prophets, Luke as the Christ for all people. Not unlike tailoring a message for a certain demographic the two gospel writers shape their presentation to make the biggest impact on their targeted audience. The culture of that time was far more symbolic than we are today so when Matthew claims Jesus is from the house of David he is making a powerful connection to this symbolism. Legally, culturally and practically Jesus was the son of Joseph – if only by adoption – so it is appropriate for Matthew to make the Davidic claim.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)