"Jesus was a revolutionary", "Jesus Christ's revolutionary message", +"the Christian revolution." These are phrases we've probably all heard +before in reference to Jesus Christ and His teachings. Most notably, +the equivocation of Jesus Christ with any kind of revolutionary spirit +tends to come from those who wish to change some fundamental Church +Teaching, and by framing our Lord as a revolutionary, it makes it appear +that such changes are "what Christ would've done", or indeed possible in +the first place. Yet, this makes little to no sense, neither biblically +nor philosophically.
+ +To start, what is a revolution? Well, as the Oxford Dictionary +would define it, a revolution is: "A forcible overthrow of a government +or social order, in favour of a new system." In this case, we know +certainly that our Lord was not trying to overthrow any government. In +fact, He purposefully avoided titles that would associate Him with the +political liberation from foreign powers that the people of Israel had +been hoping for, preferring instead to use the title "Son of Man." +Therefore, it is clear that if one wishes to imply that Jesus caused +some kind of revolution, it would be to the social order and not the +government. But even this is unfounded in any real biblical evidence. In +fact, it's quite the opposite. Jesus makes clear that His mission is not +to change or abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them:
+ ++ "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I + have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until + heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a + letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished."+ +
+ - Matthew 5:17-18 (NRSVCE) +
However, we do know that Jesus does continuously make efforts to +correct the Pharisees on their interpretation of the Law. So what does +this mean? Did Christ lie when He said He had come to fulfill the Law? +No, it means that, much like many Christians of today, the Pharisees +held to their own traditions rather than those of God. In their pride, +they held their own customs to the same standard as the Law given by +God (or perhaps even higher).
+ ++ "'You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.' + Then he said to them, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the + commandment of God in order to keep your tradition!'"+ +
+ - Mark 7:8-9 (NRSVCE) +
Therefore, it becomes clear that it was not Jesus Christ who was the +revolutionary, but the Pharisees. Our Lord came to fulfill the Law which +the Pharisees had manipulated.
+ +However, even from reason alone we can see how calling Jesus Christ a +revolutionary is illogical. Jesus Christ is God the Son, who has existed +since the beginning, eternally with the God the Father. He is also the +Truth and the Word through which all was made. As God, He is also all +good, and perfect, and ordered. God cannot contradict Himself, +otherwise there would be disorder and falsehood. What Christ teaches is +the same Law with which God created the Universe: Divine & Natural +Law. These have existed since always, and are prior to any Man-made +conceptions of law. As such, since Divine & Natural Law precede +the laws of Men, it would be the laws of Men that are revolutionary, and +Jesus Christ, who upholds Divine & Natural Law a reactionary or +counter-revolutionary.
+ +Now, of course, usually the retort is that although all this is +true, the we say something is revolutionary or not in contrast to the +anthropological social order, not the metaphysical. But even if we +accept such an excuse - which I do not - it encourages certain very +false ideas as to what can and cannot change with regards to Church +Teaching. Namely that fundamental Church Dogmas & Doctrines can be +changed, which they cannot. The idea is that if Jesus came and +revolutionized all that God had revealed to the people of Israel +prior, then who is to say that teachings cannot be revolutionized again? +It calls into question the Dogma of the Church that the fullness of +Divine Public Revelation was received with Jesus Christ, and all we need +to know for our Salvation is present in Sacred Scripture and Sacred +Tradition, which are interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church (see +CCC ยง 74-87)[1]. As such, even if it is +just for the sake of avoiding scandal, we must refrain from calling +Jesus Christ a revolutionary.
+ + + + https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm + diff --git a/blog/posts/2020-11-26-reverence-for-authority.cfg b/blog/posts/2020-11-26-reverence-for-authority.cfg new file mode 100644 index 0000000..88b9064 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/2020-11-26-reverence-for-authority.cfg @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +filename = 2020-11-26-reverence-for-authority.html +title = Reverence for Authority +description = Although we still see it as normal and important to show many feelings, such as love, in a physical way, reverence is one that we've depreciated. Yet, perhaps now more than ever, it is absolutely important. +created = 2020-11-26 +updated = 2020-11-26 diff --git a/blog/posts/2020-11-26-reverence-for-authority.html b/blog/posts/2020-11-26-reverence-for-authority.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7ab371a --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/posts/2020-11-26-reverence-for-authority.html @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@ +Some time ago I was at the bar with some of my friends, and the topic +came up about signs of reverence during the Mass, in particular kneeling +in order to receive Communion, and the importance of receiving Communion +on the tongue (as opposed to on the hand). It was at this point that I +explained my usual bit about both the facilitation of sacrilege to the +Holiest of Sacraments when Communion in the hand is made common-place, +but also the possible scandal that can occur for an observer who may be +doubting the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I suspect, +however, that my explanations did little good and were not too +convincing. Not because there was any flaw in my reasoning, nor because +my friend was incapable of understanding it, but because I had +completely missed what he was truly asking: why is reverence to +authority - in particular the highest authority which is Jesus Christ - +so important? In particular, he had asked about physical +reverence. I will go over this here, although I hope to have the chance +to bring it up to him as well sometime in the near future.
+ +To start, I would like to make some semantic clarifications with +regards to the term "reverence". Reverence is always something that is +demonstrated outwardly, because on its own it is not a feeling as +respect is, but rather it is the outward demonstration of respect. Hence +I do not enjoy referring to physical reverence, since reverence +is in itself physical in the sense that it is always demonstrated +outwardly. This is true not only in English (the language in which I am +writing this article), but also in Spanish (the language in which I was +speaking with this friend). Therefore, reverence is always a display of +respect, but not the respect itself.
+ +So why then must we demonstrate respect outwardly? Why must we +revere our authorities, and most importantly the highest of all +authorities, Jesus Christ? Especially in the case of Jesus, does He not +know of our respect for Him that we hold in our hearts? Why does He need +us to show Him reverence?
+ +To answer this, I'd say it's important to ask why we outwardly +demonstrate any kind of emotion. For it is not only respect that we +should demonstrate outwardly. Take love as an example. When we truly +love someone - parents, siblings, children, one's spouse, friends, etc. +- it is of no doubt to anyone that we should show our love in a physical +manner; we embrace them, we kiss them, we hold their hands through tough +times, and we throw our arms around their shoulder, we give them kind +words of encouragement or words of correction when they make mistakes. +Why? Does a mother not know that her child loves her? Do children not +know they are loved by their parents? It is because our feelings are +worth nothing if not expressed in our words and our actions. And even +the tiniest of gestures of affection can make the biggest +difference.
+ +So returning to the topic of reverence, we must show reverence for +our Lord because, just like love, our respect for Him is worth nothing +if we keep it to ourselves. He knows what we hold in our hearts, but if +that is truly what we hold for Him, then we should be looking for every +excuse to show Him those feelings, whether in private or in public, in +small or big ways.
+ +Therefore, every time you go to a church, or pray a Rosary, or the +Liturgy of the Hours, or in any way address our Lord, take a bow, take a +kneel. Show Him and all those around you that Christ is the Lord and +deserving of the highest reverence, above that of any king, for He is +King of kings. All nations, all creatures, all authorities shall bow +down before Him. And perhaps most importantly, when during the Mass you +go up to receive the Holiest of Sacraments, the Corpus Christi, if there +is nothing impeding you, kneel to receive our Lord. Whether or not you +receive Communion on the tongue, you can always receive Him +kneeling.