TLT's Small Christian Community; Mass readings for Sunday August 28th

[tadoflamb]

Same as last time. Read over the readings, ponder over them in your heart and share with us how you apply them to your everyday lives.

Twenty-second Sunday in Ordinary Time
Lectionary: 126

Reading 1 SIR 3:17-18, 20, 28-29
My child, conduct your affairs with humility,
and you will be loved more than a giver of gifts.
Humble yourself the more, the greater you are,
and you will find favor with God.
What is too sublime for you, seek not,
into things beyond your strength search not.
The mind of a sage appreciates proverbs,
and an attentive ear is the joy of the wise.
Water quenches a flaming fire,
and alms atone for sins.

Reading 2 HEB 12:18-19, 22-24A
Brothers and sisters:
You have not approached that which could be touched
and a blazing fire and gloomy darkness
and storm and a trumpet blast
and a voice speaking words such that those who heard
begged that no message be further addressed to them.
No, you have approached Mount Zion
and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,
and countless angels in festal gathering,
and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven,
and God the judge of all,
and the spirits of the just made perfect,
and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant,
and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel.

GospelLK 14:1, 7-14
On a sabbath Jesus went to dine
at the home of one of the leading Pharisees,
and the people there were observing him carefully.

He told a parable to those who had been invited,
noticing how they were choosing the places of honor at the table.
“When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet,
do not recline at table in the place of honor.
A more distinguished guest than you may have been invited by him,
and the host who invited both of you may approach you and say,
‘Give your place to this man,’
and then you would proceed with embarrassment
to take the lowest place.
Rather, when you are invited,
go and take the lowest place
so that when the host comes to you he may say,
‘My friend, move up to a higher position.’
Then you will enjoy the esteem of your companions at the table.
For every one who exalts himself will be humbled,
but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Then he said to the host who invited him,
“When you hold a lunch or a dinner,
do not invite your friends or your brothers
or your relatives or your wealthy neighbors,
in case they may invite you back and you have repayment.
Rather, when you hold a banquet,
invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind;
blessed indeed will you be because of their inability to repay you.
For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Humility.
I used to think I was good at humility but discovered my modesty was fake. I love to be made a fuss of. (oops ended in preposition) I like to be recognized for my profound insights. Give glory to Paul was my real prayer, instead of glory to God.
And I still don't like the feeling of humiliation, when someone can reveal my shortcomings.
So this week's theme is incredibly relevant for me, as was last week's narrow gate.

 

[Fantine]

I heard a definition of humility recently calling humility being grounded in the earth. It seemed wholesome and earthy--a very positive view.

I remember a psychologist saying once that shyness can be a real way to get attention. People begin hovering over the shy child, drawing close to hear his soft voice, etc. It's a paradox.

 

[tadoflamb]

Every time one of these readings pop up from the Deuterocanons, I think smugly to my, "Here's one the protestants won't be hearing". How is that for humility? I really am Catholic proud.

And what does the writer mean by 'the greater you are'. Greater what? Greater Catholic? Artist? Politician?

What is too sublime for you, seek not,
into things beyond your strength search not.

I love this. I've always felt like I should be patient with spiritual things. I've discovered every thing comes in it's own good time.

The mind of a sage appreciates proverbs,

This is funny, last week I was talking about what an OT dummy I am, espeically with the Book of Proverbs. It always has struck me how the few protestant friends I have, seem to like Proverbs a lot. I never spend any time there.

and an attentive ear is the joy of the wise.

Points back to my point on being patient. Just keep your ears open, what you're looking for will show up eventually.

and alms atone for sins.

Really? We can buy our way into heaven?

 

[tadoflamb]

Brothers and sisters:
You have not approached that which could be touched
and a blazing fire and gloomy darkness
and storm and a trumpet blast
and a voice speaking words such that those who heard
begged that no message be further addressed to them.
No, you have approached Mount Zion
and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,
and countless angels in festal gathering,
and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven,
and God the judge of all,
and the spirits of the just made perfect,
and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant,
and the sprinkled blood that speaks more eloquently than that of Abel.

Sometimes when reading the epistles of the NT I start to realize that the authors were priests, and even though they weren't yet calling themselves Catholic they were doing Catholic things like saying mass. This passage from Hebrews describes for me, in part, what it's like when we celebrate Holy Eucharist.

 

[tadoflamb]

Backing up to the first reading from Sirach.

What is too sublime for you, seek not,
into things beyond your strength search not.

This might explain to me why while I'm intrigued by the Dark Night I have no interest into entering into one. I've only begun to read the poem by St. John of the Cross and it's so frightening and so mysterious that it's something I'd rather let be.

And on to the Gospel.

As in most of Luke, the gospel read like an instruction manual to the Society of St.VdeP. If you want to experience God, go low. Sit at the table with the poor, the crippled, the lame and the blind. That's where God is.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

I love this. I've always felt like I should be patient with spiritual things. I've discovered every thing comes in it's own good time.

Good reminder, thanks.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

Got some good stuff from the homily today. The theme is of course humility.
"Humility does not mean thinking yourself less than other people. Nor does it mean undervaluing your talents. Humility is recognizing one's own talents and good points but not getting arrogant about it because humility recognizes these are gifts from God."

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

"Humility does not fear failure because the humble person is not overly concerned with success."

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

There was also a side theme re not forgetting the unfortunate and destitute, the poor. Give without expecting anything in return. A good thread about giving to homeless and poor on OBOB, started by Cosmic Charlie.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Every time one of these readings pop up from the Deuterocanons, I think smugly to my, "Here's one the protestants won't be hearing". How is that for humility? I really am Catholic proud.

I remember from my Episcopalian days that they and many Anglican groups had the deuterocanonicals in a special section of the bible between the Old Testament and the New Testament called the Apocrypha, or at least my main bible from back then did. I'm trying to recall if there were actually any readings from those books read at Eucharist services, though, and I'm not really sure. It's been a long time. But you might have at least one Protestant group that gets those readings.

You're right, though, most Protestant bibles don't include those 7 books, and most Protestant churches don't have readings from them at their Sunday services. I've never understood it. I mean, I *understand* it- Protestants when they broke with Rome went back and re-examined everything and said that since the Old Testament was Jewish, they only thought it should include books originally written in Hebrew, and they also thought the place to turn to in order to figure out what should in the Jewish part of the bible would be the Jewish folks of their time- and the Jewish folks of their time did not include 7 books from the Catholic bible, which were thought to have originally been written in Greek instead of Hebrew, so the Protestants took them out (Well, most Protestants. As I said, Episcopalians and Anglicans might be exceptions).

However, that doesn't make total sense to me. Because, when you look closer, you see a lot of allusions to these Old Testament books that were in question in the New Testament, which sort of speaks to the idea that Jesus himself may have considered them scripture. They were read in some of the shuls and synagogues of Jesus' time (Not all, but some). At that time, Jewish folks didn't have a set canon of scripture, they just had scrolls, and there were some of that were basically common to all the shuls and some that were only read in some of them.

The fact that these particular books were written in Greek might make them initially seem odd as Jewish scriptures, but there were Jewish groups in a lot of Greek speaking areas, and a lot of the early Christian groups really grew out of those groups in some regards, not just actually Jewish coverts, but there were a lot of Gentiles who actually sort of hung out around the Jewish folks and didn't want to get circumcised and convert who became the backbone of some early Christian dioceses. The New Testament itself was written entirely in Greek. Plus, some people consider early Christianity kind of a Hellenized off-shoot of Judaism anyway. A lot of Christians ideas were things we can see described or alluded to in embryonic form in these disputed books, which kind of fill in the time periods between the Old Testament and the New Testament, among other things.

So, why didn't the Jewish folks of the 16th century have them in their bibles? Well, after the fall of Jerusalem decades after the death of Christ, you had a lot of Judaism kind of in trouble. Their capitol was sacked, a lot of their people were becoming Christians or losing their religion, and so on and so forth. So, a bunch of rabbis met in council sometime between 100AD and looked at what was going and said, essentially "You know, a lot of the problem here is the Greek influence, we need to set a canon and really solidify and spell out our religion because it's at risk. If so few of us are left, we need to all get on the same page. And what's got to go is the stuff that's making the Jews more like the Greco-Roman pagans or the Christians and taking them away from Judaism. So, we need to get rid of these books that are too Greek and too Christian and get back to the core stuff that doesn't have all these outside influences.".

All that makes sense for Jews, but why does it make sense for Christians? If there are Jewish scriptures that the Jews thought were too Christian for them after Christianity started, shouldn't Christians want to highlight those books instead of ditching them, too? Plus, in Christian terms, the Church is the New Israel in a religious sense. So, some council of Jewish rabbis from after Christ started the Church really don't count for Christians. If this council of rabbis that ditched these books had met in 100BC, that might count in some ways for Christianity, or carry some weight, but if they do it in 100AD, for Christians the authority has shifted to the Apostles and the early bishops.

Besides, Tobit is one of my favorite books in the bible. It's hard for me to accept a bible without that book in it.

Maybe part of it is that some of these 7 books had stuff in it that seemed like it couldn't possibly be literal, and some Protestants are literalists or close to literalists. One of the neat things about Roman Catholics is that by and large we're not literalists. So we can take books that seemed a little far-fetched if we take them too literally and consider them totally valid as scripture, and I think that speaks well of us. Maybe that's why the Episcopalians at least seem to partially accept the books, too- they tend not to be literalists either.

I think it's a strength when religion can see deeper truths and be open to interpreting things in different ways, and be willing to concede that scripture isn't a history textbook or a science textbook, and that some of the stories are making more myth than reality, and still know all that and not throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that makes them less valuable.

I think too often religions gets into this black and white thing where you either read every like it was written by someone who had no imagination and never speaks in parables or figurative language or tells a story to make a point, or you don't believe in anything at all. There's a middle ground there where you can accept something as important and sacred and still realize that, you know, some of it was poetry or whatever and they were trying to make points about morals and ethics and what it means to be human or what it means to be divine, without having to try to figure out some sort of timeline to fit the two conflicting stories of creation into and without having to try to deny scientific facts about evolution and so and so forth. Mature religion to me finds a way to fit in what we know in our hearts with what we know in our heads and doesn't just take the heart and use it to ignore rational thinking and discoveries.

 

[Colin]

This passage from Hebrews describes for me, in part, what it's like when we celebrate Holy Eucharist.

Those words , Tad , are more or less word for word what our priest said at the beginning of Mass this morning .

 

[tadoflamb]

There was also a side theme re not forgetting the unfortunate and destitute, the poor. Give without expecting anything in return. A good thread about giving to homeless and poor on OBOB, started by Cosmic Charlie.

That theme ran through the whole liturgy today. It really has me thinking about StVdeP again..

I found out this morning that one of our Vincentians has passed away.

Memory eternal, Bud Hamburger.

 

[tadoflamb]

The theme today was humility. Father quoted St. Augustine at the beginning of his homily. He said, when asked, 'What are the most essential aspects of the spiritual life?" St. Augustine replied "Number one, humility, number two humility, and number three, humility."

 

[tadoflamb]

I have to say, I really enjoy reading these ahead, but it's never the same as hearing them at mass. Today, listening to the reading from the Letter to the Hebrews, I got really emotional. There's something about a good lector and their ability to transmit the Word. Being so close to the altar didn't hurt either.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

The theme today was humility. Father quoted St. Augustine at the beginning of his homily. He said, when asked, 'What are the most essential aspects of the spiritual life?" St. Augustine replied "Number one, humility, number two humility, and number three, humility."

exactly what our priest cited.

 

[Fantine]

Backing up to the first reading from Sirach.



This might explain to me why while I'm intrigued by the Dark Night I have no interest into entering into one. I've only begun to read the poem by St. John of the Cross and it's so frightening and so mysterious that it's something I'd rather let be.

Psychiatrist Gerald May, in the last year of his life, wrote a very interesting and ultimately optimistic book about the dark night of the soul.

This review was published on Amazon.

In order to illuminate the dark night, May draws upon the lives of the Carmelite mystics, John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila, as well as psychiatric research and scripture. Like the contemporary scholars of psychiatry, both Teresa and John had early insights into the unconscious dimension of life that goes on beneath our awareness-an obscure and mysterious arena that they both called "the dark." Since humans are so skilled at denial-especially denying the power of their compulsions and attachments-they would never enter into this spiritual night of reckoning if they could see in advance what it would entail. This is why we need the darkness in front of us. May, who also wrote Addiction and Grace, eventually moves into a strong discussion about depression and addiction, showing why the dark night is necessary to overcome both. Ultimately, he becomes a messenger of hope, reminding readers that every dark night brings the sweet dawn of awakening. With its clear writing and strong psychological foundation, this is a relevant resource for readers of all spiritual persuasions. https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Night-Soul-Psychiatrist-Connection/dp/0060750553

 

[Vicomte13]

Maybe part of it is that some of these 7 books had stuff in it that seemed like it couldn't possibly be literal, and some Protestants are literalists or close to literalists.

Also, specifically, right there in the Sirach reading there is the direct line: alms atone for sins.
And in Maccabbees, the efficacy of prayers for dead sinners is made overt and explicit.

The Protestant fathers flatly rejected any such notions, so they COULD NOT BE in the Bible - how to get them OUT of the Bible, then? Demote those books as "Apocryphal", and reject them as canonical because the Jews so rejected them.

It's a neat trick, and it creates two different sets of revelations - one of which says that prayers for the dead are efficacious, and that giving to the poor actually pays the debt of sin - in other words, that WORKS, direct WORKS, PAY FOR sin (and also, by implication, that Jesus' blood does not simply "cover" all sin - that you have to pay for your own sins too).

The fundamental differences between Catholic and Protestant theology are laid bare in these excluded books, and what they mean is that the Protestant and Catholic theological differences would remain even if BOTH were Sola Scripturalists, because Catholic Scripture explicitly speaks to prayers of the dead and works of financial charity as atoning for sins of the dead and of the living. Those books are not part of Protestant Scripture.

Essentially, if one does Sola Scriptura (which I am very close to doing myself, but I consider the physical veridical miracles performed by God to also be literal Scripture - of the highest order), Catholic Sola Scriptura includes most of the doctrines that Protestant Sola Scripturalists reject - because the Catholic beliefs actually ARE in Scripture.

And when the miracles are included as scripture - written directly by the hand of God no less - then the rest of the doctrines, such as transubstantiation and the importance of Mary, are directly proven by divine miracles.

I like Sola Scriptura, actually. Done with an unabridged canon you end up with Catholicism. It's only if you cut and edit and exclude that you can cut off the various pieces. Which is why those books were cut in the first place.

That is the REASON those books were excluded. The "Jews don't have them" or "Jerome didn't like them" is an intellectual subterfuge to give traditional cover to what was a theologically-driven decision to amputate doctrines that ARE scriptural.

 

[tadoflamb]

Thanks Fish and Vic. That was very informative.

As a sign of how much God really loves us, we get to hear from the Book of Wisdom this Sunday!