Could you be convicted of being a Catholic? It’s an old question, but this video helps put it in sharp relief. Could you? Are you sure?
If you’re looking for a simple guide to the Old Testament, a little brush-up for your Bible study, this tome may scare you a little as it settles its almost 700 pages on your desk. No simple thought-of-the-day book is this but rather a hefty work of Biblical scholarship but yet it remains relatively approachable even to the Biblical neophyte, assuming he is willing to do some homework. If you are willing to put your shoulder to the plow your work will be richly rewarded as you work through this book and the Bible together.
The first hundred pages sets the stage for the rest of the book by providing a terminological and historical background. This section is heavily influenced by the historical-critical method which could be a turn-off for some people as it unquestioningly introduces the JEPD sources (Yawist, Elohist, Priestly, Deuteronomic) as well as H (Holiness) and R (Final Redactor) which is a fine theory but hardly accepted as ultimate fact throughout the field of Biblical studies. After making my way through this section I, to be honest, really wasn’t sure if I’d like the rest of the book. Call it a personal bias, but unquestioned historical-critical analysis of the Old Testament left a few scars in my early development as a Catholic and I would hate to see others have to fight through some of those same issues – this is why I said above a neophyte would have to do some homework.
Given the above however the second, and by far the weightier, part of the book really does make it all very much worth it. In this part the reader is taken through the major themes and structure of each book of the Old Testament. While this in itself is useful for someone who is trying to put the various books into context both within time and the other books of the Old Testament, in my opinion that is not the gem cache hidden in this book. No, that belongs to the section the author adds for each book, “New Testament Perspectives” wherein the book is shown in light of the revelation of the New Testament. In these sections the famous quote of St. Augustine comes to life, “the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the new.” For someone working to understand how the Bible as a whole “fits together” these sections are absolutely invaluable. In fact I don’t think it would be hyperbolic to suggest these sections alone would justify the purchase price of the book.
If you’re looking to gain a better understanding of the Old Testament, particularly in light of the revelation of the New, this book is an excellent resource. If you are willing to work with the heavy reliance on the historical-critical method this book will offer significant insight into the “whole picture” of God’s great gift to us in the Bible. For my part, as I continue working my way through the Old Testament, I retain this book nearby each time I start a new book and indeed it has deepened my appreciation for this rich tapestry that is the story of salvation history.
This review was written as part of the Catholic book reviewer program from The Catholic Company. Visit The Catholic Company to find more information on The Consuming Fire. The Catholic Company is also a great online store for all your Catholic gift needs, such as baby baptism and christening gifts. You can also find a wide selection of Catholic Bible Studies for both parish groups and individuals, as well as a variety of other Catholic Bible study resources.
As a member of the mentioned group, I can sympathize with what is mentioned in this video. It is incredible
how much different this perspective is than what I was raised with in school, where if we wanted to be left
alone to read we were “too shy” and needed to be “helped out of our shell”. For all the diversity we supposedly support in this world, sometimes that right in front of our faces is completely ignored.
In today’s Gospel reading we find Jesus feeding the five thousand with five barley loaves and two fishes. This is, of course, an image of the Eucharist as well as a sign of both the generosity and power of the God who keeps everything in being and provides for their every need. But after reading Jennifer Fullwiler’s post on being too busy another aspect to this reading struck me as I listened this morning.
Jesus asks Philip to feed the crowd that has gathered. Philip responds, “Two hundred days’ wages worth of food would not be enough for each of them to have a little.” Philip makes a very correct, very astute quick analysis of the situation – logistically it would be impossible to feed all these people with what they have available to them. Philip didn’t want to get started feeding all these people only to run out part of the way through, which was a wise precaution – except for when you’re dealing with God.
Andrew, instead of worrying about what can’t be done and what they don’t have simply brings Jesus what he can find. Five barley loaves and two fishes might feed a small family but certainly not a crowd even close to this size – most people wouldn’t even bother Jesus with such a pittance because it’s obviously not enough. What’s obvious when it’s just you and me though is hardly obvious when placed in the hands of Jesus. He takes this entirely insufficient amount of resources and provides a miracle so amazing the people were ready to carry Him off and make Him their king – not only were all these thousands fed but they were able to collect twelve wicker baskets full of leftovers.
I don’t know about you, but I found myself realizing this morning that I am quite firmly a Philip. So often I find myself saying, “no, not yet, I’m not ready, I don’t have what I need, it’s not the right time.” Instead of trusting in God I find myself waiting until I have everything lined up and all the contingencies covered before I even get started. But as we all know, in life you can never cover all the contingencies – there are just too many things that can happen to ever really get them all covered, so almost invariably I don’t even get started. Today we are reminded that we are called to bring what we have, get out there and, as they say, git ‘er done. Bring faith, bring whatever talents we have, put it before the Lord and then trust Him to break that bread knowing that if we operate in trust and let Him do what only He can what little we bring will be more than we ever thought and indeed at the end there will be some left over.
St. James the Apostle, “Boanerges” or “Son of Thunder”. St. James the Impulsive, you might say. St. James the Bold. St. James the Fearless. St. James the first Apostle Martyr. All of these are of a piece if you consider the totality of the life of St. James. They are also a lesson to the rest of us who desire to carry the title “Christian” in this life and into the next.
Let me start with the first, for it is a thought different than the rest. Jesus nicknamed James and his brother John “Boanerges” or “Sons of Thunder” owing to how impetuous they were. (See, those of you that don’t like nicknames, even Jesus had fun with his closest friends by giving nicknames. Just sayin’.) In one scene from the Gospels they ask to be seated at the right and left hand of Jesus when He comes into His Kingdom. Traditionally we look at this story as lesson on humility because instead of being promised these exalted seats they wind up promising to “drink of the cup” of Christ’s suffering. True though that might be, I think there’s also another aspect to this. In being bold enough to ask Jesus for exactly what it was they wanted without concern for how it might come across they (I’d guess inadvertently) opened themselves up enough to be given what it was they really needed, what was truly good for them. That’s something I think many of us (okay, me being first in line) need to learn to do much more – ask God straight out for what we want and then let Him guide us to what we need. Being coy with God never works, He knows us even better than we know ourselves.
Looking at the other titles which, admittedly, are my own invention, we’re also reminded of the St. James that went out into the world after Pentecost. The St. James who trekked as far as Spain to bring the message of the Good News to a world so desperately in need of it. We live in a world not unlike that of St. James; unlike in his time our world has heard the Gospel but passed it off unmoved. Has the Word taken hold in our own hearts, in the upper room of our family and close friends? We are impelled by the truth of the Truth to share this Gospel, hiding it at the peril of not only those from whom we keep it but our very own as well. That doesn’t mean we have to walk from here to Spain and back, it just means we must not shy away from the opportunities God places before us.
That leads us to the last of the titles. As a reward for his efforts to spread the Good News, King Herod sentenced him to beheading. As we read in Matins this morning, “When the man who brought him to the tribunal saw how courageously he went to his martyrdom, he at once professed himself a Christian also.” May we by the example of our lives convert others even in the hardest times and even at the last moments. Let us once again look to the example of the saints and follow their example and become in the end saints ourselves.
At least five times, therefore, with the Arian and the Albigensian, with the Humanist sceptic, after Voltaire and after Darwin, the Faith has to all appearance gone to the dogs. In each of these five cases it was the dog that died. — G.K. Chesterton The Everlasting Man
Of course at least one of the comments is less than fully honest (*ahem*) but the video is a reminder of what we are, and must be.
I’m still working my way through Pope Benedict’s Dogma and Preaching and came across something that I can just about imagine myself using the next time we meet with people looking into becoming Catholic. It encapsulates the basis of conversion in a particularly Benedictine fashion:
First of all, it seems important to me that the Church does not regard becoming a Christian as the result of a course of instruction or even of a training process. She regards it as a sacrament. This means that no one becomes a Christian by his own unaided power. No one can make himself a Christian. It is not an’s business or within his competence to upgrade himself, as it were, into a great-souled person and finally into a Christian. On the contrary, the process of becoming a Christian begins only when a person sloughs off any illusion of autonomy and self-sufficiency; when he acknowledges that man does not create himself and cannot bring himself to fulfillment but must open himself and allow himmself to be led to his own true self.
Most people would consider the modern “unforgivable sin” to be that of intolerance. As certainly true as that may be I believe there is another sin in the modern imagination that is even more unforgivable: hypocrisy. You see, intolerance will always have a certain amount of relativity in its assessment and relativity is the lifeblood of modern philosophy. There are some things which even the most hardened relativist will consider beyond the pale – say perhaps theft or more certainly murder – so even relativists understand that some level of intolerance is necessary for any society to function although they only but rarely admit to this fact.
The beauty, however, of relativisim is that a relativist can almost never be accused of hypocrisy so long as he avoids theft and murder. To be declared a hypocrite one must first have a defined and absolute rule which he then breaks. So now the hypocrite has doubly failed: first in asserting an absolute, which immediately runs against what a relativist holds dear; next this hypocrite does something contrary to the absolute rule he had just asserted. There is, in the modern imagination, no room for error, mistake or weakness on the part of anyone who wants to offer any rule as an absolute. Tolerance, it would seem, is not for those who dare suggest even the barest of absolutes.
I want to go just a little bit further into this because the charge of hypocrisy seems to be one that most people aren’t even willing to defend against these days. What is a hypocrite exactly? The dictionary definition of a hypocrite is “a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs”. It seems the modern accusation of hypocrisy against anyone who for any reason does not follow a belief he has stated does indeed deserve the title of hypocrite. There is, however, one critical word in this definition that is either ignored or assumed to be true without need of proof – “pretends”. The modern assertion is that anyone who acts against a stated belief could not possibly have actually truly held that belief. The second you act against your stated beliefs you are not a confused person, not a sinner in need of redemption, not a fallen human suffering the effects of concupiscence, you are a hypocrite – there is no need for evidence to be presented, no need for a trial; the finding is sure and the sentence is a foregone conclusion, nothing you have thus far held to be true can ever hold weight again.
This tactic is used again and again against the Church and perhaps no more frequently than in the modern times when in reference to the clergy abuse crisis. No matter on what topic she speaks, due to the failure of some of her members to live up to her most cherished standards nothing else can be held as true or holding any weight as genuine and true. This whole argument however relies on the unfounded assumption that the Church only pretends to hold what she teaches to be true and that her real beliefs are shown in these acts completely contrary to everything she espouses publicly. The accusation of hypocrisy need not be feared however – remember that even Paul talked about being the “least of the apostles” and “one untimely born” but did not allow this to deter his proclamation of the truth. The Church as the Bride and Body of Christ will always proclaim the truth and, sadly, some of her members will not live up to this truth. This does not make either the Church or her members hypocrites for none of of these beliefs are pretended but rather held close to the heart and no one who truly believes what he proclaims can ever be a hypocrite but only one who is on the way towards the perfection which cannot be attained on this side of the mortal coil.
From Pope Benedict’s Dogma and Preaching:
Man is such that he cannot stand the person who is wholly good, truly upright, truly loving, the person who does evil to no one. It seems that in this world only momentarily is trust met with trust, justice with justice, love with love. The person who exemplifies all these virtues quickly becomes insupportable to others. People will crucify anyone who is really and fully human. Such is man. And such a I – that is the terrifying insight that comes to me from the crucified Christ. Along with this insight, however, goes another: Man is the creature who is capable of being an expression of God himself. Man is so made that God can enter into union with him. Man, who seems at first sight to be a kind of unfortunate monster produced by evolution, at the same time represents the highest possibility the created order can attain. And this possibility becomes a reality, even if it be amid the saddest kind of failure on the part of the human race.
It is one of the many unique geniuses of Christian theology to simultaneously admit the depths of depravity and the heights of holiness of which humanity is capable. This may be one of the more odd “both/and” cases I’ve come across, but that does not at all decrease its validity.
