God’s Universal Salvific Will

        Christ is the one mediator between God and mankind. Salvation is only brought about by Jesus, the God-man, who died on the Cross and was resurrected from the dead for the forgiveness of our sins and reconciliation with God. Christ died for everyone. Thus the salvation brought about by him is not limited to one particular nation, but is open to all. Christ established the Church on earth as the “universal sacrament of salvation.” Through this universal sacrament of salvation, “all are called, and they belong to it or are ordered to it in various ways, whether they be Catholic faithful or others who believe in Christ or finally all people everywhere who by the grace of God are called to salvation” (Redemptoris Missio 9). People become members of the Church through Baptism who “receive the fullness of new life in Christ.” Baptism is a sacrament which “signifies and effects rebirth from the Spirit, establishes real and unbreakable bonds with the Blessed Trinity, and makes us members of the Body of Christ, which is the Church” (RM 47).

        However, not everyone has the chance to encounter Christ in his life and be baptized as a Christian. Indeed, many people do not have such an opportunity. As Christ has brought about salvation which is universal and open to all, it must be made available to all, including those who have never known him. This means that salvation is “granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.” For people outside the Church, salvation can be brought by virtue of a grace that comes from Christ and is communicated to them by the Holy Spirit. “It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.” In other words, the economy of Christ’s salvation “applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work.” It is the Holy Spirit who “offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this (Christ’s) Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God” (RM 10).

        Each of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity is fully God. “When we encounter God we encounter the Trinity; when we encounter One of the Trinity we encounter God” (Lecture Notes of Lesson 13). Yet, the divine roles and missions of the Son and the Spirit are not the same, and “neither one is superfluous.” Christianity began as a “Christocentric religion.” However, we must not forget the mission of the Spirit who sanctifies the world and bestows divine gifts and charisms on men. Frederick Crowe used the image of an ellipse of two foci to describe God’s universal salvific will with a dual center. “In the image of an ellipse, the two foci of Son and Spirit are distinct and complementary” (Crowe 8-9). With Christ, the Father sent his only begotten Son to die on the Cross for our salvation. Through the Paschal Mystery, Christians may live in the life of God. This is “God’s full avowal of his love.” The other religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam, as they are also revealing the nature and love of God to some extent to mankind, can likewise be interpreted as “the fruit of the gift of the Spirit.” This may be understood as “God’s love not yet avowed in full, for there is a notable anonymity to this gift of the Spirit.” In a certain sense, the followers of other religions could be considered as “anonymous Spiritans” rather than “anonymous Christians” (Crowe 13). In fact, the Second Vatican Council recalls that “the Spirit is at work in the heart of every person” – regardless of whether he is religious or non-religious to “attain truth, goodness and God himself.” The Spirit, like the wind which “blows where it chooses” (John 3:8), was “already at work in the world before Christ was glorified” (RM 28-29).

        Since the work of the Holy Spirit is not solely accomplished within the Church, inter-religious dialogue is also part of the Church evangelization mission as it allows her to discover the signs of Christ’s presence and the working of the Spirit in other religions and even non-religious communities. Such a dialogue should not be originated from “tactical concerns or self-interest, but is an activity with its own guiding principles, requirements and dignity.” Although the Church should continue to insist that faith in Christ and Baptism are necessary for salvation and that she is the “ordinary means of salvation,” she should also recognize that “the followers of other religions can receive God's grace and be saved by Christ apart from the ordinary means.” On the one hand, Christians should not stop short of proclaiming the good news to other men in accordance with the Lord’s command to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). While on the other hand, the Church should also respect and acknowledge “whatever is true and holy in the religious traditions” of other religions so that inter-religious dialogue, which is based on “hope and love, may bear fruit in the Spirit.” Engagement of inter-religious dialogue at all levels will enable Christians and followers of other religions and beliefs to share one another’s religious experiences and spiritual values and work together to build a more just and fraternal society and world in fulfilment of God’s universal salvific will. It is believed that inter-religious dialogue, with openness to the presence of the Holy Spirit in others, is “a path toward the Kingdom and will certainly bear fruit, even if the times and seasons are known only to the Father” (RM 55-57).

Bibliography

Coogan, Michael D. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Crowe, Frederick. “Son and Spirit: Tension in the Divine Missions?” Lawrence, Fred, ed. Lonergan Workshop 5 (1985): 1-22.

Hammond, David. Lecture Notes for TH 530 Lesson 13 – Redemption from the Reformation to the Present

John Paul II. Redemptoris Missio. Vatican, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

Reviews on “Salvation for All: God’s Other Peoples”

        Gerald O’Collins’ book “Salvation for All: God’s Other Peoples” “(i) assembles and assesses the biblical testimony about the salvation of God’s ‘other peoples’, and then (ii) presents some systematic conclusions about the role of Jesus for the salvation of the world” (O’Collins 171). In the book, “God’s other peoples” refer to non-Jews and non-Christians. O’Collins “dedicates his book to the memory of Jacques Dupuis, a well-known writer on Christianity and other faiths” (Bradshaw). The book is divided into three main parts: Chapters 1-6 on evidence drawn from the Old Testament; Chapters 7-12 on evidence drawn from the New Testament; and Chapters 13-16 which “expounds some implications of the biblical teaching on non-Christians for a Christian theology of religion” (Phan). In the first part, the book includes a number of “holy outsiders” who were clearly favored by God, such as Noah, Baalm, Ruth and Melchizedek. For example, Melchizedek, priest of a Canaanite sanctuary, conveyed a blessing to Abraham – the father of the faithful. Psalm 110 portrays that the ideal future king is “in the lineage of Melchizedek.” It is apparent that “the Psalmist gives no hint of discomfort about linking the future king to a foreign priest.” Moreover, Melchizedek’s importance as a priest is exemplified by his being the forerunner of Christ (Hebrews 7:1-4). Indeed, the bread and wine brought by him prefigure the Eucharist. The presence of these “holy outsiders” reminds us that “grace is indeed God’s, not something we can limit or deny to identifiable figures in other religions” (Clooney).

        In the second part, while the author admitted that Jesus “probably did not understand his mission to extend beyond the Jews,” his message clearly has a universal dimension and “the major themes in the teaching of Jesus touched all human beings and not merely the Jewish audience to which he spoke.” Of particular relevance is the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46), where it may be argued that “the basis for salvation lies not in baptism and faith in Jesus Christ but in acts of mercy and charity.” O’Collins asked a further question: “how people could be fairly judged by standards which they may never have heard of?" (Cornille) Furthermore, in different stories of the Gospel, e.g., those of the Syro-Phoenician woman and the centurion also seem to suggest that Jesus, “embodying personally the extravagant love of God, embraced with his words and deeds, all human beings.” Although his mission was primarily directed to the reform of Israel, he “showed a gracious openness and kindness towards Gentiles” (Siniscalchi). Paul also acknowledges that God’s salvation in Jesus includes the Gentiles (Romans 15:7-13) (Krieg). There is a consistent witness to “Jesus as universal savior, to the Church as the universal mediator of salvation, and to the Lord’s universal benevolence, a benevolence from which nothing is in principle excluded” (Griffiths).

        In the third part, O’Collins states his thesis: “the first Christians held Jesus to be the unique, universal Savior: that is to say, the only one of his kind in being the Savior of all men and women in all times and places.” He envisions Christ as the “Cosmic Choir Master with whom all people, baptized and non-baptized alike, give glory to the Creator.” At the same time, building upon the Vatican II document Nostra aetate, O’Collins gathers that the Spirit of Christ – the Holy Spirit is “present and operative in and through all that is true and good in various cultures and religions around the world.” The culmination of his theology is that Christ is the “Divine Wisdom at the heart of creation and also of the saving faith of non-Christians” (Krieg). With reference to 1 Timothy 2:4 and Hebrews 11, O’Collins reckons that “the saving faith of ‘outsiders,’ who need not have any explicit knowledge of Christ, includes knowing God exists as the origin and goal of the world, praying to God, worshiping God through acts of kindness, and having confidence in God's love” (Fritschel).

        Yet some scholars have reservations on O’Collins’ claims. First, his book primarily covers positive texts on the “outsiders,” but not the negative texts. Even for those positive treatments of “outsiders” in the Old Testament, it appears that they are always made in the context of the Israelite God. In other words, “the positive treatment certainly indicates the universal outreach of Israel’s God, but not the legitimation of other religions per se.” Second, while the universal presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit is unquestionable, in the context of the Letter to the Hebrews, the “saving and revelatory modality of Christ’s presence is only attested within the particular context of those who have faith in the true God” (D’Costa). Third, it is difficult to accept or even arrogant to claim that religious founders, e.g., Buddha who lived centuries before Jesus are “hidden saints” and “delegates” or “agents” of the risen Christ (Phan). In his response, O’Collins’ admitted the need to “develop arguments (beyond the current book) to show how the important founders who lived centuries before the coming of Christ were affected by him in ways that could justify calling them his ‘delegates and agents’” (O’Collins “Arthur’s Response”).

        Despite its limitations, O’Collins’ book has accomplished a fine job in using the biblical testimony to address a couple of questions which were initially raised by Jacques Dupuis and remain important for both Christian faith and inter-religious dialogues. “How can one profess faith in Jesus Christ as the one Savior of humankind and at the same time recognize the Holy Spirit at work in religions and cultures everywhere?” and “What, from a Christian perspective, is the role of the world’s religions as visible paths to salvation?” (O’Collins 170) Obviously, these questions cannot be answered by simple dogmatic statements. Through historical consciousness, we hope to discover the message of Jesus from the Scripture and the tradition in the contemporary context.

        All men are created in the image and likeness of God. Jesus’ salvation power that restored mankind to the original state of holiness is universal and should not be confined within the Church. Apparently, there are Melchizedek’s in the modern world “who in their own holy ways keep making God known to us in our time” (Clooney). Admitting the significance of these “holy outsiders” in our Christian lives would allow us to avoid relativism (i.e., truth is non-existent) on the other hand, while remaining faithful in Christ as we engage in inter-religious dialogues with other religions and beliefs under the guidance of the Holy Spirit on the other. In this manner, followers of different religions and beliefs may “bear witness before each other in daily life to their own human and spiritual values, and help each other to live according to those values in order to build a more just and fraternal society” (Redemptoris Missio 57).

Bibliography

Bradshaw, Timothy. “Review of O'Collins, Gerald. Salvation for all: God's other peoples.” The Journal of Theological Studies, ns 60 2 Oct 2009, p 761-762. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

Coogan, Michael D. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

D'Costa, Gavin. “Review of O'Collins, Gerald. Salvation for all: God's other peoples.” Theology Today, 66 no 3 Oct 2009, p 395, 397-398. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

Fritschel, Ann. “Review of O'Collins, Gerald. Salvation for all: God's other peoples.” Interpretation, 63 no 4 Oct 2009, p 430. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

John Paul II. Redemptoris Missio. Vatican, n.d. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

Krieg, Robert A. “Review of O'Collins, Gerald. Salvation for all: God's other peoples.” Theological Studies, 70 no 3 Sep 2009, p 696-698. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

O'Collins, Gerald. “Developments in Christology: The Last Fifty Years.” Australasian Catholic Record Apr. 2013: 161+. Academic Search Complete. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

---. “Four perspectives: Salvation for all: God's other peoples – Arthur’s Response” Horizons, 36 no 1 Spr 2009, p 138-142. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

Phan, Peter C; Clooney, Francis Xavier; Cornille, Catherine; Griffiths, Paul J. “Four perspectives: Salvation for all: God's other peoples.” Horizons, 36 no 1 Spr 2009, p 121-137. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

Siniscalchi, Glenn B. “Review of O'Collins, Gerald. Salvation for all: God's other peoples.” American Theological Inquiry, 3 no 1 Jan 15 2010, p 187-190. Web. 07 Oct. 2015.

From the Humanity of Christ to the Historical Jesus

        The Council of Chalcedon (451) affirmed dogmatically that Christ is two natures (divine and human) in one divine person. Conventional Christology, founded on Chalcedon, stressed that Jesus was fully human, who suffered and died on the cross for the salvation of mankind. His resurrection from the dead is the core of Christian belief which is a vindication of his divinity as the Son of God. Because of his humanity and human consciousness, Jesus is like us in all things; he grew up physically and had been thinking, understanding and learning things in a human way. In other words, Jesus, despite a divine person, had human limitations during his ministry on earth. Being a human being, he was limited in knowledge, needing to discover what he needed to know. This is the conventional understanding of the humanity of Jesus. Fostered by the neo-Scholastic manuals, however, the understanding of Jesus has been distorted by the docetic and monophysitistic tendencies (which emphasized too heavily on the divinity of Christ and tended to separate him from his Jewish roots), which led to “a movement of recovering the full humanity of Jesus” (Loewe 315). This new Christology paradigm aims to reconstruct the historical Jesus of Nazareth or the “historically reconstructed Jesus.”

        As mentioned above, the initial phase of the paradigm shift was a “corrective movement” to “retrieve from the New Testament portraits of Christ previously neglected features of his humanity, particularly limitations on his human knowledge.” However, when the results of the research were released in the early 1970s, “the boundaries within which this corrective endeavor was carried on began to burst,” resulting in some scholars of the “historically reconstructed Jesus” questioned about the authenticity of the dogma affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon, thus leading to “thoroughly revisionist interpretations of the dogma of the divinity of Christ” (Loewe 316). A notable movement is the “Jesus Seminar” which began in the 1980s, which made the research on the “historically reconstructed Jesus” a topic of public interest. According to Robert Funk, the co-chair of Jesus Seminar, its intended outcome was “a radical reformation, a reinvention of Christianity that would replace traditional faith and practice with à faith constructed on a more rational and historically accurate view of the life and teachings of Jesus.” The actual result of the Jesus Seminar was the dissemination of a set of research findings which suggest that the traditional Christological doctrines are “untenable” and that most of the scriptural sources were “imaginative theological construct” that had distorted the memory of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar also advocates that “the real Jesus lurks somewhere behind Christian Scripture and teaching, and needs to be liberated from the distorting effects of Christian faith by historical investigations.” A key message of the Jesus Seminar is that the “real Jesus” is the “historical Jesus,” who is “the norm for determining what, or even whether, Christianity ought to exist” (Loewe 317-319).

        Despite these reformative developments, many theologians do not consider relying solely on the “historical-critical” methods sufficient for getting the religious meaning from the scriptural texts of the New Testament. David Tracy, for example, argues that the historical-critical methods should be “complemented by hermeneutical-literary methods as well as methods of ideology-critique.” Moreover, he advocates that “the proper function of all such methods in Christian theology is a corrective, not a constitutive one.” He pointed out that the locus of the Christian religion is “in the personal response of faith in the faith-community as that faith is mediated by the community and the tradition.” He opposed to the revisionist approach adopted by the Jesus Seminar which essentially was not correcting the tradition but replacing it with a historically reconstructed Jesus as a different person proclaiming a different set of messages with different meanings. In his opinion, the whole Christianity is based on “the event and person Jesus Christ” as witnessed by his apostles that formed the tradition on which the present Church is constituted. A “reconstructed Jesus” through the historical-critical method should not be the “norm or standard” for the tradition. For Tracy, “faith rests on the encounter with God’s revealing word in Christ as mediated through the Church.” The “real Jesus” is not the “historically reconstructed Jesus” but the Jesus as the Christ, “as God’s self-manifestation,” who is encountered by people in the present age through the mediation of the community of believers originating from the first eye-witnesses. The historical-critical method should thus be contingent upon the Christian faith in Jesus as God’s self-manifestation, aiming to “provide material for postcritical narratives continuous with the apostolic witness and that serve to mediate that witness into the present” (Loewe 319-321).

        Another theologian, Elizabeth Johnson did not subscribe entirely to Tracy’s position. She considered that “the New Testament includes the actual Jesus who lived among the criteria of its own validity.” To her, the “historically reconstructed Jesus” is of theological importance because “it is Jesus whom the Church confesses as the Christ.” The memory-image of Jesus has developed over the past “in response to new cultural contexts and exigencies.” This development should in fact continue with the contemporary research on Jesus through the historical-critical method. As a result, “the constant is the self-understanding of the believer; Christology is the variable.” In essence, she asserted that

the reconstructed image of the historical Jesus not only functions today as the equivalent of the memory impression of Jesus in the early Church, but actually is the equivalent of it, i.e., is the means by which significant segments of the present generation of believers remember Jesus who is confessed as the Christ. As such, it is an element of the living tradition of the present Church (Loewe 322-323).

Yet, both Tracy and Johnson agree that the “historically reconstructed Jesus” should not be used as the basis for faith – as opposed to a much more open stance of the Jesus Seminar. Nonetheless, Johnson contended that the results of the historical research on Jesus “constitute the present form of the Church's knowledge of Jesus in his past actuality,” and therefore “the historical Jesus is intrinsically related to Christian faith” (Loewe 327).

        Another theologian William Loewe defended Tracy’s position against Johnson’s about the use of the “historically reconstructed Jesus” for contemporary Christology. He disagrees that the “historically reconstructed Jesus” should form the foundation for Christology for a few reasons. First, there is a question on what data are relevant to the reconstruction of the historical facts. Are the so-called “reliable historical data” collected and analyzed by the scholars doing historical-critical research relevant and adequate? There is also much uncertainty in determining the dates for these historical sources and correlating them to arrive at an authentic picture of the historical situations. The method and criteria for using such historical facts are also subject to dispute. Second, the task of “extricating from these sources a set of facts about Jesus — what he actually said or did” as well as the question of “what image renders this set of facts about Jesus historically intelligible within the world of the first century” are highly complex and entail much uncertainty. Such a “historically reconstructed Jesus” is indeed “fragile and tenuous,” and always subject to revision in the light of new evidence and judgments. Thus, Loewe considered that the claim of the Jesus Seminar “that the ‘historical Jesus’ is simply to be identified with the ‘real Jesus’ is naïve.” The real and only Jesus is the Son of God confessed by Christians and identified as fully divine and fully human in a tradition which remains unchanged as God's self-communication to mankind. The value of the research on the “historically reconstructed Jesus” is to provide “the material for new Christological symbols and post-critical narratives disclosive of both Jesus’ status as God’s self-presence in the present and of the values inherent in the faith response to this Jesus the Christ.” While recognizing a paradigm shift from the “humanity of Jesus” (a metaphysical category) to the “historical Jesus” (a historical category), a “historically reconstructed Jesus” should not enter into the realm of faith and upset the foundations of Christology. Only in this manner, the “historically reconstructed Jesus” may serve to advance Christological developments instead of disrupting it (Loewe 327-331).

Bibliography

Loewe, William P. “From the Humanity of Christ to the Historical Jesus.” Theological Studies 61 (2000).

An Example of a Portrait of Jesus

        The classical apologetic approach considered Christ to be the Legate of God. His words and deeds are “authentic, textually intact and historically true.” They are dogmas that should not be questioned but only to be believed. “Such a reduction of the picture of Jesus makes the resurrection unintelligible.” Despite that the resurrection is a fundamental belief of Christians: “if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain” (1 Cor 15:14), it does not mean that we should only believe with no doubt and question without looking into the meaning of death and resurrection of Jesus to his contemporaries as well as to the whole humanity by making meaningful inquiries and by comparing, contrasting and cross-referencing different texts in the Scripture. In contrast, modern theologians such as Gerald O’Collins “recognize that intelligibility and persuasion are distinct but are not to be separated.” In order words, Jesus’ acts and words are not just abstract arguments like a mathematical proof but they can be meditated and understood by human intelligence and reasoning in order to get the fuller meaning of the message for persuading one to believe in God and His Son who surrendered his life out of love for the salvation of all sinners (Lecture Notes of Lesson 10). Let’s illustrate the difference with a couple of examples of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus.

        It is apparent that Jesus was aware of his impending death while he was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. He asked the Father to remove this (suffering) cup from him (Mark 14:36). Regrettably, Jesus remained in loneliness and “no one spoke for him, let alone did anything for him.” And he was handed over “into the hands of the sinners” (Mark 14:41). After his arrest, all his disciples including Peter, who previously confessed his messianic identity (Mark 8:29), deserted him. According to the Gospel of Mark, the last words of the Lord on the Cross were “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) Under the classical apologetic approach, Christians would be “educated” to believe that the Son of Man died for men for the salvation of our sins and it is us sinners who crucified him on the cross. While such a conclusion is authentic in the sense of Christian belief, yet it does not address natural questions such as why did it appear that the Father had abandoned Jesus? Why did Jesus curse God? Is there any hidden message in Jesus’ cry of abandonment?

        The cry of abandonment was quoted from the first few words of Psalm 22. Jesus said these words in Aramaic (“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”), which is his mother tongue, making the understanding of these words and the whole psalm even more important as he experienced the last moments of his human life prior to his resurrection from the dead. Psalm 22 is divided into two sections: an accusation of God who seemed to have abandoned the author and a personal call to God for help (vv. 1-21); and a thanksgiving to God who had delivered him from the adversaries (vv. 22-31), which is a 180 degree turn from the first section. It is important to note that the psalm ended with the following two verses: “Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord, and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn, saying that he has done it (vv. 30-31),” which is a promise to even people unborn. When we look at the first section in details, the repeated “my God,” appearing four times in vv. 1, 2 and 10 was a very personal note of the author. His enemies were portrayed as bulls (v12), a lion (v13, v21), dogs (v16, v20) and oxen (v21). Apparently the dramatic change in v22 is a result of God’s rescue. Seemingly, even the persecutors undergo a change – all (including the persecutors?) are called “my brothers in sisters” in the beginning verse of the second section. And God’s salvation has been extended from the “offspring of Israel” (v 23) to all peoples: “All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him. For dominion belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations” (vv. 27-28). Furthermore, God also rules over the dead, “To him, indeed, shall all who sleep in the earth bow down; before him shall blow all who go down to the dust” (v29). In other words, Psalm 22 begins with “the cry of an individual who suffers (and) ends with a vision of God’s final, universal rule.” If we return to the context of Jesus’ last words on the cross, they become a distinctive prayer of Jesus in his mother tongue to God with which all suffering human beings can share – from a personal blame to God of hardship to a thanksgiving for God’s grace and deliverance. As such, Jesus cry of abandonment should not be construed to be “Jesus on the cross as bearing the sins of the world, nor did it support the idea that he felt himself to be the object of God’s anger” (i.e., the penal substitution theory), but rather it is a final prayer of Jesus which he “expected that a divine reversal of his own dreadful situation would change them (all sinners) and bring all nations to worship the God of Israel (now identified as ‘Abba’ or the loving Father) and to receive final salvation” (O’Collins 170-174).

        The Lord’s call on Peter in the final chapter (Chapter 21) of John’s Gospel is a well-known passage of Jesus’ appearance to his disciples after his resurrection from the dead. Traditionally, it is being understood as the Lord forgiving Peter of his triple denial by giving him the opportunity to confess his faith three times. It can also be understood by the Catholic Church in a dogmatic sense as Jesus giving the divine power to Peter and his successors to be the supreme teacher and pastor the Church. However, the passage brings much more than the message to Peter in a literal sense but it is also an important message to all the readers. First, it is noted that Jesus stood on the beach just after “daybreak” (v21), which recalls that Jesus is “the light of the world” (John 9:5) who restores us from spiritual blindness (John 9:1-41) and the darkness of the world (John 1:4-9). Second, the extraordinary catch of 153 large fish (v11) is a “symbol of fullness and an echo of the life in abundance (John 10:10),” yet the net was not broken and none of the fish was lost (John 6:39). So, Peter was assigned with the mission to gather not just one nation, but all into one the dispersed children of God (John 11:52), and into one flock belonging to one shepherd (John 10:16). Third, Jesus had already prepared breakfast: bread and fish for his disciples (v9). It recalls what Jesus did in the multiplication of the loaves (John 6:8-11) and Jesus’ saying that he is “the bread of life” (John 6:35). The Easter breakfast is thus a symbol of “Jesus’ saving presence through the Eucharistic meals to come.” Then it comes to Jesus’ triple question to Peter: “Do you love me?” It is interesting to note that Jesus addressed Peter with his original name: “Simon son of John.” After Peter’s triple confession that he would tend and feed the Lord’s sheep, Peter was “converted” from Simon to a true follower of Jesus: a martyr who would stretch out his hands, to be fastened with a belt, and taken to a place which he did not wish to go (vv. 18-19). The Lord’s message is clear: Peter’s shameful past during the passion is “not denied, but recalled, forgiven and lovingly redeemed. A healing through love becomes the basis for Peter’s new future,” a “heroic mission that will lead to a martyr’s death.” It also reminds us of Jesus’ great commandment: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13). For Christians, Jesus’ appeal to “follow me” (v19) is a personal call, no less than for Peter, which can “evoke and heal our memories as the basis for a new future” (O’Collins 196-199). With these vivid images of the Gospel, while the mysteries remain to be seen by the eyes of faith, the stories tell much more than dogmatic truths of the classical apologetic approach but “retrieve Jesus afresh for a personal encounter” of our Lord (Lecture Notes of Lesson 10).

Bibliography

Coogan, Michael D. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Hammond, David. Lecture Notes for TH 530 Lesson 10 – Rationalism, Classical Apologetics and Christology.

O’ Collins, Gerald. Jesus: A Portrait. New York: Maryknoll, 2013. Print.

Some Insights into Martin Luther’s Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians

        Nominalism is a movement in theology and philosophy which emerged in the late medieval period. It is “an intellectual movement that stressed the power and activity of the will rather than the intellect.” William of Ockham (1285-1347) is a representative figure of Nominalism. Based on his theology, God has the power to “do anything except what involves a logical contradiction.” Therefore, the key point is what God has revealed to us, rather than what He can theoretically do out of His wisdom to achieve something good and fitting for the creation. “God’s actions are what God wills, and human actions are what human beings decide to do based on their willingness to believe” (Lecture Notes of Lesson 9). Because of the heavy emphasis on the will, it becomes much less important to understand the nature of God by human intelligence and reasoning.

        Martin Luther was trained as a nominalist during his vocation as an Augustinian monk. He experienced great mental stress over this period and perceived God as an angry judge who condemned and punished men because they sinned against Him. Being a nominalist, Luther could only submit himself to the rules, regulations and religious ceremonies of the Church with the hope to please God, but his hard works only made him feel more sinful, weak, miserable and uncertain of salvation. He confessed that he hated God as a result. He spoke of his own experience in his Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians:

When I was a monk I tried ever so hard to live up to the strict rules of my order. I used to make a list of my sins, and I was always on the way to confession, and whatever penances were enjoined upon me I performed religiously. In spite of it all, my conscience was always in a fever of doubt. The more I sought to help my poor stricken conscience the worse it got. The more I paid attention to the regulations the more I transgressed them (Luther’s Commentary Gal 5:3).

        Sent by the prior of his monastery to study the Greek Bible, “Luther realized that God’s righteousness was that by which He makes us righteous. Instead of an angry, punishing God, he discovered a God of hope, love and mercy.” This was a great discovery for Luther. Because of his highly positive experience, he rebelled against his nominalist training which stressed on human will and works. He also rejected the teaching that told Christians to do their best and God would supply the needed grace. He considered the advice “hogwash,” which would not give him a peaceful conscience because he would never know whether he had done enough for God and for the sake of his own salvation (Lecture Notes of Lesson 9). Moreover, he considered it unnecessary to use human reason to know the nature of God because “human reason can think only in terms of the Law.” In his opinion, reasoning could only make man do one thing or not doing another in accordance with the church laws and regulations (Luther’s Commentary Gal 2:4-5). He advocated that “true Christian theology does not inquire into the nature of God, but into God's purpose and will in Christ, whom God incorporated in our flesh to live and to die for our sins” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 1:3). Such thinking is indeed in line with the Nominalism he abandoned that puts God’s will above and beyond God’s wisdom and nature.

        Luther’s spiritual experience and reflections led him to conclude that it is by faith in Christ alone that sinners might become righteous. He told his followers that “the true Gospel has it that we are justified by faith alone, without the deeds of the Law. The false Gospel has it that we are justified by faith, but not without the deeds of the Law.” Good works and human merits would not bring about man’s salvation. On the other hand, “faith is able to justify, because it apprehends Christ, the Redeemer” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 2:4-5). This is because God so loved this world and sent his Only Begotten Son to die on the cross for man’s salvation. Because of Christ’s merits on the cross, we are saved from our sins and justified before God. To Christians, “salvation is a ‘passive righteousness,’ meaning that it is God’s work and not ours” (Lecture Notes of Lesson 9). Luther taught that “we obtain grace by the free mercy of God alone for Christ's sake” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 1:10). Instead of an angry and fearful God, Luther envisaged that his theology, which was based on his personal experience, would prompt Christians to “believe that God is merciful, loving, and patient; that He is faithful and true, and that He keeps His promises” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 4:6). Moreover, one’s conscience would not be bound to any work or law, but would be liberalized because of Christ.

        Furthermore, he condemned the Church leaders of his time that they taught “self-devised traditions and works that are not commanded of God, (but) indeed are contrary to the Word of God” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 1:7). The Pope should not be honored as such because he only devised rules and regulations that were not God’s will which would not make one righteous or justified by adhering to them. God’s revelation is through the Scripture, particularly by the deeds and words of Jesus in the Gospel (this thought is also in line with his nominalist training; only that he did not consider the traditions and the magisterium to be part of God’s revelation). Nobody including the Pope should be the supreme judge or interpreter of the Scripture. Luther advocated that “we are not the masters, judges, or arbiters, but witnesses, disciples, and confessors of the Scriptures, whether we be pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, or an angel from heaven” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 1:9).

        Although Luther firmly believed that “justification is by faith alone,” we should not take it to mean that he considered charity unimportant. He said, “Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 5:6). Despite that faith must come first in order to know God and His will, it is necessary for “all Christians to practice good works after they have embraced the pure doctrine of faith, because even though they have been justified they still have the old flesh to refrain them from doing good” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 5:14). We may conclude Luther’s theology by citing a simple quote from his Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians: “By faith we are justified, by hope we endure to the end. In addition we serve each other in love because true faith is not idle” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 5:16).

        Luther’s “overwhelming positive experience” on God’s righteousness also prompted him to formulate a “theology of the cross,” as opposed to what he experienced previously which was called a “theology of the glory” (Lecture Notes of Lesson 9). In his theology of the cross, Luther reckoned that Christ is sinless and innocent. Certainly, Jesus did not deserve to be hung on the cross for any crime he had committed. Nonetheless, Christ took the place of sinners, and was hung on the cross like other transgressors. In other words, Christ took all our sins and died for them on the cross. He was “numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). Through the cross, Christians would be able to see the loving mercy of God the Father. Luther also recognized that it was impossible for men to achieve perfection by following the Law. Moreover, he did not agree that it was suffice for man “to do the best he can, and God will give him His grace” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 2:20). In Luther’s opinion, doing good works and gaining merits would not bring about one’s salvation, but might only result in vainglory. On the other hand, Christ died for our sins on the cross. “The Law kills Christ. But we go free.” As the Son of God, “Christ’s righteousness is unconquerable.” Because of his resurrection and his victory over sin, death and the devil, “sin is defeated and righteousness triumphs and reigns forever” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 3:13). Luther said, “I have no fear that God will cover all my sins and take my imperfections for perfect righteousness” (Luther’s Commentary Gal 3:6).

        The Cross of Christ is a sign of salvation. The cross should no longer be seen as “the terror of divine judgment on sinners, but when we confront this terror and judgment, we face the fear and doubt and recognize in it the love of a merciful God, a God who saved us in spite of our sinfulness” (Lecture Notes of Lesson 9). Through faith in Christ, God brings righteousness, life, and mercy to the believers. Christ “gets our sins, we get his holiness.” As a result, there is no need for a sinner to become desperate even if he cannot get rid of his temptations and sins since living with faith in Christ, he should be able to obtain the wisdom of salvation, and whenever he feels miserable, he can always look for the Christ dying for him on the cross to comfort and save him. It is therefore a consolation rather than a painful experience (Luther’s Commentary Gal 3:13). “The experience of consolation and the end of anxiety comes to the Christian when grace becomes the new law” (Lecture Notes of Lesson 9). By the grace of Christ, Christians can obtain forgiveness of our sins and peace with God, which in turn bring a happy conscience – borne by the personal experience of Luther.

        Luther’s insight into the theology of the cross is basically orthodox in terms of Christology. It can generally be seen as a development or extension of the vicarious sacrifice theory of redemption adopted by the Patristic Fathers which views “Christ saved men by the sacrifice of the cross by which he reconciled them to God” (Mitros 430). Yet there is a point of caution since Luther had pushed his theology to the extent that “the divine nature had to suffer in order to save us” (Lecture Notes of Lesson 9). According to orthodox Christology, we believe that Christ is one person in two natures. Christ who is God-man suffered and died on the cross for our salvation. So, we can say that God became a human being through Incarnation and truly died for us out of His infinite love for mankind. However, this should be understood in the context of communicatio idiomatum (communication of proper qualities between the two natures) of the hypostatic union. What can be properly attributed to one nature may not be properly attributed to the other. For example, the Gospel mentioned that Jesus grew in wisdom and strength in the favor of God and man (Luke 2:40, 52) suggests that his human nature was not infinite (unlike his divine nature). Similarly, it is unorthodox to admit that the divine nature of God (or Christ), which is unchangeable, was subject to suffering and even death. Luther’s notion of “divine passibility,” echoed by some contemporary Lutheran theologians including Jurgen Moltmann and Dennis Ngien, is based on the argument that “God's suffering love for humanity, working in freedom, must flow out of the fullness of God's being. Furthermore, to love in the fullness of his being, God must reciprocally take suffering, even death, into his own being.” However, divine passibility may cause philosophical as well as theological (soteriological) problems.

If God actually and intrinsically dies, then the whole of creation, which He alone sustains, must also die with Him. Furthermore, a death experienced by God within which He may still actively sustain creation or resurrect Himself is not a death in solidarity with that experienced by humanity (Anders “Divine Impassibility”).

        Therefore, despite that Luther’s theology of the cross can help Christians to better appreciate the love of God for us; it would require a proper understanding to avoid causing confusion between the divine and human natures of the God-man Jesus Christ, which had been historically misunderstood in Nestorianism and Eutychianism.

Bibliography

Anders, Peter D. "Divine Impassibility and Our Suffering God – How an Evangelical ‘Theology of the Cross’ Can and Should Affirm Both." Modern Reformation. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

Coogan, Michael D. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Hammond, David. Lecture Notes for TH 530 Lesson 9 – Luther’s Christology.

Luther, Martin. Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.1535. Project Gutenberg. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

Mitros, Joseph. “Patristic Views of Christ's Salvific Work,” Thought 42 (1967), 415-447. Print.

The Council of Ephesus

        The Council of Ephesus (431) was convened to resolve the difference in Christology between the Antiochene clergy led by Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople and the supporters of the Alexandrian school of thoughts led by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. They were ecclesiastical rivalries in the early fifth century. The theological controversy started with Nestorius’ preaching against the Theotokos, the title “Mother of God” as applied to Mary since the early Church days. In his sermon against the Theotokos, he asked the congregation, “Does God have a mother?” In the Letter to the Hebrews, it was said of Christ, “without father, without mother, without genealogy (Heb 7:3),” he added. Because of this, “Mary did not give birth to the Godhead” since “a creature did not produce the Creator, rather she gave birth to the human being, the instrument of the Godhead,” he concluded (Norris 124-125). Here, it brings us to the nature of Jesus Christ. Let’s first take a look at a little more background.

        The Council of Nicea (325) had already confirmed that the nature of the Son is homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father. In the Nicene Creed, the term homoousios denotes a dogmatic truth: “what is said of the Father is also said of the Son, except that the Son is Son and not Father” (Davis 71). The Council condemned Arius, the Alexandrian priest who claimed that the Logos was a creature of God the Creator. However, the Council had not fully settled the humanity of Christ, while confirming his divinity and the consubstantiality between the Father and the Son as well as the eternity of both. Church leaders and theologians thus began to attempt to give a satisfactory answer to the question on how the divine and human natures can coexist in Jesus Christ. Apollinaris, Bishop of Laodicea in the late fourth century addressed the question by adopting a “logos-sarx” (i.e., divinity united with the flesh) framework by claiming that the Logos replaced the human soul. He said, “So Christ, having God as his spirit – that is, his intellect – together with soul and body, is rightly called ‘the human being from heaven’” (Norris 108). In other words, Jesus is not completely human because he lacked the rational element of a human being – the soul. There are soteriological drawbacks for this approach. Salvation would no longer be “the healing but the destruction of humanity because the human freedom of Jesus is eliminated. Humanity is not healed by the Incarnation but replaced by the Logos” (Lecture Notes for Lesson 5).

        This “logos-sarx” framework was not the framework adopted by the Antiochene School. Instead, Nestorius was trained in the “logos anthropos” school of Christology, which placed heavy emphasis on the humanity of Christ. This tradition started with diversity of the two natures in Christ and then tried to explain how they came together. They used to call “Mary Anthropotokos or Mother of the man” instead of Theotokos or Mother of God (Lecture Notes for Lesson 5). For Nestorius, the term “Christ” is “an expression which signifies the two natures, and without risk he applies to him both the style ‘form of a slave,’ which he took, and that of God” (Norris 126). As a result, Nestorius called Mary Christotokos or Mother of Christ, which he considered it a more accurate term than Theotokos that could be construed to be Apollinarianism, i.e., “the manhood of Jesus was completed by the presence of the Word” (Davis 145). In explaining the two natures of Christ, he insisted that each of them was “a prosopon,” i.e., a person or an individual; and “each was a hypostasis or concrete subsistent being.” The two natures, according to Nestorius, are “conjoined in one who combined in himself two distinct element, Godhead and manhood, with all the characteristics proper to Word and man, complete and intact, though united” (Davis 146). Based on his Christology, it would be incorrect to say that the Logos suffered, died and resurrected because it was the Son of Man (i.e., the humanity of the Son) undertaking these. Similarly, the Son of Man would not be eternal but it is just the Logos who is eternal. The divine nature is “immutable, the Incarnation could not have involved the Word in change or suffering.” As for the birth of Jesus, one should not say that “God was born of the Virgin because it is to attribute a human activity to the divinity.” More accurately, one should say that Christ, the prosopon of the two persons conjoined into one (or a “third” person), “was born of the Virgin.” Therefore, Christotokos was considered by Nestorius a more accurate term to call Mary (Davis 147).

        On the other side of the rivalry was the Alexandrian clergy led by Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. In February 430 AD, Cyril wrote his important Second Letter to Nestorius stating his position. In the letter, he agreed with Nestorius that the discussions about the nature of Christ should be based on the Scripture, the Council of Nicea, and the tradition of the Fathers. However, he asserted that the Logos became flesh not by changing his nature or transforming into a human being, but in an “unspeakable and incomprehensible way, the Logos united to Jesus, in his hypostasis, flesh enlivened by a rational soul, and in this way became a human being and has been designated ‘Son of man.’” There is therefore only one Son and not two, who is also the one and the same Christ. This only Begotten Son of God, “although he existed and was born from the Father before the ages, he was also born of a woman in his flesh.” It is therefore entirely proper to call Mary “Mother of God.” While Cyril agreed with Nestorius that the divine is incorporeal and impassible, it did not mean as Nestorius suggested that the human body of the Son of God could not undergo suffering and death. “The body that had become his own underwent suffering, he is – once again – said to have suffered these things for our sakes, for the impassible One was within the suffering body” (Norris 134). Cyril was essentially also employing a “logos-sarx” framework despite his disagreement with Apollinaris that the Logos replaced the human soul. He was a strong defender of the unity of Christ and “used the term mia physis (one nature) to express the fact that Christ is only one concrete individual (Lecture Notes for Unit 3). Nevertheless, he recognized the full divinity and humanity of Christ, and on this point he converged with Nestorius (despite that Cyril did not use the term “two natures in one person and hypostasis” as declared later by the Council of Chalcedon (451)). The primary difference between the Christology of Cyril and Nestorius is that the former could “bring within the framework of a single, clearly conceived personality of the two natures of Christ,” while the latter tried to distinguish the two natures but ran into problems (created three prosopons, i.e., Logos, Son of man, and Christ as a result) when doing it (Davis 148).

        Cyril was more aggressive than Nestorius in defending his Christology and attacking his opponent’s views. He successfully convinced Pope Celestine to subscribe to his beliefs and also persuaded Emperor Theodosius II to depose Nestorius and send him into exile. Quite unfairly, Cyril ended up addressing Nestorius as the “new Judas” when notifying him of the decision of the Council of Ephesus run by the former that the latter would no longer hold any rank in the Church (Davis 156). It may be said that Alexandria had triumphed over Constantinople in this ecclesiastical dispute. But it also comes at a price: “Nestorianism itself had a long future ahead of it.” “The Persian Church officially accepted Nestorianism in 486.” Even today, “it is estimated that some 80,000 Nestorians live in the Mid-East, 5,000 in India, and 25,000 in North and South America. They refuse to accept the title of Mary as Mother of God and revere Nestorius as a saint” (Davis 167). Ecumenical dialogues are ongoing but the road to reconciliation and full communion is long.

Bibliography

Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990. Print.

Hammond, David. Lecture Notes for TH 530 Lesson 5 – Ephesus.

Norris, Richard A. The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Print.

The Meaning of homoousios in the Nicea Context

        The word homoousios (consubstantial) was used by the First Council of Nicea (325) convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine and is an important term in the Nicene Creed. In the Creed, it denotes a simple dogmatic truth: “what is said of the Father is also said of the Son, except that the Son is Son and not Father” (Davis 71). It is essentially an ontological claim and a judgment of the Council aiming to express a truth about God and the relationship between the Father and the Son without any confusion. This word is crucial in defending against the Arian heresy initiated by Arius, a priest of Alexandria, which stated that the Logos was a creature of God the Creator and it was impossible for God to be divided and to share his divine essence. Despite its seemingly straightforward meaning, the term itself is not without dispute in its historical context. In fact, the majority of the bishops who were present in the Council of Nicea initially objected to the use of the term because at that time it was a “notoriously slippery word” (Davis 61). Let’s examine the word more closely in its historical context.

        The term homoousios was used by adoptionist bishop Paul of Samosata, the Bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268 AD. He applied the term to the relationship of the Logos to God the Father. Using the word in the literal sense, it means they are of the same substance (essence). For example, “two pennies are consubstantial because both are of the same substance, copper.” According to Athanasius, Paul used the term in a “reductio ad absurdum arguing that the Logos and the Father could not be consubstantial.” It is because if the Logos and the Father were of the same substance, he argued, they would be identical and not distinct entities. In 268 AD, the bishops assembled in Antioch and deposed Paul and condemned both his adoptionist teaching and his use of the term homoousios (Davis 41). Therefore, the word homoousios, despite its meaning twisted by Paul of Samosata, was problematic historically.

        Besides, the word homoousios had “strong materialist overtones which would connote that the Father and Son are parts or separable portions of the same stuff.” It might also be taken to mean that the Father and the Son were in fact identical which was Sabellianism rejected by the Church. After all, the word was not scriptural and the more conservative bishops had reservations on its proposed use in the Nicene Creed (Davis 61-62). Despite the misgivings of the attending bishops to add the word to the Creed, it seems apparent that the authority of Emperor Constantine was the underlying driving force. Behind Constantine was his ecclesiastical advisor, Ossius, Bishop of Cordoba who presided at the Council of Nicea. Being a bishop of the Western Church, Ossius probably considered the term appropriate as it was hitherto used to “describe the type of Trinitarian theology fashionable in the West with its strong insistence on the divine monarchy.” It is also likely that Ossius had gained prior support from Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria and the cooperation of Constantine to urge the participating bishops to accept to add the term to the Creed (Davis 62).

        Turning back to the meaning of the term homoousios in the context of the Council, it essentially provides, together with other statements in the Creed for producing the same effect, a “Yes” and “No” answer to the questions on whether (1) the Son is God (in the same sense as the Father is God) and (2) the Son is the Father. The answers provided by the Council through the word are “Yes” for the first question and “No” for the second question, i.e., “the Son is God in the same sense of that the Father is God, except that the Son is not the Father” (Lecture Notes of Lesson 4). The term does not attempt to address other related questions, e.g., How can the Son who is God become human? How is the Son different from the Father despite that they are of the same substance? What is the substance? What is the difference? What is meant by the Son is begotten and not created by the Father? The Council of Nicea “was an authoritative judgment, not an explanation” (Lecture Notes of Lesson 4). Homoousios is “not taken as identity of matter” (substance) “but identity of prediction” (Yes or No) (Lonergan 304). In effect, the bishops at Nicea affirmed the monotheism belief they inherited from the God of Israel (who is the same God of the New Testament) as well as the salvation effects brought about by Christ – the God who becomes human. He is God in the flesh and not a lower ranking (subordinate) God or a supreme creature of God. The Creed formulated by the Council asserts, in the light of the Scripture and the tradition, what is fundamentally true about the Son and his relationship with the Father in response to the debates and questions which were raised over the centuries as well as the heretical teachings that arose. It appeals to “the intellects of Christians for their assent to this judgment as the foundation of further religious belief and experience” (Davis 71).

Bibliography

Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1990. Print.

Hammond, David. Lecture Notes for TH 530 Lesson 4 – The Council of Nicea.

Lonergan, Bernard. “The Origins of Christian Realism.” Theology Digest 20 (1972): 292-305.

Eucharist – the Sacrament of Communion and Salvation

        Since her early beginning, the Church has all along recognized the Eucharist as the most important of the seven sacraments. It is the “Most Blessed Sacrament”, the “Sacrament of sacraments” (CCC 1330). According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “Absolutely speaking, the sacrament of the Eucharist is the greatest of all the sacraments” for three reasons. First of all, there is real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist whereas the other sacraments contain a certain instrumental power which is a share of Christ's power for bringing about the sacramental effects. Secondly, all the other six sacraments have Eucharist as their end or objective, e.g., only a baptized person is entitled to receive the Eucharist; holy orders are ordained to the consecration of the Eucharist; by reconciliation and anointing of the sick one is prepared to receive the Eucharist worthily. Thirdly, it is most fitting for the rites of the other sacraments to include the Eucharistic celebration, e.g., the spouses receive the Eucharist as a sign of their unity with Christ after the sacrament of matrimony has been conferred (ST III, Q 65, A 3).

        Jesus instituted this great sacrament at the Last Supper. When Christ consecrated bread and wine into his body and blood, he said, “This is my body, which will be given up for you. Do this in memory of me … This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:19-20). In instituting the Eucharist, he did not merely say: “This is my body”, “this is my blood”, but went on to add: “which is given up for you”, “which is poured out for you.” (EdeE 12) It is by the Lord’s own words that the Church unceasingly celebrates the Eucharist using the above formula since the days of the apostles. Above all, it was on the first day of the week, Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection that the Christians met to break bread (c.f. Acts 20:7). The Eucharistic celebration remains the center of the Church's life (CCC 1343).

        Jesus used bread and wine as the matter for the sacrament because their symbolic meanings were so apparent to the people of his days. In the Old Covenant, the signs of bread and wine signify the goodness of creation. Bread and wine were offered in sacrifice among the first fruits of the earth as a sign of grateful acknowledgment to the Creator. It was recorded that King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High (Gen 14:18). Unleavened bread is eaten as a Jewish tradition during Passover to commemorate the haste of departure when God liberated the Israelites from Egypt. Manna in the desert kept the Israelites alive and it reminds the Jewish people to live by the bread of the Word of God (c.f Deut 8:3, Matt 4:4). The cup of blessing (c.f. 1 Cor 10:16) at the end of the Jewish Passover meal adds to the festive joy of wine an eschatological dimension: the messianic expectation of the rebuilding of Jerusalem (CCC 1134).

        The signs of bread and wine also have great significance in the Gospel. Jesus performed his first miracle in Cana to turn water into wine. He fed thousands of followers with the multiplication of loaves. Also important are the narratives of Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum recorded in the Gospel of John that prepare for the institution of the Eucharist. Different from the three synoptic gospels, the Gospel of John does not include the institution of the Eucharist by Jesus at the Last Supper. On the other hand, Jesus told his disciples during the discourse on the Bread of Life that: “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty” (John 6:35). He went on to say, “I am the living bread that comes down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51). Jesus gave us a new commandment at the Last Supper: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:12-13). According to Pope Benedict XVI, Jesus’ Last Supper can be recognized as the real act of founding the Church. In the Last Supper, Jesus renewed the covenant of Sinai: what was then only a symbolic start now becomes a reality – the communion of blood and life between God and man. “The Eucharist joins human beings together, not only with one another, but also with Christ, and that in this way it makes people into the Church” (Ratzinger 17).

        God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life (John 3:16). The purpose of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross is for the forgiveness of sins and to re-establish man’s relationship with God. Our Savior once and for all sacrificed himself on the altar of the Cross to accomplish an everlasting redemption. He has become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (Heb 6:20). But his priesthood is not to end with his death. He wanted to leave his Bride – the Church a visible sacrifice by which the bloody sacrifice on the Cross would be re-presented (or made present) through the celebration of the Eucharist, so that its memory may be perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit (CCC 1366). Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover (i.e., his own sacrifice on the Cross for the salvation of all), the Eucharist is also a sacrifice (CCC 1365). In reality, the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. The sacrificial victim, who is Christ, remains the same. The priest, who is the ordinary minister of the Eucharist, is an icon of Christ the priest. Only the manner of sacrificial offering is different. “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the Cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner” (CCC 1367). Jesus is the Lamb of God; he surrendered his life on the Cross to save us from the slavery of sins, and enable us to become the adopted sons of the Father. Upon the consecration of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, we proclaim the Mystery of Faith by saying, “Save us, Savior of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection, you have set us free”. By our faith in Christ and God’s grace, we are the chosen ones who may believe in the mysteries of God of things unsensed. Indeed, the sacramental grace of the Eucharist frees us from the slavery of sins and preserves, improves, and renews our relationship with God.

        The communication between God and man in the Eucharistic celebration is bi-directional. Christ is the Head of the Church, his Mystical Body. He pours out his grace to members of his Mystical Body who have prepared themselves well to accept it, particularly through proclaiming the Word of God to them in the liturgy of the Word and their participation in the liturgical banquet by receiving the Lord’s body and blood. On the receiving end, the sacrifice of Christ also becomes the sacrifice of the celebrating assembly. “The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value” (CCC 1368). Where the two ends meet, the faithful with the right disposition will be able to receive the abundant grace of Christ. Through communion with the Lord, the Eucharist separates us from sins. The sacrament strengthens our charity and this living charity wipes away venial sins (CCC 1394). Moreover, the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins, since the more we share the life of Christ and progress in his friendship, the more difficult it is to break away from him by mortal sin (CCC 1395). Indeed, God's salvation plan is directed toward our participation in the life of the Trinity, the communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). Through the sacraments of baptism and confirmation, we have already become temples of the Holy Spirit. The Eucharist allows us to be united more closely with Christ and participate in the intimate unity of the Trinity.

        Apart from the above “vertical communication” between God and man in the Eucharistic celebration, there is also a horizontal dimension of the communication. “The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that . . . they may offer spiritual sacrifices.” This common priesthood is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate (CCC 1140). Christ's sacrifice on the altar makes it possible for all Christians to be united with his offering. Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to the Mystical Body of Christ. Holy Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens our incorporation into the Church, already achieved initially by the sacrament of baptism (CCC 1396). In this way, the Eucharistic sacrifice becomes a beautiful image of the Cross – the vertical pole forms the communion between God and man, while the horizontal pole is made up of the communion among the faithful of the Church.

        The whole Church is indeed united in the sacrificial offering and intercession of Christ. Since the Pope is the representative of Christ as the visible head of the Church on earth, he is named as the sign and servant of the unity of the universal Church. The bishop's name is also mentioned to signify his presidency over the particular Church, in the midst of his presbyterium and with the assistance of deacons (CCC 1369). Thus, in the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest prays, “Remember, Lord, your Church, spread throughout the world, and bring her to the fullness of charity, together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop and all the clergy.” Moreover, as the offering is also made with the Church Triumphant and the Church Penitent, the Eucharistic Prayer includes them:

Remember … all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face … with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with blessed Joseph, her spouse, with the blessed Apostles, and all the Saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be coheirs to eternal life …

This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the high priest (CCC 1372). Besides, the Church never forgets her faithful members who are old or sick and hence not able to participate in the Eucharistic sacrifice on Sundays. Priests, deacons and Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers bring the Eucharist to them at home so that they may also unite into the One Body of Christ. For those who are seriously ill, it is most appropriate for the Eucharist, the sacrament of Christ's Passover, to be received as the last sacrament of the earthly journey, the "viaticum" or the way to pass over to eternal life (CCC 1517). As such, the whole Church continues to reproduce this sacrifice in the sacrament of the Eucharist where she offers the only acceptable offering to God, while at the same time, she herself together with her members is offered in unity to God (CCC 1372).

        The Eucharistic sacrifice does not end with the Church because she has been given a mission in the world. The Eucharist commits us to the poor, including those people outside the Church. All men are created equal because they are all created in the image and likeness of God. By receiving the body and blood of Christ, we must recognize Christ in the poorest (CCC 1397). Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me” (Matt 25:40). There is an urgent need in the modern world for Christians to work for peace, to base relationships between peoples on solid premises of justice and solidarity, and to defend human life from conception to its natural end. Every day, so many defenseless embryos are killed in the mothers’ womb. Moreover, in this globalized world, capitalism and utilitarianism are making the weakest, the powerless and the poorest appear to have so little hope. In fact, the “poor” and the “weak” should be extended to all those people who are not aware that they are in the slavery of sins; those who want to make themselves a “god” in the modern world where they think they are in full control of it. “It is in this world that Christian hope must shine forth! For this reason too, the Lord wished to remain with us in the Eucharist, making his presence in meal and sacrifice the promise of a humanity renewed by his love” (EdeE 20). That’s why the Eucharistic celebration is also called “Missa” (Holy Mass), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is accomplished concludes with the sending forth (missio) of the faithful, so that they may fulfill God's will in their daily lives. The priest says to the assembly at the end of the Mass, “Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life.” All the faithful who take part in the Eucharist are committed to changing our lives and making ourselves in a certain way completely “Eucharistic” (EdeE 20). The Eucharist makes us holy and transforms us into a second christ.

        God is love. It is in God’s love that man was created. Although sins separate us from God, the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross which is re-presented in every Eucharistic celebration has conquered sin and the relationship between God and the sinful humanity is reconciled. By receiving the Holy Communion, we are being sent by Christ into the world to make disciplines of all nations (c.f. Matt 28:19). The Eucharist joins human beings together with Christ in the Church. This determines the fundamental constitution of the Church: Church lives in Eucharistic communities. “Her worship service is her constitution, for by her very nature she is service of God and therefore service of men, the service that transforms the world” (Ratzinger 18). The Eucharist enables us to bring the love of Christ to every person we meet. It completes our initiation into the People of God which commenced from the sacrament of baptism and progressed through the sacrament of confirmation. We are sons of the Father, temple of the Holy Spirit and members of Christ. Our active participation in Eucharistic celebrations enables us to continuously live out our identity as children of God. Jesus told us, “You are the salt of the earth … You are the light of the world” (Matt 5:13-14). Through the Church and her members united with Christ, God’s salvific plan for all creation is being carried out by Christians spreading the Gospel to all nations until the end of the world. Actually, we may carry out this mission together with our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. The Holy Communion reminds us that the more urgent are our prayers to the Lord that the time of complete unity among all Christians who believe in him may return (CCC 1398). Seeing the world with the eyes of God, we may adopt a sacramental worldview. Through the Eucharist, the real body and blood of Christ, we are united together in the Church with Christ so as to partake in the love of the Trinity, and by the transformative power of the sacrament, we share His love with the world and actively participates in the salvific plan of God for all creation.

Bibliography

Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1995. Print.

Chapp, Carmina. Lecture Notes for TH 580 Lesson 8 Eucharist.

Coogan, Michael D. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Ecclesia de Eucharistia. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html

Ratzinger, Joseph. Church, Ecumenism, and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology. San Francisco: Ignatius, 2008. Print.

Summa Theologica, Part III.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

The Order of the Mass Worship Aid.

http://www.universalis.com/static/mass/orderofmass.htm

Vocation of the Laity in a Culture of Death

        In the modern world, we are faced with a culture of death. In the words of Pope John Paul II, this culture denies solidarity and “is actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency” (EV 12).

        The laity can counter this culture of death in a few ways:

1.      Promoting human dignity: In a modern culture of utilitarianism, human dignity is at stake when virtually everything, from human life to marriage and family relationship and from friendship to day-to-day human interactions is measured based on the materialistic benefit that it would bring to me or the “greater good” that it would bring to the society. There is often a lack of respect of other people. The Catholic laity should in their everyday lives live out the Golden Rule: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you” (Matt 7:12). With greater respect for other people, the world can be changed into a more genuinely human habitation (Shaw 75).

2.      Fostering respect for the right to life: Under all circumstances, the Church strongly opposes to abortion and euthanasia, because they are intrinsically evil acts that infringe upon human dignity to the greatest extent. It is crucial for the Catholic laity to advocate the importance to protect human life amongst ourselves, starting from our family members, relatives and friends. Catholics who are doctors and nurses should endeavor to uphold the pro-life principle, so do teachers, media professionals and researchers in the bio-tech field (Shaw 77).

3.      Protecting marriage and family life: the family is the basic unit of the society. Good marriages and family lives are conducive to achieving common good in society. In face of modern practice of cohabitation and high divorce rates, Catholic couples and families need to come together in groups for mutual reinforcement and support (Shaw 80). This will not only reinforce their marriage bonds but also enable them to become the salt of the earth and the light of the world so that others would realize the true happiness of marriage and family.

4.      Engaging in works of charity: Jesus gives us a new commandment that we should love one another as he has loved us. The Catholic laity should engage in charitable works, particularly those involving in helping the poor and the needy through voluntary services and donations, so that other people will know that the society is not just focusing entirely on efficiency, effectiveness and benefits, but also on human charity and love for those who are in need.

5.      Participating in public life: in a democratic society, all have the right to vote as a citizen. The Catholic laity should exercise this right prudently based on a “sincere and generous calculation for what will serve the common good” (Shaw 82). For Catholics who are called to hold public service, they should follow their conscience in the light of the teaching of the Magisterium to do goods and avoid evils, particularly on issues that involve human life and dignity, marriage and family.

Bibliography

Coogan, Michael D. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha. N.p.: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Pope John Paul II. "Evangelium Vitae." N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

Shaw, Russell. “The Apostolate of the Laity.” Catholic Laity in the Mission of the Church. Bethune: Requiem Press, 2005. 117-129.