First, a comment on a couple of Sundays ago. Unbelievable. The gospel reading for that day featured Jesus' disciples being criticized by some of the Jewish leaders for not washing their hands before meals, followed by Jesus' explanation that it is not what enters the mouth but what exits it which is unclean, etc. "Oh, boy," I said to myself as I sat back in my pew. "I want to hear his (my homilist's) analysis of this."
"Today's gospel has the Pharisees complaining," the homilist began, "so I too have the right to complain." Then he spent ALL fifteen minutes of his preaching time reading his list of petty complaints about his congregation's behavior in church: you arrive late, you let your kids stand on the pew, you let them walk around the aisles, you dress improperly, you chew gum, etc.---including a comment which almost caused me to lose it: "When you leave the church before the service has ended, you might as well be walking out like Judas did at the Last Supper."
Dear Lord, how can an ordained minister be allowed to pervert by such nonsense the precious little time he has to preach the word and to instruct his people in the gospel?
On to September 13: a dramatic gospel reading from Mark 8:27-35 in which Jesus asks his followers, "Who do the people say I am?" and they reply, "Some say you're John the Baptist, others say you're Elijah, others say you are one of the prophets." After more discussion with them, Jesus then orders his disciples not to tell the people that He is the Messiah, and shifts his comments to his role as Son of Man, not Messiah.
Well, I predict that my and probably your Catholic (at least) homilist will say what they've been saying (or not saying) for the past thirty years I've heard this gospel read at a service. He or they will fail to analyze the fascinating answer the disciples give---i.e., fail to explain how Jesus could be confused with the then-dead Johnny Baptist and the long-dead Elijah. And instead of explaining Jesus' role as prophet, the homilist will focus on his role as Messiah, completely ignoring Jesus' shift to the role as Son of Man.
But I gotta admit, curiosity overcomes me---so I'll be back with itchy ears in my same pew this Sunday. And if I decide to walk out of church during the homily or before the service ends, I'll be sure to be wearing my Judas-look-alike mask.
-Old Gargoyle
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
A Judas look-alike mask? Is it going to be Harvey Keitel or Carl Anderson?
I'm kinda hazy on the details, but wasn't the confusion due to the belief that Elijah would reappear before the Messiah? How prevalent was this belief? Was there a popular belief in the region that John the Baptist was Elijah returned to earth?
Now that I think about it, if this is true, and people are confusing Jesus with these two figures, does it mean that Jesus was not considered by these the Messiah at the time, but the Messiah's herald?
A general yes, yes, and yes. To use an unfortunate saying, "The devil is in the details," i.e., for the homilist to explain these details to his congregation would result in a better understanding of the person and mission of Jesus, which should be the primary purpose of every homily.
Why don't you just become a deacon so you can give the homilies and quit whining about how inept your local homilist is?
With love and frustration,
Jennifer
Jennifer, I'm reminded of the time I dismissed the complaints my grouchy old pharmacist would keep making about the unfounded or exaggerated claims made by some of the over-the-counter drugs in his drugstore. Then I found myself prompted to do some private research, later to discover his whinings were accurate and beneficial. But this never made me want to become a pharmacist or a drug salesman (especially after the four-to-twelve months I had to do for the original drug incident many, many years ago---but that's another story).
Your analogy is weak. Your herbal knowledge notwithstanding, your education (I'm guessing by your degree and alma mater) is theological, not pharmacological.
Kindly compare one proverbial apple to the other.
With love and oneupmanship,
Jennifer
You're probably right. I've had so many drugs and "drugs" in my lifetime, I can't think straight anymore. (But, by the way, Catholics are the majority, not a minority, of Christians.)
Where are you getting your numbers? The majority of Christians in the United States are Protestants (not one particular denomination, mind you, but as a whole).
An AP report from February of 2008 explains:
"native-born Protestants outnumber Catholics by two to one"
and, more specifically:
"Eight in 10 Americans are Christian: half are Protestant, a quarter Catholic, 1.7 percent Mormon, and tiny percentages belong to other branches of Christianity."
Link: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h7rc3tC9fKhoJW6X9PV6ZmG2BIng
Kisses!
Yes, my fair-haired number cruncher--in the U.S. but not in the world, and you didn't originally specify which. I know, I know, we were commenting on American football players, implying a context limited to the U.S. But remember that with the illegal immigration situation the way it is, many of those players, coaches, cheerleaders, etc. on American teams are by now Moroccan Muslims, Thai Buddhists, Indian Hindus who were saved by Mother Theresa, grew up, and moved to America, Japanese Taoists, Korean (probably only South Korean) Confucianists, Canadian Canucks, Scottish Wiccans, etc. In short, a massive, confusing expansion of the global aspects of American football.
I'm now gonna take a hot-cocoa break.
"my fair-haired number cruncher"
[sniffle] Don't you even remember what I look like?
"with the illegal immigration situation the way it is"
Yes, and I think that's the point that the AP article was making. Well, maybe they weren't so much referring to the cheerleader, player, coach contingent of illegal immigrants, but you get the idea.
Okay, here's another question: do we only categorize as Protestant those churches that evolved from the whole Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al., schism? I know that Anglicans/Episcopalians aren't technically Protestants for this reason. But do we not call Mormons Protestants because they do not belong to that not-so-little (Luther, Calvin...) branch of Christianity or because they are so heterodox?
With love and a kumbaya spirit of ecumenism,
Jennifer
Broadly speaking (and in popular speech), Anglicans/Episcopalians usually are classified separately from general Protestants. That probably is partly due to (a) the historical fact that early Anglicanism was schismatic from Rome but not heretical. But after a few decades, early Protestant doctrine from Northern Europe became assimilated into the Anglican Church and later into America's Episcopal Church; (b) and partly due to the fact that Anglicans and Episcopalians like to think of themselves as a "separate branch" of Christianity--Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and general Protestantism being the other "branches."
In the eyes of most Protestants themselves (all evangelical ones and almost all mainline ones), the Mormon Church is not a Protestant church and is barely, if at all, a Christian one because of the Mormons' addition of another scripture (the Book of Mormon) and other serious distortions of traditional Christian belief.
The Catholic Church considers, strictly speaking, the Anglican/Epis Church to be Protestant, though Rome, in its relations with the Ang/Epis Church, usually deals with it as somewhat separate from general Protestantism. And Rome regards the Mormon Church as a "sect," i.e., a religious group without historical roots in traditional Christianity and lacking substantial similarity with traditional Christian beliefs.
And, of course, Ang/Episcopalians make and enjoy damn good cups of tea, whereas Mormons avoid that devil's brew.
Very interesting. As an Anglican (Episcopalian), I don't consider myself Protestant but much more aligned with the Catholic faith. I think the term is "Protestant, yet Catholic"
We have confession, the same saints, read the Pope's encyclical, etc. The most important thing for me is transubstantiation - we follow the Catholic church on this while Protestants tend to think of us as cannibals.
Don't know about the tea but we are always looking for a reason to have champagne - easter, birthdays, ordination anniversaries, saint holiday, etc.
I hope I have the right person - I was in your first class at Fatima. You may not remember me but I always enjoyed your class and have taken several courses on religion since then.
Delaware? Really?
Post a Comment