In modern times, it is sometimes rather embarrassing to defend some actions of Jesus. They offend the sensibility of modern men. The rudeness of Jesus towards a Gentile woman in the district of Tyre and Sidon was one such case. (Matthew 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30) Jesus was born a Jew. Though he is the Son of God and should be able to transcend the limitations of his humanity, his Jewishness was a reality of his human life, like his growth from a baby to an adult. To a certain extent, Jesus had to outgrow his Jewishness. How his divinity and humanity interact within the Person of the Son of God is a Christology topic. It is a hotbed of heresies and have to be handled carefully. Let me deal with an easier problem first and I will return to this issue later.
In the second reading today, we met another hard nut to crack. No translation of Romans 11:32 is satisfactory. Let me give just a few after the Greek original.
συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ (GNT)
Conclusit enim Deus omnes in incredulitatem, ut omnium misereatur! (Vulgate)
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. (KJV)
For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all. (RSV)
因為天主把眾人都禁錮在背叛之中，是為要憐憫眾人。【思高】
因為 神將眾人都圈在不順服之中、特意要憐恤眾人 。【和合本】
The word συνέκλεισεν appears only 4 times in the New Testament and have been translated as "enclosed" (Luke 5:6), "concluded" (Romans 11:32, Galatians 3:22) and "shut up" (Galatians 3:33). Basically, it seems to suggest some kind of imprisonment. God imprisons all in some bad things so that he may have mercy on all! This is a very Jewish expression, reminds one of what God did to Pharaoh in Exodus. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he refused to let the Israelites go so that God might punish the Egyptians by killing all their firstborns. Of course, this made sense from the perspective of the Israelites. In a pluralistic world we live nowadays, God's action is outrageous. Were the Egyptians not God's creation? Therefore, we should read this kind of Jewish expressions with suspicion. These expressions cannot be read literally.
When we try to read further back in time and search the LXX, the word συνέκλεισεν appears only once in Psalms.
καὶ οὐ συνέκλεισάς με εἰς χεῖρας ἐχϑροῦ, ἔστησας ἐν εὐρυχώρῳ τοὺς πόδας μου. (30:9 LXX)
And hast not shut me up into the hand of the enemy: thou hast set my feet in a large room.(31:8 KJV)
and hast not delivered me into the hand of the enemy; thou hast set my feet in a broad place (RSV)
Therefore, the word συνέκλεισεν is best understood as "allowed to be under the control of". God is autonomous. We are created in the image of God. Therefore, we are autonomous beings and God respects our autonomy. God did not harden Pharaoh's heart. He allowed Pharaoh to harden his heart. God does not imprison us in obedience. He allows us to disobey and go against his will. Later, he shall still forgive us and show us his mercy. This is not my ideas. It comes from John of Damascus (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Bk IV, Ch. 19)
Now, let me return to the interaction between Jesus and the Canaanite woman. Of course, her faith was great and commendable. She was an exemplar of faith for all Christians to follow. Her perseverance was admirable. However, I think Matthew had reworked and elaborated Mark's account to suit his Jewish community. Matthew's story is more elaborate in that at the beginning, the woman begged Jesus from the back and later moved to the front. In Mark, the woman simply begged Jesus without a clear indication of her location. When we make further comparison, we will find more curious things. It seems that Matthew's community was trying to deal with something inevitable: the admission of Gentiles into their community.
1) It was highly unlikely for the Canaanite woman to call Jesus, "Son of David". This was a highly charged Messianic title. If the Canaanite woman represented Gentiles who wanted to enter the Jewish Christian community, it seems that they had to accept Jesus as their Messiah as well.
2) In Mark's account, the story is completely between Jesus and the woman. In Matthew, the disciples (church leaders) came to the woman's aid (Matthew 15:23). It suggests that Matthew's community was trying to handle the issue of admitting Gentile believers.
3) Matthew states the mission of Jesus while Mark does not (15:24). This was the initial understanding of Jewish Christians in relation to Gentiles. God elected the Israelites first. They had the priority. All of Jesus' first disciples were Jews. In short, Jesus was very Jewish.
4) Agreeing with Paul, Matthew's Jesus praised the great faith of the woman while Mark's Jesus did not commend her faith. The Jews took it for granted that they were God's Chosen People. If you were born a Jew and kept all the commandments of covenant, you would be saved. Faith in Jesus in order to be saved was something new to most Jewish Christians. Paul was revolutionary in that he broke through the confines of rules and commandments and argued that faith is more essential than obedience for salvation. In Mark's community, they had no Torah and covenant. They had faith instead. Therefore, faith was taken for granted and was not mentioned.
In my previous blog, I argued that the Gentile woman was actually teasing Jesus instead of showing her humility. This peculiar reading of the story is clearer in Mark's version. The woman teased Jesus that his effort among the Jews had been futile. He had antagonized the Pharisees and fled from further confrontations. Jesus had to seek shelter in a Gentile land. In Matthew, the whole teasing undertone was drowned out by the loud voice of great faith. Remember, in Nazareth, Jesus had lamented that prophets were not welcomed in their home town. The reality of life can be harsh.
Dear Lord, help us outgrow our limitations. Amen.
Sunday, 17 August 2014
Sunday, 10 August 2014
神蹟的象徵意義 Symbolic Meanings of Miracles
常年期第十九主日（甲年）
主題：神蹟的象徵意義
聖堂附近的輕鐵站以杯渡命名。據【高僧傳】所載，杯渡禪師是南北朝時期的一個不知名，行為怪異如濟顛和尚的一個神僧。稱得為神僧是因為他行過不少神蹟，最為人津津樂道的就是他經常踏在一隻木杯上，就可以渡過江河，飄洋過海了，故人稱「杯渡禪師」。據說他最後的落腳點就是今天的「青山禪院」。
除了杯渡禪師的故事之外，相信大家都聽過不少武俠小說中的所謂「登萍渡水」的絕頂輕功。雖然明知是小說，但是我們都很樂意接受這些幻想所帶來的樂趣。因此，在這種文化背景之下，對於今天福音所記載有關耶穌步水面的故事，我們就不會感到神奇，反而覺得不外如是。
的確，福音中耶穌所行的神蹟，例如變水為酒、治病驅魔、平息風浪，又或者是上星期的五餅二魚增餅神蹟，與中國文化之中的封神榜、西遊記或者其他的神仙故事比較，的確是小巫見大巫。其實，整部聖經所記載的神蹟，與世界各地的神話故事比較，一樣不及它們驚天動地。所以，今天想同大家分享有關「神蹟」的問題。
為甚麽耶穌行的神蹟並不驚天動地，鬼哭神號呢？這是因為文化上的差異。
第一，耶穌生為猶太人，故所行的神蹟就帶有以色列人的文化色彩。舊約中的先知，例如厄里亞、厄里叟，都被稱為「天主的人」。耶穌所行的治好痲瘋病人、復活死人和上星期讀到的增餅事蹟，都是厄里亞和厄里叟曾經行過的神蹟。故此，這些神蹟告訴當代的猶太人知道，耶穌是來自天主的人。
第二，【創世紀】告訴我們，創造天地萬物的天主使混沌變成有秩序。所以，耶穌平息風浪和今次步行水面的神蹟，是表示出耶穌是天主的身份。其他例如顯聖容，驅魔等都表示耶穌是天主。
最後，你們以為在那裡可以找到天主呢？在無堅不摧的龍捲風之中？在山崩地裂的地震中？在好像地獄一樣的一片火海之中？完全不是。根據今天第一篇讀經，【列王紀上】19章的記載，天主在高山上，在微風細語之中，在厄里亞先知面前經過。天主對祂所創造的宇宙，十分滿意，認為很好。如果天主的動作太大，恐怕會造成破壞。所以，如果你想看到驚天動地，鬼哭神號的神蹟，對不起令你失望，我們的天主是不會使用「過份的暴力」去行神蹟的。
其實我們應該關心的不是神蹟的轟動程度，而是神蹟對我們的得救更深層的意義。例如，在【出谷紀】天主行神蹟分開紅海，使以色列人獲得徹底的自由，今天過紅海的神蹟為我們的得救又有甚麽意義呢？一如經過了紅海的水，以色列人擺脫埃及人的奴役，進入福地。同樣，經過洗禮的水，基督徒擺脫了罪惡的奴役，加入教會，邁向永生的天國。所以過紅海是洗禮的象徵，亦表達出洗禮的必要性。又例如上星期的五餅二魚神蹟，就告訴我們天主對我們的慈愛，祂有決心、有能力照顧我們肉身和靈魂的飢渴；祂要以聖體聖事，滋養我們靈性及肉身的生命。
今天福音所載的步行水面事蹟，除了是一個神蹟之外，又有甚麽深層的意義呢?
首先，從挪亞方舟開始，「船」便象徵了教會。在上次平息風浪的神蹟中，耶穌由始至終都留在船上。有耶穌在，教會無論遇到怎樣大的風浪，仍是安全的。今次，耶穌不在船上，而是步行水面到船上，時間是四更時份。又是甚麽意義呢？
第四世紀教會的一位聖師聖希拉利認為第四更是黑夜的結束，是指末日。他解釋第一更象徵了梅瑟的法律時代，第二更象徵先知時代，第三更是耶穌在世傳福音的時代，第四更就是耶穌升天後開展的教會時代，直到末日。教父聖奧思定與另一位教會聖師金口若望亦同意這個觀點。耶穌雖然已升天到天父的右邊，留在天上，但他仍在聖言及聖體內時常與我們同在。不過他始終要放手，在驚濤駭浪之中，訓練考驗我們。到末日，他會再來，到時一切將會風平浪靜。
聖伯多祿的行為表現出他一貫愛主的熱誠。今次伯多祿跳入水中走向耶穌，日後他在最後晚餐誇下海口，不怕與耶穌一起受難一樣；耶穌被捕後，伯多祿勇敢地跟到大司祭府。今次伯多祿在大浪中下沉；日後他在大司祭府的後院被圍攻時，軟弱地三次否認耶穌來脫身一樣。今次伯多祿在千鈞一髮之際，向耶穌喊出「主！救我。」；在大司祭府的伯多祿就沒有這個機會了，因為眼前所見的耶穌，自身難保。所以，耶穌所指伯多祿的「小信德」，不單是今次步行水面所發生的事，更加是日後在大司祭府將會發生的事。在大司祭府，耶穌雖然沒有伸出手拉著伯多祿救他，其實，耶穌救了伯多祿。兩個出賣耶穌的門徒，一個猶達斯，一個伯多祿。猶達斯沒有向耶穌呼救，他自殺死了。但伯多祿最後沒有死，究竟當時他如何向耶穌呼救，又或者耶穌怎樣救了他呢？答案在路22:16.
近來發生了那麽多的疫症、戰亂、天災與人禍，我們除了為受到傷害的群眾祈禱之外，這些事件正好提醒我們，不要心硬，要有勇氣承認自己的不足，接受天主的國度，祈求天主的拯救。天主保佑。
19th Ordinary Sunday (Year A)
Theme: Symbolic Meanings of Miracles
The LRT station next to our Church is called “Pui To (cup ferry)”. According to “Biography of High Monks”, Pui To was an anonymous, eccentric monk in the 6th Century. He worked miracles and one of his most remembered fits was to cross rivers and lakes on a wooden cup. That is why he was remembered as Pui To, i.e. ferrying on a cup. His last known address was the Castle Peak Monastery in our neighbourhood.
Besides the story of Monk Pui To, I am sure you must have heard of the levitation skill “treading water on duckweed” in martial art novels. Though we know these are fantasies, we enjoy the fun they deliver. Therefore, with this cultural background, we might find Jesus’ walking on the water not impressive enough.
Truly, the miracles of Jesus in the gospels, such as turning water into wine, healings, exorcisms, calming the storm or even the multiplication of loaves we read last Sunday would be dwarfed by the spectacular scenes in Chinese classic novels such as “Creation of the gods”, “Journey to the West” or other fairy tales and legends. Indeed, compared with myths and legends in other parts of the world, the miracles recorded in the Bible are less powerful in shaking the foundation of the world. Therefore, I would like to share with you the topic of “miracles”.
Why were Jesus’ miracles not ground shaking and spirits wailing? It is because of cultural differences.
Firstly, Jesus was born a Jew. Therefore, his miracles bear Israelite cultural hues. Prophets of the Old Testament such as Elijah and Elisha were called “man of God”. Jesus’ miracles, such as healing lepers, raising the dead and the multiplication of loaves, had been miracles worked by Elijah and Elisha before. Therefore, Jesus’ miracles told his contemporaries that he was a “man of God”.
Secondly, Genesis tells us that during Creation, God brought about order out of chaos. Therefore, when Jesus calmed the storm and this time walked on the water, these miracles show the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is our God. Other miracles such as Transfiguration and exorcisms also convey the same message.
Lastly, where do you expect to find God? In the unstoppable, destructive whirlwinds? In mountain renting earthquakes? Or in a hellish sea of fire? Negative. According to 1Kings 19 we read today, God was in a still small voice (1Kings 19:12). God was happy with His Creation. He saw that it was good. If God’s action is too forceful, it might bring destruction to his good Creation. Therefore, if you want to see earth shaking, spirits wailing miracles, sorry to disappoint you. Our God shall not use “excessive violence” to work miracles.
Indeed, we should not pay attention to how impressive miracles are but rather to their deeper meanings for our salvation. For example, in Exodus, God split the Red Sea to assure the Israelites of irrevocable freedom. Today, what is the relevance of this miracle for our salvation? Just as the Israelites were able to shake off Egyptian slavery and entered the Promised Land after passing through the Red Sea, similarly, Christians today are able to shake off the bondage of sins and join the Church and proceed to the eternal Kingdom of God through baptism. Again, the 5 loaves and 2 fish miracle we read of last week, tells us of God’s compassion for us. He is determined and capable of taking care of the hunger and thirst of our physical as well as spiritual needs. He will make use of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to nourish our bodily and spiritual lives.
So, besides being a miracle, what are the deeper meanings of the story we read today?
First of all, since Noah’s Ark, a ship/boat is a symbol of the Church. Last time in the calming of the storm, Jesus stayed in the boat all the time. As long as Jesus is with the Church, she is able to weather through all tribulations no matter how hazardous they are. She is safe. This time, Jesus was not on the boat, but walking towards the boat at the fourth watch. What did it mean?
St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) taught that the 4th watch is the end of night, the last day. He explained that the 1st watch is the age of Torah, the 2nd watch the Prophets, the 3rd the earthly ministry of the Lord and the 4th is the age of the Church inaugurated by the ascension of Jesus until the end of the world. St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom agreed. Though Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father, staying in heaven, he is still present in the Word and the Holy Eucharist to stay with us. After all, for our sake, he needs to let go of us, throw us into turmoil to train and test us. On the last day, he shall come and all shall be peaceful.
The action of St. Peter shows his typical intense love of the Lord. This time, Peter jumped into the sea to walk towards Jesus. Later, he boasted in the Last Supper to die with Jesus. After Jesus was arrested, Peter was rash enough to follow Jesus into the house of the High Priest. This time, Peter sank in view of the strong winds and waves. Later, when Peter was surrounded and interrogated in the courtyard of the High Priest, he cowardly denied Jesus three times. This time, at the most critical moment, Peter cried out “Lord, save me.” In the house of the High Priest, Peter did not have such a chance. The Jesus he saw could not even save himself! So, when Jesus said that Peter had little faith, not only did Jesus mean this sinking in waves, but also what would happen later in the courtyard of the house of the High Priest where, though Jesus did not reach out his hand to catch Peter, he had indeed saved Peter. Between the two disciples who had betrayed Jesus, Judas and Peter, Judas did not seek help but committed suicide. Peter survived. How and when did he cry to Jesus, or how did Jesus save him? The answer can be found in Luke 22:61.
Recently, there are plagues, wars, natural and human disaster etc. Besides praying for the victims, we should stay alert because of these incidents. Don’t harden our hearts. Have the courage to admit our inadequacy. Accept the Kingdom of God. Pray for God’s salvation. God bless.
主題：神蹟的象徵意義
聖堂附近的輕鐵站以杯渡命名。據【高僧傳】所載，杯渡禪師是南北朝時期的一個不知名，行為怪異如濟顛和尚的一個神僧。稱得為神僧是因為他行過不少神蹟，最為人津津樂道的就是他經常踏在一隻木杯上，就可以渡過江河，飄洋過海了，故人稱「杯渡禪師」。據說他最後的落腳點就是今天的「青山禪院」。
除了杯渡禪師的故事之外，相信大家都聽過不少武俠小說中的所謂「登萍渡水」的絕頂輕功。雖然明知是小說，但是我們都很樂意接受這些幻想所帶來的樂趣。因此，在這種文化背景之下，對於今天福音所記載有關耶穌步水面的故事，我們就不會感到神奇，反而覺得不外如是。
的確，福音中耶穌所行的神蹟，例如變水為酒、治病驅魔、平息風浪，又或者是上星期的五餅二魚增餅神蹟，與中國文化之中的封神榜、西遊記或者其他的神仙故事比較，的確是小巫見大巫。其實，整部聖經所記載的神蹟，與世界各地的神話故事比較，一樣不及它們驚天動地。所以，今天想同大家分享有關「神蹟」的問題。
為甚麽耶穌行的神蹟並不驚天動地，鬼哭神號呢？這是因為文化上的差異。
第一，耶穌生為猶太人，故所行的神蹟就帶有以色列人的文化色彩。舊約中的先知，例如厄里亞、厄里叟，都被稱為「天主的人」。耶穌所行的治好痲瘋病人、復活死人和上星期讀到的增餅事蹟，都是厄里亞和厄里叟曾經行過的神蹟。故此，這些神蹟告訴當代的猶太人知道，耶穌是來自天主的人。
第二，【創世紀】告訴我們，創造天地萬物的天主使混沌變成有秩序。所以，耶穌平息風浪和今次步行水面的神蹟，是表示出耶穌是天主的身份。其他例如顯聖容，驅魔等都表示耶穌是天主。
最後，你們以為在那裡可以找到天主呢？在無堅不摧的龍捲風之中？在山崩地裂的地震中？在好像地獄一樣的一片火海之中？完全不是。根據今天第一篇讀經，【列王紀上】19章的記載，天主在高山上，在微風細語之中，在厄里亞先知面前經過。天主對祂所創造的宇宙，十分滿意，認為很好。如果天主的動作太大，恐怕會造成破壞。所以，如果你想看到驚天動地，鬼哭神號的神蹟，對不起令你失望，我們的天主是不會使用「過份的暴力」去行神蹟的。
其實我們應該關心的不是神蹟的轟動程度，而是神蹟對我們的得救更深層的意義。例如，在【出谷紀】天主行神蹟分開紅海，使以色列人獲得徹底的自由，今天過紅海的神蹟為我們的得救又有甚麽意義呢？一如經過了紅海的水，以色列人擺脫埃及人的奴役，進入福地。同樣，經過洗禮的水，基督徒擺脫了罪惡的奴役，加入教會，邁向永生的天國。所以過紅海是洗禮的象徵，亦表達出洗禮的必要性。又例如上星期的五餅二魚神蹟，就告訴我們天主對我們的慈愛，祂有決心、有能力照顧我們肉身和靈魂的飢渴；祂要以聖體聖事，滋養我們靈性及肉身的生命。
今天福音所載的步行水面事蹟，除了是一個神蹟之外，又有甚麽深層的意義呢?
首先，從挪亞方舟開始，「船」便象徵了教會。在上次平息風浪的神蹟中，耶穌由始至終都留在船上。有耶穌在，教會無論遇到怎樣大的風浪，仍是安全的。今次，耶穌不在船上，而是步行水面到船上，時間是四更時份。又是甚麽意義呢？
第四世紀教會的一位聖師聖希拉利認為第四更是黑夜的結束，是指末日。他解釋第一更象徵了梅瑟的法律時代，第二更象徵先知時代，第三更是耶穌在世傳福音的時代，第四更就是耶穌升天後開展的教會時代，直到末日。教父聖奧思定與另一位教會聖師金口若望亦同意這個觀點。耶穌雖然已升天到天父的右邊，留在天上，但他仍在聖言及聖體內時常與我們同在。不過他始終要放手，在驚濤駭浪之中，訓練考驗我們。到末日，他會再來，到時一切將會風平浪靜。
聖伯多祿的行為表現出他一貫愛主的熱誠。今次伯多祿跳入水中走向耶穌，日後他在最後晚餐誇下海口，不怕與耶穌一起受難一樣；耶穌被捕後，伯多祿勇敢地跟到大司祭府。今次伯多祿在大浪中下沉；日後他在大司祭府的後院被圍攻時，軟弱地三次否認耶穌來脫身一樣。今次伯多祿在千鈞一髮之際，向耶穌喊出「主！救我。」；在大司祭府的伯多祿就沒有這個機會了，因為眼前所見的耶穌，自身難保。所以，耶穌所指伯多祿的「小信德」，不單是今次步行水面所發生的事，更加是日後在大司祭府將會發生的事。在大司祭府，耶穌雖然沒有伸出手拉著伯多祿救他，其實，耶穌救了伯多祿。兩個出賣耶穌的門徒，一個猶達斯，一個伯多祿。猶達斯沒有向耶穌呼救，他自殺死了。但伯多祿最後沒有死，究竟當時他如何向耶穌呼救，又或者耶穌怎樣救了他呢？答案在路22:16.
近來發生了那麽多的疫症、戰亂、天災與人禍，我們除了為受到傷害的群眾祈禱之外，這些事件正好提醒我們，不要心硬，要有勇氣承認自己的不足，接受天主的國度，祈求天主的拯救。天主保佑。
19th Ordinary Sunday (Year A)
Theme: Symbolic Meanings of Miracles
The LRT station next to our Church is called “Pui To (cup ferry)”. According to “Biography of High Monks”, Pui To was an anonymous, eccentric monk in the 6th Century. He worked miracles and one of his most remembered fits was to cross rivers and lakes on a wooden cup. That is why he was remembered as Pui To, i.e. ferrying on a cup. His last known address was the Castle Peak Monastery in our neighbourhood.
Besides the story of Monk Pui To, I am sure you must have heard of the levitation skill “treading water on duckweed” in martial art novels. Though we know these are fantasies, we enjoy the fun they deliver. Therefore, with this cultural background, we might find Jesus’ walking on the water not impressive enough.
Truly, the miracles of Jesus in the gospels, such as turning water into wine, healings, exorcisms, calming the storm or even the multiplication of loaves we read last Sunday would be dwarfed by the spectacular scenes in Chinese classic novels such as “Creation of the gods”, “Journey to the West” or other fairy tales and legends. Indeed, compared with myths and legends in other parts of the world, the miracles recorded in the Bible are less powerful in shaking the foundation of the world. Therefore, I would like to share with you the topic of “miracles”.
Why were Jesus’ miracles not ground shaking and spirits wailing? It is because of cultural differences.
Firstly, Jesus was born a Jew. Therefore, his miracles bear Israelite cultural hues. Prophets of the Old Testament such as Elijah and Elisha were called “man of God”. Jesus’ miracles, such as healing lepers, raising the dead and the multiplication of loaves, had been miracles worked by Elijah and Elisha before. Therefore, Jesus’ miracles told his contemporaries that he was a “man of God”.
Secondly, Genesis tells us that during Creation, God brought about order out of chaos. Therefore, when Jesus calmed the storm and this time walked on the water, these miracles show the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is our God. Other miracles such as Transfiguration and exorcisms also convey the same message.
Lastly, where do you expect to find God? In the unstoppable, destructive whirlwinds? In mountain renting earthquakes? Or in a hellish sea of fire? Negative. According to 1Kings 19 we read today, God was in a still small voice (1Kings 19:12). God was happy with His Creation. He saw that it was good. If God’s action is too forceful, it might bring destruction to his good Creation. Therefore, if you want to see earth shaking, spirits wailing miracles, sorry to disappoint you. Our God shall not use “excessive violence” to work miracles.
Indeed, we should not pay attention to how impressive miracles are but rather to their deeper meanings for our salvation. For example, in Exodus, God split the Red Sea to assure the Israelites of irrevocable freedom. Today, what is the relevance of this miracle for our salvation? Just as the Israelites were able to shake off Egyptian slavery and entered the Promised Land after passing through the Red Sea, similarly, Christians today are able to shake off the bondage of sins and join the Church and proceed to the eternal Kingdom of God through baptism. Again, the 5 loaves and 2 fish miracle we read of last week, tells us of God’s compassion for us. He is determined and capable of taking care of the hunger and thirst of our physical as well as spiritual needs. He will make use of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist to nourish our bodily and spiritual lives.
So, besides being a miracle, what are the deeper meanings of the story we read today?
First of all, since Noah’s Ark, a ship/boat is a symbol of the Church. Last time in the calming of the storm, Jesus stayed in the boat all the time. As long as Jesus is with the Church, she is able to weather through all tribulations no matter how hazardous they are. She is safe. This time, Jesus was not on the boat, but walking towards the boat at the fourth watch. What did it mean?
St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368) taught that the 4th watch is the end of night, the last day. He explained that the 1st watch is the age of Torah, the 2nd watch the Prophets, the 3rd the earthly ministry of the Lord and the 4th is the age of the Church inaugurated by the ascension of Jesus until the end of the world. St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom agreed. Though Jesus has ascended to the right hand of the Father, staying in heaven, he is still present in the Word and the Holy Eucharist to stay with us. After all, for our sake, he needs to let go of us, throw us into turmoil to train and test us. On the last day, he shall come and all shall be peaceful.
The action of St. Peter shows his typical intense love of the Lord. This time, Peter jumped into the sea to walk towards Jesus. Later, he boasted in the Last Supper to die with Jesus. After Jesus was arrested, Peter was rash enough to follow Jesus into the house of the High Priest. This time, Peter sank in view of the strong winds and waves. Later, when Peter was surrounded and interrogated in the courtyard of the High Priest, he cowardly denied Jesus three times. This time, at the most critical moment, Peter cried out “Lord, save me.” In the house of the High Priest, Peter did not have such a chance. The Jesus he saw could not even save himself! So, when Jesus said that Peter had little faith, not only did Jesus mean this sinking in waves, but also what would happen later in the courtyard of the house of the High Priest where, though Jesus did not reach out his hand to catch Peter, he had indeed saved Peter. Between the two disciples who had betrayed Jesus, Judas and Peter, Judas did not seek help but committed suicide. Peter survived. How and when did he cry to Jesus, or how did Jesus save him? The answer can be found in Luke 22:61.
Recently, there are plagues, wars, natural and human disaster etc. Besides praying for the victims, we should stay alert because of these incidents. Don’t harden our hearts. Have the courage to admit our inadequacy. Accept the Kingdom of God. Pray for God’s salvation. God bless.
Sunday, 3 August 2014
Where did the baskets come from?
The miracle of 5 loaves and 2 fish is the only other event, besides passion and resurrection, recorded by all four canonical gospels, not even the institution of the Holy Eucharist which is not found in John. The major outline of the miracle is identical. After the death of John the Baptist, Jesus retired to the wilderness where he found thousands of people waiting for him. He taught them and healed them of diseases. When it was late, he did not send the crowd away. He told the disciples to feed them. But the disciples could only find 5 loaves and 2 fish. First of all, Jesus told the disciples to seat the crowd in groups of 50 and 100. Making use of the little amount of food the disciples found, Jesus blessed both the bread and the fish, broke them and fed the thousands of people. In the end, they collected 12 baskets of leftovers.
However, the gospels differ in minor details and these differences can be very meaningful. In this case, the differences show the different degree of closeness of the disciples with Jesus. But before I proceed to analyze, I want to make myself clear. In previous blogs, I have explained why I don't buy the idea that the crowd actually had brought along their food. The generosity of the little boy so moved the crowd that they were willing to share what they had brought. Therefore, the feeding of 5000 was not a miracle. This idea is a bad idea. Simply put, the evangelists intended to tell us a miracle. It is up to the readers to decide whether they would accept it as a miracle. I believe it is a miracle because I believe that Jesus is God. Period.
I am not going to lay out the minor differences. It can easily be done. Rather, I would like to explain the differences directly. Among the evangelists, Luke was a disciple of Paul who was not among the Twelve. Therefore, Luke's account of the miracle is only a bare skeleton, like the one I outlined above. Paul was not there when the miracle took place. Mark's information came from Peter. So, the account of Matthew, Mark and John should be on a par. In fact, they are not. We have to realize the fact that among the Twelve, there was an inner circle of Peter, James and John. Even within the inner circle, John seems to be the closest to the Lord. According to the gospel of John, Peter beckoned John to ask Jesus who the traitor was (John 13:23-24). Therefore, among the 4 canonical gospels, John's story seems to be an eye-witness account. It is from the gospel of John that we know the 5 loaves and 2 fish came from a little boy (John 6:9). In John's story, it was Philip who mentioned the size of the problem: they needed at least two hundred denariis to buy enough bread to feed the crowd (John 6:37). Mark also mentioned the two hundred denariis but failed to identify who brought up this idea to buy food for the crowd. In John's story, we find Philip and Andrew. Peter and James were nowhere mentioned. That explains why not only Matthew and Luke, but also Mark do not mention where the 5 loaves and 2 fish came from. They were not in the vicinity. Probably, Peter and Matthew were busy doing crowd controlling over a vast piece of grassland, accommodating perhaps 10,000 people. When they returned, they only saw Jesus took up 5 loaves and 2 fish, blessed them and broke them ...
What was given to the crowd?
Matthew does not mention giving the fish (Matthew 14:19); Mark and John specifically mention both bread and fish (Mark 6:41, John 6:11); Luke is naturally ambiguous (Luke 9:16). We can imagine that not all people had a share of the fish. So, some people were given both bread and fish by the inner circle disciples and some bread only. When people had eaten enough, only John gives the reason why they gathered the left over (John 6:12). Since Matthew did not give out any fish, naturally only bread fragments were collected (Matthew 14:20). Again, Peter distributed both bread and fish. Naturally, both types of leftover were collected (Mark 6:43). Luke must be ambiguous but John was enigmatic. John collects the bread fragments only (John 6:13)! What happened to the fish? Had they eaten all the fish? Or fish was not significant in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and John did not bother to mention it?
I am curious about where the 12 baskets came from. Perhaps the boy carried the 5 loaves and 2 fish in a basket. He could not have carried the food in both hands because he was only a lad and there were 7 items of food. But I cannot imagine a boy carrying two baskets, each containing one type of food only. Then where came the remaining eleven?
Now, why should a boy carry a basket of bread and fish to join the crowd to listen to Jesus? Was he following his kinsmen? Or was he a hawker, doing business among a large crowd? This hawker idea is not far-fetched. Mark and John mentioned about Jesus telling the disciples to buy food to feed the crowd. Of course, the disciples could go into the villages to buy. But I suspect the villagers had seen the crowd and a market potential out there ... If the boy was a hawker, there might be many more hawkers doing business in a crowd of 5000 men. Then, it would be possible to account for the existence of the 12 baskets. Now, if there were hawkers, there might be more food than 5 loaves and 2 fish. Even if there were more food than 5 loaves and 2 fish in the region, only the 5 loaves and 2 fish of this hawker boy were offered, blessed, multiplied and shared. In the end, all the hawkers had earned more than they had brought along. Their previously half-filled baskets were now bursting! When we put our problems before Jesus, he would surely make for us a happy ending!
Dear Lord, may I offer up my meagre worthless effort. Bless it and multiply it so as to bring us salvation and bring you greater glory. Amen.
However, the gospels differ in minor details and these differences can be very meaningful. In this case, the differences show the different degree of closeness of the disciples with Jesus. But before I proceed to analyze, I want to make myself clear. In previous blogs, I have explained why I don't buy the idea that the crowd actually had brought along their food. The generosity of the little boy so moved the crowd that they were willing to share what they had brought. Therefore, the feeding of 5000 was not a miracle. This idea is a bad idea. Simply put, the evangelists intended to tell us a miracle. It is up to the readers to decide whether they would accept it as a miracle. I believe it is a miracle because I believe that Jesus is God. Period.
I am not going to lay out the minor differences. It can easily be done. Rather, I would like to explain the differences directly. Among the evangelists, Luke was a disciple of Paul who was not among the Twelve. Therefore, Luke's account of the miracle is only a bare skeleton, like the one I outlined above. Paul was not there when the miracle took place. Mark's information came from Peter. So, the account of Matthew, Mark and John should be on a par. In fact, they are not. We have to realize the fact that among the Twelve, there was an inner circle of Peter, James and John. Even within the inner circle, John seems to be the closest to the Lord. According to the gospel of John, Peter beckoned John to ask Jesus who the traitor was (John 13:23-24). Therefore, among the 4 canonical gospels, John's story seems to be an eye-witness account. It is from the gospel of John that we know the 5 loaves and 2 fish came from a little boy (John 6:9). In John's story, it was Philip who mentioned the size of the problem: they needed at least two hundred denariis to buy enough bread to feed the crowd (John 6:37). Mark also mentioned the two hundred denariis but failed to identify who brought up this idea to buy food for the crowd. In John's story, we find Philip and Andrew. Peter and James were nowhere mentioned. That explains why not only Matthew and Luke, but also Mark do not mention where the 5 loaves and 2 fish came from. They were not in the vicinity. Probably, Peter and Matthew were busy doing crowd controlling over a vast piece of grassland, accommodating perhaps 10,000 people. When they returned, they only saw Jesus took up 5 loaves and 2 fish, blessed them and broke them ...
What was given to the crowd?
Matthew does not mention giving the fish (Matthew 14:19); Mark and John specifically mention both bread and fish (Mark 6:41, John 6:11); Luke is naturally ambiguous (Luke 9:16). We can imagine that not all people had a share of the fish. So, some people were given both bread and fish by the inner circle disciples and some bread only. When people had eaten enough, only John gives the reason why they gathered the left over (John 6:12). Since Matthew did not give out any fish, naturally only bread fragments were collected (Matthew 14:20). Again, Peter distributed both bread and fish. Naturally, both types of leftover were collected (Mark 6:43). Luke must be ambiguous but John was enigmatic. John collects the bread fragments only (John 6:13)! What happened to the fish? Had they eaten all the fish? Or fish was not significant in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and John did not bother to mention it?
I am curious about where the 12 baskets came from. Perhaps the boy carried the 5 loaves and 2 fish in a basket. He could not have carried the food in both hands because he was only a lad and there were 7 items of food. But I cannot imagine a boy carrying two baskets, each containing one type of food only. Then where came the remaining eleven?
Now, why should a boy carry a basket of bread and fish to join the crowd to listen to Jesus? Was he following his kinsmen? Or was he a hawker, doing business among a large crowd? This hawker idea is not far-fetched. Mark and John mentioned about Jesus telling the disciples to buy food to feed the crowd. Of course, the disciples could go into the villages to buy. But I suspect the villagers had seen the crowd and a market potential out there ... If the boy was a hawker, there might be many more hawkers doing business in a crowd of 5000 men. Then, it would be possible to account for the existence of the 12 baskets. Now, if there were hawkers, there might be more food than 5 loaves and 2 fish. Even if there were more food than 5 loaves and 2 fish in the region, only the 5 loaves and 2 fish of this hawker boy were offered, blessed, multiplied and shared. In the end, all the hawkers had earned more than they had brought along. Their previously half-filled baskets were now bursting! When we put our problems before Jesus, he would surely make for us a happy ending!
Dear Lord, may I offer up my meagre worthless effort. Bless it and multiply it so as to bring us salvation and bring you greater glory. Amen.
Monday, 28 July 2014
Look at the parables from another perspective
Matthew 13 is a collection of parables of the Kingdom of Heaven which is a difficult concept. In order to better understand it, Matthew put down 7 parables to shed light on different aspects of the Kingdom of Heaven. They are the parable of the sower (vv. 3-9, 18-23), of wheat and weeds (vv. 24-30, 37-43), of mustard seed (vv. 31-32), of leaven (33), of treasure in a field (44), of pearl (vv. 45-46) and of the net (vv. 47-50). All these parables have come up with a standard interpretation. There is little room for adventurous unorthodox interpretations.
The parable of sower tells us the reactions of different people towards the word of the kingdom. It is natural that some are more receptive than the others. Therefore, we have people who refuse to hear, people who accept it joyfully for the freedom it promises. However, they fail to develop 'roots' and wither away in view of difficulties and persecutions. Some are too much preoccupied with earthly worries and the word of the heaven is smothered. Some are receptive and take action to actualize the Kingdom. Some are more successful than the others.
If the parable of the sower gives you the impression that people are predestined and classified into 4 levels, such an interpretation is absolutely wrong. The parable of wheat and weeds tells us that there are good and evil people on earth. Their lives are inter-related. Therefore, God will only reward the good and punish the bad at the end of the world. God is very generous in giving everyone a chance to repent until the end. Repentance is possible. St. Paul is a living example.
The parable of the mustard seed tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven, embodied in the Church, began very humbly but would develop fully to embrace all peoples. Similarly, the parable of the leaven tells us that the gospel would be spread to all people.
Attention then switches to the role played by the recipient of the Kingdom. The parable of the treasure in a field and the parable of the pearl are interpreted to mean that the disciples should behave like the merchant. They should give the Kingdom the first priority and renounce all they have in order to obtain salvation. Lastly, the parable of the net repeats the message of the parable of wheat and weeds in that there are good people and bad people in the world. They would stay together, this time more closely in the net/Church and would only be separated in the end. Once again, the good would be rewarded and the bad punished.
These seven parables are core teachings of the Church. That is why she spends three Sundays to read them. However, I beg to differ in interpreting the parables of the treasure and the pearl.
First of all, without God's grace, we are not able to appreciate the value of the Kingdom, the value of our salvation. In reality, many people turn off their hearings if they sense that you are preaching Jesus. These people would not renounce all they have in order to receive the gospel and the Kingdom. So, these two parables refer to the people of "good soil" only. I feel rather uncomfortable with such an exclusive reading. The other five parables are inclusive, including both the good and the bad.
Secondly, the merchant in the parable of the treasure in the field, very typically Jewish, is rather street-wise/cunning/smart. He covers up the treasure and then purchases the field. Why doesn't he purchase it directly from the owner of the field, but covers up the treasure first? The merchant did so lest the owner of the field would charge him a far higher price! Who would be the owner of the field? In contrast, the merchant in the parable of the pearl is more honest. He does not play tricks. If we are the merchant, what does it mean for us to play tricks in order to obtain salvation?
Therefore, I suspect that these two parables are not telling us to renounce all we have in order to attain salvation. I propose another interpretation. The merchant is God. In his eyes, we are treasure and pearls of great value. Remember Genesis 1 in which God saw that everything that he had made was very good (Genesis 1:31). God is willing to redeem us, albeit tricking Satan, at all costs. The field is the world and the owner is, of course, Satan. God's love for us is so great that he is willing to pay a heavy price for our souls. This interpretation is inclusive and solves the ethical problem of playing trick on the owner of the field. This trick refers to the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. I think this interpretation can be on a par with the traditional interpretation.
Dear Lord, I thank You for Your great love towards us. You value us when we don't value ourselves. Teach us the right ordering of the priorities in life. Amen.
The parable of sower tells us the reactions of different people towards the word of the kingdom. It is natural that some are more receptive than the others. Therefore, we have people who refuse to hear, people who accept it joyfully for the freedom it promises. However, they fail to develop 'roots' and wither away in view of difficulties and persecutions. Some are too much preoccupied with earthly worries and the word of the heaven is smothered. Some are receptive and take action to actualize the Kingdom. Some are more successful than the others.
If the parable of the sower gives you the impression that people are predestined and classified into 4 levels, such an interpretation is absolutely wrong. The parable of wheat and weeds tells us that there are good and evil people on earth. Their lives are inter-related. Therefore, God will only reward the good and punish the bad at the end of the world. God is very generous in giving everyone a chance to repent until the end. Repentance is possible. St. Paul is a living example.
The parable of the mustard seed tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven, embodied in the Church, began very humbly but would develop fully to embrace all peoples. Similarly, the parable of the leaven tells us that the gospel would be spread to all people.
Attention then switches to the role played by the recipient of the Kingdom. The parable of the treasure in a field and the parable of the pearl are interpreted to mean that the disciples should behave like the merchant. They should give the Kingdom the first priority and renounce all they have in order to obtain salvation. Lastly, the parable of the net repeats the message of the parable of wheat and weeds in that there are good people and bad people in the world. They would stay together, this time more closely in the net/Church and would only be separated in the end. Once again, the good would be rewarded and the bad punished.
These seven parables are core teachings of the Church. That is why she spends three Sundays to read them. However, I beg to differ in interpreting the parables of the treasure and the pearl.
First of all, without God's grace, we are not able to appreciate the value of the Kingdom, the value of our salvation. In reality, many people turn off their hearings if they sense that you are preaching Jesus. These people would not renounce all they have in order to receive the gospel and the Kingdom. So, these two parables refer to the people of "good soil" only. I feel rather uncomfortable with such an exclusive reading. The other five parables are inclusive, including both the good and the bad.
Secondly, the merchant in the parable of the treasure in the field, very typically Jewish, is rather street-wise/cunning/smart. He covers up the treasure and then purchases the field. Why doesn't he purchase it directly from the owner of the field, but covers up the treasure first? The merchant did so lest the owner of the field would charge him a far higher price! Who would be the owner of the field? In contrast, the merchant in the parable of the pearl is more honest. He does not play tricks. If we are the merchant, what does it mean for us to play tricks in order to obtain salvation?
Therefore, I suspect that these two parables are not telling us to renounce all we have in order to attain salvation. I propose another interpretation. The merchant is God. In his eyes, we are treasure and pearls of great value. Remember Genesis 1 in which God saw that everything that he had made was very good (Genesis 1:31). God is willing to redeem us, albeit tricking Satan, at all costs. The field is the world and the owner is, of course, Satan. God's love for us is so great that he is willing to pay a heavy price for our souls. This interpretation is inclusive and solves the ethical problem of playing trick on the owner of the field. This trick refers to the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity. I think this interpretation can be on a par with the traditional interpretation.
Dear Lord, I thank You for Your great love towards us. You value us when we don't value ourselves. Teach us the right ordering of the priorities in life. Amen.
Monday, 21 July 2014
The Proper Attitude of a Servant
The parable of the weeds of the field (Matthew 13:24-30) offers little for us to meditate because later at the request of the disciples, Jesus explained the meanings of the symbols (13:36-43).
This parable is eschatological. It talks about the end of the world, about the “kingdom”. In short, this parable describes the eschatological dimension of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus brought about its existence during his earthly ministry. The disciples continue to build up this kingdom on earth. This kingdom will be fully realized at the end of the world, thus eschatological.
Is this parable ethical, about ethics? Not quite, It describes the destinies of the good and the evil, of the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one. However, the element of choice is implicit and the parable sounds very much like a political propaganda because of the we-they dichotomy. We are the good guys, the righteous ones who will shine like the sun in the kingdom (13:43). They are the bad guys, the sons of the evil one who will be thrown into the furnace of fire (13:42). Such an interpretation is understandable, keeping in mind the situation Jewish Christians found themselves in the first century. Now that the rivals have changed roles, the persecutors have become the persecuted. Therefore, the parable deserves a newer understanding in the modern, pluralistic context. We no longer claim exclusive privileges over and above non-Catholics. Post-Vatican II theology accepts the salvation of non-Catholics. We have less enemies and rivals than the previous generations and ages. We join hands with people-of-good-will to help the poor and the needy. Nowadays, where are the rivals and enemies of the Church?
Moreover, the parable sounds very fatalistic. The good will continue to be good until the end while the evildoers will continue to do evil until the reapers round them up and throw them into furnace of fire at the end of the world. Though the wheat and the weeds are closely intertwined, there does not seem to be any mutual influence. The good does not turn the bad into good and vice versa. Therefore, have we read too much into the parable when we say that God is patient in giving a lot of opportunities for the evil ones to repent? The most essential ethical element: free choice is missing in the story. Perhaps I have been too harsh towards first century authors in demanding them to meet our 21st century standard.
As for me, I am most impressed by the way the servants made their request to the master. Firstly, we do not understand why evil exists on earth. If God is almighty, He should be able to keep His creation free from evil. He doesn’t. If God is merciful, He should not have allowed bad things to happen to good people. But He did. Truly, we do not understand God’s way of doing things.
If God does not want to make His hands dirty to eradicate evils, we are all too eager to do His job. We want our will to be done. We want to take law into our own hands. Vigilante is acceptable for us …
To repeat, I am truly impressed by the wordings of the servants, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” (13:28)
Truly, we want to punish the evildoers, we want to save our young. We want to build up a healthy society etc. These are our wishes but are they God’s will as well? Does God want us to go out to clean up the mess? All too often, we want to get things done. We want to feel good. Is this God’s will? This is the most crucial thing we need to clarify before we act.
Dear Lord, may all we do are done according to the will of our Father in heaven. Amen.
This parable is eschatological. It talks about the end of the world, about the “kingdom”. In short, this parable describes the eschatological dimension of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus brought about its existence during his earthly ministry. The disciples continue to build up this kingdom on earth. This kingdom will be fully realized at the end of the world, thus eschatological.
Is this parable ethical, about ethics? Not quite, It describes the destinies of the good and the evil, of the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one. However, the element of choice is implicit and the parable sounds very much like a political propaganda because of the we-they dichotomy. We are the good guys, the righteous ones who will shine like the sun in the kingdom (13:43). They are the bad guys, the sons of the evil one who will be thrown into the furnace of fire (13:42). Such an interpretation is understandable, keeping in mind the situation Jewish Christians found themselves in the first century. Now that the rivals have changed roles, the persecutors have become the persecuted. Therefore, the parable deserves a newer understanding in the modern, pluralistic context. We no longer claim exclusive privileges over and above non-Catholics. Post-Vatican II theology accepts the salvation of non-Catholics. We have less enemies and rivals than the previous generations and ages. We join hands with people-of-good-will to help the poor and the needy. Nowadays, where are the rivals and enemies of the Church?
Moreover, the parable sounds very fatalistic. The good will continue to be good until the end while the evildoers will continue to do evil until the reapers round them up and throw them into furnace of fire at the end of the world. Though the wheat and the weeds are closely intertwined, there does not seem to be any mutual influence. The good does not turn the bad into good and vice versa. Therefore, have we read too much into the parable when we say that God is patient in giving a lot of opportunities for the evil ones to repent? The most essential ethical element: free choice is missing in the story. Perhaps I have been too harsh towards first century authors in demanding them to meet our 21st century standard.
As for me, I am most impressed by the way the servants made their request to the master. Firstly, we do not understand why evil exists on earth. If God is almighty, He should be able to keep His creation free from evil. He doesn’t. If God is merciful, He should not have allowed bad things to happen to good people. But He did. Truly, we do not understand God’s way of doing things.
If God does not want to make His hands dirty to eradicate evils, we are all too eager to do His job. We want our will to be done. We want to take law into our own hands. Vigilante is acceptable for us …
To repeat, I am truly impressed by the wordings of the servants, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” (13:28)
Truly, we want to punish the evildoers, we want to save our young. We want to build up a healthy society etc. These are our wishes but are they God’s will as well? Does God want us to go out to clean up the mess? All too often, we want to get things done. We want to feel good. Is this God’s will? This is the most crucial thing we need to clarify before we act.
Dear Lord, may all we do are done according to the will of our Father in heaven. Amen.
Sunday, 13 July 2014
默想「撒種比喻」的教訓 The Messages of the Parable of Sower
常年期第十五主日（甲年）
主題：默想「撒種比喻」的教訓
耶穌來到世上，用不同的方法建設天國。他治病、驅魔、宣講福音、召選門徒、受難和復活升天等。講比喻是他宣講的一個方式。今天，讓我們一起默想有名的「撒種比喻」。福音記載了很多耶穌說過的比喻，大部份都沒有解釋的。而「撒種比喻」是少數有解釋的比喻。
耶穌為甚麽用比喻來講述天國的道理呢？
有人認為當時的聽眾教育水平低，沒有能力領悟高深的天國道理，所以耶穌遷就群眾的教育水平，用日常生活的經驗，例如耕田、牧羊、補衫、結婚擺酒等去講述天國的道理。這個答案很動聽，它令我們覺得自己比耶穌當代的群眾更聰明，更高級。可是，為甚麽耶穌答覆門徒的詢問時會說「天國的奧秘並不是給他們知道的」【瑪13:11】呢？為甚麽耶穌說「使他們視而不見，聽而不聞，使他們得不到醫治」【瑪13:15】呢？得不到醫治的「他們」又是誰呢？耶穌沒有理由那麽忍心，見死不救。所以，我們必須考究這個比喻的上文下理。講這個比喻之前發生了甚麽事？耶穌用比喻來回應甚麽處境呢？
根據福音的記載，耶穌在公開傳道之初已出師不利。他的言行，得罪了當時的宗教權貴：例如耶穌以人子的身份，赦免癱子的罪、不跟隨法利塞人一樣虔誠守齋、不守安息日，竟然在安息日治好枯手人、與羅馬百夫長來往、為了救一個附魔人而犧牲了全村的財產等等。因此，這些權貴反對耶穌，抹黑耶穌，最後甚至殺死他。就在這種敵意的環境下，耶穌開始改用比喻來講述天國的奧秘。
現在，讓我們運用想像力，幻想自己到了加里肋亞湖邊，在人群中聽耶穌講福音。在人群中，你發現了身邊的人是誰。聽眾中有想挑剔耶穌的宗教領袖，在這些平平無奇的日常生活經驗，他們找不到陷害耶穌的把柄。他們聽，卻拒絕聽到箇中的真理。聽眾中有想一睹這個出名行神蹟驅魔的神醫，但在耶穌身上，他們見不到令人狂熱興奮的默西亞，祗見到一個寒酸的木匠在講比喻。他們看，卻見不到光榮的天主子。聽眾中有慕名而來，好辯的法學士。但耶穌講的故事他們也會講，沒有甚麽與眾不同之處。他們的心想了解，但礙於種種因素，始終他們都沒有明白。聽眾中有內心謙遜的人，他們聽得出比喻中有「絃外之音」，但他們不敢肯定自己是否正確。所以他們放下自我，跟隨耶穌，接受耶穌的訓誨，從而結出豐盛的果實。
這就是耶穌講比喻的原因。「比喻」就好像一個「過濾器」一樣，篩走別具用心，混水摸魚的聽眾，而選出有心尋求真理的人。讓我們繼續深入反省這四種土壤的意義。
我們很容易「對號入座」，把人分了四類。我們把不信耶穌的人，迫害教會的政權歸入「路邊」，即聖言被魔鬼奪去的人【瑪13:19】。把到教會尋求利益的人歸入「石地」，指信仰沒有紮根的冷淡教友、麵粉教友。把那些有善心但忙於世俗事務的人歸入「荊棘叢生的土地」，即主日教友。最後，我們自己當然是「好地」的熱心教友喇！
如果真是這樣分類的話，我會問，冷淡的教友可否升級做主日教友，主日教友可否升級做熱心教友呢？反過來問，熱心教友會不會降級成為主日教友、冷淡教友甚至成為「魔鬼之友」呢？答案是絕對會。
大家可否留意到耶穌在講述「撒種比喻」和解釋「撒種比喻」之間透露了一些線索，去幫助我們正確地理解「撒種比喻」。耶穌好像講了一些不公義的言論。為甚麼天主那樣不公平，有的更加有，沒有的連僅有的也被奪去【瑪13:l2】。難道天主贊成「貧富懸殊」嗎？不是。天主是不會同意剝削窮人的社會制度的。在這裡，耶穌對結出30倍果實的人作出警惕。小心連僅有的也被奪去。
其實道理並不艱深。今天不信的並不表示將來的不信。今天未開發的土地，經過耕耘，一樣可以成為好地；相反，今天有收穫的土地，如果任由它荒廢了，一樣會荊棘叢生，甚至僵化、硬化，變成石地。可想而知，用「對號入座」方式把人分類的做法是不妥當的。今天你是好土地，你就永遠都是好土地嗎？所謂「學如逆水行舟，不進則退。」如果我們對聖經一知半解，對教會訓導非常陌生，試問我們又怎能掌握到得救的途徑呢？對教外人士的查詢可以對答如流嗎？
撒種的比喻給我們兩個啟示。第一，耶穌固然是撒種的人，我們也是。耶穌有教無類，不會因為大司祭是路邊人、法利塞人是石地人、富貴少年是荊棘地的人而不向他們宣講，祗向有機會跟隨他的人宣講。同樣，我們也不應事先認定家中的祖母拜慣觀音就不會信天主的、勸忙於工作賺錢的父親信耶穌是浪費時間，那些紋了身的人就無機會進入天國，於是就放棄向家人福傳，放棄向監獄裡的人福傳。
第二，「窮者愈窮，富者愈富」，我們作為接受福音的土地，我們必須妥善耕耘我們的內心這片土地：讀經、祈禱、領聖體、辦告解。一樣也不能少。這樣我們可以由30倍升格成60倍，60倍升格成100倍。否則，我們的靈性生命會由100倍降級成60倍、30倍。真是汲汲可危。各位兄弟姊妹，大家要努力。天主保祐。
15th Ordinary Sunday (Year A)
Theme: The Messages of the Parable of Sower
Jesus came to build up the kingdom of heaven in different ways. He heals, exorcises, proclaims the good news, calls disciples, dies, resurrects and ascends into heaven etc. Telling parables is one of his ways of proclaiming the gospel. Today, let us meditate the famous “Parable of the Sower”. The gospels have collected many parables most of which are unexplained. The “Parable of the Sower” is one of the few exceptions. Now, why does Jesus teach the kingdom of heaven in parables?
Some people think that the literacy of his contemporary audience was low. They did not have the ability to understand the difficult and abstract messages of the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, to cater for their intellectual level, Jesus made use of daily experiences: farming, shepherding, mending clothes and marriage banquets etc. to explain the truth about the kingdom of heaven. This answer sounds attractive. It makes us feel that we are smarter, more advanced than Jesus’ contemporary audience. However, why, in answering the same question from the disciples, did Jesus say that the secret of the kingdom of heaven had not given them (Matthew 13:11)? Why did Jesus say that they look but not see, listen but not hear, lest they would be healed (Matthew 13:15)? Who were these “they”? It is impossible that Jesus did not want them to be healed. Therefore, we need to examine the context of this parable. What happened before Jesus told this parable? What was the situation in response to which Jesus told this parable?
From the gospels, we learn that Jesus clashed with the Jewish authority at the very beginning of his ministry. His words and deeds antagonized many religious leaders: For example, Jesus forgave the sins of a paralyzed man in the capacity of the Son of Man; he did not follow the example of pious Pharisees to fast; he healed a man with a withered hand on Sabbath; he befriended a Roman centurion; he sacrificed the property of the whole village when he exorcized demons from a possessed man etc. Because of this, those in authority opposed Jesus, bad-mouthed him and at last killed him. It was under this hostile situation that Jesus changed tactics to speak of the secrets of the kingdom in parables.
Now, let us call up our imagination and put ourselves at the shore of the Sea of Galilee. You are among the listeners. In the crowd, what people do you discover? Among the audience, you see some religious leaders who come to find fault with Jesus. In these ordinary daily experience described in the parables, they find nothing to indict Jesus. They listen but refuse to hear the truth. You also find people who are excited to see a famous exorcist and miracle worker. But in the person of Jesus, they cannot find a Messiah who could inspire frenzy, but a humble carpenter telling parables. They look and yet not see the glorious Son of God. You also find some argument-happy scribes who are attracted by the fame of Jesus. However, they do not find Jesus’ parables impressive. They too can tell even better stories. They want to understand, but for various reasons, they fail to know. Among the crowd, you find people who are humble at heart. They can hear some “overtones” in the parables but they are not sure. So, they renounce themselves, follow Jesus, accept his teaching and bear many fruits.
This, I believe, is the motive why Jesus speaks in parables. Parables are like a filter which sieves out people of ulterior motives, leaving behind people who genuinely seek the truth. Let us continue to reflect on the meaning of the four types of soil.
It is easy for us to pigeonhole people into four classes. Those who don’t believe in Jesus, those who persecute the Church, are soil along the path. God’s word in them is snatched away by the evil one (Matthew 13:19). Those who come to the Church to gain benefits are the soil on rocky ground. Their faith has no root and they are no longer practicing. Those who are good-hearted but busy with mundane chores are soil infested with thorny bushes, those Sunday Catholics. At last, we are of course the good soil, those devoted-Catholics.
If we can really classify people like this, I would ask if those non-practising Catholics are able to upgrade to Sunday Catholics and Sunday Catholics promoted to devoted-Catholics. Or on the contrary, will devoted-Catholics be downgraded to Sunday Catholics, non-practising Catholics and even Satan-friendly-Catholics? The answer is a categorical yes.
Do you notice that between the telling of the parable and its explanation, Jesus gives us some clues to correctly understand this parable? Jesus seems to be advocating some injustice. How can God be so unfair, “to him who has will more be given, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 13:12)? Would God support the polarization of wealth? No. God will never endorse social institutes that exploit the poor. Here, Jesus warns those who produce 30-fold of fruits that the little they have would be taken away.
The truth is not difficult to grasp. Those who do not believe today may believe tomorrow. The undeveloped land today may, after groundbreaking and tilling, become a piece of good land tomorrow. On the contrary, if we allow a good piece of land to waste, thorns will infest the ground which may harden into rocky ground. Therefore, it is improper to pigeonhole people. Today you are good. Can you guarantee to be good forever? A Chinese proverb says, “Learning is like canoeing against the current. You will be carried away if you make no progress.” If we know very little about the Bible, know nothing about the magisterium of the Church, how can we know the path to salvation? How can we answer the queries of non-Christians?
The parable of the sower gives us two messages. Firstly, Jesus is the Sower. So are we. Jesus teaches without discrimination. He would not exclude the High Priest because he was the sidewalk, the Pharisees who were rock ground, the rich young man who was a thorny ground, but preached to those who would follow him. Similarly, we should not prejudge our grandma who worships Guanyin and think that she will never believe in God, or our father who is busy making money and think that it is a waste of time to tell him to believe in Jesus, or those tattooed people who will never make to heaven. If we do, we will give up evangelizing our family members and those imprisoned.
Secondly, “the poor will become poorer and the rich richer”. We are the soil that receives the gospel, the seed of salvation. We should diligently cultivate this piece of ground: study the Bible, pray, receive the Holy Communion and Reconciliation etc. None is dispensable. Then, we may upgrade from 30-fold to 60-fold, from 60-fold to 100-fold. Otherwise, our spiritual life will downgrade from 100-fold to 60-fold to 30-fold. The situation is precarious.
Dear Brethren, let us work hard. God bless us all.
主題：默想「撒種比喻」的教訓
耶穌來到世上，用不同的方法建設天國。他治病、驅魔、宣講福音、召選門徒、受難和復活升天等。講比喻是他宣講的一個方式。今天，讓我們一起默想有名的「撒種比喻」。福音記載了很多耶穌說過的比喻，大部份都沒有解釋的。而「撒種比喻」是少數有解釋的比喻。
耶穌為甚麽用比喻來講述天國的道理呢？
有人認為當時的聽眾教育水平低，沒有能力領悟高深的天國道理，所以耶穌遷就群眾的教育水平，用日常生活的經驗，例如耕田、牧羊、補衫、結婚擺酒等去講述天國的道理。這個答案很動聽，它令我們覺得自己比耶穌當代的群眾更聰明，更高級。可是，為甚麽耶穌答覆門徒的詢問時會說「天國的奧秘並不是給他們知道的」【瑪13:11】呢？為甚麽耶穌說「使他們視而不見，聽而不聞，使他們得不到醫治」【瑪13:15】呢？得不到醫治的「他們」又是誰呢？耶穌沒有理由那麽忍心，見死不救。所以，我們必須考究這個比喻的上文下理。講這個比喻之前發生了甚麽事？耶穌用比喻來回應甚麽處境呢？
根據福音的記載，耶穌在公開傳道之初已出師不利。他的言行，得罪了當時的宗教權貴：例如耶穌以人子的身份，赦免癱子的罪、不跟隨法利塞人一樣虔誠守齋、不守安息日，竟然在安息日治好枯手人、與羅馬百夫長來往、為了救一個附魔人而犧牲了全村的財產等等。因此，這些權貴反對耶穌，抹黑耶穌，最後甚至殺死他。就在這種敵意的環境下，耶穌開始改用比喻來講述天國的奧秘。
現在，讓我們運用想像力，幻想自己到了加里肋亞湖邊，在人群中聽耶穌講福音。在人群中，你發現了身邊的人是誰。聽眾中有想挑剔耶穌的宗教領袖，在這些平平無奇的日常生活經驗，他們找不到陷害耶穌的把柄。他們聽，卻拒絕聽到箇中的真理。聽眾中有想一睹這個出名行神蹟驅魔的神醫，但在耶穌身上，他們見不到令人狂熱興奮的默西亞，祗見到一個寒酸的木匠在講比喻。他們看，卻見不到光榮的天主子。聽眾中有慕名而來，好辯的法學士。但耶穌講的故事他們也會講，沒有甚麽與眾不同之處。他們的心想了解，但礙於種種因素，始終他們都沒有明白。聽眾中有內心謙遜的人，他們聽得出比喻中有「絃外之音」，但他們不敢肯定自己是否正確。所以他們放下自我，跟隨耶穌，接受耶穌的訓誨，從而結出豐盛的果實。
這就是耶穌講比喻的原因。「比喻」就好像一個「過濾器」一樣，篩走別具用心，混水摸魚的聽眾，而選出有心尋求真理的人。讓我們繼續深入反省這四種土壤的意義。
我們很容易「對號入座」，把人分了四類。我們把不信耶穌的人，迫害教會的政權歸入「路邊」，即聖言被魔鬼奪去的人【瑪13:19】。把到教會尋求利益的人歸入「石地」，指信仰沒有紮根的冷淡教友、麵粉教友。把那些有善心但忙於世俗事務的人歸入「荊棘叢生的土地」，即主日教友。最後，我們自己當然是「好地」的熱心教友喇！
如果真是這樣分類的話，我會問，冷淡的教友可否升級做主日教友，主日教友可否升級做熱心教友呢？反過來問，熱心教友會不會降級成為主日教友、冷淡教友甚至成為「魔鬼之友」呢？答案是絕對會。
大家可否留意到耶穌在講述「撒種比喻」和解釋「撒種比喻」之間透露了一些線索，去幫助我們正確地理解「撒種比喻」。耶穌好像講了一些不公義的言論。為甚麼天主那樣不公平，有的更加有，沒有的連僅有的也被奪去【瑪13:l2】。難道天主贊成「貧富懸殊」嗎？不是。天主是不會同意剝削窮人的社會制度的。在這裡，耶穌對結出30倍果實的人作出警惕。小心連僅有的也被奪去。
其實道理並不艱深。今天不信的並不表示將來的不信。今天未開發的土地，經過耕耘，一樣可以成為好地；相反，今天有收穫的土地，如果任由它荒廢了，一樣會荊棘叢生，甚至僵化、硬化，變成石地。可想而知，用「對號入座」方式把人分類的做法是不妥當的。今天你是好土地，你就永遠都是好土地嗎？所謂「學如逆水行舟，不進則退。」如果我們對聖經一知半解，對教會訓導非常陌生，試問我們又怎能掌握到得救的途徑呢？對教外人士的查詢可以對答如流嗎？
撒種的比喻給我們兩個啟示。第一，耶穌固然是撒種的人，我們也是。耶穌有教無類，不會因為大司祭是路邊人、法利塞人是石地人、富貴少年是荊棘地的人而不向他們宣講，祗向有機會跟隨他的人宣講。同樣，我們也不應事先認定家中的祖母拜慣觀音就不會信天主的、勸忙於工作賺錢的父親信耶穌是浪費時間，那些紋了身的人就無機會進入天國，於是就放棄向家人福傳，放棄向監獄裡的人福傳。
第二，「窮者愈窮，富者愈富」，我們作為接受福音的土地，我們必須妥善耕耘我們的內心這片土地：讀經、祈禱、領聖體、辦告解。一樣也不能少。這樣我們可以由30倍升格成60倍，60倍升格成100倍。否則，我們的靈性生命會由100倍降級成60倍、30倍。真是汲汲可危。各位兄弟姊妹，大家要努力。天主保祐。
15th Ordinary Sunday (Year A)
Theme: The Messages of the Parable of Sower
Jesus came to build up the kingdom of heaven in different ways. He heals, exorcises, proclaims the good news, calls disciples, dies, resurrects and ascends into heaven etc. Telling parables is one of his ways of proclaiming the gospel. Today, let us meditate the famous “Parable of the Sower”. The gospels have collected many parables most of which are unexplained. The “Parable of the Sower” is one of the few exceptions. Now, why does Jesus teach the kingdom of heaven in parables?
Some people think that the literacy of his contemporary audience was low. They did not have the ability to understand the difficult and abstract messages of the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, to cater for their intellectual level, Jesus made use of daily experiences: farming, shepherding, mending clothes and marriage banquets etc. to explain the truth about the kingdom of heaven. This answer sounds attractive. It makes us feel that we are smarter, more advanced than Jesus’ contemporary audience. However, why, in answering the same question from the disciples, did Jesus say that the secret of the kingdom of heaven had not given them (Matthew 13:11)? Why did Jesus say that they look but not see, listen but not hear, lest they would be healed (Matthew 13:15)? Who were these “they”? It is impossible that Jesus did not want them to be healed. Therefore, we need to examine the context of this parable. What happened before Jesus told this parable? What was the situation in response to which Jesus told this parable?
From the gospels, we learn that Jesus clashed with the Jewish authority at the very beginning of his ministry. His words and deeds antagonized many religious leaders: For example, Jesus forgave the sins of a paralyzed man in the capacity of the Son of Man; he did not follow the example of pious Pharisees to fast; he healed a man with a withered hand on Sabbath; he befriended a Roman centurion; he sacrificed the property of the whole village when he exorcized demons from a possessed man etc. Because of this, those in authority opposed Jesus, bad-mouthed him and at last killed him. It was under this hostile situation that Jesus changed tactics to speak of the secrets of the kingdom in parables.
Now, let us call up our imagination and put ourselves at the shore of the Sea of Galilee. You are among the listeners. In the crowd, what people do you discover? Among the audience, you see some religious leaders who come to find fault with Jesus. In these ordinary daily experience described in the parables, they find nothing to indict Jesus. They listen but refuse to hear the truth. You also find people who are excited to see a famous exorcist and miracle worker. But in the person of Jesus, they cannot find a Messiah who could inspire frenzy, but a humble carpenter telling parables. They look and yet not see the glorious Son of God. You also find some argument-happy scribes who are attracted by the fame of Jesus. However, they do not find Jesus’ parables impressive. They too can tell even better stories. They want to understand, but for various reasons, they fail to know. Among the crowd, you find people who are humble at heart. They can hear some “overtones” in the parables but they are not sure. So, they renounce themselves, follow Jesus, accept his teaching and bear many fruits.
This, I believe, is the motive why Jesus speaks in parables. Parables are like a filter which sieves out people of ulterior motives, leaving behind people who genuinely seek the truth. Let us continue to reflect on the meaning of the four types of soil.
It is easy for us to pigeonhole people into four classes. Those who don’t believe in Jesus, those who persecute the Church, are soil along the path. God’s word in them is snatched away by the evil one (Matthew 13:19). Those who come to the Church to gain benefits are the soil on rocky ground. Their faith has no root and they are no longer practicing. Those who are good-hearted but busy with mundane chores are soil infested with thorny bushes, those Sunday Catholics. At last, we are of course the good soil, those devoted-Catholics.
If we can really classify people like this, I would ask if those non-practising Catholics are able to upgrade to Sunday Catholics and Sunday Catholics promoted to devoted-Catholics. Or on the contrary, will devoted-Catholics be downgraded to Sunday Catholics, non-practising Catholics and even Satan-friendly-Catholics? The answer is a categorical yes.
Do you notice that between the telling of the parable and its explanation, Jesus gives us some clues to correctly understand this parable? Jesus seems to be advocating some injustice. How can God be so unfair, “to him who has will more be given, but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away” (Matthew 13:12)? Would God support the polarization of wealth? No. God will never endorse social institutes that exploit the poor. Here, Jesus warns those who produce 30-fold of fruits that the little they have would be taken away.
The truth is not difficult to grasp. Those who do not believe today may believe tomorrow. The undeveloped land today may, after groundbreaking and tilling, become a piece of good land tomorrow. On the contrary, if we allow a good piece of land to waste, thorns will infest the ground which may harden into rocky ground. Therefore, it is improper to pigeonhole people. Today you are good. Can you guarantee to be good forever? A Chinese proverb says, “Learning is like canoeing against the current. You will be carried away if you make no progress.” If we know very little about the Bible, know nothing about the magisterium of the Church, how can we know the path to salvation? How can we answer the queries of non-Christians?
The parable of the sower gives us two messages. Firstly, Jesus is the Sower. So are we. Jesus teaches without discrimination. He would not exclude the High Priest because he was the sidewalk, the Pharisees who were rock ground, the rich young man who was a thorny ground, but preached to those who would follow him. Similarly, we should not prejudge our grandma who worships Guanyin and think that she will never believe in God, or our father who is busy making money and think that it is a waste of time to tell him to believe in Jesus, or those tattooed people who will never make to heaven. If we do, we will give up evangelizing our family members and those imprisoned.
Secondly, “the poor will become poorer and the rich richer”. We are the soil that receives the gospel, the seed of salvation. We should diligently cultivate this piece of ground: study the Bible, pray, receive the Holy Communion and Reconciliation etc. None is dispensable. Then, we may upgrade from 30-fold to 60-fold, from 60-fold to 100-fold. Otherwise, our spiritual life will downgrade from 100-fold to 60-fold to 30-fold. The situation is precarious.
Dear Brethren, let us work hard. God bless us all.
Sunday, 6 July 2014
The Confession of an arrogant man
Father, I have sinned. Allow me to do my confession. I cannot remember when I last confessed. It must have been more than four years ago.
On June 28, a deacon sent a WhatsApp message to the Group of deacons. It was a translation of an article from a conservative Christian web. The message began with an email from Fr. Najeeb Michael [sic] which requested prayer for their safety. They were surrounded by Muslim rebels and etc. The email ended rather abruptly, suggesting that the sender was in great danger. The message continued to describe how Christians in Iraq fled from Muslim massacres. The message ended with a request for prayer. A search on the Internet yielded a notice Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. put up on June 12, explaining that his fellow brother in the order, Fr. Najeeb Mikhal’s request on June 10 was based on false information. All requests for prayers on the web should be removed! I was not surprised. Just think about it. Fr. Najeeb requested prayer on June 10. The deacon forwarded the message on June 28. Wouldn’t it be too little, too late? What is worse, the message was forwarded by a deacon who, without thinking, added weight behind the credibility of a hoax! Shouldn’t clergy be more cautious in forwarding messages? They should at least take the trouble to try their best to verify the sources before sending them to the others. This time, I WhatsApp the deacon group what I had found together with my opinion on deacon’s credibility. Though I tried to use humble wordings, I am sure I have offended many of them. Who am I to correct them? I am only a candidate. I am not yet a deacon.
As a deacon candidate, I entertain certain expectations on my fellow deacons and clergy in general. I feel it an obligation for a clergy to present information to his audience as accurately as possible. For example, during the celebration of the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, a clergy was contrasting the occupations of Peter and Paul during his homily. Of course, everybody knows that Peter was a fisherman before he followed Jesus. But the clergy said that Saul was a high-paid government official before he was converted on the road to Damascus. I just could not believe my ears. I felt an impulse to correct him. Of course I did not. But the arrogant me began to check out answers from the other priests. I am sorry to say that some of them did not give good enough answers.
I am tired. I am heavy laden (Matthew 11:28). It is because I have been arrogant. I know that I should let go. Yet, knowing does not necessarily result in doing. In me, humility is in short supply. My arrogance makes me a formidable person to live with. Many people I meet, I keep a distance. Perhaps underneath, I feel that they are not on a par with me. Consequently, team building is not my strength and most of the time, I single handedly finish my assignments with minimum collaboration. I become a perfectionist and delegate very little, preferring getting my jobs done myself. Thus, I am not a good mentor. Apprentices benefit very little from my guidance. Most of the time, my hands are full and I have very little time for my family and my spiritual health. I am sorry for these and all the sins of my past life.
Deus meus, ex toto corde pænitet me omnium meorum peccatorum, eaque detestor, quia peccando, non solum poenas a te iuste statutas promeritus sum, sed præsertim quia offendi te, summum bonum, ac dignum qui super omnia diligaris.
Ideo firmiter propono, adiuvante gratia tua, de cetero me non peccaturum peccandique occasiones proximas fugiturum. Amen
On June 28, a deacon sent a WhatsApp message to the Group of deacons. It was a translation of an article from a conservative Christian web. The message began with an email from Fr. Najeeb Michael [sic] which requested prayer for their safety. They were surrounded by Muslim rebels and etc. The email ended rather abruptly, suggesting that the sender was in great danger. The message continued to describe how Christians in Iraq fled from Muslim massacres. The message ended with a request for prayer. A search on the Internet yielded a notice Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. put up on June 12, explaining that his fellow brother in the order, Fr. Najeeb Mikhal’s request on June 10 was based on false information. All requests for prayers on the web should be removed! I was not surprised. Just think about it. Fr. Najeeb requested prayer on June 10. The deacon forwarded the message on June 28. Wouldn’t it be too little, too late? What is worse, the message was forwarded by a deacon who, without thinking, added weight behind the credibility of a hoax! Shouldn’t clergy be more cautious in forwarding messages? They should at least take the trouble to try their best to verify the sources before sending them to the others. This time, I WhatsApp the deacon group what I had found together with my opinion on deacon’s credibility. Though I tried to use humble wordings, I am sure I have offended many of them. Who am I to correct them? I am only a candidate. I am not yet a deacon.
As a deacon candidate, I entertain certain expectations on my fellow deacons and clergy in general. I feel it an obligation for a clergy to present information to his audience as accurately as possible. For example, during the celebration of the feast of Ss. Peter and Paul, a clergy was contrasting the occupations of Peter and Paul during his homily. Of course, everybody knows that Peter was a fisherman before he followed Jesus. But the clergy said that Saul was a high-paid government official before he was converted on the road to Damascus. I just could not believe my ears. I felt an impulse to correct him. Of course I did not. But the arrogant me began to check out answers from the other priests. I am sorry to say that some of them did not give good enough answers.
I am tired. I am heavy laden (Matthew 11:28). It is because I have been arrogant. I know that I should let go. Yet, knowing does not necessarily result in doing. In me, humility is in short supply. My arrogance makes me a formidable person to live with. Many people I meet, I keep a distance. Perhaps underneath, I feel that they are not on a par with me. Consequently, team building is not my strength and most of the time, I single handedly finish my assignments with minimum collaboration. I become a perfectionist and delegate very little, preferring getting my jobs done myself. Thus, I am not a good mentor. Apprentices benefit very little from my guidance. Most of the time, my hands are full and I have very little time for my family and my spiritual health. I am sorry for these and all the sins of my past life.
Deus meus, ex toto corde pænitet me omnium meorum peccatorum, eaque detestor, quia peccando, non solum poenas a te iuste statutas promeritus sum, sed præsertim quia offendi te, summum bonum, ac dignum qui super omnia diligaris.
Ideo firmiter propono, adiuvante gratia tua, de cetero me non peccaturum peccandique occasiones proximas fugiturum. Amen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)