In his discourse at the general audience of August 13, 1986, the Holy Father commented at great length on the fall of the angels. This was an eminently pastoral allocution:
“Satan wishes to destroy life lived in accordance with the truth, life in the fullness of good, the supernatural life of grace and love. . . .
“As the result of the sin of our first parents, this fallen angel has acquired dominion over man to a certain extent. This is the doctrine that has been constantly professed and proclaimed by the Church, and which the Council of Trent confirmed in its treatise on original sin (cf. DS, 1511).
“In Sacred Scripture we find various indications of this influence on man and on the dispositions of his spirit (and of his body). In the Bible, Satan is called the `prince of this world’ (cf. Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11) and even the `god of this world’ (2 Cor. 4:4). . . .
“According to Sacred Scripture, and especially the New Testament, the dominion and the influence of Satan and of the other evil spirits embraces all the world. . . . The action of Satan consists primarily in tempting men to evil, by influencing their imaginations and higher faculties, to turn them away from the law of God. . . . It is possible that in certain cases the evil spirit goes so far as to exercise his influence not only on material things, but even on man’s body, so that one can speak of ‘diabolical possession’ (cf. Mk. 5:2-9). It is not always easy to discern the preternatural factor operative in these cases, and the Church does not lightly support the tendency to attribute many things to the direct action of the devil; but in principle it cannot be denied that Satan can go to this extreme manifestation of his superiority in his will to harm and to lead to evil.
“To conclude, we must add that the impressive words of the Apostle John—‘The whole world lies under the power of the evil one’ (1 Jn. 5:19)— allude also to the presence of Satan in the history of humanity, a presence which becomes all the more acute when man and society depart from God.
via ON THE DEVIL.
Image via Wikipedia
Charles E. Hill: The Conspiracy Theory Of The Gospels.
via Charles E. Hill: The Conspiracy Theory Of The Gospels.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. These are the Bible’s familiar four Gospels, received as Holy Scripture by all major branches of Christianity. From ancient times to the present, these four books have been the gateway to Jesus and his teaching. Friends and foes alike have formed their ideas about Jesus mainly from these books. But why these? Weren’t there once other Gospels which for some reason were excluded? How is it that just these four made it into the Bible, and who was it that chose them? If members of the general public have been paying attention, they may know the story by heart, for it has been told in recent best-selling books, novels, and in theaters. Recently, I heard it from a man on a plane and my son heard it in a university classroom. Here is the basic story line.
Gospels about Jesus once flourished. As one scholar has recently put it, they were “breeding like rabbits.” Each of the varied Christian sects pushed its own version(s) and competition was lively. This “free market” for Jesus literature meant that, for many years and in many places, some now-forgotten Gospels were at least as popular as the ones that now headline the Christian New Testament. Gradually, however, one of the competing sects was able to gain the upper hand over its rivals. And when it finally declared victory in the fourth century, fully 300 years after Jesus walked the earth, it decreed that its four Gospels were, and had always been, the standard for the church Jesus founded. The “winners,” supported by the powerful emperor Constantine the Great, then got to write the histories — and make the Bibles.
As familiar as the narrative has become, however, it has serious flaws. I wrote Who Chose the Gospels? (Oxford, 2010) for any in the general public who might be interested in a readable account of the scholarship behind this popular story line and in a critique of that scholarship. If the story line has many of the qualities of a gripping conspiracy theory, it is because it basically is a conspiracy theory. And like most conspiracy theories, it tends to be long on drama and somewhat short on reality.
There once were, of course, other Gospels. The public got to see one up close in the spring of 2006 when the recently recovered gnostic Gospel of Judas was unveiled in front of rolling cameras. A cadre of scholars was on hand to deliver the now less-than-startling news that “Christianity was once diverse.” For a good many years, some academics have been stumping for another text that somehow slipped through the church fathers’ fingers: the Gospel of Thomas. Some would like to make it the long lost conversation partner of the author of the Gospel of John. Not to be forgotten is the venerable “Q” (short for the German Quelle, meaning “source”), the hypothetical inventory of Jesus’ sayings which many believe was used by both Matthew and Luke when they wrote their Gospels. Standing up for certain new-old Gospels has taken on an ideological importance, much like the cause of civil rights. Why should fighting discrimination end with people and not with books?
Yet before there were the many Gospels, there were only the four. Not that the four were necessarily the very first writings about Jesus ever scribed, but they are the earliest which we now have. And they are the earliest whose existence we are actually sure of. Yes, the Gospel writers may have used sources, like Q. They may have written earlier editions (“Proto-Matthew,” “Proto-Luke,” and the like, as they are named). Possibly there were even other Gospels from the first century which we don’t know about. But if such things ever existed, we have no good evidence that they ever circulated, or were intended to circulate, among groups of churches as authoritative accounts of the life of Jesus.
That scholars spend good portions of their careers writing about these alternative Gospels and reconstructing Gospel sources that no one has ever reported seeing, though, is a good thing. Such efforts help us imagine how the Gospels were composed, and they give us valuable insights into all early forms of Christianity, both “winners” and “losers”.
There is something attractive about the idea of a primordial, Edenic age of natural diversity, from which the church fell into the original sin of greater ecclesiastical unity. But then why do the remains of history seem to indicate that, even amid considerable second-century diversity, there was a mainstream of Christian thought which held a stable, core set of theological beliefs (e.g., that God really did make the world and that Jesus really was both divine and human), as well as a core set of ethical norms? And why does it appear that this Christian mainstream had more in common with the apostle Paul (they preserved his letters) and with the original disciples of Jesus than these other sects did? Here is where the conspiracy theory comes in. This imbalance in the surviving data is explained by the winners’ successful campaign to destroy as much of the counter evidence as they could. (Never mind that time and the elements would have destroyed most of them anyway, as they have destroyed most of what the winners tried to preserve.)
Here I will mention one claimed proof for this conspiracy theory, and one stubborn problem it faces.
Proof is said to reside in the ancient papyrus documents which archaeologists have dug from the sands of Egypt over the past century and a quarter. The Christian books yielded up by the unbiased, ancient trash heaps are, we are told, mostly books which were excluded from the New Testament. This would seem to show that the four Gospels were once minority reports and that some popular alternatives have been suppressed by the “winners.” All I will say here is that the papyri have both less and more to tell us than this argument lets on.
The problem for the conspiracy theory is a man named Irenaeus. Irenaeus was crystal clear in his claim that the church, from the time of the apostles, had received just four authoritative Gospels — Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — and that all the others were bogus. This is just what we would expect from a fourth-century re-writer of history. The problem is that Irenaeus wrote in the second century, long before the conspiratorial rewriting of history is supposed to have taken place.
Does, then, the conspiracy approach to early Christian history, in either its popular or its academic forms, have it right? Should it bother anyone that those who stress so loudly that the winners wrote the histories are the ones now writing the histories? Let the reader judge … but also be aware of conspiracies.
Image via Wikipedia
By Cathleen Falsani :I recently crossed that dreaded threshold into middle age, and it got me thinking about what, if any, spiritual wisdom I might have accumulated in my 40 years in this mortal coil of ours.
Here are a few things I’ve learned — from experience, from other people and (I hope) from God:
1. Begin each day by looking in the mirror and saying, “It’s not about me. It’s not about me. It’s not about me.” While looking in the mirror, try not to judge yourself. You are beautifully and wondrously made. Period.
2. Do not be afraid of doubt. Certainty — not doubt — is the opposite of faith.
3. Often we must make a choice: You can be kind or you can be right. Choose kindness.
4. God will not fit in a box of our making, or anyone else’s.
5. The things we think we know about God usually say more about us than about God.
6. Perfect love casts out fear. And even imperfect love does a pretty good job.
7. Jesus is the water of life. Stay hydrated.
8. Listen to children. They know more about God than we do.
9. We can learn the most from the people we think are the least like us.
10. God doesn’t believe in “us” and “them.”
11. God chooses all of us.
12. Pay attention to the things that bring a lump to your throat or a tear to your eye; they indicate the Holy is drawing closer.
13. God does and will use any and all means possible to get your attention.
14. Pay attention. Listen to your life. All moments are key moments.
15. God is a go-between who makes connections for us with the people we’d never connect with otherwise.
16. God can be found just as powerfully between people — in relationships — as in people.
17. God doesn’t “give” people hardships, heartaches or other horrors. But God walks with us through hardship, heartache and horror.
18. God is with the poor. We should be, too.
19. Whether you believe in God doesn’t make a lick of difference to God. God still is and still loves you, even if you don’t believe it.
20. Just like sunshine, rain, wind and the stars, God’s grace is for everyone.
21. Grace is the oxygen of religious life. Without grace, religion can suffocate you.
22. Sometimes being grace for another person means holding space for them until they’re ready to move into it.
23. If you happen to be in the room when Grace starts to dance, you should probably dance, too.
24. Prayer doesn’t change God’s mind, but it can change ours.
25. All truth is God’s truth, no matter who says it or where it comes from. If it’s true, it’s from God.
26. None is worthy but all are welcome in God’s house. So what part of “all” don’t you understand?
27. When Jesus said, “Turn the other cheek,” he didn’t offer a caveat such as, “Unless they’re really mean, wrong, offensive, stupid, ugly or your enemy.”
28. God doesn’t sweat the small stuff, but doesn’t mind helping us out when we do.
29. God has only one enemy: Hatred.
30. Every good, beautiful, perfect, inspiring, moving, joyful, sustaining, edifying, unifying, loving, gracious, whimsical, happy, life-giving, soul-stirring, paradigm-shifting, kind, generous alive thing is a gift from God.
31. If you can pry your sweaty, white-knuckled hands off the reigns of your life and trust God to take them, it’ll get better.
32. Sometimes when you think you can’t do it, if you just lean in the right direction, it’s enough.
33. When Jesus fed a crowd of 5,000 with two fish and five loaves of bread, the miracle didn’t happen until his disciples gave away the two fish and five loaves of bread.
34. Usually God doesn’t hand us our luggage until we’re about to board the plane.
35. When the student is ready, the teacher appears.
36. When you start making plans like you’re in charge, God begins to chuckle.
37. God has a tremendous sense of humor and irony.
38. Faith is a gift, just like the ability to tap dance, surf, make a souffle, play by ear and breathe.
39. There is nothing we can do that would make God throw up God’s hands, stomp out of the room and slam the door.
40. God loves you. You can’t do anything to make God love you less. And you can’t do anything to make God love you more.
Cathleen Falsani is the author of “Sin Boldly: A Field Guide for Grace” and the recent book, “The Dude Abides: The Gospel According to the Coen Brothers.”
April L. Bogle: The Role of Happiness in the World Religions.
via April L. Bogle: The Role of Happiness in the World Religions.
It’s hard to deny that His Holiness the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibet and the world’s most famous Buddhist, is the also world’s foremost expert on happiness. He clearly states in writings that seeking happiness is the very purpose of life, and he’s dedicated his life to learning how to be happy and sharing this knowledge with others.
But what about other major religious traditions? Is happiness a good thing, or bad? To be sought in this life, or the next?
We’re about to find out: The Dalai Lama will explore the concept of happiness with other world religious leaders Oct. 17 at Emory University’s “Summit on Happiness: Understanding and Promoting Happiness in Today’s Society.” For two hours, he joins in conversation with Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church, and George Washington University Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Krista Tippett, host of the radio program “Being,” will moderate.
Happiness has been a shining spotlight of psychological and scientific study and pop culture since the 1990s, and it shows no signs of fading (witness Coke’s recent ad campaign, “Open Happiness” and happiness courses being offered in major U.S. universities, following Harvard’s lead). Newsweek (Feb. 2, 2008) pinpoints the happiness movement catalyst to discoveries of brain activity underlying well-being, and the emergence of positive psychology, which focuses on strengths and virtues rather weaknesses and faults when assessing mental health.