Why does God have to be Jesus? (Asked by Bel Lioanag, SE-6)

Why does God have to be Jesus? Why does he have to be a human? Can we not be forgiven without Jesus’ sacrifice?

It would help very much if you could read my answer to the question “What is the Holy Trinity?” It will answer 50% of your question.

In summary, this article will explain that God DID NOT HAVE TO become Jesus. The God that we know IS Jesus. Jesus is who God is, and not someone that God has to be. Our God is not a one-person God (unlike the God professed by other faiths). Our God is a Trinitarian God. The name of our God is “Father-Son-Holy Spirit.” Just click here to read the full article.

Here’s the other 50%.

Our God is a communicating God. God WANTS to communicate with us. In the Old Testament, God communicates indirectly through signs (for example, thunder and lightning, parting of the Red Sea, through the prophets, victories and losses of the Israelites against their enemies, and so on). But in the New Testament, God communicated to us DIRECTLY. God did this through Jesus Christ. This is what St. Paul meant when he wrote:

In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe. (Hebrews 1:1-2)

Let me explain it this way. Tita Wena and I do not have children, as you know. But we do have two wonderful dogs named Sunshine and Email. You should come and visit, and see us talk to our dogs. “Sunshine, don’t make wee-wee on the floor again; do it here on the newspaper,” TW would say. I would then follow-up and say, “Mabuti pa si Email, she learned already where to make wee-wee. Sunshine, you follow what your sister here does, ok?”

Now, do you think Sunshine and Email understands what we’re telling them? I suppose somehow they do. But if we wanted to communicate with them directly and clearly, we would have to learn and communicate to them in “dog language,” not in human language.

This is what God did. Instead of communicating to us in “divine language,” God wanted to communicate to us in human language. Thus, God became human, just like one of us, through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ communicated to us through his words and actions. People saw him, talked to him, ate with him and so on. Now, St. Paul also says in Colossians 1:15: “Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God.”

If you really want to know who God is, then get to know Jesus because he is the image of God. If Jesus is loving, forgiving, and healing, then God is ALSO loving, forgiving and healing. That is as plain as it get. It’s like WYSIWIG – what you see is what you get.

Can we not be forgiven without Jesus sacrifice?

We often associate Jesus sacrifice ONLY with his death on the cross. Let’s note that God did not become man to simply die. That would make God the Father such a cruel God who demands that the Son die for our sins.

We should also focus on what Jesus was saying and doing during his life WHICH RESULTED to his death on the cross.

This is consistent with the biblical meaning of sacrifice. When a Jew would offer an animal as sacrifice, the animal was the symbol for his or her life: by offering the animal, the Jew was also offering his or her life to God. But for the Jew, the focus is NOT the killing of the animal, but what it symbolizes: his or her life would now be based on obeying God’s will. The Jew was in effect saying, “I am offering this animal to tell my God that I would like to live a life that is God-centered.”

It is the same with the sacrifice of Jesus. It is not just the crucifixion but the entire life of Jesus that we should consider.

The core of Jesus’ teaching is the Kingdom of God, mentioned more than a hundred times in the Gospel. The Kingdom of God is not a place, but a condition where unconditional love prevails (see the parable of the Prodigal Son). God’s love is unconditional, which means that it is open to everyone, regardless of how sinful you are. That is why for Jesus, salvation is not just something that happens in the “after life” but something that God does now because God cares passionately about what happens to us.

Preaching this contradicted and embarrassed many of the Pharisees, Sadducees and other authorities during Jesus’ time. Eventually, people plotted against him, which resulted to his crucifixion and death.

So, please answer my question, can we not be forgiven without Jesus sacrifice?

This is the way you should also look at “being forgiven.” Jesus has shown in his life that we are forgiven and loved unconditionally.

“When we begin to accept that God loves and accepts us unconditionally, then we can change our sense of who we are and our sense of what life is about. Our primary image of our self would then become one of ‘trusted, loved and already forgiven by God,’ rather than ‘sinner who must please God to be forgiven.’ We can begin to discover that the Christian life is about a life lived in a loving relationship with God. Realizing this, we may be able to allow the transforming power of our love relationship with God to work in our lives.”[1]

A profound healing can begin to take place within us. Our “being saved” or “being forgiven” happens.

What’s the implication of all these in my life?

When you look at Jesus on the cross, do not remember only his death. Remember his entire life, what he said and did, his unconditional love manifested in forgiveness and healing of both the physical, mental and emotional illnesses of those around him. Recall that Jesus was willing to do all these even if he knew that he would antagonize people and that he may eventually pay for it with his life. But he did so anyway out of love for all of us.

Realizing this, I think it would not be difficult for you to do also start to love others unconditionally. Your “being saved” and “being forgiven” happens.

---

[1] Lode Wostyn, CICM, I Believe: A Workbook for Theology I (Manila: Claretian Publications, 2004), 174.

What are indulgences? - Asked by Sonny Santiago, SE-9

There are two things I’d like you to appreciate before we discuss indulgences, namely:

- First, any sin is never just between a person and God. Sin damages our relationship with our family, friends and others. One cannot say that my sin is only between my God and myself. Any sin has consequences and eventually affects our relationship with others. For example, stealing is a sin because you deprive someone of something and it hurts the relationship. Lying hurts our relationship because you mislead me.

- Secondly, there are two consequences of sin. If your sin is mortal, and here I regard mortal sin as not only one act but as a position you have taken to completely reject God’s love in your life, then the consequence is complete and eternal separation from God. This should come as no surprise to such a person since that person has already taken the position that he or she does not want God in his or life. This is referred to as “eternal punishment.”

The other consequence of sin is the harm to our community and social relationship that I referred to earlier. This is referred to as “temporal punishment.”

These two punishments should not be thought of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God, but as following from the very nature of sin (CCC 1472).

When we convert, i.e. when we once again accept God’s love in our life (and we are forgiven in the Sacrament of Reconciliation), then “eternal punishment” is removed. But “temporal punishment” remains, i.e. the harm brought to our community and social relationships is still there. This is obvious, isn’t it? When I hurt you through unkind words, the hurt is still there even after I go to confession.

We therefore need to repair these hurts in our relationships to ensure that I stop hurting other people, or at least hurt less people or hurt people less. I need to change. But I cannot just will or intend these changes. I must practice patience, kindness, forgiveness and so on. In other words, I need to “pay for” these punishments. We also believe this change process is actually facilitated by the problems, trials and sufferings that we encounter in our life because these make us turn to God as the source of all life and the One who is in control of our life. In a manner of speaking these “punishments” help us reform and change.

When do we start talking about indulgences?

Ok, let's now turn to your question. The church defines indulgence as the remission of the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven, which persons who are duly disposed gains under certain conditions (CCC 1471). What that means is this.

The burden to change our self is never an individual effort! We are members of Christ’s body, the Church. The Church helps its members by granting indulgences, that is, by assigning to a penitent person a portion of the “treasury of merits Christ and the saints” to help the person “pay for” the temporal punishments. In the case of plenary indulgence, ALL the temporal punishment is “paid for.”

I hope you do not look at “treasury of merits of Christ and the saints” as the sum total of material goods accumulated by the Church through the centuries. Rather, look at it as our Church’s “assets of goodness in the world” (my phrase). Just as there is evil in the world, there is also so much goodness and, as St. Paul says, “where sin abounds, grace abounds even more.” Our Church is therefore saying that we want to share with our members some of these goodness to help these members make up for their “temporal punishments” but still ensure that personal change happen.

This is why indulgences are not just doled out. Certain conditions are required. For example, in the granting of a plenary indulgence, the following are the requirements: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion, prayer for the intention of the Pope, and that all attachment to sin be absent. The objective of these requirements are to promote and help facilitate the change in the person.

The last condition ("all attachment to sin is absent") is admittedly a tough one, but it is the Church’s way of saying that a profound and personal change must begin to happen in one’s self so that the person will now do less harm to relationships in the community.

Where does purgatory fit into all of this?

We believe in a “purgatory,” that is, a transition between a person’s death and final judgment. We certainly express this in our practice of praying for the dead. Contemporary theology prefers to speak of purgatory as a process rather than as a place, and therefore theologians use the term purification rather than purgatory. Indeed, that is the language commonly used by the early church and the Eastern Churches.[1]

Our own Pope Benedict XVI views purgatory as “the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints.” [2]

Pope John Paul II explained purgatory as part of the “process of purification” for the sinner when the repentant sinner is prepared to receive “the fullness of love.” (CWNews.com, Sept. 29, 1999)

In this context, our Church also believes that we can share our indulgences with those in purgatory so that temporal punishments due for their sins may also be “paid for.” Again, don’t look at this as like a bank book wherein we withdraw from our account and deposit to your grandfather’s account in purgatory. Rather, look at this as our way of saying that there is a “perennial link of love between those who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are being purified in purgatory, and those who are still pilgrims on earth; between them there is an abundant exchange of all good things.” (CCC 1475)

As a final word on indulgence, John Paul II reminds us that the process of earning indulgences cannot be a matter of “external gestures, done superficially,” but must be “a process of interior growth toward actual detachment from sin.” (CWNews.com, Sept. 29, 1999)

- Written by Manny Blas, with help from Chris Mallion (SE-9)

Sources (in addition to those cited in the footnotes):

-CCC or Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1471-1479

-CFC or Catechism of Filipino Catholics, 1820 – 1821

-www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/indulgc.php

[1] Peter C. Phan, Responses to 101 Questions o Death and Eternal Life (New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1997), 70.

[2] Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1988), 230; as cited by Phan, 71.

Why do we pray the rosary? Are we praying to Jesus or Mary? (Asked by Mark Lim, SE-2)

Let’s learn something first about the history of the rosary, and then I will answer your questions.

History

According to tradition, the devotion of the Rosary was spread by St. Dominic in the thirteenth century. In the Roman Catholic Church, the feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Rosary is observed on October 7.

Historians have traced the origin of the Rosary back to the 9th century, and to a form of prayer that evolved in the early monasteries of the church. One of the most important forms of monastic prayer was the daily chanting of the 150 psalms of David. Lay people around the monastery would hear the psalms every day as they were sung or recited, and the beauty of this prayer intrigued them. They yearned to join in, but the psalms were too long to memorize, copies could not be found since printing was rare, and few knew how to read Latin anyway. The lay people were however, determined to adapt this prayer form for their own use.

Sometime around 800 AD, the people's desire to participate led to their reciting the “Our Father” in response to every psalm recited by the monks. As this form of devotion became popular, people began to carry leather pouches of 150 pebbles, in order that they might keep count of their daily prayers when they were not in hearing distance of the monastery. A thin rope with 150 knots became less of a burden and soon replaced the bag of stones.

When the missionary monks began to travel and evangelize Europe, this form of devotion was brought with them. In some areas, priests and lay people began to recite the Angelic Salutation, or “Hail Mary, full of grace…” in response to the psalms, instead of the “Our Father.”

During the 13th century, the recitation evolved into yet another form. Medieval theologians began to interpret the 150 psalms as hidden prophesies about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and they composed a series of psalters, or praises, based on each interpretation. These thoughts took the form of narratives. The fifteen narratives were divided into five Joyful, five Sorrowful, and five Glorious mysteries in the lives of Jesus and Mary, and the Rosary itself became a string of 50 beads to be prayed.
In order to fit the existing prayer string, the psalters were divided into three "rosariums" or bouquets of 50 each. This was the form that St. Dominic promoted.

Now, let’s answer your questions.

The rosary began as the layperson’s attempt to pray regularly to God. People wanted to pray and when they could not pray the “official prayers” of the monks, then this yearning eventually led to the rosary as a prayer. Eventually, the lives of Jesus and Mary were incorporated to the rosary.

There are several approaches that you can use when praying the rosary:

- One approach is to focus on the fact that you are praying, and prayer is essentially being aware of God’s presence in our midst. The Rosary helps you to focus your mind in God’s loving presence for you. In this approach, the constant repetition of the “Hail Mary and Holy Mary” helps prevent your mind from being diverted into thoughts other than God’s presence.

- Another approach is focus on the mysteries of the lives of Jesus and Mary which corresponds to the Mystery of the Rosary that you are praying. So, if you are in decade of the mystery of the “birth of our Lord,” focus on the scene to keep your mind from being distracted, as well as help edify your thoughts on God’s love for us in becoming one of us.

- The third approach, which I often use, is to have a special prayer intention for each decade which you can declare to those praying with you, and then focus on praying to God for that intention. For example, you may declare that the first Joyful Mystery is for the intention of your “movie premier fundraising activity,” and then pray for that as you recite the decade.

Finally, do we pray to Jesus or Mary?

Well, “technically,” all prayers are to God, but we keep in mind that Mary and the saints (as well as our apostolate brothers and sisters, family, and friends) are one with us in praying because we are all part of God’s family. This is referred to as the communion of saints and is discussed in another AskTM question. Click here if you want to read more about that.



Sources:
Catholic Encyclopedia, Our Sunday Visitor, 1994
http://www.aoh.com/history/archive/rosary.htm

Was Jesus actually born on December 25? (Asked by Edward Santillan, SE-7)

Christmas is based on the story of Jesus’ birth as described in the Gospel according to Matthew (1:18-2:12) and the Gospel according to Luke (1:26-56). Roman Catholics first celebrated Christmas, then known as the Feast of the Nativity, as early as 336 ad.

The word Christmas entered the English language sometime around 1050 as the Old English phrase Christes maesse, meaning “festival of Christ.” Scholars believe the frequently used shortened form of Christmas—Xmas—may have come into use in the 13th century. The X stands for the Greek letter chi, an abbreviation of Khristos (Christ), and also represents the cross on which Jesus was crucified.

ORIGINS OF CHRISTMAS

Historians are unsure exactly when Christians first began celebrating the Nativity of Christ. However, most scholars believe that Christmas originated in the 4th century as a Christian substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.

Before the introduction of Christmas, each year beginning on December 17 Romans honored Saturn, the ancient god of agriculture, in a festival called Saturnalia. This festival lasted for seven days and included the winter solstice, which usually occurred around December 25 on the ancient Julian calendar. During Saturnalia the Romans feasted, postponed all business and warfare, exchanged gifts, and temporarily freed their slaves. Many Romans also celebrated the lengthening of daylight following the winter solstice by participating in rituals to glorify Mithra, the ancient Persian god of light. These and other winter festivities continued through January 1, the festival of Kalends, when Romans marked the day of the new moon and the first day of the month and year.

Most scholars believe that Christmas originated in the 4th century as a Christian substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.

Although the Gospels describe Jesus’ birth in detail, they never mention the date, so historians do not know on what date he was born. The Roman Catholic Church chose December 25 as the day for the Feast of the Nativity in order to give Christian meaning to existing pagan rituals.

Edited from: Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Since it's Christmas time, can you provide some historical details on the circumstances of the birth of Jesus? (Asked by Rose Meim, SE-2)

Let’s use the account of the birth of Jesus according to Luke 2:1-20. This is commonly the gospel passage read during Christmas eve mass. (See where Bethlehem is located, map below).

Luke is quite specific about the circumstances surrounding Jesus birth:

1. When was Jesus born? Luke 1:5 states that Herod the Great was the king at around the birth of Jesus. Since history dates the death of Herod at around March or April 4 BC, then Jesus must have been born before that date. December 25 was not his exact birth date, but was assigned by the Church later on (more on this on a separate AskTM question).


2. Luke mentioned that the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus ordered a census of the whole world, i.e. the Roman empire. We now know that this is inaccurate since there was no such universal census taken at around this time. The closest is that held in Palestine when Quirinius was governor of Syria (also mentioned by Luke), but which was around 6 AD.

Biblical scholars believe that the census is a literary device used by Luke to associate Mary and Joseph, residents of Nazareth, with Bethlehem, the town of David. Also, every time there is a Roman census, there is usually opposition by the people since this is a recognition of Roman authority over them, and caused a lot of inconvenience. Luke wanted to tie Jesus birth to a time of political disturbance associated with a census.

Such political disturbances were one of the triggers for the revolt of Judas the Galilean, and Luke wanted to show that Joseph and Mary (who were both Galileans) were obedient to Rome. Jesus and the Christians have no political ambitions.

Augustus is also known at that time as the peaceful Savior, so this serves as a contrast to Jesus who brings the real peace (see the message of the angels) and is the real Savior.


3. Luke establishes that the procedure is for everyone to go to the city of his ancestry and Joseph went to Bethlehem, the city of David; even though Jerusalem is traditionally regarded in the Old Testament as the city of David.

Luke wanted to connect the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem with what is written in Micah 5:2: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel."

Joseph and Mary were living in Nazareth at that time and had to travel southward to Bethlehem which was about 100 kilometers away. Using an animal to travel (at about 3 to 4 kph), and considering Mary is pregnant which would have added to travel time, this distance would have taken about 7 to 9 days. By the way, the bible does not mention that Joseph and Mary used a donkey, although they certainly used an animal to travel. It could have been an ass, horse, mule or donkey.


4. Luke’s narrative of Jesus birth is very brief. Luke seems more interested in telling his readers where Mary lay the newborn child - in a manger. The symbolism behind this is not clear. Perhaps it lies in the contrast between the extraordinary titles given to the child and his poverty. God is thus revealed in a paradox.

A manger is a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold food for livestock. In Bible times, mangers were made of clay mixed with straw or from stones cemented with mud. Some mangers were cut from a limestone block or carved in natural outcroppings of rock, because livestock was sometimes stabled in a cave. (Thus, there is some tradition that Jesus was born in a cave).


5. There were shepherds out in the field. Shepherds were despised people at the time of Jesus. They were suspected of not being very scru­pulous in matters of ownership; and so, their testimony was not admissible in court. They had the same legal status as the tax collectors. In view of what Luke says later on in his gospel regarding the preference of Jesus for tax collectors and sinners, the choice of the shepherds as the first beneficiaries of God's revelation in Jesus becomes quite significant.

Sources: Nil Guillemette, SJ, Kingdom for All (St. Paul’s Publications, 1988) and Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia.

What is the difference between the Ascension and Assumption (Asked by Charlie Rancudo, SE-1)

Ascension

The biblical verses referring to the Ascension are:

- “Then he led them as far as Bethany, raised his hands, and blessed them. As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven. They did him homage and then returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and they were continually in the temple praising God.” – Luke 24:50-53

- “So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God. But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through accompanying signs.” - Mark 16:19-20

- Also Acts 1:9-12

The Ascension (or being lifted up to heaven) is described as Jesus Christ's return to the Father. It marks the end of the visible ministry of Jesus on earth.

The Ascension is best understood in connection with the Resurrection which you can read in the footnote below.[1] In the Resurrection, Jesus went through a transformation in body and spirit. Jesus was not just resuscitated (like Lazarus, who eventually died), but transformed.

This transformation of Jesus did not stop at the Resurrection, but continued with the Ascension. We think of the Ascension not so much as the transition of Jesus from one place to another (i.e. from earth to heaven) but from one condition to another. When we say that Jesus ascended, we mean:

- Jesus withdrew from a world of limitation (that is our human condition) to that higher existence where God is.

- It is the end of the visible activities of Jesus on earth, but not the end of Jesus presence. Jesus is now physically far, but spiritually near. Jesus ascension precedes the sending of the Holy Spirit which is His presence in our everyday life today. “It is much better for you that I go… If I go, I will send the Paraclete to you.” – John 16:7. Being now free from earthly limitations, Jesus can now more “freely” interact and intercede for us.

- It is the return of Jesus to the Father in the beginning of time before He came into the world. Ascension or being "lifted up into Heaven" is Jesus Christ's coming back home. It is also at this event that marks the sending of the Holy Spirit to work within us.


Assumption

The Assumption refers to Mother Mary’s “body and soul” (that is, her entire being) as taken up into heaven without having tasted death. The bible also refers to both Elijah and Enoch being taken to heaven in the same manner (2 Kings 2:11 and Hebrews 11:5).

Again, just in the explanation of the Ascension, “taken up to heaven” should be read as Mary having gone through a transformation from one condition to another (rather than physically floating from earth to the skies).

The Assumption was declared as a dogma on November 1, 1950 by Pius XII.

That early Christian believed in Mary's Assumption is proven in the lack of her relics, empty tombs, and quotes from early Christians. The early Christians were very careful to keep the relics of saints and martyrs, even if it involved great risk (like trying to retrieve the remains of those who were eaten by lions). Because Christians took care of the remains of the saints, we know where the bones of Saint Peter, Mary Magdalene and many other New Testament believers are buried. But where are the remains of the Virgin Mary? There is no record of anyone ever claiming to possess the body of the Mother of Jesus.

This would have been the most prized relic of all; the mortal remains of the Savior's closest blood relative, the very same body which had carried God Incarnate for nine months and nursed and cared for Him afterward! Yet in all of Church history, both biblical and extra-biblical, there is no record of its whereabouts.

The early Church Fathers were very zealous for the faith. They strenuously fought all new heresies which threatened the Faith delivered to the Apostles. If the Assumption of Mary were a novel belief at the time, we would expect to find Christian writers of the third to fifth centuries condemning it as a newfangled heresy. Yet none do! Nowhere in the writings of the early Church Fathers do we find the slightest condemnation of this doctrine.

(Sources: CFC, 524 – 525, article found in http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm54.htm, and article found in http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/marian8.html)

Footnotes:
[1] An understanding of the Resurrection will help us understand what happens during consecration.

We regard the Resurrection of Jesus as not just resuscitation (as in the case of Lazarus, who eventually died), but that of transformation (Jesus lives forever). Resurrection refers not just to a physically risen Jesus, but to a spiritually Risen Jesus.

Our Risen Lord was no longer bound by time and space. He could walk through walls. In the account of the “doubting Thomas” in John 20:19-29, the evangelist emphasizes by saying twice that “the doors were locked,” and yet Jesus suddenly appeared to them.

In the story of the two men on the way to Emmaus in Luke 24:1-53, we learn other aspects about our Risen Lord. We know that the tomb was empty and so his body rose and changed (24:12). His body changed because when Jesus appeared to the two men on the road to Emmaus, he was not readily recognizable (24:32), and yet he could be seen and touched, and he ate brad and fish. We also know that he was recognized when he started to talk about the Scriptures and when they broke bread (24:35), and that this encounter with him brought about much excitement and joy (24:33 and 41).

I’m afraid that is as much as we can know about Jesus Resurrected presence. (The disciples did not have a video camera then, so they could not be any more helpful). But one thing we do know, Jesus was not just resuscitated; he was transformed to a glorious presence.

The close analogy I can think of is that of a caterpillar that is transformed to a butterfly. It changes to something totally new.

What is the New Age Movement? (Asked by Raffy Ortega, SE-4)

What is the New Age Movement?


The New Age Movement (NAM) is not one movement. It is like a river with many tributaries and it is very difficult to know which tributary you are in, or even whether you are in the main river itself. The NAM has no founder, no headquarters, no holy books, no leaders, and no dogmas. It is associated with the development of consciousness, importance of spiritual experiences, mysticism and anti-consumerism, as well as gurus, holistic health spas, psychics, crystals, charms, and tarot cards; not to mention UFO’s and ET’s.

The term “New Age” seems to have been coined by one of the successors of Madame H. P. Blavatsky (1831-1891) who is considered the “godmother of the New Age Movement.” Supposedly inspired by telepathic messages coming from a Tibetan master, this successor proclaimed the return of Christ, who will inaugurate a new age.[1]

Can you at least give me a definition?

While NAM is eclectic (that is, it combine individual elements from many sources), Lode Wostyn came up with the following definition which is helpful in categorizing the various thoughts that could be considered “new age”:[2]

The NAM is new spirituality of people convinced that they have arrived at a turning point in history, triggered off by a new holistic understanding of the world and the universe. This is because of the awakening of a new consciousness among individuals who then link up into all kinds of groups, organization, and communities, and gradually developing into networks.

What does the Catholic Church say about NAM?

One way that the Vatican document on “A Christian Reflection on the ‘New Age’” describes NAM is as the return of Gnosticism, a philosophy that St. Paul had to counter during his preaching. Gnosticism refers to a religious creed in which salvation is ascribed to the possession of a superior, spiritual knowledge (the Greek word gnosis) which bring human beings into immediate contact with the divine.[3] It believes that human beings have a divine spark in themselves, but it is caught within the evil material world; through gnosis, however, people can re-establish contact with their divine origin, free themselves from the material world, and become one with the divine.[4]

The key problems of NAM and its conflicts with our Catholic religion are in the following areas:

1. Theology – Rejects the otherness of God. If everything is God and God is everything, it also means that God comes in many forms. Grants relative value to all religions, denying Jesus as the fullness of revelation.

2. Spirituality – One of the most common elements in New Age “spirituality” is a fascination with extraordinary manifestations, and in particular with paranormal entities. People recognised as “mediums” claim that their personality is taken over by another entity during trances in a New Age phenomenon known as “channeling”, during which the medium may lose control over his or her body and faculties.[5] accepts many cultic and occultic practices rejected by Scriptures and the Church like sorcery and fortune-telling.

3. Ethics – Human actions are the fruit of either illumination or ignorance. Hence we cannot condemn anyone, and nobody needs forgiveness. Believing in the existence of evil can create only negativity and fear. The answer to negativity is love.[6]

Is NAM all bad?

It is also important to understand that the NAM was a reaction to the modern Western culture of science, technology and rationalism which offered much in terms of consumption, yet so little in terms of meaning. The NAM can be described as a contemporary movement which attempts to answer the old questions of meaning in our personal and social life. This search for answers influences the spiritual aspects of our humanity such as yearning for ultimate meaning, our interconnectedness with the universe and with each other, mystical experiences, millenarianism (or the dawning of the “age of Aquarius”), and transcendence. Indeed, the Church admits that the “New Age is attractive mainly because so much of what it offers meets hungers often left unsatisfied by the established institutions.”[7]

Importantly, our Church considers the popularity of NAM as conveying a message, which challenges all Christians: People feel the Christian religion no longer offers them – or perhaps never gave them – something they really need. The search which often leads people to the New Age is a genuine yearning: for a deeper spirituality, for something which will touch their hearts, and for a way of making sense of a confusing and often alienating world.[8]

What can I do when I meet someone who believes in NAM?

The problems that the Church finds in NAM are NOT in the questions that it raises regarding how life should be lived, but in the answers that it provides, as enumerated above.

The challenge then, is for you and our Church to be able to provide the “better” answers that NAM believers find in NAM. To those who adhere to NAM, the appeal of Christianity will be felt first of all in the witness of the members of the Church, in their trust, calm, patience and cheerfulness, and in their concrete love of neighbour, all the fruit of their faith nourished in authentic personal prayer.[9]

Practical tip for the Single: New Age groups refer to their meetings as “prayer groups”. Those people who are invited to such groups need to look for the marks of genuine Christian spirituality, and to be wary if there is any sort of initiation ceremony. Such groups take advantage of a person's lack of theological or spiritual formation to lure them gradually into what may in fact be a form of false worship. Christians must be taught about the true object and content of prayer – in the Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ, to the Father – in order to judge rightly the intention of a “prayer group”.


Sources:

1. The article “A Christian Reflection on the ‘New Age’” by the Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious dialogue, as published by the Vatican

2. A New Church for a New Age by Lode Wostyn (Manila: Claretian Publications, 1997), and

3. My personal notes during a Shepherds’ Deepening Course conducted in our Renewal Movement in September 2000.

[1] Wostyn, p. 14.
[2] Wostyn, p. 35.
[3] Wostyn, p. 15.
[4] Wostyn, p. 15.
[5] A Christian Reflection, 2.2.1.
[6] A Christian Reflection, 2.2.2.
[7] A Christian Reflection, 1.1.
[8] A Christian Reflection, 1.5.
[9] A Christian Reflection, 6.2.

How do we interpret events that happen to us? Is it God's will or our free will? (Asked by Sonny Santiago, SE-9)

Since we believe that events in our lives happen because it is God's will, how does this jive with our "free will?" Are we truly making "free will" decisions or is it all "God's will?" To simplify: "God's will" versus "free will" - which one is it really?

One of the greatest birthday gifts that God gave us is our free will, or our freedom. Freedom does not mean the freedom to do whatever we want, but the power to choose what is good. Because of our freedom, we are not just subject to our human instincts which are often based on "me first." As Catholics, we believe that we receive this power in a very special way during baptism and we are able to counter "original sin," the tendency of humanity to be selfish.

At the same time, God who is love, also gave us the freedom to choose NOT to love God back. This is true love, isn't it? If God simply programmed us to love God back, then what kind of love would that be?

Therefore, God’s gift to us is not just God’s love, but the freedom to accept or reject that love.

Regarding God's will, don't look at it in terms of the predictability of the specific events that happens in one's life. We are not living life which has been predetermined in God’s heavenly videotape. For example, you applied for a job and were not accepted. We often attribute that to God's will, but it could simply be because you really do not qualify for that job.

Rather, look at God's will as God's ultimate intent to bring YOU and all of humanity back to God. God does not often work in a straight sequence, that is from A to B to C and so on until you reach Z. Life is not like that. Instead, we often go from A to B to C and then back to B and even to A. But God's intent is always for you to reach Z. It is not beyond God to take you from A straight to K then to W, only for you to take yourself back to C. God does not give up; it is God's will to eventually take you to Z.

Look at the A, B, C and so on as the different people and events in our lives. God communicates to us through the people and events that happen in our life. (Come to think of it, how else can God communicate to us?) Our sensitivity to God's presence, and the strength of our personal relationship with him, help us reflect and interpret God's will in these people and events. When we conform our free will with God's will, then we make progress. If we don't, then we backtrack. Hopefully, by being in the Singles Apostolate, you can continue to grow in this relationship with God.

While God's will is for you to be with God, you can always say NO. You can always say "No, thanks, but I don't want God's love." The irony is that God loves us so much that God allows you to reject that love.

Finally, we believe that we find true happiness when we conform our free will (or freedom) with God's will. That is why we discern God's purpose for our lives. While we know that it is God's ultimate intent for all of us to be with God, we discern daily how to be with God. Discerning God's will presupposes that you have a relationship with God, since it is quite difficult to know someone's will for you if you don't know that person.

So, back to your question: "when things happen to us, is it free will or God's will?" The answer is: both. God is communicating to us all the time through people and events, and is leading us closer to God. If you take God’s cue, then you can conform your free will to God's will.

- Written by Manny Blas

Can non-Catholics go to heaven? (Asked by Paul Meim, SE-1 and Lourdes Mapa, SE-1)

Could my non-Catholic friends (Born again/Protestant/Muslim) still go to heaven even if they have not accepted our Catholic faith? (Asked by Paul Meim, SE-1)

It says in the bible the 10 commandments can be summed up into two. Love the Lord your God with all your mind, heart, and soul. Second love your neighbor as yourself. If this is so, is it then possible for non-Catholics who live their lives practicing these two commandments to also go to heaven also? (Asked by Lourdes Mapa, SE-1)

Our Catholic Church used to say that “outside our church there is no salvation.” There is no longer any mention of this position in any document during and after Second Vatican Council (or Vatican II, held in 1963-65). The Catechism for Filipino Catholics (or CFC), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC), the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (or PCP II), and other Church documents all state a more accepting and respectful position of other religions. (All underscoring are mine)

- While our Catholic Church is the ordinary means of salvation (meaning, the Church has the means in how we can reach God), “this salvation through Jesus Christ is offered to all peoples, and this makes possible our openness in understanding the religious convictions of others.” (CFC, 75) Underscore mine.

- "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (CCC, No. 841, quoting Lumen Gentium).

- "Even for those who do not explicitly profess faith in him as the Savior, salvation comes as a grace from Jesus Christ through the communication of the Holy Spirit." (Ecclesia in Asia by JPII, No. 14).

- "The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions [referring to Hinduism, Buddhism in the earlier paragraph]. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men." (Vatican II document Nostra Aetate, No. 2, or the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non Christian Religions.).

- "The Synod Fathers drew attention to the multiple and diversified action of the Holy Sprit who continually sows the seeds of truth among all peoples, their religions, their cultures and philosophies. This means that these religions, cultures and philosophies are capable of helping people, individually and collectively, to work against evil and to serve life and everything that is good." (Ecclesia in Asia by JPII, No. 15)


In over simplistic terms, it is difficult to condemn the people of other faiths, considering that there are 6 billion people in the world, with only 1 billion Catholics. Can you imagine our God, who is Father of all and is a God of love, would condemn the 5 billion?

Nevertheless, it should also be emphasized that the above does not mean that we should stop our evangelizing efforts, for indeed it is also stated that "the Church's faith in Jesus is a gift received and a gift to be shared; it is the greatest gift which the Church can offer to Asia" (Ecclesia in Asia by JPII, No. 10).

It also states that our acceptance of other religions does not exempt us from our "duty to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life." (Nostra Aetate, No. 2)

However, we cannot convert other religions if we adopt a "holier than thou" attitude. Instead, we should adopt a position of mutual respect and charity: "We cannot truly pray to God the Father of all if we treat any people in other than brotherly fashion, for all men are created in God's image." (Nostra Aetate, No. 5)

Why do we ask for the intercession of Mary and the saints? Isn't praying to God directly enough? (Asked by Gels Velasco, SE-7)

The Gospel says to go to God through Jesus. Why then do we ask for the intercession of Mother Mary and the saints? Does this not detract our faith in God and end up attributing miracles to the saints instead of God? If God hears all prayers – and is all merciful and all powerful – then why do we have to go through the Saints?

Let me begin to answer your questions by explaining why we include the phrase “we believe in the communion of saints” in our Creed.

As Christians, we regard our relationship with God as both a personal AND communal. We are all connected to one another. As St. Paul says, “None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself” (Romans 14:7). Also, “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honoured, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (1 Corinthians 12:26-27).

We believe that this “connection” exists not only among our family, relatives, friends and all other Christians who are now alive, but also with those who have passed away and have moved on to the next life. You and I have felt the lost of a loved one, and we know that we just do not dis-connect with him or her when he or she passes away. We continue to remember, pray for, and ask for prayers from those who have died.

It is in this context that we understand the phrase “communion of saints.” The Church has identified certain people who she believes are with God – the saints. “Communion of saints” mean that we continue to be connected with them spiritually. Those who have gone ahead do not simply forget about those who live in this life, but we believe that precisely because they are closer to God, then “they do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they offer the merits which they acquired on earth through Jesus.” (LG, 49 and 1 Timothy 2:5).

I hope you don’t look at this as a “heavenly bureaucracy” whereby our prayers first go to a saint who then passes it on to Jesus, and who then passes it on to the Father. Instead look at it as an expression that all of us – both living and those in the next life – continue to be united and related to one another because we have one God as our Father. We continue to care and pray for one another: we pray for those in purgatory, we pray to those in heaven to intercede for us, and those in heaven pray and intercede for us. We are one family, now and forever, with Jesus as our head.

In this communion of saints, Mother Mary holds a special place for being the mother of Jesus. She leads the faithful to a deeper faith in Christ and greater love for the Father through the Holy Spirit by her unique personal relationship with the Son exemplified in her life of faithfulness and perfect obedience.

Two Gospel stories can enlighten us on Mary’s faithfulness, her perfect obedience to God, and her unique relationship with Jesus.

Remember the Annunciation? No teenager dreams of becoming pregnant without a husband. But imagine the greatness and certainty of Mary’s faith in God when she bowed in humble respect to God’s will for her to bear a child while barely in her teens.

Also, in the miracle at Cana, the uniqueness of Mary’s special relationship with Jesus is shown in how he performed his very first miracle even if it was not yet time for him to start his public ministry. This, because of the request of his beloved mother.

Regarding the intercession of the saints in miracles, we should note that they do not bring us the miracles. Miracles are God’s work and not the saints’ doing. Seeking for intercession of the saints means that we ask the saints to pray for us and with us, as we seek for God’s favorable answer to our request. Again, please take this in the context of the “communion of saints” discussed earlier.

- Written by Chris Mallion, MA (Religious Education, Loyola School of Theology) and Manny Blas II, MA (Religious Studies, Maryhill School of Theology).

Source: CFC, 155-159; CFC, 1540; CFC, 1429 in addition to sources cited within the article.

Why do some people put their hand on their chest during certain parts of the Mass? (Asked by Cicis, SE-10)

Why do some people put their hand on their chest during the part of the Mass when we say of "Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world..." and also during "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the Word and I shall be healed..."? What does it mean and are we supposed to do it?

This practice has its roots in tradition at a time when the Mass was still celebrated in Latin. At the beginning of the Mass, during the confession of our sins, and when we pray…

“I confess to almighty God and to you my brothers and sisters that I have sinned through my own faults in my thoughts and in my action, in what I have done and what I have failed to do…”

… the priest and the whole community would strike their breast three times while saying “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” In English, it means “through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.” It is a gesture of their deep sorrow and sincere penitence for their sinfulness.

Although we no longer have this tradition, its significance endured over time. Today however, instead of striking their breast, people just put their hands on their chests.

Should we do this gesture?

The Church does not bind all Catholics to a strict compliance to this tradition. Now that you know its significance, it may be gesture that you may personally wish to continue to express repentance and sorrow.

- Written by Chris Mallion, M. A. and edited by Manny Blas II, M. A.

Why are there chain mails on Jesus and Mama Mary? Are their promises and warnings to be taken seriously? (Asked by Cicis, SE-10)

Why are there chain mails on Jesus and Mama Mary? Are the promises and warnings in these emails to be taken seriously?

Close to the hearts of Filipino Catholics are the devotions to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mama Mary because of our Filipino value of family- centeredness. Most feel the need to continue this devotion not only in traditional ways as done in churches but also through an adaptation of the culture of the times, as in texts or emails.

Sending of prayers and novenas through text or email can be authentic expressions of devotion. But what is NOT authentic is the superstition at the end that either warns people that something terrible will happen to them if they do not forward it, or that their wishes and prayers will come true within a day of doing so.

Those are no longer acts of devotion to Jesus and Mary. There is no guaranteed technique of praying that ensures that God would grant exactly what we pray for. Doing so is to limit God to act in certain ways, and in the ways that we have determined that God should act. We do not have a God-in-a bottle. We have a loving and creative God that answers all prayers in any of the following ways:

- “Yes, you can have what you prayed for.”
- “Yes, you can, but later.”
- “No, I have something better for you.”

- Written by Chris Mallion, M. A. and edited by Manny Blas II, M. A.

When the Gospel say that some people thought that Jesus is Elijah, does that mean the Jews believe in reincarnation? (Asked by Charlie, SE-1)

In the gospels, our LORD ask the disciples who people think HE is. Their answer was, “some say you're Elijah.” Many people regard this as proof of reincarnation and that our LORD believed in reincarnation. Is this true? How come other religions believe in reincarnation? And what is our basis for not believing in it?

The passage referred to is Mark 8:27-29:

Now Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” They said in reply, “John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said to him in reply, “You are the Messiah.”

Some scholars consider this as the MOST IMPORTANT passage in the Gospel of Mark. It is the passage the introduces Jesus as the Son of God. After Jesus started healing and preaching to the people, everyone wanted to know more about his identity, and where he got his power and authority. This passage is the FIRST public revelation of who Jesus is.

Most people mistakenly think that Jesus was asking for opinions on who people thought he is. Jesus did not ask Peter “Who do you think I am?” or “Who am I for you?” but he asked, “Who do you SAY that I AM?”

Note that “I am” is the phrase used by God in identifying himself to Moses during the “burning bush” event. Moses asked God his name so that he can tell the Israelites who he is , and God answered “I AM who am” (Exodus 3:14).

So when Peter declared “you are the Messiah!” it was a confirmation that Jesus and the “I AM” (or Yahweh) are one and the same.

What about Elijah? Why was he mentioned as one of the possible identities of Jesus? Doesn't that imply that the Jews believed in reincarnation?

In the book of Kings, Elijah is the first of the great prophets. It was believed that he did not die but was taken up into heaven by a chariot. It was also believed that Elijah would come back at the end of days. His coming back would be a definitive sign that God is about to complete his work and that the end of the world was near. So during Jesus’ time people believed Elijah would come back, but that he would return as who he was and not as a reincarnated person. So to answer your question, no, Jesus and the Jews did not believe in reincarnation.

Why don’t Christians believe in reincarnation?

Reincarnation denies the value of our present life. Belief of reincarnation could only serve to justify a person’s errant behavior because he can always, “well, I’ll be a better person in my next life.”

More importantly, reincarnation denies that God’s Kingdom is offered as a gift by Jesus Christ. It implies that we can work to earn our place in God’s Kingdom, rather than receiving it as God’s gift. In short, we Christians do not believe in reincarnation because we believe that we do not work for our salvation but rely on God’s love. God’s love is sufficient, and all we need is to accept and say “yes” to this love. (Of course, once we say “yes,” then it implies that we live God-centered lives).

Now that I know this, what does it imply?

Christ asks us the same question now, “Who do you say that I am?” Asked another way, “are our lives living testimonies that Jesus is the Messiah?”

- Written by Chris Mallion, M.A. and edited by Manny Blas II, M. A.


Sources: From One Jesus to Four Gospels by Herman Hendrickx, and relevant pages of Catechism for Filipino Catholics, and New American Bible.

What's the difference between the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed (Asked by Anna M., SE-7)

The Nicene Creed is essentially the Apostles Creed further articulated. See below:

Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died, and wasburied. Hee descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven,and is seated at the right hand of the Father.He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church,the communion of saints,the forgiveness of sins,the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen

Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Legend has it that the Apostles wrote the "Apostles Creed." Well, this is simply a legend. There is some research that indicates that St. Ambrose of 4th century coined the term "Apostle's Creed" to refer to the 12 articles of the Christian faith upon which the Apostles (who originally numbered 12) preached and baptized.

However, we do not know who exactly wrote the Apostle's Creed. We also do not know when exactly it was written, but we know that chunks of the Creed were being quoted as early as the 2nd century.

We also know that the early Christians required some form of declaration of faith prior to baptism. Some of these declarations, or creeds, consisted of one sentence, e.g. "I acknowledge Jesus" or "I choose to follow Jesus." Later on, the creeds developed to contain more and more doctrines as these became clearer to the early Church theologians.

During the early Christians, we could not avoid controversies regarding many aspects of our faith. You and I are clear now about many of our Catholic doctrines, e.g. that "Jesus is both human and divine." But early theologians struggled with this concept and developed different theories about the nature of Jesus.

One such person is Arius, who postulated that God is Father and at a certain moment, He begot the Son, and therefore the Son was created and is subordinate to the Father. Jesus is not divine or "less divine" than the Father. This heresy was known as Arianism.

To combat this heresy, the Council of Nicea was convened in 325 and the Nicene Creed was developed. You will understand therefore why the Nicene Creed contains the words: We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

Why do some churches say one or the other or both?

We can only attribute the profession of either the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed by the different churches according to tradition. Apostle's Creed still remains as the most common profession of the Christian faith in the world, especially in the Roman Catholic Churches. On the other hand, the Nicene Creed is used by the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well as some Catholic churches in the United States. (Eastern Orthodox Churches follow many of the basic doctrines of a Roman Catholic, e.g. seven sacraments, but have their own authorities which do not recognize the Roman Pope).

How important is the creed in my life today?

Whether we profess the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed, we are essentially professing the Catholic Christian Creed. However, the Creed must eventually be engraved in our hearts. The Creed becomes the expression of our relationship with God and others. What we believe, we should live. If you believe in God, then we should live God-centered lives. If we believe in love and forgiveness as preached by Jesus, then we should receive, give and live love and forgiveness.

- Written by Chris Mallion, edited by Manny Blas II


Sources:
The Bible (NAB) 1969.
Hardon, S.J., John A. Pocket Catholic Catechism: a concise contemporary guide to the essentials of the faith. New York: Image Books. 1989, pp. 11-12.
Neuner, S.J. J. and J. Dupuis, S.J. The Christian Faith. Bangalore: Theological Publications in India. pp.3-9Barclay, William. The ApostlesÂ’ Creed. Great Britain: Guernsey Press Ltd., pp. 2, 6-7,14.

If God is perfect, why didn't He create everything/everyone perfect? (by Adu)

1. If God is a perfect being, why didn't He create everything/ everyone perfect? Why is He the only one who's perfect? Did He do that on purpose?

These are profound theological questions. These are the very same questions that ancient people have asked every time they would see men and women get sick and die, things around them decay, as well as when they see the grandeur of nature and the miracle of the birth of a baby. Why couldn’t things be perfect?

The biblical authors have an answer to the same questions, based on their own reflections, insight and inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The author (or more accurately, the authors) of Genesis answered this with the Creation story.

The Creation story is not a historical account of HOW things and people came to be (for indeed, no one was around that time to report it). Rather, it is the authors’ reflection of WHY things came to be.

The creation story says that God’s original creation is perfect – nothing more, nothing less was needed. It took God “7 days,” which is a biblical symbol meaning “complete” and “perfect.” The creation story says that humanity is the highest of all creation, because only man/woman was created “in the image of God.” Lastly, it says that creation has a purpose; there is order in creation. Things were not created at random, but in sequence, and that it has a purpose. The purpose of creation is shown on the last day, when God “rested.” God did not get tired, but God stopped working and “blessed the seventh day and made it holy” (Genesis 2:3). This means that the purpose, or the end, of all creation is to be holy, to be with God.

That was the way things were: there was perfect harmony between God and humanity, described as “walking in the garden.” But God who created man/woman out of love, did so with freedom as part of the human package. As such, man/woman can choose to accept or reject God’s love.

The temptation story is the biblical authors’ reflection on how this perfect creation, with the perfect relationship of God and humanity, was broken. The “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is a “merism,” or a literary device by which totality is described by the first and last of the series or by opposites. Another example of merism is when someone says “I love you from morning till night”; what he actually means is that he loves her all the time. The “tree” therefore symbolizes mastery over everything or all of creation.

The “eating of the fruit” is not simply an just act of disobedience, but it is a stance taking by humanity that he/she too can have mastery over everything, just like God. It is a position which says “I can be like you, and therefore do not need you; nor do I need your love.” It is this act of defiance and rejection that severed the relationship between God and humanity. And since humanity is the greatest of all creation, then all of creation also was “separated” from God.

Thus, sin (or the rejection of God’s love) became part of the world. Hence, we have sickness, decay, severed relationships, human hurts, death. In short, imperfection.

Did God create imperfection? No. God’s creation is perfect. But, out of freedom, humanity chose to sever this perfection.


2. When Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins, does this refer to our original sin which is disobedience? Or to all the sins of the human race? If this refers to all our sins, does this include the sins we committed, we are committing, or about to commit?

To answer this question, it is best to continue the story from where we left off in your first question.

Even though God’s love was rejected by humanity, God continued to pursue man/woman back. The whole bible is the story of how God – through Abraham, Moses, the Judges, the Kings of Israel, the Prophets, and finally through Jesus – worked to bring humanity back to God.

By God becoming man in Jesus, God could communicate to man/woman what his intentions are in the best and clearest possible manner. (I often compare this with Tita Wena and I talking to our two dogs. It will always be limited unless we learn “dog language.” In the case of Jesus, God became man so that he can speak “human language” and communicate with us directly and clearly).

If sin came into the world because of what humanity did, then Jesus’ mission is to show how we can overcome sin and return to that perfect relationship with God. How did Jesus do this? In two ways:

- First, through his life, words and deeds, Jesus showed that “perfection” can be attained when one totally conforms one’s life with the will of the Father. The will of the Father is summarized in the law of love (and forgiveness).

- Secondly, through Jesus death and resurrection.

We often think of Jesus’ death as having a redemptive (or saving) effect because somebody had to pay the price for the first sin. We imagine a stern Father who was offended by the sin of a child, and now the life of another child is being demanded to appease the anger of the Father. That is not the God that Jesus asks us to call “Abba, Father.”

I’d rather that you think of Jesus’ death as the consequence of his desire to conform to the will of the Father. Jesus mission is to preach the Kingdom of love and forgiveness – “for this purpose, I was sent” (Luke 4:43). This mission entailed much risks since Jesus had to fight the thinking at that time of going to God by following the strict laws of Moses. As a consequence, he incensed the Pharisees, priests and authorities at that time. Jesus was against this conventional thinking because it presented God’s love as something one can earn, rather than one freely given. Jesus message was simply to accept God’s love and forgiveness by loving and forgiving others “as I” loved and forgave you.

Though death was a real possibility for Jesus, he went on to Jerusalem to proclaim the Kingdom of God the way he knew it to be: not one based on compliance with the law, but one based on love and forgiveness. As a consequence, he was crucified.

But Jesus showed that he had power over death. He resurrected, not just resuscitated, and transformed to a new reality.

Therefore, through his life, death and resurrection, Jesus accomplished the following:

- When God became part of humanity through Jesus, then all of humanity was also transformed. (The theological phrase is “creation is now Christologically-charged” or, as St. Paul would say, “Christ is in all”). It is now new creation.

- He showed us that perfect dependence on God’s will and love would entail sacrifice and even death, but the reward is life after death.

- He showed us what will happen eventually happen to us. Death is not our end. But we too will resurrect and be with the Father, just as Jesus did. He gave us a preview of what will happen.
Now, to answer your questions. Yes, Jesus saved us from sin and sins. Sin (singular) is the power of evil to resist and reject God’s love, and to turn towards our self instead of others. Sins (plural) are the individual sins you and I commit.

We are saved from sin (singular) because we now have the power to overcome selfishness and self-righteousness before God, and to turn towards others and be totally open to God’s love. We are saved from our sins (plural) because we know that no amount of sins can overcome God’s love, PROVIDED we turn to God and accept His love. There is nothing you can do to prevent God from loving you unless you yourself totally reject God’s love.

Did Jesus' miracles really happen?

To answer this, let’s listen to this conversation.

Q: TM, let’s get straight to the point. Did the miracles of Jesus really happen?

TM: Before answering that, we have to understand what you refer to as miracles.

Q: I mean the blind seeing, the lame walking, Lazarus rising back to life, and all the other things that go against the laws of nature.

TM: I think we need to do some clarification. We usually define miracles as something that cannot be explained by science or medicine. We are wary of miracles, and we associate them with primitive mentality, hallucinations or self-suggestion. Your very question which refers to violating the “laws of nature” assumes that there is a natural order, which is separate from the supernatural order.

You see, the people in biblical times lived in a different world view and different image of God. People at that time did not think in terms of natural laws (like gravity) and supernatural or divine laws. For them, what we consider “natural” and “supernatural” were all intertwined; not separated worlds as we tend to think.

In the worldview of the Old and New Testament, God often intervened in the earthly events, and at times interrupted things for the events to take another course. This is not extraordinary to them, as we would think. This was simply the way things are.

For biblical people, there was no such thing as “law of nature.” To them, the only “law of nature” was the faithful love of God for God’s people. They saw God’s love at work in a good rainfall, as well as in a victory in battle, or in healing. They did not see the world as being divided between natural and supernatural. They did not look at the universe as a closed system following inflexible laws of physics, but as completely open and responsive to God. To distinguish between natural and supernatural events would have been foreign to their outlook.[1]

But then, our worldview changed with the advent of Galileo, Newton, and atomic and quantum physics. We began to interpret and look at miracles from the point of view of natural science, and regarded them as violating the laws of nature.

Q: And the point of all this is?

TM: The point is this: what you refer to as miracles is different from how the people who were with Jesus see miracles. At that time, an event or incident is a miracle not so much because it is extraordinary, but because the event revealed something clear about who and what God is.

To say it another way, a miracle is a miracle because in it, God is revealed as someone who intervenes in the history of a nation, as well as in the history of a person. That is why the Exodus is considered as the prototype of all miracles: Yahweh saved the Israelites who were slaves, and turned them to a powerful nation.

Let’s agree therefore on a definition of miracles using the ancient worldview: miracles are remarkable events which believers understand to be signs of God’s saving activity in the life of a nation and a person.


Q: Ok, I now understand the difference in the worldview and what are considered as miracles. So let me rephrase my question: did Jesus really make the blind see, the lame walk, and Lazarus rise from the dead?

TM: Well, most certainly Jesus did perform acts that were considered extraordinary by people during his time. Most biblical scholars agree that miracle stories of the gospels are sufficiently solid not to be classified as mere inventions by the biblical writers.

Also, if Jesus had not performed any of these signs, he would not have been recognized as a religious man of his time, nor been able to attract a sufficient following. That would be very unusual because charismatic religious leaders, both in and outside Judaism, were associated with performing miracles.

The gospels report 30 miracles performed by Jesus. It should be pointed out that, given the worldview described above, miracle stories were found also in other ancient literature, and not just in the bible. The Greek god Aesculapius, for example, is credited as having performed about 80 miracles, most of which are healing.
(By the way, we cannot say that only biblical miracles are authentic, and all else are hoaxes. I do not think we can limit God’s activity only to biblical miracles).


Q: Let me be more pointed. Did those miracles of Jesus involve violating the laws of nature as we understand it nowadays?

TM: Well, I’m afraid that question must remain largely unanswered. If you recall in our Basic Bible Course, the gospels were written well after Jesus life and resurrection. There was no reporter who was taking notes when Jesus performed his miracles.

There are no purely objective and factual accounts of Jesus’ actions, but only accounts interpreted in the light of Jesus who has resurrected, and this experience reflected upon, shared with others, and written down in the gospels.

It is difficult to know what actually happened. What we can establish is the impression produced by the miracle on the eyewitnesses was remarkable enough for it to affect their faith.

We accept that Jesus did perform miracles, but do not know how exactly each miracle happened. However, we are certain of this: “there remains an impressive body of material which attributes to Jesus a number of miracles which have no close parallel in the ancient world and which testifies to the amazement and wonder which Jesus provoked on many occasions.”[2]

Ultimately, our faith is not based on every miracle narrated in the gospel actually having happened or on a miracle’s happening exactly the way it is presented in the gospel. The real basis of our faith is that Christ has been raised from the dead.


Q: So why did Jesus perform miracles? Is it, as you said earlier, to establish his credibility because charismatic religious leaders were doing them?

TM: We know from the bible that Jesus himself did not intend to use miracles as proof. When asked by the Pharisees to perform a miracle to confirm his claim that God is with him, Jesus refuses categorically (Mark 8:11-13).

Jesus performed miracles to communicate what the Kingdom of God would be like. The preaching of the Kingdom is the primary purpose for which he has been sent. So he commanded his disciples, “cure the sick and tell them, ‘the kingdom of God is near you.” The miracles have a purpose: it is to give people a glimpse of the Kingdom.

Jesus wanted to say that I came here so that you may once again know and experience how it was prior to the fall, and before sin came into the world. It is sin that enslaves you, and I want to liberate you from demonic powers, from disease, from death, hunger, and natural catastrophes. So when I heal the sick, make the blind see, the lame walk, the dead rise, and the storm calmed, you will see what it is like when the Kingdom is fulfilled. No more wheelchairs, cancer, chemo, and ICU’s.

For Jesus, miracles were not mere proof of credentials or pasiklab, but a sign of the Kingdom.

Q: Do miracles still happen today?

TM: Of course. Isn’t the worldview of renewed people like you and me very similar to the worldview of people during biblical times? Do we not say that “there is no accident in God’s plan” because we recognize that God, though Jesus, and in the Holy Spirit is continually intervening in our lives?

Our faith in our prayers shows that our God does not merely observe, but intervenes. Our prayer to the Spirit for discernment shows that our insights and emotions are being directed by our God. Our praise and worship shows we want to relate with our God who is a person who loves. Our thanksgiving for ALL things (good and bad) shows that God’s will cannot ever be subverted.

Yes, of course, miracles happen everyday.



September 21, 2005
[1] Herman Hendrickx, The Miracle Stories (Manila: St. Paul’s Publications, 1987), 11.
[2] Ibid, 21.

How Should We Interpret Jesus' Cry on the Cross: "My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?"

This verse is found in Mark 15:34, and also in Matthew 27:46. In both gospels, these are the last words uttered by Jesus immediately before his death. (In the traditional 7 Last Words during Good Friday, the seventh and last Word is “Into your hands, I commend my spirit.” This is found in Luke, and is the last words of Jesus, according to Luke. The 7 Last Words are a compilation of the various statements of Jesus as compiled from all the four gospels).

The verse uttered by Jesus, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” is the first verse of Psalm 22, which is often referred to as a psalm of mourning. It was a popular psalm at the time, which would have been readily recognized by the crowd around Jesus. However, reading beyond the first verse reveals that it is also a psalm of hope and trust in God. It assures us that God is acquainted with our suffering, no matter how horrible. He is with us even when we feel most forsaken. Why? Because He is the God who has known us from the womb (Ps. 22:9–10). Thus, it is more appropriately referred to as the “psalm of a righteous sufferer.

1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?
2 O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear;
And in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But You are holy,
Enthroned in the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in You;
They trusted, and You delivered them.
5 They cried to You, and were delivered;
They trusted in You, and were not ashamed.

Mark, in his gospel, has always emphasized the humanity and suffering of Jesus. The gospel writer made extra effort to ensure that his readers did not associate Jesus only with his miracles and glorious actions, but also with his suffering.

Again, in this verse, we hear Jesus cry out in despair. Prior to this, during the scene in Gethsemane, Jesus is afraid of the fate that awaits him. The gospel writer could have chosen to end Jesus’ life on a triumphal note, but instead suggests that even though Jesus chooses to die in obedience to God, he experiences abandonment in death.[1] Jesus also does not die as a martyr, but as someone in anguish, just as anyone who goes through a crucifixion which is the most shameful and tortuous way to die. The only triumph Mark depicts in Jesus’ death is his human faithfulness to God – with his own fear and torment and sadness, and despite the pain and humiliation and abandonment brought on by others.[2]

What about Matthew’s version? One of Matthew’s main objectives in his gospel is to establish the connection between Jesus and the Messiah that everyone was waiting for, and as predicted in the Hebrew bible (what we now know as the Old Testament). Thus, here he finds another opportunity to establish this connection. Matthew presents the scriptural fulfilment of the divine plan of salvation and the obedient submission of the Son to the Father’s will.[3]

Thus, the meaning of the verse varies whether one uses the context of the Marcan or Matthean gospel. I personally like the Marcan version. It highlights the humanity of Jesus. You see, God became human so that God can communicate to us face to face. That is Mark’s main point. Sometimes, though, we keep on pushing Jesus back to heaven that we forget his humanity. Because Jesus is man, all of humanity is transformed.



Footnotes:
[1] David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 112.
[2] Ibid, 112.
[3] Augustine Stock, OSB, The Method and Message of Matthew. (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1994), 428.