December 1, 2021

3 Instances After Death: Heaven - Purgatory - Hell

No comments:

For here we have no lasting city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.  Hebrews 13:14

Here we are almost at the end of these three years of dealing with three-dimensional realities created by the One and Triune God, we arrive at the discussion of the last things, a subject which in theology is called eschatology. This word comes from the Greek word eschaton which means the last things; excrement, feces, and not to use the more popular ‘s’ word, is really the origin of the word eschaton. And I already knew this at the age of four, when standing at the top of a stone wall to look at my father down below, he shouted at me, “Get down from there, you can fall and die," and I replied, "To die is to bury the s**t." This was my first philosophical observation.  

Beyond our death, we are faced with two diametrically opposing and final realities, Heaven and Hell, and with a passing or procedural reality called Purgatory. Charon, the ferryman of Hades, who carries the souls of the recently deceased over the waters of the River Styx and Acheron, which divide the world of the living from the world of the dead, and who is paid a coin which is placed over the eye of the dead person (as happened with Jesus), leads us to one of these three realities.

The slap of death

Sono io la morte e porto Corona,
io Son di tutti voi signora e padrona,
e così sono crudele, così forte sono e dura
che non mi fermeranno le tue mura.
(…) e davanti alla mia falce
il capo tu dovrai chinare
e dell 'oscura morte al passo andare.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOBYzpzBxvc

I am death and I wear a crown,
I am the mistress and the boss of you all
so strong, so hard and cruel that
None of your walls will stop me.
(…) before my scythe you will bow your head
And inexorably you will walk
towards dark death.

The Italian singer-songwriter Angelo Branduardi recasts in this song a medieval macabre dance. Because of the Black Death and because life expectancy in the Middle Ages was very short, death was a very popular theme, the inexorable dark horizon that hovers over every child who comes into this world.

Within the concept of the Judeo-Christian time, life develops historically in a straight line. Death, which has always been represented by a sickle, is now a mechanical reaper that cuts and destroys everything in its path, nothing and no one can deter it. Like any product on the market, we too have a shelf-life.

Sex is no longer the taboo of our time; in our modern days, the taboo is death because it is an uncomfortable reminder of our indigence and limitations. For a society that is so proud of its progress in all areas, death is like a humiliating slap on the face. Death laughs wholeheartedly at us and our inventions showing all the teeth on its skull.

Ever since death latched onto us like a tick when we were expelled from Eden, we have never been able to get rid of it. Deceptively, we take our revenge on death by barring it, as much as we can, from our minds and from our public and social lives by making it into a taboo. However, from time to time, it reappears to warn us that the best way to deal with it is not to ignore it. It is necessary to take the bull by the horns.

The value of death
It is difficult to imagine and try to conceptualize what life would be like on earth if we were immortal. I suppose there would be no values, we would not love, nor would we hate, nothing that makes sense right now would make sense under that scenario. We would die of sheer boredom from redundancy and get depressed. In all the films that I have watched that dealt with this subject, the one who had the gift of eternity ended up desiring death, preferring to live intensely and die than to live eternally without meaning.

Death, our finiteness, is the true mother and origin of all human values. Only we human beings have the self-awareness to know that we will one day die; because of this awareness, we have life in our hands, whereas animals are unknowingly in the hands of life. Animals are possessed by life so they neither have it nor program it. By contrast, we have a life and since we are aware that we have it only for a while and then we will no longer have it, we strive to live it with meaning; it is from this that all human values arise.

For example, human dignity, or equality, is born from death; death is the great equalizer. We are never equal before others or before the law. It is only before God and before death that we are all equal, for this is the common destiny of the poor and the rich, white and black, famous and ordinary, illustrious and obscure, victorious as well as defeated.

Death does not exist in nature
"Sei l'ospite d'onore
del ballo che per te suoniamo
Posa la falce e danza tondo a tondo
Il giro di una danza e poi un altro ancora
And tu del tempo non sei più signora."    

Since “You're the guest of honour
of the dance whose music we play for you,
Please put away your sickle and dance with us,
Round and round and round again.
For now, you are no longer the mistress of time.”


In the chorus of Branduardi's song, death is the guest of honour of a circle dance. Unlike the straight line, which has a beginning and an end, the circle is a symbol of eternity, and it alludes to the myth of eternal return. Once entered into this circle dance, death loses its sickle and ceases to be the mistress of time.

Lavoisier said that in nature nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed. Nature observes the myth of the eternal return, since in nature there is no death in the sense of an absence of life; in nature life and death are phases of the same process, with death being only the passage from one form of life to another form of life. If there is no life that does not lead to death, then there is also no death that does not lead to life.

This is the principle of the food chain, in which every form of life is food for another form of life because life can only come from life, only life gives life. The grass, which is a form of life, grows freely until the gazelle eats it one day, the grass dies but its life is integrated and absorbed, and becomes part of the gazelle’s body, which one day it also dies, in the teeth of the lion; the lion, already old and sick, is expelled from its pride by another younger lion, and becomes food for the vultures and hyenas which, in turn, die and become food for an infinite number of microorganisms that decompose their carcasses and fertilize the land for the growth of new grass.

In this circle of life, the constant is the absolute life that feeds on life. Death is only a passage, from one form of life to another. Life lasts longer than death which is only a brief instant, life being the continuous and unlimited constant.

What happens in nature also happens to our physical body. This too is a vital process where death is a passage and life, in this case growth, is the constant. Today we have trillions of cells, but when our life first began, we were just a single cell that resulted from the union of two half cells, the egg from our mother and the sperm from our father. Joined or fused together, we are born, a human cell with its unique genetic code in the history of mankind; in a short time, this cell replicates into other cells to form an adult human body consisting of 37 trillion cells.

Each of our cells follows the general law that governs life on this planet: it is born, grows, reproduces and dies; the only cells that apparently refuse to die are the cancer cells. This general rule explains the growth and aging of our body. In fact, with the exception of our brain cells, the neurons, all others follow this general rule. We can say that every 5 years we change our body, every 5 years we have a biologically different body.
 
In an average lifetime of 85 years, we will have 17 different bodies. Which one of these 17 would we be resurrected with? With none of them because it is not the physical body that resurrects, but the spiritual body which is a synthesis of all of them, but none of them in particular.

Principle of reality, principle of pleasure
Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.’  Matthew 16:24-25

The self-denial that Jesus speaks of is in Freud's psychological language, the acquisition of human maturity that occurs when the individual stops being guided by the pleasure principle and lets himself be guided by the reality principle. Things are not as we would like them to be, but that is how they are. The unbridled pursuit of pleasure is a child’s life when the individual does not know where the pleasure will take him: to self-destruction, because, as Erich Fromm said, the unlimited satisfaction of our desires does not produce well-being, it is not the way to happiness or even a means to achieve maximum pleasure.

Once we know reality, we must embrace it, this is our cross, and we must obey it by denying ourselves, by denying the principle of pleasure. Only in this way are we disciples of Jesus who obeyed until death and death on the cross, that is, he embraced his cross, the life he chose for himself, to which he was faithful to the end.

To deny ourselves is to say no to ourselves in order to say yes to God. It is to refuse to do our own will in order to do God's will. It means repeating at every moment of our life the words that Jesus said in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:43). It means submitting our will to God's and ceasing to have our own. It means putting into practice what we recite in the Lord's Prayer which contains what is the most important in the gospel: "Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10).

If we do not deny ourselves, it is difficult not to deny Christ. This is precisely what Peter did after Jesus was imprisoned, he denied the master because he did not deny himself, and fled from his own cross. He who had been called the cornerstone of the Church, at one point became a stumbling block when he put his will before the master's will in going to Jerusalem.

Death as a passage
Many people who had a near death experience speak of a tunnel and a light beyond it. If these experiences are true, it is interesting how the process of death bears resemblance to the process of childbirth. We lived for nine months in our mother’s womb, in a paradise, then we pass through a narrow tunnel, the birth canal, through a painful process for both the baby and the mother.

At the end of this tunnel, we see the light of day; in fact, to be born in Portuguese is literally translated as be given the light. Our mothers gave light to us. So when we die, it is no longer the first time that we have done this, it is our second, the first death was our birth. Psychological and spiritual growth, the image of the physical one, also integrate death or leave behind things and realities to which we were attached. If our birth was a death to intrauterine life, and a birth into this life, then our death is a death to life on earth and a birth into eternal life in Heaven.

Both birth and death are passages from one form of life to another form of life. Since intrauterine life is different from the life we have on earth, eternal life will also be different from earthly life. Here too, the constant is life and death, only a passage between one form of life and another.

Belief in the Resurrection
In the womb of a mother there were two babies. One asked the other, "Do you believe in life after birth?" The other replied, "Of course. There is got to be something after childbirth. Perhaps we are here to prepare for what will come later." "Nonsense," said the first. "What kind of life would that be?" The second said, "I don't know, but there will be lighter than here. Maybe we will be able to walk with our own legs and eat with our own mouth. Maybe we will have other senses that we cannot understand right now." The first retorted, "This is ridiculous. The umbilical cord provides us with food and everything else we need. The umbilical cord is too short. Life after birth is out of the question."

The second insisted, "Well, I think there is something out there, and maybe it is different than what it is here. Maybe we won't need this physical tube." The other objected, "Besides, if there really is life after childbirth, then why has no one ever come back from there?" "Well, I don't know, "said the second, "but we will certainly find Mama and she will take care of us." The first replied, "Mama? Do you really believe there is a Mama? That's ridiculous. If Mama exists, then where is she now?" "She's all around us. We're surrounded by her. We are hers. She is the one we live in. Without her this world could not exist." Said the first: "Well, I can't see her, so it is logical that she doesn't exist." To which the second replied, "Sometimes when you are silent, if you concentrate and really listen, you will sense her presence and hear her loving voice."
This was the way a Hungarian writer explained the existence of God.

In the beginning, an Israelite faithful did not profess faith in the resurrection. He was oblivious to the possibility of an existence after death. Life is a relationship with God and the other members of his people, it ends in this life and everyone will end up in Sheol.

This, of course, raises some questions. Is death stronger than God? Is it true that love is saying to those whom we love, "You cannot die"? Is this what God wants to tell us when he loves us? And in saying this, does it not mean that he can "impose" himself on death? What is the point of being faithful to God if, at the end of everything, being faithful or not being faithful to Him is the same thing? This is a theological problem, that is, it is a question of answering to the following: what God do we believe in? In a God who is faithful to his faithful or in a God powerless before death?

There are three psalms in the Bible (Ps. 16, 49 & 73) that, in their own way, express the psalmist's hope for a love and fidelity from God that is stronger than death. There is not yet a clear and unequivocal statement of the resurrection, but the incipient elements are already in place that will lead the Hebrew people to affirm it even before the birth of Jesus.

Pascal's Wager
According to Pascal's famous wager or bet, let us suppose that two friends – one atheist and the other religious – bet a sum of money on the hypothesis of the existence or non-existence of God and life after death. The atheist bets that God does not exist, the believer bets that he does. At the death of both, if the atheist wins the bet, that is, if there is nothing beyond death, he will not be able to receive the prize, he will not even know that he has won, and the believer who has lost the bet will also not know that he has lost.

By contrast, if there is life after death and a God who sustains it, the believer has gained that promised eternal life and the atheist has lost it. We conclude that those who believe have everything to gain and nothing to lose, and those who do not believe have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

There is no way of knowing what lies beyond death. The existence of God and that He sustains our life beyond death is a matter of faith. It is really a bet where we have nothing to lose and much to gain. The belief in the Beyond will always be a matter of faith. Only when we get there will we know if we were right or wrong, whether or not we were correct. But if we were wrong, even then, the Christian life is always the best way to self-realization and happiness, so we lose nothing if in fact there is nothing beyond death.

Contrary to proving that God does not exist as some people thought science would one day manage to achieve, in recent years science has made it easier and more logical to believe in God's existence than not to believe. However, it is clear that to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, to find the smoking gun, for the existence of God will never happen. You will always need faith to access God’s existence.

HELL
Abandon all hope, you who enter here
Canto III Hell, The Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri

Does it or does it not exist?
It is rare nowadays to hear preachers giving sermons about hell; no one wants to address the question. It seems that, also here, the law of use-abuse-out-of-use applies. In fact, it was once a compulsory theme of a good sermon... In those days, the fear of God interpreted as being scared of God brought more people to the Church than the love of God now achieves.
 
Despite it being a recurring word throughout the Bible, there are already many Christians and even theologians and priests who do not believe in the existence of Hell. Hell is here, some say. And it is true, we humans have the ability to make our lives and the lives of others a heaven or a hell. But neither this heaven nor this hell last. "There's no evil that always lasts nor good that always endures”.

God's mercy is infinite, his love knows no measure; there is much more about God that we do not know than what we do know. Is anyone to be condemned? On what terms? We cannot even say that Hitler is in hell. Hell is not what God wants in this sense, not even purgatory; what God wants is Heaven for everyone. We would be questioning his divine mercy. It would be far worse than human mercy if temporal acts had eternal punishments; there is a disproportion here between the act and the punishment.

However, we have to admit that there is a real possibility of condemnation. If Christ came to save us, he came to save us from something. Otherwise, his coming would have no meaning; if there is a salvation then there must be a condemnation, the existence of one of these concepts presupposes the existence of the other. If the possibility of condemnation did not exist, we would not be truly free; it would not be possible to reject God, there would be no alternative; we would be puppets condemned to do whatever God wants from us as well as for us.

If there were no possibility of condemnation, there would be no rewards or punishments, and no difference between good and evil. It is obvious that an act without objective is futile and meaningless; if one thing is not good for something then is good for nothing, it has no value. Kindness cannot only be of value in itself, it has to be of value beyond itself.

In banishing the idea of reward and punishment from religion is equivalent to saying that injustice has the last word. It is illogical that the end for a man who had striven all his life to be good should be the same as someone who not only did not strive to be good, but was deliberately evil. It would mean that God does not care whether men are good or bad. Let us say in a crude and blunt way: there is no point in being good if we look at the world around us and conclude that it might perhaps be more profitable to be bad, corrupt, dishonest, a liar, irresponsible, a thief, a criminal and cruel.

The idea of hell exists in every culture and religion on this planet. However simplistic it may seem, without a final judgment at the end of this life and the existence of the eternity of Heaven for the good and the eternity of Hell for the wicked, the idea of good and evil, the just and the unjust would crumble to the ground. And if this idea were to disappear from our mental awareness, there would not be enough police or armies in this world to maintain order and the organization in our society, and to contain the base instincts of human beings. Barbarism, the law of the jungle, that is, the survival of the fittest would reign.

Lucky are the atheists and the agnostics who live in a world where most people are religious and believe in the existence of a God who is just and good, and who will reward them for their many efforts and sufferings, and for not taking justice into their own hands despite the injustices suffered. Hell does exist, and must exist, but it may not be the fiery furnace that everyone thinks, but as we picture it in here in this article, a nothingness, a black hole.

What is Hell
(...) thrown into hell, where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched. Mark 9:47-48

The idea of a hell that burns eternally, where souls burn without ever being completely consumed and where souls suffer the torments of death without ever dying, has terrorized countless generations of people throughout the history of mankind.

We know that it is not God who condemns, but man who condemns himself when he freely chooses evil. Even so, how can a God, described in the Bible as a merciful and loving father, stand by unmoved and serene, witnessing a spectacle of eternal torture? People who are being tortured ask their executioner for death to end their suffering; would God refuse to give them a death blow if they asked Him for it?

When no civilized court on earth condemns to torture the most violent of criminals, when the lightest torture and for the shortest time is totally forbidden in the civilized world, how can a God who is love create an eternal torture chamber? In human courts the punishment is supposedly proportional to the crime. An eternity of torture as punishment is not proportional to even a life of 100 years all devoted to crime. How can the divine court be infinitely more unjust than human courts?

In the Bible, Hell is described not only as eternal suffering, but also as eternal death. In fact, of the 54 times the word hell is mentioned, only in 12 times does it means a place of fire and torment, in the rest it means tomb, that is, eternal death. Since man fears suffering more than death, a pedagogical intention in presenting hell as eternal suffering cannot be ruled out, knowing that what man truly fears, more than death, is suffering. This is clear in the parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).

Logically, eternal life is opposite of eternal death, not eternal suffering. God loved the world so much that he sent his own Son so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life. The text says perish or die; it does not say suffer (John 3:16). Everything that burns is fuel and fuel cannot burn forever without extinguishing or burning out.

Gehenna was the garbage dump of Jerusalem; the fire never dies out because more garbage was always brought in; worms can always be found there because garbage decomposes giving rise to them. Ezekiel 18:4, Malachi 4:1-3, Psalms 37:10 & 68:2, and Matthew 13:40 suggest that fire ends existence, not tortures them indefinitely.

Hebrew anthropology
May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:23

Hebrew anthropology, underlying biblical anthropology, is fundamentally unitary. This means that it intends to contemplate all personal reality from a specific perspective. And so the human person is in its entirety basal, that is, of flesh. Secondly, the human person is nephesh that is, he has a personality that we can approach from the psychological point of view (a psyche). And finally, the human person is also in its entirety ruah, that is, of spirit, to the extent that we understand ourselves as a being open to the transcendent. We find a clear proof of this anthropology of the Old Testament in 1 Thes. 5:23 that it is unitary in the final analysis, because it contemplates all human reality from a specific perspective.

The only objection to understanding Hell as eternal death comes from the Greek belief in the immortality of the soul which has infected Christianity to this day and which has nothing to do with Jewish anthropology, the basis on which the Bible is written. In Jewish anthropology man does not have a mortal body and an immortal soul; man is mortal in his entirety if he is outside of God and immortal in his entirety if he is with God.

If the soul is immortal then Hell is eternal torture, and if the soul is mortal then Hell is eternal death, since eternal life is not the opposite of eternal torture, but of eternal death. Some Catholic theologians even go so far as to say that hell is nothingness, not the postmodern nihilist nothingness, but something like a painkiller that would spare us the suffering of not having lived the life that God had reserved for us, it will be a nothingness, but a nothingness that hurts like fire. I find this position not much different from the classical Catholic one: nothingness cannot hurt and if it hurts it is not nothing, but rather a person in constant and eternal pain.

Hell as anti-genesis or eternal death
Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins that shall die. Ezekiel 18:4

But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:22-23

Man who became a living soul by the divine breath (Genesis 2:7) is warned by the same God that if he eats the forbidden fruit, he will die (Genesis 2:16-17). Saint Paul who corroborated in so many other biblical texts imperatively states that the wage of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Jesus tells us not to fear those who can only kill the body and can do nothing to the soul. What we must fear is what can kill both the body and the soul, (Matthew 10:28).

Hell understood as eternal death preserves both the goodness of God and the freedom of man. But what is eternal death? It is to return to nothingness from which everything was created. Those who freely return to nothingness answer "Nothing" to the 3 questions that every human being asks himself when he reaches the age of self-awareness: Where do I come from? Where am I going? What is the meaning of life?

Whoever denies the existence of God in his mind and in his heart by saying that he comes from nothing and goes to nothing, and also denies Him in the course of his life, cultivating lapsed temporal values instead of eternal values, then eternal death as a return to nothingness is the logical outcome of his life. It is difficult to find anyone who denies God in such a radical manner in his mind, heart and works, and only this type of people would condemn themselves.

Man was created in the image and likeness of God; therefore, all human values (love, peace, justice, music, art, etc.) are attributes of God. With sin he retained the image, but lost the likeness. But to the extent that he cultivates, that is, that he gives eternal values to his temporality, these values give him his eternity and his likeness of God.

Those who cultivate lapsed values such as power, wealth, pleasure, are living only for themselves, and in life, they are already cultivating death; they are investing their lives in buying stocks that are worthless in the stock market of Heaven; they are cultivating nothingness and, when they eventually die, what do they expect?

Who goes to hell?
Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. John 3:18-19

With our death, the spatial-temporal phase of our life ends and eternity begins. That is why Heaven, Purgatory and Hell are not places, but states. Just as water is found in nature in solid, liquid and gaseous states, so the person can find himself in a state of Heaven, Purgatory or Hell.

If Hell exists and the possibility of condemnation is real, we can then deduce from Murphy's famous law that someone will condemn himself. However, Murphy's Law does not apply to God; for many, Hell exists, but there is no one or no one goes there; it only serves the purpose it always has of scaring us.

It is a mystery we will never be able to fully explain, the extent of the divine mercy and human freedom, and how they finally come together. From Scripture we deduce that the possibility of condemning oneself is real and from this premise we set out to answer the question "who are those who condemn themselves and go to Hell?"

Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord", will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in Heaven (Matthew 7:21). We cannot avoid the old question of faith and works, which at one time divided Catholics and Protestants. Are we saved by faith or by the good deeds we do?

The garbage goes to Gehenna, the one who does not serve goes to Hell since what is not useful goes to the trash. The one who is garbage is burned and destroyed. Those who do not live to serve are not fit to live. Christ showed us the Way, the Truth, and the Life when he said, "I have come to serve and not to be served", and therefore, those who in life are only served but serve no one, are useful for nothing and to no one.

It is undoubtedly Faith that saves us, but not a simple Faith consisting of a mere nod of our heads, but rather a total or holistic Faith. It is a "My God, I believe, I adore, I hope and I love you" ... It is a Faith professed by our mind, felt in our heart, which becomes a conviction in our gut and manifests in our hands, in our talents, in our behaviour and in our actions.

A Faith that is not holistic but pure thought or feeling can never materialize, embody, motivate, or transform our life. In our daily lives, it is, as St. James says, a dead Faith (James 2:14-26). Saint John himself, in the text cited above in verse 18, says that those who do not believe are already condemned, and states in the following verse that the cause for the condemnation has to do with the evil deeds done. Works can indeed replace words, but words can never replace works and are even discredited by them.

"Hell is paved with good intentions". It is the possession of a holistic Faith that saves us "ipso facto". Similarly, only a holistic unbelief could condemn us "ipso facto". Most likely, few will possess a total Faith, just like few will possess total unbelief. Some affirm God only in thought, others in thought and feeling, but do not affirm Him in deeds; others deny him both in thought and feeling, but affirm him in works.

If the reason for Christ's coming into the world was so that man might be authentically human, then the one who is truly man is, as Karl Rahner said in his theory of Anonymous Christians, truly Christian, even if it is not by baptism and confession of His Name. For to be a Christian and to be authentic human is one and the same thing.

PURGATORY
One day in a village, a woman presented herself before the parish priest claiming to have apparitions of God. Wanting proof to the authenticity of the apparitions, the priest said to her, "The next time God appears to you, ask him to tell you my sins because only He knows them.” The woman returned a month later, and the priest asked her if she had seen God again; when she answered yes, he continued, "And did you ask him what I told you to ask?" "Yes,” she said. ” And what did he say to you?" “He said that he had already forgotten them,” the woman answered.

The Bible speaks of the concept of Purgatory, but it does not refer to it as a place like it refers to hell. In fact, our Protestant brothers do not believe in its existence. Purgatory is a passage, a process. This is how Dante sees and represents it in the Divine Comedy. It is never a definitive place, but a place of purification, of purging. Heaven and Hell are definitive, but those who are destined for Heaven and are not yet prepared to enter it because they have denied God in their minds, in their hearts or in their works, will have to complete this process to reach the beatific vision and life with God.

God does not want or need purgatory
(...) He forgave us all our trespasses, annulled the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. Colossians 2:13-14

"Annulled" can be said in two ways in Greek: kiastren which means putting an X over the bill to say that it is no longer valid. Putting an X over it does not prevent me from reading the invoice, so it is possible to go back and consider it valid. The word that St. Paul uses is exalaifein which means to erase; in his days, documents were written on goatskin with an ink that could be erased in order to reuse the skin. The bill was then erased, not possible to read it anymore, in this way there is no doubt of forgiveness, and St. Paul adds that it was destroyed: this is the meaning of nailing it to the cross.

If God forgives those who repent and ask for forgiveness, and He forgets the offence, then what is Purgatory for? God forgives and forgets; we sometimes forgive and forget the offences of others; but we do not forgive so easily or forget our own offences. Purgatory is the process by which we come to forgive ourselves.

God loves us more than we love ourselves. We can come to love others unconditionally, but it is with difficulty that we come to love ourselves unconditionally; we need to prove to ourselves that we are worth it; we get depressed when our life does not go as we would like it to and we make negative judgments about ourselves. Purgatory is a process by which we regain our self-esteem.

Playing ball on my street, I break my neighbour's window. My neighbour who is a good friend of mine tells me to forget about it. I accept my neighbour's forgiveness, but I don't feel good until I replace the broken glass, until I have paid the expense. Purgatory is the process by which we make up for, counterbalance and pay up our debts.

On the one hand, Christ has atoned for our sins, so we no longer need to atone for them; on the other hand, God forgives and forgets: so why does Purgatory exist? It is we who do not forgive and forget others or ourselves; purgatory is a requirement of our nature. We see this in the gospel, in the episode of Zacchaeus' conversion:

Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, ‘Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.’ Luke 19:8

Jesus had already forgiven Zacchaeus, he demanded nothing in return for this forgiveness; what Zacchaeus offered as atonement was out of his own free will, as a consequence of his conversion and of his having obtained forgiveness, and not as a requirement of it.

Accustomed to living in the darkness of sin and error, when through death we stand before the face of God, we cannot bear its splendour; so, for a while we avert our eyes to gradually get used to it. Purgatory is this process of purification and getting used to seeing God face to face.

We are saved by a Faith that is holistic, that is, that affirms God in our minds, loves him with our hearts, and is faithful to Him in our daily behaviour and deeds, (John 14:15). Conversely, it condemns us to deny God in our mind, to hate Him or be indifferent to Him in our hearts and to live for ourselves, cultivating worldly values such as power, pleasure, and wealth, without caring in the least about others or even being adverse to them.

Most of us, if not all of us, find ourselves essentially in one of the thousand and one variations and gradations between these two opposites; we affirm or deny God partially, so that Purgatory serves to complete what we have left incomplete in this life. It would be unjust for someone, even denying God in his mind and heart, who is an authentic and philanthropic man to be condemned. Similarly, how unjust it would be for someone who affirmed God in his mind and heart, but constantly denied Him in his works, to go straight to Heaven.

Homo simul justus et peccator, said St. Augustine and repeated by Luther many years later. Man in the process of self-perfection, after having found Christ as the way, the truth and the life, is always progressing along the path of sanctity without ever completely conquering sin. Purgatory is the completion of what is still lacking for perfection.

God created Heaven; Purgatory and Hell are created by men. Purgatory is for those who deny God partially, and Hell is for those who deny and ignore Him and their fellow humans totally and holistically, mind, heart and hands, that is, in their thoughts, in their feelings and in their deeds.

If you are an agnostic or atheist but you are a philanthropist, you love your neighbour and fellow humans then you are saved because you are loving God indirectly in your neighbours.  As chapter 25 of Matthew says, what you did or did not do unto others you did or did not do unto me.  

HEAVEN
‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.’  1 Corinthians 2:9

Heaven as beatific vision
To see God means to be divinized, christianized or christified, to put on Christ as St. Paul says, to become like him, to be at his level. For this reason what is said in 1 John 3:2, "We will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is", will become a reality, like a present, what man intended to "conquer" at the beginning of history (Genesis 3:5): to be like God. However, as the Beatitude says, this God can only be seen by the pure in heart (Matthew 5:8).

Heaven as eternal life
Earthly life is not about the number of years, but rather the cessation of space and time. As spatial-temporal beings, it becomes difficult to understand what a life beyond time and space might be like. So it is easier to say what Heaven is not rather than what Heaven is. Eternal life, or life in heaven, is ultimately life without an expiry date. The type of life that Jesus was referring to when he said, "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly," (John 10:10).

A return to paradise
Heaven is our home, the paradise we lost through the sin that forced us to wander like prodigal children; Heaven is a return to paradise; it is to restore our dignity as children of God and to return to the Father's house. This is our faith, which we affirm thousands of times whenever we repeat the doxology: Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.

The spiritual body with which we resurrect
This is all very confusing, Father, please explain to me: when we die our body goes to earth, our soul goes to Heaven and us, where do we go?

The body that resurrects is the spiritual body that is composed of our historical life, our identity, what we are building, what we are doing, what we are embodying and how we are embodying the word of life of the Gospel. The word of God is like an operating system of our life, becoming evident in acts and attitudes, spiritualizing matter and definitively accumulating treasures in heaven.

After Einstein, who proved to us that energy is a form of matter and matter is a form of energy, it is easier to believe in our existence as a spiritual body. On earth we have a physical body, we are matter, in heaven we are energy, an energetic body, a spiritual body, virtual but real. The spiritual body is formed by everything we have been, the human values we have cultivated, what we have done and the treasures we have accumulated in Heaven while we were living.

The butterfly metaphor - In nature there are living beings that change form during their lifetime; the frog is one of them, the butterfly is another. The change of form also requires a change of environment, as is the case for both the frog and the butterfly. The butterfly is born as a caterpillar that drags its belly across the earth, eating leaves until the day it apparently dies.

What is apparently a death is really a change of form that, while maintaining similarities with the former, is different from the previous one. Our life on earth is like that of the caterpillar, our life in heaven is like that of the butterfly; our physical body is like that of the caterpillar that is very attached to earth, our spiritual body is like that of the freest butterfly, flying from flower to flower.

The metaphor of water – If Heaven is not a place but a state, it serves us to describe our spiritual body as the different states of water. Water, without losing any of its characteristics, that is, without failing to be what it is, without modifying its essence, exists in three different states. For water, as for us, one thing is existence, another is essence. Without changing its essence, water exists in three states: solid, liquid and gas.

This is how we exist in our mother’s womb, in the bosom of the world and in the bosom of God. We have different forms in these three states, like water. Water is visible and tangible in the solid and liquid state like we are visible and tangible in our mother’s womb and in the bosom of the world. We are invisible in the bosom of God just like water is invisible in the gaseous state, but always staying the same water in its essence.

How to cultivate Eternal Life
Vai cercando qua, vai cercando là,
Ma quando la morte ti coglierà
Che ti resterà delle tue voglie?
Vanità di vanità.

Sei felice, sei, dei piaceri tuoi,
Godendo solo d'argento e d'oro,
Alla fine che ti resterà?
Vanità di vanità.

(…) Tutto vanità, solo vanità,
Vivete con gioia e semplicità,
State buoni se potete...
Tutto il resto è vanità.

Tutto vanità, vanità solo,
Lodate il Signore con umiltà,
A lui date tutto l'amore,
Nulla più vi mancherà.

You go looking here, you go looking there,
But when death takes you
What will be left of your cravings?
Vanity of vanities.

Happy, thou art, with thy pleasures,
Enjoying only silver and gold,
What will you have at last?
Vanity of vanities.

(...) All is vanity, only vanity,
Live joyfully and simply,
Be good if you can...
Everything else is vanity.

All is vanity, only vanity,
Praise the Lord with humility,
Give Him all your love,
Nothing more will you lack.

Angelo Branduardi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXcXyCeHOCo

“Ars lung vita brevis” (arts are eternal, life is short)
Love is an art, all human values are arts. By cultivating lapsed temporal values, we are cultivating death itself, in cultivating eternal values we cultivate eternal life. A symbiosis takes place: we give to eternal value our temporality, and our time and energy to our love and dedication, making it grow and bear fruit, taking it to greater heights.

That is how Beethoven and Mozart did with music, Gandhi with nonviolence, Picasso with painting. This same eternal value gives us its eternity in the memory of men and in the memory of God. Everything else, as Branduardi says, is vanity.

Conclusion: God only created Heaven; Purgatory and Hell are Man's creation. Purgatory is for those who partially deny God and their neighbour. Hell, not as eternal torture with fire, but as eternal death and return to nothingness, is for those who deny God and neighbour completely, that is, in their thoughts, their feelings and their deeds.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC


November 15, 2021

3 Religious vows: Poverty - Chastity - Obedience

No comments:

Perhaps because he himself is a religious of the Jesuit order, Pope Francis, proclaimed 2015 as the year of the consecrated life. This was precisely the theme of reflection for this blog throughout that year. Since I am not going to reinvent the wheel and certain truths do not change over time, I am going to summarize what I have said that year, adding some ideas that seems pertinent to me here and now.

What is a religious or consecrated life?
Religion must be like salt in food: neither too much nor too little, only what is needed.
Don António Alves Martins, Bishop of Viseu from 1862 to 1882

Paraphrasing the Sabbath was made for man, man was not made for the Sabbath (Mark 2: 27), religion was made for man, man was not made for religion. Religion is the salt in life, that is, the salt that gives flavor to life; salt is at the service of food, religion is at the service of life; life should not be religion nor living a religion.

What we say applies to everyone. However, there are some who are called to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-14). Called to be the salt of the earth certainly means to give flavor to the lives of others; called to be the light of the world certainly means to enlighten and guide the lives of others. This is what the consecrated religious must be.

In simple terms, if for ordinary people religion serves life, for the religious or consecrated life serves religion, because he devotes his entire life, to be the salt and light for others. Because he does not live for himself, but for others and society in general, the consecrated or religious has a life set apart.

"To consecrate" an object means to remove it from its ordinary use to set it aside or apart, to reserve it for a particular and exclusive use. When a chalice or other object is consecrated, it is reserved or kept for sacred use, in the case of the chalice, it is for the celebration of the Eucharist.

It is in this sense that one must interpret the "fuga mundi" of the religious of the Middle Ages. It was not about fleeing from the world so as not to be contaminated by it, but answering the call to a Mission that required leaving the ordinary life behind.

Inside the forest we do not see the forest, we see only trees; to see the forest we have to get out of it. The consecrated man departs from the world in order to know it better; in fact, he leaves the world in order to devote himself to the world. He withdraws from his own small world in order to give himself to the whole world in a special way. He sets aside his private life, to enter the service of Life in the universal sense.

How religious life began
The most visible sign, or what draws the most attention to a religious or consecrated person is his celibacy, that is, being a person who does not form a family like all the others. Historically, however, we can say that even before the religious life came about, which in the Church took the term monasticism, from the beginning of Christianity within the first Christian communities, as is still the case today, there have always been men and women who have renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. In my village, I can count up to six women who have remained unwed to dedicate their lives exclusively to catechesis and the education of children.

The first few centuries of Christianity were marked by many persecutions of the Church that being a Christian and being a martyr were practically synonymous. The Christians of that time aspired, like all humans, to die of old age. However, by embracing a religion outlawed by the Roman Empire, every Christian was willing to bear witness to his faith in his life and with his life.

When spirituality, martyrdom, that is, the full and supreme dedication to the cause of the gospel, lost its strength due to the legitimation of Christianity, which became the state religion under the Emperor Constantine, monasticism arose as an alternative form of martyrdom or full and exclusive dedication to the values of the gospel.  

This way of life emerged at first as a great novelty in the Church and registered a huge expansion, especially in Egypt, Palestine and Syria. They passed into the history of the Church under the name of the Desert Fathers. While with the legalization of Christianity, many Christians became dull and fell into spiritual and moral apathy, the ascetic monks kept the values of the gospel fresh by leading a life of intense prayer, fasting, celibacy, and detachment from material goods.

In the beginning, these monks were anachoretic hermits, that is, they lived in seclusion; over time, they gathered in cenobians, or in small communities, and thus religious life as we know it today came about. They were also called regular clergy, as we have said, because they were communities governed by rules. The first rule, entitled "Ora ed Labora" was given by St. Benedict, the founder of monasticism in the Western Church.

Religious life in other religions
When some people think of a monk in the Catholic tradition, what comes immediately to mind is the image of a man dressed in a saffron-colored habit – the image of a Buddhist monk instead. Buddhism is a spirituality that lends itself to monasticism, that is, to the exclusive dedication to meditation, to the ascetic life that aims at enlightenment.

As in Christianity, not all Buddhists can be monks. However, many children and adolescents have a monastic initiation for few years of their life, as if it were a service, similar to the compulsory military service of other times, and then they leave the monasteries to go on with their normal life.  

The Jewish as well as the Muslim religions are opposed to the monastic life as understood in Buddhism and Christianity. The closest correspondent in the Muslim religion of a Christian monk is a Sufi, for as in Christian monasticism, Sufism is an internalization and intensification of the Muslim faith and practice.

Religious life throughout the history of the Church
According to the canonical distinction, today we have two types of clergy: the regular or religious and the secular or diocesan. The diocesan clergies are more involved with the world, they are the shepherds of the Lord's sheep. In this sense, their role is very similar to that of the doctors of the law and the priests of Jerusalem. The consecrated religious, on the other hand, are called to be prophets, to be the right people in the right place, to be the solution to a problem.

All religious orders arose as the solution to a problem: the Jesuits as the force of Counter-Reformation, the Franciscans to exalt the value of poverty in a Church that was too rich. With the Crusades, military religious orders such as the Templars and Hospitallers emerged.  Later religious orders were founded to care for the physically sick, others were founded to care for the mentally sick, and still others were founded to provide education, especially to the disadvantaged who could not afford schooling. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, my religious order and many other religious orders were founded to dedicate themselves exclusively to the evangelization of Africa and later Asia.

In the Old Testament tradition, the prophet was the right man at the right time; he was the one who knew how to interpret the present moment in the life of the people in the light of God's will. He was the one who felt that he was a messenger and sometimes also an intermediary between God and men. He was always a natural leader and a charismatic person; he criticized a behavior that was not appropriate in God's eyes, as well as comforted and infused hope in the people during hard times, like the Babylonian exile.

Religious life in general is associated with the Prophetic Mission of the Church. In the Middle Ages, while the states were fighting among themselves, it was in the monasteries that culture was preserved; it was there that schools, universities and hospitals were born. The civil registry itself was born with the registration of those baptized by the Church; that record that the State, with the Republic revolution in 1910, stole from the parishes in Portugal and elsewhere.

Symbolic acts or playacts of the prophets of Israel
The behaviours of the prophets in the Old Testament were so bizarre that under the current secular standards of sanity, they would surely end up institutionalized or at least in some form of intensive care.

These prophets were not only spokespersons of the word, they also incarnated it in their lives, in their talents, in their behaviors and deeds; everything in them was part of the message; their choice of clothing and even their bodies and body language. Therefore in their own flesh, they bore witness to how transformative and disconcerting the Word of God can be. "Words are scattered by the wind," the symbolic and dramatic acts of the prophets spoke much louder and were harder to forget or ignore.

•    Isaiah, took off all his clothes and wandered around naked (Isaiah 20).
•    Jeremiah hid his underwear under a rock, and after a long time came looking for it (Jeremiah 13).
•    Hosea deliberately married a prostitute and named their daughter Lo-ruhamah or the unloved one (Hosea 1).

With the coming of Christ, we can look back and see these prophets as forerunners, not only through the prophecies that spoke of his coming, but also through their prophetic actions. Christ is, after all, the word made flesh in the richest and most complete way possible. And like that of the prophets, Christ's behaviour was utterly bizarre, disconcerting, and confusing regarding the social and conventional standards of the time.

He was, after all, someone who guaranteed that he would rebuild the temple in three days, who ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, who cast out demons into a herd of swine, who healed a blind man by rubbing his eyes with mud mixed with his saliva, and who walked on water. The most shocking and dramatic action was undoubtedly washing the feet of his disciples. He wanted to perform the most servile act so that they would never forget what he had already spoken in word: the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).

The religious as a symbolic or playact
The consecrated person lives in the here and now the life we are all called to live in Heaven. By embodying the values of the gospel, he or she is like the polar star that indicates the true way to God, like a finger pointing toward Heaven. By relativizing certain realities of this world that man is tempted to absolutize, the religious is also a beacon that exposes the dangers of navigation, dangers of losing our life during our pilgrimage to the heavenly homeland.

In this way, the three evangelical advices can be seen as gestures or symbolic acts that speak for themselves, in the manner of the dramatic and symbolic acts of the Old Testament prophets, or a way of being salt and light in topics such as power, material goods, pleasure and love.

Vow of poverty – Relativizes ownership because apart from maintaining our vital functions, material riches are a hindrance to spiritual growth. As the gospel says, where our treasure is, there our heart is also; whoever gives his heart to riches, sells his soul to the devil, and no longer possesses himself, but is possessed by what he thinks he possesses.

Vow of chastity – Relativizes sex because, contrary to what society would have us believe, sex is not an individual need, but a need of the species; it is not even intrinsic to love, it is only one of the many expressions of love. If love, in its natural expression, creates the family and family ties, love, in its sublimated expression, creates universal fraternity and solidarity.

Vow of obedience - Relativizes power and freedom. For the gospel, power is service, that is, to obey the needs of others. I am free until I find my fundamental option; once found, life boils down to being faithful, or obeying, the commitments made. If you keep the rule, the rule will keep you, and give you a sense of identity, purpose and security.

POVERTY
When a religious, being able to be rich, chooses to be poor, what is he saying to the world? What prophetic message does he embody in his life of poverty? What truths does he reveal? What dangers does he warn against?

We are stewards not owners
In not being owners of anything, not even of our own life, we must sincerely consider ourselves stewards of both our life and the resources we own. One day we will need to give an account of this stewardship.

When in our mind we can replace the concept of "ownership" with that of "stewardship", a sense of indifference and detachment from material goods invades our mind. This new mentality is indispensable for spiritual growth, as a free and independent person, but at the same time being part of a community and being children of God.

Since God is the sole owner of everything and everyone, we are only administrators and not owners: things are made to be used, not loved or possessed; people are made to be loved, not used. Those who aim to possess more and more have the tendency to use people, to see them as a means to get what they want. People should never be a means to anything, but always an end in themselves. Things are the means, a means of life. Things are at the service of life and not life at the service of things.    

Means of life, not ends of life
For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. Mark 8:35

To live and to be alive are one and the same for animals, but not for humans. It is true that to live one must be alive, but the meaning and purpose of human life is not to stay alive, it is not to retain life; on the contrary, it is to lose it, it is to give life, it is to detach oneself from life, to give oneself to a cause, to use all the time and energies of which our life is made up of, for an ideal, a dream, an ambition. Life is therefore not an absolute value, but a relative one; the absolute value is the reason why I live.

Material possessions, therefore, have nothing to do with life, but only with being alive, with maintaining vital functions. Whoever dedicates his life to accumulating wealth is dedicating his life to maintaining life only. He may even have what it takes to maintain the vital functions of two and more lives. But he will continue to have only one life which he will end up wasting it away.

The rich is poor, the poor is rich

The poor man who is happy with what he has, and does not seek material wealth, is rich. Whereas the rich man who is never satisfied with what he has, who always wants and seeks to have more, is poor.

It is like an anorexic teenager who deceives herself with a false perception of reality; she is so obstinate in becoming thinner that every time she looks in the mirror, she sees herself as fat. Because she does not focus her attention on the thinness she already possesses, but on the thinness she wants to possess thus seeing herself still fat.  This false perception of her reality forces herself to lose more weight, risking death if she is not cured.

The rich man is poor because his attention is not focused on what he already has, but on what he can still have, investing all his time and energies on this objective. As there will always be someone richer than him, he will always see himself as living in a state of want and therefore, for all intents and purposes, he is poor. The poor person, on the other hand, is rich because he is satisfied with what he has and invests his time and energies in "being" while the rich person is poor because, by not thinking that he has enough, he invests his whole life in "having more".

Possessors or possessed?

If riches increase, do not set your heart on them.  Psalm 62:10
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Luke 12:34

Unfortunately, the rich young man in Matthew’s Gospel (19:16-23) decided to keep his riches when Jesus confronted him and gave him the choice between material wealth and spiritual wealth. The gospel says that he was saddened with his own choice; riches can give pleasure, but they do not give joy and pleasure is almost always followed by sadness.

The rich young man refused to follow the teacher because, faced with the prospect of losing his riches, his false sense of security paralyzed him. To follow the Master is what moved him to go to Jesus in the first place, he wanted to follow Him, but he could not --- not because he possessed many riches, but because he was possessed by them. He was not free, he did not possess himself, nor was he the master of his own destiny. What happened to the rich young man, and happens to all who give their hearts to riches, is similar to selling one’s soul to the devil.

Where your treasure is, there your heart is also, warns the gospel. Therefore, when we give our heart to riches, we sell our soul to the devil; from that moment on, we possess only from the accounting point of view because from the psychological and spiritual point of view, we are possessed.

If the object of one’s love is material goods, then a strange symbiosis takes place between that person and the material goods he loves. Symbiosis is defined as a relationship of mutual benefit and dependence between two living beings.

There is an exchange or sharing between the two: the material goods share their matter, through which the person who loves them becomes materialized; the person shares his spirit, through which the material goods become spiritualized. The subject who previously said he possessed the object is in turn possessed. It is not the rich young man who possesses the material goods, it is the material goods that possess the rich young man.

Because money is a good slave but a bad master, the one who is seduced by wealth loses his freedom. In reality, it is that begins to "command" his life and not he himself. When the only goal of life is to possess, and possessing only serves to maintain vital functions, the person lives only to be alive, that is, he vegetates.

Finding greater wealth
Princess Diana of Wales had everything a young woman could ask for in life: youth, beauty, power, money, fame, "blue blood" and two precious children, and yet she was not happy because she lacked the most important thing that money cannot buy: love. In search of this, she abandoned everything and it was in this search that she lost her life. There are others who having the essential, love, do the opposite of the princess, eagerly seeking everything she despised. They spend their lives doing this, often losing what they had beforehand: love.

Like Diana of Wales, St. Benedict of Norcia, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis Xavier, St. Anthony of Lisbon, St. Elizabeth of Portugal, St. Nuno Álvares Pereira, St. Beatrix da Silva etc., the saints of the Catholic Church, for the most part, were from upper-middle class, cultured, young, beautiful, rich, some from nobility, and they all abandoned everything for Christ. As St. Paul had once said – because for his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ (Philippians 3:8).

These saints were not fools: no one trades a greater good for a lesser one. If they embraced poverty, it is because they found in it a greater wealth than the one they left behind which they could not be satisfied, because the Bible is clear, one cannot serve both God and money (Matthew 6:24). You cannot, at the same time, cultivate spiritual values and material values.

It is true that money is very important, it is in fact the god of this world, because it opens many doors for us and gets us many consumer goods; but it does not open the door to spiritual world for us, nor does it get us human values. It does not buy us the most important good and without which human life makes no sense: love. Love is the most important need in life and money can in no way meet this need.

Whoever spends his life cultivating temporal and lapsed values is, in some way, cultivating death. When he eventually dies, not possessing a spiritual body and not having accumulated treasures in heaven, he will be dead forever, suffering from eternal death. Whereas he who spent his life cultivating spiritual and human values that are eternal, has accumulated treasures in Heaven and when he eventually dies, he will be resurrected with the spiritual body he has built in life and will enter with it into eternal life.

Vow of poverty
Since the religious vows of chastity, poverty and obedience refer to eternal values, those who embody them become sacraments, ambassadors, symbols of eternity for the rest of Christians. By living here and now the values that we are all called to live in heaven, they relativize realities such as money, power, and pleasure.

As for the vow of chastity, since there is no death in heaven, there is no need for marriage, as Matthew 22:30 suggests. Living in chastity or universal friendship is what awaits us all.

As for the vow of obedience, what the religious wants to relativize is the love of power that so many have. The craze of wanting to get to the top, thinking that once there they won’t have to obey anyone. By obeying, the religious wants to show that doing the will of God is best for self-realization.

The need for material goods is related to having to sustain life in its biological implications. In heaven, we will have a glorious body (1 Corinthians 15: 44) or spiritual body, made in the image and likeness of our physical body, without it being our physical body. Since it is an immaterial body, there is no need to possess and store material goods.

Many people live under the illusion that by having more means of living, they have more lives, or that they can prolong their one life. By living under the vow of poverty, we proclaim the truth that one cannot love both God and money; possessing beyond what is necessary to keep us alive prevents us from "storing up treasures in heaven" (Matthew 6:19-20), that is, from applying our life to cultivating human values. It is these values that give meaning and relevance to our life, both from an individual and a social point of view, and sustain it into eternity, being part of our spiritual body, with which we will live with God.

In living the vow of poverty in the context of a religious community, we highlight the value of sharing the common goods, as well as the value of using and administering them responsibly, without owning them. We believe, in fact, that God alone is the true owner of everything that people think they possess. We do not own anything, not ourselves, not even our life; we are only administrators of time, talents, resources and we will be accountable for this administration one day.

CHASTITY
If poverty has to do with our relationship with things, and obedience with our relationship with ourselves, chastity has to do with our relationship with others.

Chastity and sublimation
Eros & Thanatos are life instinct and death instinct, affection and aggression, ying and yang, centripetal force and centrifugal force, love and hate, positive and negative poles of electricity or energy with which we do everything that we do. Without energy nothing works in a society and the same is true of us.

In his book, Civilization and its discontents, Freud argues that both unbridled aggression and affection, that is, abandoned to themselves, have an immeasurable destructive potential; they can destroy what they helped to build. The human being abandoned animality when he gained power over these two forces, when he managed to domesticate them, when he put reins on them to harness them in a positive way.

Seeing things in this light, human civilization can be considered as a story of sublimation of Eros & Thanatos, that is, the intelligent use that humanity made of these basic forces or instincts. Similarly, our own personal story also consists of our efforts to divert our natural affection and aggression from their natural and primordial target in order to promote the cultivation of human values.

In line with this way of thinking, the religious vow of chastity consists of diverting the natural affection of man and woman from their primordial objective, of marrying and having children, and channeling it towards a more cultural purpose. Priests, men and women religious choose not to have spouses in order to establish a broader fraternity; they choose not to reproduce biologically and have children of their own in order to amplify and extend their fatherhood and motherhood beyond blood ties.

Examples of sublimation: the dam and the steam engine
With the construction of a dam, the water level rises to the point where it can irrigate the fields and transform a desert into an oasis, creating and feeding an agricultural and rural society. On the other hand, it can also be used to produce electricity, creating and feeding industrial cities where urban culture flourishes.

It is clear that the dam represses and compresses the water, preventing its natural flow; that is why its walls have to be strong and concave. On the other hand, done within the limits of what is possible, the added value and benefits that are obtained from the driving force of water to produce energy and its channeling for irrigation, fully justify the dam or the repression.

Like the concave and strong walls of the dam, the sublimation of Eros requires the person to possess a strong and robust character in order to contain the natural impulse of Eros that manifests itself in sexual desire and natural fatherhood, and so be able to channel his energy to a more universal fatherhood and brotherhood. The good that is done to others, in the context of this universal fatherhood and brotherhood, echoes back to him in the form of joy; seeing that others are better off thanks to his action, far outweighs the effort and sacrifice involved in the process of sublimation.

The principle of sublimation is also verified in the steam machine, which was the first machine that humans built. This first artificial driving force that man invented transformed heat produced by using burning coal to boil the water inside a boiler with the resulting steam being used to move the pistons of the engine. Basically, it turned heat into mechanical power. Sublimation is possible and without it human society as we know it would not exist.

Chastity is the relativization of sex
"All you need is love" was what the Beatles used to sing in the ‘60s. In fact, after the basic needs, which sex is not part of, to love and to be loved is the only need and condition without which human life does not exist or subsist. No person will ever reach full maturity as a human being if he or she is not loved unconditionally during childhood and love unconditionally as an adult.

Those who as adults seek to be loved, more than to love, behave affectionately as a child. And since society does not tolerate adults behaving like children, this adult will seek to be loved in a distorted way, with deception, manipulation, and psychological games; that's what soap operas are all about. Those who are affectionately mature can do without being loved, but cannot do without loving. Jesus, in his earthly life, was always seeking to love and serve the poorest and most disadvantaged, he did not seek to be loved, but he also did not reject the love that some gave him.

Love can exist and subsist, and can make sense without sex because there are an infinite number of loving situations where sex does not apply, does not enter and should not enter into them. On the other hand, sex without love should not exist, it makes no sense because it transforms the person into an object of pleasure, instrumentalizing and degrading the person, even in the case of consensual sex between adults where both are, at the same time, treated as objects of each other’s pleasure.

To love is, as St. Thomas Aquino says, to want the good of the other. That is why the Spanish proverb says, "obras son amores y no buenas razones", love manifests itself in works just as faith does. Contrary to popular expression, having sex is not "making love", because love manifests itself in works, it grows or decreases with them and through them.

Far from being the only way, the sexual act is just one of the many ways to say "I love you"; and it is neither applicable, nor licit, nor moral in many forms of love. However, even in loving situations in which sexual expression is correct and appropriate, it does not in itself take away or add anything to love, it only expresses or does not express the love that is or is not there.

Private love versus universal love
In my childhood and adolescent days, I was very fond of watching cowboy movies on television. Today, thinking back, it is clear to me that these films influenced, I would even say forged, my future in some way. I was fascinated by the fact that after the cowboy had freed the town from the bandits who were holding it hostage, even if during the time he had been there some maiden had fallen in love with him because of his bravery and he had or had not reciprocated that love. In the end, the cowboy never stayed in the town or accepted the love of the maiden, nor the power symbolized by the sheriff star offered to him. He left instead riding off into the sunset, so that in another episode we would see him liberating another town, always fighting for justice and freedom at the risk of his own life.  

Every man and every woman have a natural vocation to be a father and a mother. The consecrated person is called to fulfill it, not in the biological or physical way, but in the psychological and spiritual way. Even for those who are parents in the biological sense, the most important thing is not the short duration of the conception process, but the long years of the educational process. Mother Teresa of Calcutta was never a mother in the biological sense, and yet no one would deny her the name Mother Teresa.

The consecrated person is not a father by bringing more children into the world, but by contributing to the education and humanization of those who are already here. As for the missionary, one can say, as Jesus said: "he went through the world doing good".

Chastity and abstinence
Just as poverty is not the complete denial of material goods, because as long as we possess a physical body we need some, just as obedience is also not the unconditional and total uncritical submission to the will of others, like sheep to the shepherd, so also chastity is not the total abstinence from love personified and the possibility of expressing it sexually.

The total sublimation of Eros is impossible
Of course, the process of substitution or channeling of energy cannot be continued to infinity, nor can it be the transformation of heat into mechanical energy in our machines.  Sigmund Freud

According to Freud’s example of the steam machine, it is impossible to transform all the heat produced by coal into mechanical energy; much of this heat is lost in a natural way. He also gives the example of the farmer who trained his horse to live without eating; just when he thought the horse had gotten used to it, it died on him.

The same goes for my dam metaphor: it is not possible to turn all its water into electricity and for agriculture. There are times when it rains a lot, which forces the opening of the floodgates and let the water flow naturally; if we don't do this, we could lose the dam.

Total sublimation of Eros is not desirable
Still using the dam metaphor, when it rains a lot it is necessary to release the water; chastity, in fact, is more difficult in younger years, when it rains a lot, that is, when the hormonal production is at its peak. This is precisely why St. Francis of Assisi, in order to resist temptation, would roll around naked in the snow. Here too there is a danger of losing the dam of our psyche, that is, of becoming neurotic. I have always found it pure hypocrisy that old, decrepit clerics (with an almost zero hormonal production) prescribing sexual morals to young people.

There are, on the other hand, studies that say that both exacerbated sexual practice and total abstinence from it are damaging to physical health. The lack of testosterone production has effects not only on sexual function, but also on the overall functioning of the body. Perhaps Buddha was right to advocate the middle ground, or as the ancient used to say, "in medio virtus" or "in medio veritas".

Sex as a liturgy of love
If sexual pleasure is an expression of the oblative dialogue, then it is clear that the institution of marriage cannot be the "hortus conclusus" of sexuality and we cannot deal with it only within the limits of a doctrine of marriage. Pietro Prini  Lo scisma sommerso

Pietro Prini, a much-loved Catholic philosopher in Vatican circles, suggests in his book that in sexual matters, the Catholic world does not follow Catholic morality; there is a schism within the Church between the sexual morality that the faithful follow and that which is proclaimed by the magisterium.

The Irish theologian Diarmuid O'Murchu in his book, Poverty, Celibacy, and Obedience: A Radical Option for Life, comes to the same conclusion as Prini: Whether or not the celibate must totally abstain from genital sexual intimacy, in a world where this intimate expression is no longer linked exclusively to marriage, must at least remain an open question.

In the human species, sexual expression does not exist primarily for procreation, since not all sexual acts are open to life, as is the case in animals. Unlike them, humans are not children of instinct, but of love between two people because one can only live humanly in love and to love. Sexual expression is above all a liturgy, an expression of love between two people, as long as this love happens then the sexual expression of this love is appropriate.

OBEDIENCE
If poverty has to do with loving God above all things, chastity has to do with loving others as yourself, then obedience has to do with loving yourself. The first concept that has to be clear in our mind is that our life is not just about us.

Human life is an absolute value in relation to death, we cannot escape from it. However, in relation to other human values it is a relative one, because human life only makes sense by cultivating human values and each of these values gives worth to our life. Do not use your life for causes that you are not willing to die for.

If in relation to the vow of poverty we said, with regard to our life, that we are not the owners of the things we call ours, not even our life since we did nothing to attain it or nothing we can do to retain it, then in relation to the vow of obedience we are not the architects of our life, but only its engineers, masons, or builders.

Builders, not architects – Everyone who comes into this world comes with a plan. He comes because God willed it that way. The circumstances of his birth do not matter: they neither add to nor take away from the dignity of the person. He is very much a child of God regardless of whether he is born out of love, accident, born of a prostitute, from a night of pleasure and even from a rape; every human life that comes into this world, from its conception to natural death, is viable and therefore inviolable.

God writes straight along crooked lines. For his designs he uses both our goodness and our evilness. For Him, there are no illegitimate children or blue-blooded children; He is Father to all; all, equal in dignity, are heirs to eternal life.

Just as one does not build a house in our cities and villages before it is properly designed and planned, no life comes into this world without God having drawn up a plan, a blueprint, for it.

You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last… (John 15:16) – We are not therefore the ones who design our destiny; we are called to be a house built on rock, and this is achieved if we hear the word, that is, if we know the plan concerning our life and put it into practice, if we carry it out the way it was designed.

Since we are not the owners of our life, we are not its architects either, but rather its masons or master builders. The architect of everything and everyone, the Creator, is God; the design, the project, or plan of our life is with him, to know it we have to consult him periodically, as we build our life, our home.

The builder who does not periodically consult the architect runs the risk of building something that does not agree with the design or blueprint. How embarrassing it is whenever this happens in our cities, houses that do not receive the permits to be inhabited, are even demolished because they were not built, in accordance with the plan. Worst embarrassment is to stand before God with a life lived against his will. The periodic consultation by which we come to know God's will about us is called prayer. Therefore, within the framework of the consecrated religious, it is 50% of his life according to the rule of Ora Ed Labora.

The fundamental option as a commitment
The fundamental option is a decision we make about the whole of our life, it is the objective, the goal of our living, it is what gives meaning, color and flavor to each and every day of our life. It is the flame that is maintained by the fuel of our life, our energy and time. It is the support for the lever that lifts the world, in the Archimedes Principle. It is the motivation, the inspiration that brings together all our resources that we put at the service of a goal, of a target chosen by us.

Life is made up of many choices and decisions; they are what give color, flavor, aroma and meaning to our life. These small options usually concern one or more aspects of our life; they can affect us a lot or a little, but they do not affect the whole of our life. The fundamental option is the decision of all decisions, the master choice, the mother of all options because it concerns our entire present and future life. Most of the time it is irreversible, it is the reason for our living, it is the cause that we will feed with our time and energy; it is the mouth to which we are the bread.

The cause, or the fundamental option, that Nelson Mandela fed with his life was the end of apartheid in South Africa; for Beethoven, it was music; for Picasso, painting; for Gandhi, India’s independence in a nonviolent way; for some parents, their children; for teachers, their students; for doctors, their patients.... More than a profession, life is a mission.

There is no life without commitment
They live as if they're never going to die… and die as if they had never lived.  Dalai Lama

When the time comes to choose our fundamental option, we are at the crossroad of our life, or as they say today in Europe, we are at the roundabout of our life. We cannot stay there forever, not for longer than it is appropriate. Often, when we remain undecided for too long, life or the State ends up deciding for us, as is the case in some countries about the de facto unions of young people: after a while, the State considers them married. In Lisbon there is even a roundabout called "Clock Roundabout". While we remain undecided, time passes and some opportunities do not appear a second time in life.

"I want to keep all my options open"– I used to hear this from young people in the United States and Canada. In fact, during childhood and early youth, all options are indeed open. Keeping all options open would be like being a statue in the center of an intersection or going around a roundabout, like a clueless donkey. It would be like being alive without living and dying without ever having lived.

Obedience is fidelity to our commitment
Since we owe obedience to our physiological nature, we also owe obedience to our supernatural nature, which is our vocation or our fundamental choice, as Jesus did. All our time and energies must be dedicated to the vocation we have chosen.

Whoever looks back after putting his hand on the plough is not fit for the Kingdom of God (Luke 9:62). Obedience means being faithful to the commitments we have made, to what God has called us to do, to what we have decided to dedicate our lives to. Love leads to marital commitment, but later on it is this commitment that keeps and nourishes the love.

The alternative to obedience as fidelity to the commitment we have freely chosen, and which consists of the cultivation of a human value or cause oriented towards the common good, would be not to choose, keeping all options open, camping at a crossroads, not investing or committing our time and energies to a project, as did the foolish servant in the parable of the talents, who buried the talent he had received.

It is true that we would be free, but one day, towards the end of our lives, when we look back, we would have the impression of never having lived, because we would not have written any story and we would have spent time and energy on futilities and on just staying alive.

More than to survive, human life is to be involved, to commit our time and energy to a project of social utility. What is good for the community is good for us. When we are not useful to others we are useless even to ourselves; our life will only be meaningful to us if it is meaningful to others.

Conclusion: The vow of poverty is the "having" at the service of the "being"; the vow of chastity is the need to love and be loved at the service of universal fraternity; the vow of obedience is the personal will at the service of the common good.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC







November 1, 2021

3 Churches One Religion: Catholic - Orthodox(ES) - Protestant(S)

No comments:

There are many reasons why the Church Christ founded was divided into three different confessions. These reasons are historical, political, cultural and even geographical. In Europe, where it all started, we can distribute these different confessions according to the four cardinal points. North is Protestant, South is Catholic; East is Orthodox, and West is Catholic.

The parameter remains true on the American continent. North is traditionally Protestant, such as the United States and Canada, with the exception of Quebec, the South is Catholic, from Mexico to Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America.

In the title of this text I put the Catholic Church in singular, and the Orthodox and the Protestant in plural, to underline the fact that there is not just one Orthodox or Protestant church, but many. In the case of the Orthodox, where they exist, there is one for each country with very little, if any, communion between them.

The word Orthodox does not cease to be an anachronism which, when it appeared, was meant to mean  the truth; if it had remained united, that is, if we had only one Orthodox church, it could still use the name, but since there are several, none of them can claim to be the true one, because one of the characteristics of truth is that it is singular.

In the case of the Protestants, it makes sense that there are many of them because there can be many protests. Some of those in the Anglican tradition follow the nationalist line; as for the others, there are many in each country, as well as the sects derived from them. There is no communion whatsoever between the Protestant churches and the sects; the only thing they have in common is their veiled "hatred" of the Catholic Church.

In opposition to the plurality of the Orthodox and Protestant churches, the Catholic Church is singular: it has remained only one over time and over cultural and geographical space. There is only one Catholicism that remains identical and unalterable, true to itself, in all times, in all geographical and cultural places and spaces, in all languages, peoples and nations.

Although today it is designated as the Church that exists in opposition to the Orthodox and the Protestant, the term "catholic" was not born from confrontation with other Christian confessions. Before the division, the Church was already called catholic.

Where the bishop is present, there is also the Catholic Church (Letter to the Christians of Smyrna 8, 2, AD 150)

The Church therefore did not call herself Catholic to differentiate herself from the Protestant and Orthodox churches. The designation "Catholic" was attributed to the Church in the year 150 by Bishop St. Ignatius of Antioch, due to her vocation of universality. Thus, the second century had barely begun, at a time when there were still no divisions, the name ‘Catholic Church’ was already in use, to designate the name of the only church existing at that time, the one that Jesus founded.

The name quickly became popular because it corresponded to the truth. The term catholic means universal, and when it was used in those early days by St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna, it referred to the Church that was already present everywhere.

The term "catholic", besides meaning that it was universal and international, also meant, already at that time, that it was for everyone and not for a particular ethnic group, a caste or elite of specially initiated people, as was the case with Judaism, for example.

Catholic because it possesses the fullness of the means of salvation, destined to be universal in time and space, as Christ her founder has promised us: "... remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).

Before describing the history of the schism and the identity of each of the confessions, it is appropriate to say a word or two about the genesis and identity of Christianity as a religion among other religions, especially in relation to the one which has historically opposed it, the Muslim religion, and even before that, a word about the notion of religion and for what it serves.

What is religion for?
There are fewer and fewer religious people. Could it be that religion serves no purpose? Apparently, it has no practical use today in the day-to-day life of the modern man. However, statistics show that people who believe and fulfill some religious practices are generally happier and better prepared for misfortunes.

Religion is a call to self-transcendence
Right from the start of their appearance on earth, humans looked at the stars at night and this lifted their thoughts beyond the things and worries of the daily life; a look beyond themselves and the world, towards the transcendence, naturally led to greater self-transcendence, which in turn made men more spiritual and less materialistic.
 
This self-transcendence included a metanoia, a change, a conversion, when life is seen as a spiritual progress and not just a material one. For many who live in pure worldliness, progress means to become richer and richer. For the religious man, progress is to become better and better, more human and more generous, gaining ground on flaws by transforming them into virtues at the light of the Gospel.

Unfortunately, in these modern times, men look at television at night instead of the stars. During peak viewing hours, the so-called prime time, the television shows the less prime programs. Watching TV these times has the opposite effect of looking at the stars, because it immerses us more and more into consumerist materialism.

Science versus religion
Those who live installed in pure mundanity argue that religion, as a general theory of life and the universe, explains less and less, while science explains more and more. Many have even made science the new religion, with the faith that it will one day explain everything and wipe out religion altogether.

Such a day will never come. The mystery not only involves the identity of God, but also that of Man, the Universe and all that it contains. In the field of every science, what we know continues to be very little of what is still left to be known. We do not know everything about biology, astronomy, physics, mineralogy, or any other positive or human science. I believe that no matter how much we know, we will never know everything. Only God knows everything about everything.  

Science in fact explains many things, but it does not explain the most important things: it tells us that the world began with a "Big Bang" but it does not tell us who caused this big explosion, or what was there before it took place. It tells us that since this big explosion, the world continues to expand and will expand until it expends all of its energy and then it will end, but it does not tell us what is beyond the end of the world. Finally, above all, it does not tell us what is the meaning of life, why we exist, or why we exist between the "Big Bang" and the end of the world.

Technology versus spirituality and ethics
Science is the general theory of how things work, and technology is its practical application in machines, appliances and other applications that make human life on the material plane easier, more comfortable and enjoyable.

Similarly, religion is the general theory that explains the why of things; spirituality is its practical application in meditation and types of prayer, psychological exercises of self-awareness, rituals, liturgies, sacraments that contribute to the spiritual well-being of the person as an individual. Ethics aims at the well-being of the same person as a social being and as an integral part of a community.

Science tells us the “how”, while technology tells us the “what for”; only religion can tell us the “why” and only spirituality can make us more human and attain happiness, because it is made up more of joy than physical pleasure.

Christianity as the fullness of truth
Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds Hebrews 1:1-2

Today the idea that all religions are equal and have the same worth is widespread; for the non-believers they are all bad; for the believers they are all good and lead to salvation; the catchphrase is that each one chooses the one that suits him or her the best.

It is understood that all religions worship the same God and aim to humanize mankind. This is why the Church no longer presents herself to the world as the only plank of salvation and recognizes in all religions "semina verbum" fragmented pieces of truth. There is therefore salvation without the Church,
but there can be no salvation without Christ because He, being God made man, is the only fullness of truth and therefore valid for all times and in all places.

Like the Old Testament prophets, the founders of all religions were the disclosers of God's will and the longings of the people at a particular moment in their history, to lead them along the right path.

Christ, more than a prophet, that is, the right Man for a specific moment in time, is the right Man for all times and places. Because He, fundamentally, did not come to found a new religion, but to teach humankind how to be human.

If, as impartial observers, we compare the narratives of the different religions, we cannot fail to agree that the New Testament of the Bible is the most beautiful, the most profound and the greatest human narrative of all times. Whether the agnostic world recognizes it or not, the Gospel is the narrative that best displays and understands human nature, and in accordance with it, how we ought to be in order to accomplish self-fulfillment and happiness. It is the moral imperative best suited to human nature. There is no other religious narrative more humane than that found in the Gospel. The Gospel contains the paradigm, the pattern of humanity.

As Christ is not just a prophet, in relation to other religions, Christianity represents a qualitative leap and, in this way, all religions are to Christianity what the Old Testament of the Bible is to the New Testament.

Since Christ, God made man, incarnated into life the most perfect model of humanity, He is the reference point, the paradigm, the role model for all human beings. Anyone who seeks and strives to be an authentic human person, whatever his creed or religion may be, does not have to profess the Christian faith, but must compare himself to Christ and to no one else; he needs to measure himself to Christ because He is the gold standard of humanity, the only way, truth, and life.

Christianity and Islam
Let us take Islam as an example, which is the religion with most followers after Christianity, with which it came into conflict when it was attacked in Europe and in the Christian holy places. From the point of view of Christianity, Islam as an Abrahamic religion is a version of Judaism that exchanges Hebrew Messianism for a last prophet, Mohammed, who has already come. There are inconsistencies in the Muslim religion that makes it adverse to reason; I want to point out just three:

The last prophet – If mankind lives for another 10,000 or 20,000 years, what is the meaning of a last prophet that came in the year 524? More changes have taken place in the world and humanity since the year 524 than in all the millions of years before; why then did prophets previously succeed each other frequently and then after the year 524 suddenly they are no longer needed?

In the case of Christianity, even if humanity lives until year 20,000, it still makes sense that the revelation took place in year zero. As the author of the letter to the Hebrews explains, in the text mentioned above, the one sent to mankind is NOT quantitatively just another prophet added to the long list of prophets, but qualitatively, God himself who came to live among us, as one of us.

There is a qualitative leap here. Prophets bring messages for a specific time, the word of God is everlasting for all times and places, because God does not need to speak twice. On the other hand, Christ is not only the spoken word, he is the lived word that is lived only once. God needs only to incarnate once, there were many prophets before Christ and there have been and will be many after Him.

Mary, mother and virgin – Many Muslims may conveniently want to forget that when Mohammed returned to Mecca, he gave orders to destroy all statues of idols, but he himself ran to embrace and protect with his own body the statue of the Virgin Mary with her son Jesus on her lap. Today’s Islam, to mark differences with Christianity, ignores these facts, but what is certain is that even for the Muslim faith, it is the prophet Isa, i.e. Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary, who will return on the last day to judge the living and the dead.

If for the Muslim faith, as for us, Mary the mother of Jesus is a virgin, who then is the father of Jesus? It is obvious that it cannot be Joseph the carpenter, for if it is him, Mary would not be a virgin. On the other hand, if he is not the father, the Conception of Jesus cannot have been natural and the father cannot have been human; if he is not human, then it must be the work of God, and if it is the work of God then God has a Son and he is not as Judaism conceives him, a solitary God, but as Christianity conceives him and as Jesus Christ revealed him to us, a God of love, family, community.

Absolute monotheism – Islam inherited the simple monotheism of the Hebrews. Therefore, both Jews and Muslims have no way of theologically substantiating that man is made in the image and likeness of God. If God is love and love that does not go out of itself is self-centered, God is more than one, God is a family – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – this fact itself points out the nature of the human family: father, mother and child.

God is at the same time one and three, He is triune; likewise, the human family is called to be a unity of three persons, where the existence of one is not possible without the existence of the other two; a man is not a father without having a wife and a child; a woman is not a mother without having a child and a husband; and a child does not exist by himself without having a father and a mother.

As Christ is the model for individual human life, the Most Holy Trinity is the model for social human life: a model of peace, harmony and love. Judaism and Islam lack the theological models or reference points for family and society life, conceiving God as a great loner.

Genesis and essence of Christianity
Christianity as a religion has its origin in the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth during the first century, in the Roman provinces of Galilee and Judea. Jesus was seen by his contemporaries as a prophet mighty in words and deeds (Luke 24:19): a prophet because he was considered to have come from God, in words because he was a great orator, a rabbi who was treated by all as a master, in deeds because he was a famous healer who restored health to many people suffering from all kinds of physical, psychological and moral illnesses.

On religious ground – With his often-repeated phrase, "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times... but I say to you that..." (Matthew 5:21-48), Jesus stood in opposition to Moses, presenting himself as the new law that is morally superior to the former.
 
He replaced the sacrifice in the temple as a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins from God with a simple declaration, "Your sins are forgiven" (Luke 7:48). And he proved in front of everyone that he had the power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:5).

He also stated that He and God the Father are one (John 10:30), and that He is God's representative on earth, for whoever sees him sees the Father (John 14:9). He is the only intercessor between God and men and that no one goes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). Thus, it is proven that there is no salvation outside of Christ.

On eschatological ground – Jesus presents himself as the son of David, the messiah who was to come and whom the Jews were waiting for. However, He is more like the universalist Messiah in the manner of Isaiah, and not the nationalist one like Elijah, who not only gathers all the tribes of Israel into one Davidic Kingdom, but also gathers all peoples to one banquet, as Isaiah (25:6) had dreamt.

On individual ground – Jesus presented himself to his contemporaries as the paradigm of humanity, as the only Way, Truth and Life (John 14:6). Jesus is the reference of humanity, He is the best authority of human nature and his path, truth and way of living life are the only ones that lead to happiness and self-realization of all the potentials that exist within us. In Jesus' view, there is no equally valid alternative to himself. As He himself says, "He who does not gather with me scatters" (Matthew 12:30).

On social ground – Jesus presents an alternative to this current society: the Kingdom of God. And he said that this is already among us with his coming; proof of this are the works he performs (Matthew 12:28). Defined in the prayer that Jesus taught as the place where God's will is done on earth as it is done in heaven, the Kingdom of God is a society where justice reigns, since there are neither rich nor poor people, and where peace reigns, since enemies are loved as much as friends, so there is no reason for violence or aggression.

With the exception of his disciples, Jesus encountered strong opposition, especially from Israel’s religious leaders. They took upon themselves to entice the people and to deceive the Roman authorities into condemning Jesus as a political agitator, which happened around the year 30-33 AD.

If nothing had happened after his death, his name would have inscribed both on the list of prophets as well as that of false messiahs and political agitators against the colonization of Rome. This did not happen: his disciples testified that they saw Him alive after his death. Their testimony was so vehement that they were willing to seal it with their own death like the master.

On the basis of Jesus’ Resurrection, the apostles began an arduous work of reinterpreting the scriptures, the Old Testament, as well as the master's entire life, words and deeds, as He himself had done with the disciples of Emmaus. Part of this reinterpretation is already found in the Gospels, especially the later ones. The other part is the Church's reflection on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth, which took 5 centuries and several Councils to define.

The Church, or Christianity in the first few centuries of its existence
Before the Council of Nicaea, the apostolic era was followed by the era of the Church Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, they were the learned Hellenists who tried to discern the true nature of Jesus, as well as the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

As it is natural, "each head has its own sentence", several theories emerged on these two themes, the most important of which was Arianism, which denied the divinity of Jesus. This heresy was condemned by the first Council of Nicaea (325) and the first Council of Constantinople (381), and thus the Nicene Creed was produced. In the year 380, with the Edict of Thessalonica, Trinitarian Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

When the identity of Jesus was already more or less clear, in seeking to clarify the identity of Mary, his mother, the issue of Jesus' identity was reopened again. Before the Council of Ephesus, some had already claimed that Mary was the mother of God; however, Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople thought that Mary could only be the mother of the human part of Jesus.

The Council of Ephesus was convened, which defined Mary as the mother of the whole and indivisible Jesus in his two natures; Nestorius was called a heretic and was excommunicated from the Church. However, because of the high place he occupied, many churches in the East separated from Rome.

After the death of Cyril of Alexandria, the strong opponent of Nestorius who understood that the two natures of Christ were not united in the same person, a monk named Eutyches appeared who, by fighting Nestorianism in his ranks, ended up asserting a doctrine contrary to Arianism known as Docetism. According to this current, if in Arianism Christ did not have a divine nature, in Docetism he had no human nature: he was human only in appearance.

The Council of Chalcedon was convened in 451 to settle this matter and it defined once again the two natures, human and divine, united in the same person of Jesus, so that the Church of Alexandria, which became the Coptic church of Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea, separated from the rest of the Church.

Finally, in July 1054 there was a great schism in the Church that mirrored the division of the Roman Empire into two, East and West, with the East based in Constantinople and the West based in Rome. The last straw in this controversy came when in 1053, the Greek churches of southern Italy were forced to latinize. In retaliation, the Latin churches of Constantinople were shut down. Other disputes arose, such as the celebration of the Eucharist with leavened or unleavened bread, and the primacy of the Pope over all the churches.

ORTHODOX CHURCHES
The Orthodox church is considered the heir of all Christian communities in the eastern half of the Mediterranean. Subsequently, it spread throughout Eastern Europe thanks to the prestige of the Byzantine Empire and the work of missionaries.

Today there are about 300 million Orthodox Christians who are members of 14 national autocephalous churches. The Orthodox church includes Orthodox churches of Russia, Romania, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Macedonia and Cyprus among others. It is worth mentioning that for most Christians, Orthodox faithful reside in Eastern Europe, Russia, the Middle East and the Balkans.

The first dioceses or patriarchates of the Church
Christianity spread rapidly throughout the Roman Empire, thanks to the ease of travel on Roman roads and the Pax Romana that the empire established and guaranteed. Because the early Christians were Jews, the first Christian communities were also formed outside Israel where many Jews lived.

Even Paul himself on his travels went wherever there were Jews and preached in their synagogues. These early nuclei of Christians were later called dioceses and still later, patriarchates. Because there are five of them, these patriarchates or dioceses were also called pentarchy. In order of importance and stratum in the ancient world, they are: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem.

Rome – The importance of this city in the ancient world comes firstly from the fact that it is the capital of the Roman Empire. Within the Church, it was the seat of Peter and Paul, for it was here that they were martyred and buried. For these reasons, in the ancient Christian world, before any schism, Rome was regarded by the other dioceses or patriarchates as "primus inter pares". It should be said that in the first few centuries of the Church there did not exist the idea of the primacy of Peter, in the sense of having any juridical and executive power over the other churches.

The supreme power of the Church was not the successor of Peter, but rather the ecumenical councils that were taking place. The Council of Constantinople in the year 381 gave rise to the idea of the Pentarchy, the five most important seats of Christianity; on this list, Rome comes first, being recognized as the center of communion between the churches.

Alexandria – Together with Rome and Antioch, it is one of the most important seats of ancient Christianity. It corresponds today to the Coptic Church which emerged from the schism after the Council of Chalcedon. According to tradition, it was founded in the year 42 by evangelist St. Mark. Until the schism, after the Council of Chalcedon, it was the most important diocese after Rome.

Antioch – It was the fourth city of the Roman Empire, the capital of the East. It was probably also the first Christian community outside of Israel. Here the name Catholic Church was born and here the followers of Christ were first called Christians. The ecclesiastical authority of this diocese extended to Cilicia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine and Cyprus, Palestine and Arabia. It is thought that it was in Antioch that the Gospel of St. Matthew was written.

Constantinople – It is the fourth patriarchate in order of importance in the ancient world; the patriarch of Constantinople was elected by the patriarch of Antioch. Constantinople's power grew after Constantine designated this city as the capital of the empire of the East. Thus, while the other patriarchates of the East languished under the ravages of Muslims, Constantinople grew as long as the Byzantium Empire lasted.

Jerusalem – It came out directly from the Upper Room where the first Eucharist was celebrated, Jerusalem is certainly the first Christian community. It had as its leader James the Lesser, cousin of the Lord. From there the apostles set out to bring the good news to other parts. And they returned there to celebrate the first Council of the Church when the apostles were still alive. Then came the revolt of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the legions of Titus. Jerusalem as a patriarchate was born only after the Council of Chalcedon, in the year 451. Jerusalem was the first Christian community, but not the first patriarchate.

Slow and progressive separation
The separation of the Church into East and West in the year 1054 was the sanctioning of a separation that already existed and was growing with the passage of the centuries. Let us look at some of the factors -- cultural, political and theological -- that were the remote causes of the separation of the Eastern Church from the Western Church.

Cultural factors – Language is the soul of a culture; in the more cultured East, Greek was spoken; the entire New Testament was originally written in Greek. In the more ignorant West, Latin, the mother tongue of the Romans, was spoken.

Political factors – The transfer of the capital of the empire from the city of Rome to Constantinople in the 4th century.

Theological factors – The West changed the creed of Nicaea, saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, not only from the Father as the Nicene Creed originally said. Rome accuses the Orthodox Christians of being monophysists, both arians and docetists.

The Orthodox Patriarchates
The Orthodox church is divided into patriarchates among which there is equality. The patriarchate of Constantinople, which is currently occupied by Bartholomew, is considered "primus inter pares", the first among equals. For historical reasons, Bartholomew has a certain preeminence over all other Orthodox churches, but he has no jurisdiction over them. Moreover, his patriarchate, based in Istanbul and with about 10,000 faithful, does not have the weight of Moscow, which, with Kirill at the helm, has about 120 of the 300 million Orthodox faithful.

After these, which are the most important, there are the historical ones of Antioch and Alexandria and so many others, as we said earlier there are 14 Orthodox churches and each of them has a patriarch at its head. The term patriarch is used in Eastern churches, but not all patriarchs are Orthodox. There are some Latin patriarchs in the East and even in the West, like that of Lisbon and Venice.

The latest efforts at ecumenism
As he stepped out onto the balcony of St. Peter's Square on March 13, 2013, the newly elected Pope Francis introduced himself simply as the "Bishop of Rome". This pleased the Orthodox leaders who see the Church as a collection of autonomous dioceses, not centralized in Rome. Therefore, for the first time in history, the Patriarch of Constantinople attended Francis’ investiture as pope.

The fact did not go unnoticed in Moscow, so in November 2014, the Pope extended his hand to Kirill: "I will go where you wish, if you call me I will come." On February 12, 2016, the Pope and Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church met for the first time in nearly a thousand years.

In a globalized world and in strong intercommunication, cultural and linguistic differences are no longer important; the theological ones may still be somewhat, but with the Orthodox churches, there is much more what unites us than what divides us; the different rites and ways of celebrating the Eucharist are also not a problem because there are Byzantine rite Catholics.

The big problem is the primacy of Peter which, in some way, the Orthodox churches accept and cannot deny as willed by Jesus. In the practical application of this primacy, which was not specified by Jesus, is where the problem lies.

The problem of authority already exists within the Orthodox churches, because they do not have one person who speaks for Orthodoxy. The division between the different Orthodox churches is perhaps the greatest problem in the (re)union with Rome. It took them 55 years to convene a synod (which in the Catholic Church is called council) that was finally celebrated on the island of Crete on June 2016. This should have been the largest gathering of Orthodox leaders since 787 AD and yet four Orthodox denominations, among them the Patriarchate of Moscow which has the largest number of faithful, did not participate.

CATHOLIC CHURCH
After the Church of Christ was split in two, the Catholic Church devoted herself to evangelizing the West and the Orthodox the East, the eastern part of Europe and Russia. The latter never ventured into the rest of Asia, Mongolia, China and South Asia, India. All these territories, as well as the entire continents of Africa, and North and South America, were later evangelized by the Western Catholic Church by sea. More evangelizing or more proselytizing, the Catholic Church has grown to the present 1.2 billion faithful, which somehow makes ecumenism with the Orthodox churches difficult.

We have been speaking about the Catholic Church in her confrontation with the Orthodox churches and we will continue to speak about her in her confrontation with the Protestant churches. So I will not linger too long in describing this Church which, even in the most radical orthodoxy, enjoys a certain honorary primacy, although not legislative or executive.

From the point of view of Catholics, the Orthodox faithful have abandoned the Mother Church; from the point of view of the Orthodox faithful, it was the Catholics who abandoned her. This idea may be valid in the case of the Protestant schism, but it is not the case of the schism with Orthodoxy. Since Pope Leo IX historically excommunicated the Orthodox patriarch Michael Cerularius and the latter excommunicated the Pope, what happened was a split into two of the Church that Christ founded, and not one coming out of the other.

The only relevant issue for this article is the one that divides not only the Catholic Church from the Orthodox churches, but also from the Protestant churches: the primacy of Peter, its historical significance, the present and future interpretation and application of Christianity as a universal religion.

Peter's primacy in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles
Pretending to deny the primacy of Peter over the other apostles is to set aside a large number of passages in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and even in the Pauline letters. The denials of theologians, both Orthodox and Protestant, concerning the primacy of Peter as presented to us in the Word of God, can only be ideological, that is, it cannot pretend to justify the Orthodox autocephaly and the Protestant acephaly.

In the Gospels, Jesus emphasizes Peter and gives him authority
•    He is one of the first to be called by Jesus: Mark 1:16; John 1:40-42
•    He is always first on the list of the 12: Matthew 10:2
•    He is part of Jesus' inner circle: Mark 5:37; 9:12; 13:3; 14:33
•    Jesus stays at Peter's house: Mark 1:29
•    Peter's mother-in-law is the only relative of an apostle he heals: Luke 4:38-40
•    Jesus goes into Peter's boat and from it he preaches to the crowd on the shore: Luke 5:1-11
•    Peter walks on water, although the lack of faith almost sank him: Matthew 14:28
•    He was the first to see Jesus as the Messiah: Matthew 16:16; Luke 9:20
•    On the rock of Peter the Church is built: Matthew 16:18
•    Peter was given the keys of the kingdom: Matthew 16:19
•    Peter was the spokesman for the group on many occasions: Matthew 16:22; 17:24; 18:21; John?
•    He denied Jesus because he was the only one who followed him at a distance: Mark 14:54
•    Jesus tells Peter to sustain the faith of his brothers: Luke 22:31-62
•    Jesus tells the women to give the news of his Resurrection to Peter: Mark 16:7
•    He is one of those who runs to the tomb: Luke 24:12
•    Jesus appears to Peter after the Resurrection: Luke 24:34
•    Protagonist of miraculous catch of fish: John 21:11
•    Jesus asks him if he loves Him and commands him to feed His sheep: John 21:15-19

In the Acts of the Apostles, Peter acts according to the authority given to him by Jesus
•    Peter speaks to the 11 urging them to elect a replacement for Judas: Acts 1:15
•    He preaches to the people like Jesus did on Pentecost and other occasions: Acts 2:1-36; 3:12-25; 4:8
•    He heals like Jesus did: 3:1-10
•    He is the spokesman of the apostles before the Sanhedrim: Acts 4:19
•    He rebukes Ananias, Sapphira, and Simon the magician: Acts 5:3-9; 8:20
•    He receives inspiration from the Holy Spirit to evangelize the Gentiles: Acts 10
•    He presides over the Council of Jerusalem where he states his inspiration without imposing it: Acts 15: 7

St. Paul, the greatest of the apostles, acknowledges Peter’s authority
•    Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet Cephas (Peter) and stays with him for 15 days: Galatians 1:18-19
•    Paul confronts Peter precisely because he recognizes his authority: Galatians 2:11-13
•    Paul says that Jesus first appeared to Peter then to the 11: 1 Corinthians 15:5
•    Paul says that Peter is the evangelizer of the circumcised and uncircumcised: Galatians 2: 7-8

How far can it be accepted by the Orthodox churches
Because Peter lived and was martyred in Rome where his remains rest, the Orthodox churches accept that Peter's successor has a primacy of honour over all the other churches, but without juridical or executive power. His charge is to be the visible head of the Church in order to maintain her unity.

This would be the value, for Catholics as well as for Orthodox and Protestant Christians alike, of the successor of Peter as the visible centre of unity, representative of Christ, and head of the mystical body of Christ which is the Church. In some way for the civil world, the Pope, more than another Protestant patriarch or bishop, is the one who truly represents the Christian religion, he is its ex libris.

How could it be lived?
If we want to be faithful to the tradition of the Church, we have to agree with the Orthodox faithful who argue that the Church's highest authority from the beginning is the Council. The first dogmas of the Church were born in the Councils and only a council, not a Pope, has the right to define a dogma as a timeless truth of faith. If this is so, I fear that the infallibility conferred today on Peter's successor should be transferred to the ecumenical councils.

The power of absolute monarch of the Church goes against the tradition of the Church and is not convenient for the Orthodox Christians, Protestants or Catholics. In the light of the division of powers in Western democracies into Legislative – Judicial – Executive, we believe that the legislative power should belong exclusively to the Ecumenical Councils. The Pope would keep the other two, within the framework of greater collegiality and autonomy of the dioceses.

PROTESTANT CHURCHES
A union of people, a group, a company, an institution will always be a unit of diversity. The psychological diversity of individuals or the cultural diversity of societies is undeniable. Although the Roman Empire was divided into two, the Church remained united for centuries, even though the more cultured East spoke Greek and the less cultured West spoke Latin, the Church had remained united.

Political and cultural factors are never decisive in divisions and schisms. Just as it is not possible to explain World War II without the person of Hitler, or the Bolshevik Revolution without the person of Lenin, one cannot explain the partition of the Church into East and West without the personalities of Leo IX who sought a power that did not belong to him, according to Church tradition, and the retaliation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius.

In the same way, the schism in the West, between the North which became Protestant and the South which remained Catholic, did not happen or would happen without Martin Luther. He was a Catholic monk who basically accepted all Catholic doctrines, even the Marian dogmas. Theological differences are not the reasons for the schism, these appeared later to justify the existence of the newly created churches; it was rather the narcissism of small differences which Freud explains very well psychoanalytically.

Solus Christus sola fide sola scriptura – This was not followed even by the author, Luther, himself. If we consider that tradition is the life and reflection of the Church over the years, since the death and Resurrection of the Lord, then tradition is not only the councils of the Church, the definition of the two natures of Christ and the Trinitarian nature of God, which Protestants accept. The very same Bible is the child of tradition, for it did not fall from heaven as the Muslims believe of the Quran, but it emerged and reflects the life of the communities where the texts were written.

The Old Testament is born from the life, history and tradition of the Hebrew people; the New Testament is born from the life of the first Christian communities. Without them, there would be no Gospels. Saint Paul and the other apostles wrote to specific communities and in their letters, they responded to the problems of those communities.

There is more what unites us, and what divides us is, in some way, circumstantial. Yet, the theological reasons that moved Luther to divide the Church have already been assimilated by the Church as justification by faith and not by works. Therefore, I will not make any panegyric of what divides us, because there is more what unites us. I just want to focus on Luther's personality and compare it to another reformer of the Church, Francis of Assisi.

Francis of Assisi and Luther
The reform of Francis of Assisi was aimed at holiness, Luther's reform was aimed at criticism.  Henri De Lubac

Francis and Luther were two reformers of the Church. Francis' reform, due to his humility and patience towards the Pope and the corrupt Church structures, was accepted; Luther's reform, due to his pride and impatience with the Pope and the corrupt Church structures, was initially rejected, but what was good in it was accepted later at the Council of Trent.

Both Pope Innocent III at the time of Francis, and Pope Leo X at the time of Luther lived sumptuously surrounded by luxury and corruption. Francis' humility guided him to be patient and wait. The Pope rejected Francis and with disdain, told him to go and lie down with the pigs. Being able to refute the Pope by appealing to the Gospel, and even drawing from the wealth of experience from his evangelical poverty in radical contrast to the extravagance of the papal court, Francis took the papal scorn literally and went to lie down with the pigs.

Francis did not deny the Pope's authority as Peter's successor. He patiently followed the way of Christ, allowing himself to be misunderstood and maligned, knowing that God would sooner or later vindicate him... something God always does. Called from the pigsty by the same Pope after his famous dream in which he saw how Francis was supporting the Church that was falling into ruins, Francis presented himself to the Pope dirty and smelling badly. The Pope understood that he was in the presence of a saint who had been obedient to the point of humiliation and therefore he approved Francis’ work.

Unlike Francis, Luther did not visit Rome for the confirmation of his cause, nor did he recognize the Pope's authority as Peter's successor, or respect the structures of the Church. In fact, his impatience led him not to trust in the divine providence to guide the Church and carry out the reforms he wanted, in God's time and not according to his agenda.

Unfortunately, Luther showed himself to be inflexible. He rejected dialogue and since the Pope did not agree with him, he rejected the papacy. In his pride, Luther did not tolerate any authority that did not support him immediately and without question. Consequently, when the papal bull arrived, Luther publicly burned it and began to insult the Pope as the Antichrist.

History shows that God does not use irascible men to lead his Church along the path of peace and righteousness. God chooses those who are little, meek, and humble –the Kingdom of Heaven is for such as these. Irony of fate, the Church founded by the Lamb of God, meek and humble of heart, was on the part of the papacy, torn apart by two lions: Leo IX in 1054, in the schism between East and West, and Leo X in 1517, between the Protestants of the North and the Catholics of the South.

Conclusion: Every Christian of goodwill desires that the Church which Christ founded continues united as in the apostolic times. Surely this is what Christ still wants for his Church today.  Because with the autocephaly or acephaly of the Orthodox churches, as well as the anarchy of the many small and divided Protestant churches, we do not give a good testimony to civil society, nor do we render a good service to the Gospel.

No kind of unity is possible without a visible head as the reference point of every Christian. This visible head was Peter during the apostolic times, it must be Peter's successor in our times. A visible head emptied of every kind of authority, however small, is as insignificant as the Queen of England who reigns but does not rule. In the texts quoted above, we see that Peter exercises a certain authority and even goes so far as to rebuke Ananias and Sapphire.

As there have been in the history of the Church people who sought discord and division, so let there be now people who, gathered in ecumenical commissions, can find the formula of Peter's primacy, where every Christian sees himself or herself, according to the tradition of the Church.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC