May 15, 2021

3 Presences of Christ: Church - Eucharist - Priesthood

No comments:

Human life is spatial-temporal, since it occupies a limited space for a limited time. In becoming man, God took on this limitation (Philippians 2:6-11). By incarnating in a human person, by setting up his tent in our camp, he agreed to live in a precise time and space. However, it would make no sense for the son of God, creator of everything and everyone, to limit his saving action only to the time and space he lived in.

The Church, the Eucharist and the priesthood are institutions created by Him to extend his saving action to all times and all places, until the end of time and the end of the world. These three institutions are, in themselves and by themselves, three presences of Christ among us. More specifically, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, the Eucharist is the Sacramental Body of Christ, and the priesthood is the Physical Body of Christ.

3 Thursdays: Holy Thursday – Ascension – Corpus Christi
There are three Thursdays in the year that shine more than the sun: Holy Thursday, Corpus Christi and Ascension Thursday. Popular Spanish saying

Holy Thursday
Jesus' public life began at the wedding of Cana, where he transforms the water of our tears into the wine of our joy (Psalm 104:14-15). And it ends at the Last Supper, where he gives himself as the bread of our sustenance (John 6:48-63). Between these two banquets, many of Jesus' teachings arise in the course of an invitation to a meal. (Luke 19:1-10; Matthew 26:6-13)

A meal, a wedding banquet is a recurring theme in Jesus' parables: the Kingdom of Heaven is like a banquet... Good food, good drink, good company, they produce the greatest happiness and joy that this world can offer us. Therefore, when he tells us about the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus finds no better comparison than sharing good food, good drink, and good company.

On this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food... (Isaiah 25:6-9). The theme of the banquet as the symbol of happiness that God can bring to man was already also very recurrent in the Old Testament. The Hebrew people celebrated their departure from Egypt, that is, from slavery, and their entry into the Promised Land of freedom with a meal where a lamb is eaten, whose blood painted on the doorpost saved the Jews by making the angel of death pass over that house.
 
Jesus ate this same meal with his female and male disciples. At that meal, however, he is the lamb, as John the Baptist had long ago announced. Jesus transfers his physical presence to the bread and gives it to us as his flesh. He transfers to the wine his life, his blood, his Spirit, and gives it to us as his strength, his joy, his Spirit. 

Ascension
After his resurrection, and for forty days as the Scripture says, Jesus did not immediately go back to His Father (John 20:17). It is said that the dead do not realize right away that they have died, and depending on the issues they had clung to on this earth, it seems that they wander around until these are resolved. They are the so-called suffering or condemned souls, because they died suddenly in an accident before their time and left behind some unfinished business.


No longer limited by the laws of space and time, Jesus in his glorious body is detained for some time on this earth, before ascending to the Father, and during this time, he appears to his friends and disciples to confirm them in the Mission to continue his work.

The feast of Ascension was traditionally celebrated on a Thursday. Jesus' farewell takes place on Holy Thursday, his departure is not his death. After his death, Jesus returns to his disciples in the reality of his glorious body, he lives, eats, and drinks with them again as some accounts of his apparitions tell us, but he is already in another dimension.

The departure of the Lord, his last farewell in the true sense of the word, takes place forty days after his resurrection from the dead. After he sent them all over the world to continue his work, to extend his Kingdom, he ascends into Heaven. After having found other ways to stay among us, he took to heaven our human nature divinized in his body, to prepare a place for us.

Corpus Christi
On the 60th day after the Lord's resurrection, the Church celebrates Jesus’ sacramental presence with the feast of Corpus Christi or Body of Christ, the third Thursday that shines brighter than the sun. "Do this in memory of me..." as he had said on Holy Thursday. He went up to heaven on Ascension Thursday and left us in the Eucharist the memorial of his life, passion, death and resurrection.

This is my body... This is my blood... they are the abracadabra, the password, the magic spell that causes a regular bread to become his flesh, a regular wine to turn into his blood. There is a change of substance, called transubstantiation, which is not accidental, that is, the bread continues with the same shape, color, texture and flavor, and the same with the wine, but the bread is no longer bread, and the wine no longer wine.

Over time and in different places on our planet, some of those who doubted this transubstantiation have truly seen this bread turned into flesh, and this wine into blood in the many Eucharistic Miracles that have taken place over time in different latitudes and longitudes of the earth.

As Jesus said at his Last Supper, he continues to be truly among us as the one who serves and who serves as food for us, as the Viaticum in this pilgrimage of our life to the heavenly homeland. If the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament contained manna, a symbol of God's power, then the consecrated bread really contains the Lord: his body given up and his blood poured out so that we may have life in his name and have it in abundance.

Pentecost
In the same upper room where the Church was conceived at the Lord's Last Supper, when the mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, united with the Holy Spirit, there the soul of that same Church was born. The Church, therefore, was born on the day of Pentecost when the already pre-existing body formed by her founder, Our Lord Jesus Christ on Holy Thursday, received the divine breath by which she began to live and went out of that womb where she had been conceived on Holy Thursday.  

To understand the importance of the Holy Spirit in the Church, let us look at the Peter that associates with Jesus before Pentecost: faltering, cowering and full of adolescent fear, and the same person, the same Peter, full of energy, courage and zeal on the day of Pentecost, even challenging the high priests.

The Church is the mystical body of Christ, who feeds on the sacramental body of Christ that is his flesh and blood, and has as her soul the Holy Spirit who inspires, encourages, governs, guides and gives her strength in tribulation.

THE CHURCH: THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST
The content of Jesus' preaching

Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness. Matthew 9:35

Jesus did not come into the world to preach himself, or about himself. In the synoptic Gospels, he speaks little about himself, and when he does, it is to say that he does the will of the Father. He refers to himself as the son of man and not as the son of God or as the Messiah. The content of Jesus' preaching is the Kingdom of God which he says he came to bring to earth. About the Kingdom of God, Jesus not only speaks about it, but he also concretizes it in words and deeds.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour. Luke 4:18-19

In the synagogue of his village, right at the beginning of his ministry, he reads a passage from the book of the prophet Isaiah stating after the reading that this part of scripture is fulfilled by and with his Mission. When John the Baptist is already in prison, his doubts about Jesus’ identity arise, and so he sends some of his disciples to inquire about it. Because for Jesus a person is known by his works, this is what he replied:

‘Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them.’  Matthew 11:4-5

To define what the Kingdom of God is, Jesus uses many parables and in some of them the image of a banquet is frequently used. This led St. Paul to say that the Kingdom of God is not food or drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Romans 14:17). But Jesus left the kingdom defined in the prayer he taught his disciples: "Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." In the same petition for the coming of the Kingdom, Jesus defines it as being an earth where the will of the Father is done as it is already done in Heaven; that is, when earth is like heaven, then earth is the Kingdom of God like heaven already is.

The content of the Church's preaching
Now I should remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you – unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 1 Corinthians 15:1-5

The gospel that the apostles of the Lord preach is quite different from what the Master preached. What is evident from the above-mentioned text of St. Paul to the Christians of Corinth, as well as from Peter's discourse on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41), and from what he says before the high priests and the people after he and John heal a man lame from birth (Acts 3:11-26), is that the Kingdom of God is not part of the content of their preaching, nor is it the purpose of it.

The person and personality, the sayings and deeds, and the life of Jesus of Nazareth as the expected Messiah to the nations, is now the content of the apostles' preaching. However, at the time of Jesus, as practical lessons and mission experience, He himself sent them out to cities and villages "to proclaim the Kingdom of God and heal the sick" (Luke 9:1-2), that is, to practice the kind of mission he himself practiced.

Now, however, the content of the apostles' preaching is exclusively the person of Jesus and the objective of preaching is no longer the Kingdom, but the implantation of the Church. It is no wonder that the "Implantatio ecclesia" has been for many centuries the objective of her Mission. In other words, the Church instead of preaching the Kingdom, as her founder did, spent many centuries and until recently, preaching herself; to make herself great, to draw members to her flock.

Did Jesus intend to found the Church?
The Church and Christianity were not per se founded by St. Paul, as some have badmouthed. It is true that Jesus only mentions the name "Ecclesia" twice and only in the Gospel of Matthew. Of these two times, it is doubtful that one of them came out of his mouth and it is believed that the other was really invented. From all four gospels, it is understood with all certainty and surety that Jesus planned to leave some structure behind after his death.

"Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophet" (Mark 8:28) – Jesus' contemporaries conceptualized his identity as that of a prophet. Even some, if not most of his disciples, saw in Jesus not the Messiah, but a prophet; proof of this is what the disciples of Emmaus say, "a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people" (Luke 24:19).


Even if Jesus fits in the context of the prophets of Israel, he is certainly a prophet different from all his predecessors, for none before him elected 12 disciples among his many followers. With the people of Israel made up of 12 tribes, it is certain that Jesus intended to create a structure. And when these twelve were reduced to 11 by the death of one of them, the concern of the apostles, especially Peter, to restore the number cannot be due to anything other than being faithful to the Master's intention.

If Jesus had taken care to call a disciple from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, we could conclude that his intention was to restore, to reform the people of Israel; but this was not the case. By maintaining the symbolism of the number 12, Jesus intended to create a structure comparable to that of the people of Israel. However, by not calling one person from each tribe of Israel to be his disciple, he intended to create a new structure and not to restore or reformulate Israel.

We conclude that Jesus intended to create a structure that would continue his work and he even made it very clear that this structure, in order to remain standing, should have a leader. The primacy of Peter, as we have already said in an article about him, is also evident in all four gospels in many ways.

Church or Kingdom of God?
Beyond opinions, theologies or ideologies, what counts are the facts. It is a fact that the Greek word "Ekklesia" meaning assembly appears 112 times in the New Testament, most often in Paul’s letters and those of the other apostles, as well as in the book of Acts. As we have said above, it does not appear in the Gospel of Mark, the first to be written, nor in the last, the Gospel of John; it also does not appear in Luke, and in Matthew which is precisely the gospel about the Kingdom, this same word Church appears twice:

(...) you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19

It is likely that Jesus did say this, although none of the other gospels mentions it, not even Mark’s, written in Rome, which is based on Peter's preaching. He more than anyone would be interested in affirming Peter's primacy over the other apostles.

However, Mark does not paint a very favorable picture of any of the apostles, not even of Peter. For Mark, the one who discovers and affirms the true identity of Jesus is the Roman centurion when Jesus breathed his last and not Peter in Caesarea Philippi, as Matthew tells us.

We could conclude that this phrase, in the case that it is not historical, is at least true. That is, even if this phrase had not been historically uttered by Jesus, "Ipsissima iesum verbum", by the context of all the gospels concerning the primacy of Peter, expressed so often and in so many varied ways, the phrase is true because it expresses a gospel truth.

If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector.  Matthew 18:17

This sentence was certainly not uttered by Jesus, as it deals with a norm of discipline practiced in the community from where the evangelist was writing. Jesus always commands forgiveness, never gives up on anybody and always believes in conversion; he would not, therefore, exclude anyone since he came for the righteous and the sinners alike.
 

Let us look at the number of times the words Kingdom and Church appear in the New Testament writings:
  

 

KINGDOM

CHURCH

NEW TESTAMENT

162

112

GOSPELS

127

2

ACTS & LETTERS

35

110

In sharp contrast to the word CHURCH which appears 112 times and almost only in Acts and in the letters, the word KINGDOM appears 162 times and of these, only 35 times in the book of Acts and the letters; the remaining 127 times appear in the gospels. This shows how important the Kingdom of God was for Jesus and how of little importance this same Kingdom was for the Church that he himself founded.

Way - Truth - Life (John 14:6)
A human being has an individual and personal dimension for which the value to cultivate is freedom, and a social dimension for which the value to cultivate is equality. Jesus came into the world with two projects: one for the human being as unique, indivisible, independent and free, and the other for the same human being as part of a community.

Jesus' project for the world, for society, for the human being as a social being, is the Kingdom of God; Jesus' project for the human being, while individual and personal being not reducible to the community but free, independent and autonomous, is Jesus himself. Jesus came into the world to propose himself in deeds and in his personal behavior as the way, the truth, and the life.

Jesus of Nazareth is the way back to the Father from where we came, Jesus of Nazareth is the full truth of God and man because he is true God and true man, and he is the archetype of human life, that is, the model, the paradigm, the narrative, the myth, the legend, because he and he alone incarnated humanity as God had idealized when he created Adam and Eve.

Whether Christian, atheist, agnostic, Muslim or Buddhist, anyone who wants to be authentic and genuinely human is measured in relation to Jesus because he is the gold standard of humanity. There is no equally valid alternative other than Jesus, for he did not say that he was one of the ways, one of the truths and one of the lives. On the contrary, he said that no one goes to the Father except through him (John 14:6), and that whoever does not gather with him scatters, since there are no one else with whom one can gather. (Matthew 12:30)

Church - Mission - Kingdom
After the Second Vatican Council, the Church stopped looking at her bellybutton and began to look at the world as Jesus had looked and to see in it the Kingdom that is already in our midst since Jesus came into the world, but not yet in its fullness. The Mission began with God sending his firstborn son into the world. The goal of this mission has always been to transform the world into the Kingdom of God; before this moment, the world was from the sin of our parents.

The Church, as the mystical body of Christ, can have no other purpose than to continue the work of Christ. Therefore, the objective of her existence is not to implant herself in every corner of this earth, but to bring the Good News of the Kingdom to every corner of the earth.

The main objective of the Church is not to produce Christians, not to increase the number of her members, but to join all men of good will, from other religions, atheists or agnostics and, with them, to help in the building of a better world, a more just and fraternal society, where justice, peace and harmony, and love among peoples’ reign. If this had been the goal of the Church from the very beginning, as it was of her founder, there would have been no fundamentalism like the Inquisition, or holy wars like that driven by the Crusades.

The Church does not exist for herself nor should she preach herself, since her Master and founder did not preach himself: The Church exists for the Mission, that is, to continue the work of her founder and the purpose of the Mission, which is the Kingdom. The Church is what we are, it is our identity, the Kingdom is our mission, it is what we do.

It is precisely the Gospel of St. Matthew, the Gospel of the Kingdom, that reminds us in chapter 25 that in the end we will not be judged by who we are, by our identity, by whether or not we were Christians, atheists or Muslims, but by what we did or did not do, whether or not we assisted the thirsty, the hungry, the naked, the pilgrims, the prisoners, the foreigners and the sick. Because assisting the latter few had been the purpose of Jesus' life and his coming into the world, this very thing must be our goal too.
 

Therefore, do not worry, saying, “What will we eat?” or “What will we drink?” or “What will we wear?” For it is the Gentiles who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Matthew 6:31-33

Our mission or evangelization is to live Christ and to extend the Kingdom. It should not be primarily to preach the figure of Christ, but to make the Kingdom a reality. This is what Francis of Assisi meant when he said, "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words”; most of the time it will not be necessary to use words as your life will speak for itself.

This is why Jesus himself told us to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth which are two silent symbols whose identities are not linked to what they say but to what they do: their action of exposing and destroying darkness, and giving color to the world, in the case of light, and of preserving, avoiding corruption, and giving flavor and meaning to life, in the case of salt.

EUCHARIST: SACRAMENTAL BODY OF CHRIST
Unus christianus nullus christianus

St. Augustine said that a lone Christian is a null Christian. Christianity was born in community and can only be lived in community. Without community there is no Christianity. As all animals have a habitat where they live and thrive, so a Christian can only live and thrive within the Christian community.

The Church, a group of people united in the same faith, exists as such and manifests herself as such in the Eucharist. A club, an association of people who never gets together, will cease to exist as such, will not subsist. "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them, " said Jesus; therefore, the meeting, the encounter is essential. Without the Eucharist there is no Church, just as without the Church there is no Eucharist, that is, there is nothing to celebrate. As many grains of wheat make one bread and as many grapes make one wine, so is the same with the Eucharist: it gathers everyone to community.

Our physical body is made up of trillions of cells very different from each other, such as skin, liver, muscles and blood cells, etc. Each of our cells is, in itself, a differentiated and independent living being; there are in fact single-celled living organisms. What keeps the trillions of cells together in one body is the genetic code that each of these cells has which is the same in all of them.

In fact, when one of our organs ceases to function and an organ belonging to another person is transplanted into us, our body naturally rejects it because that organ is made up of cells with a different genetic code. What keeps all Christians united in the Eucharist is faith in Jesus Christ, who is the genetic code or the DNA of Christ's mystical body.

The trillions of cells in our body have the same DNA because they are all daughters of the same parent cell or zygote, which formed when our father's half-cell, the sperm, joined our mother's half-cell, the egg. The cell that resulted from this union, was the beginning of our life, was the parent cell of the trillions of cells that currently form our body. So also, the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church today, originated from Christ himself, from Christ’s own physical body.

Just as our zygote implanted itself in our mother’s womb and grew, thrived, self-differentiated and increased in number until it formed our present physical body of trillions of cells, so Christ, the "image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation" (Colossians 1:15), was the first cell that, by incarnation, was implanted into the world, grew and thrived giving rise to the Church.

Faith lived, faith celebrated and faith reflected
Faith, like so many other realities that we have been studying for three years, is three-dimensional: faith lived, faith celebrated and faith studied.

Faith lived manifests itself in works – A practicing Catholic is not someone who participates in the sacraments, but someone who lives his faith; the one who embodies it, who makes his faith his everyday behavior. Saint James recalls that faith without works is dead. It is not the works that save us, for there are not enough works that would make us deserving of salvation, if this were the case, then Christ's coming into the world would not have been needed. "Without me you can do nothing,” said the Lord, so it is faith that saves us. However, a faith that does not manifest itself in works is nonexistent.

Faith celebrates itself in the sacraments – We grow in faith when we practice it in life and when we celebrate it in the sacraments with other members of the community who shares our faith. It was the Lord himself who told us to celebrate in his memory. The festal gathering takes us out of the ordinary of our lives. The human being needs to celebrate, to manifest individually and socially what he believes in.

The Eucharist is the heart of the Church. In the human body, the function of the heart is to be the engine that moves blood from the heart to the cells and from the cells to the heart. In the same way, the life of a Christian is a shuttle between the Eucharist and the world. When Mass was celebrated in Latin, the priest would say at the end "Ite, missa est" which meant "you can go, the Mass is over", but it also meant "the Mass is over, the mission begins".

On their return the apostles told Jesus all they had done. He took them with him and withdrew privately to a city called Bethsaida. Luke 9:10.

Faith is a reasonable gift – (…) always be ready to make your defence to anyone who demands from you an account of the hope that is in you. 1 Peter 3:15. Our faith should also be the object of study. The First Vatican Council defined it as a reasonable gift. Faith is not rational, because it is not a scientific knowledge, but it is also not irrational, like superstition. Faith must be reasonable, humanly credible, and plausible, it must make sense, because if God gave us the ability to reason, it is for us to make good use of it.

Regarding the Eucharist, already in Jesus’ time, the Jews wondered how he could give them his flesh to eat and his blood to drink. Is he inviting them to become cannibals and vampires? Even today, if any atheist, agnostic or member of other religions ask this question, many Christians do not know what to say. We will give you our answer later.

Lamb of God... history of the Eucharist
According to the author of the letter to the Hebrews, the purpose of religion is to access friendship with God. This goal was achieved through obedience to the Law of Moses. However, even if the spirit is strong, the flesh is weak when it is prevaricated, that is, whenever the law was disobeyed the only way to return to friendship with God was to offer a sacrifice. This is not only true in the Jewish religion, but also in all the religions of the world.

The impersonal sacrifices of the Old Testament
The only way to appease the divine wrath when the Law was violated was to reestablish good relations with God. Since no one is perfect, without the sacrificial system the Law would be completely useless. The sacrifice had different outlines, but it was always the sacrifice of something outside of oneself. The book of Leviticus (16:10) tells us of the scapegoat that was a "male goat" upon which the sins of the people were projected, and then sent into the wilderness to die.

This idea of atoning for the sins of others, of the righteous paying for the sinner, is ingrained in our nature. In the English monarchy there was the figure of the "weeping boy" who was a poor bastard that was punished instead of the prince who, because he was a prince, could not be punished for his wrongdoings.

This same idea I found in a Boy Scout camp; whenever a scout committed some error, he was not disciplined alone: the punishment was extended to all the members of his group. From a psychological point of view, this punishment was more effective than if it were individual since it also conveyed the idea that when you sin, even if individually, you always sin against the community.

The sacrifice of oneself
Jesus is the ultimate "scapegoat" of humanity. As John the Baptist said, he is the Lamb of God who once and for all takes away the sin of the world. Christ's sacrifice in the context of the Jewish Passover, the moment Jesus chose to die, is the last of the Old Testament, because he died in our place, he was our "scapegoat". This same sacrifice is the first of the new covenant because it is not about offering something outside of oneself, but about offering one’s very self.

To be valid, once and for all, Jesus' sacrifice had to be perfect. A perfect thing is a singular thing, it cannot be repeated or improved; so it was the sacrifice of Jesus, since he could not die twice. Jesus' sacrifice was perfect because he himself was the temple, the altar, the lamb, and the priest.

The temple is the place where God dwells: Jesus is God himself, so he is the perfect temple; the altar is the place inside the temple where the lamb is offered: Jesus is the altar because the sacrifice happens in him and not external to him; the lamb should be spotless: Jesus is like us in all things, except sin, that is why he is the most perfect lamb.

 Furthermore, the priest of the old covenant, before offering a sacrifice for the people, had to offer a sacrifice for himself to purify himself; Jesus, as the High Priest, is pure, he does not need to offer any sacrifice for himself; on the other hand, the priest is a pontiff, a bridge between God and men; Jesus, being true God and true man at the same time, is the perfect bridge between God and men. Thus it is concluded that it is not possible to perfect the sacrifice of Jesus, so it applies to humanity of all times.

At the Last Supper, like every Jew, Jesus celebrates with his disciples the Passover Seder. This time, however, when he pronounces over the bread and wine "this is my body…this is my blood…", Jesus declares himself the Paschal Lamb who forever replaces the lambs of the Old Covenant. Christ died at a time when thousands of lambs were immolated in the Temple. (Cf. John 19:14). Saint Paul says, "For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed." (1 Cor. 5:7)

It was instituted in bread
Man has already been carnivore and has already been vegetarian and fruit gatherer. But in that capacity, he never thrived or constituted any civilization, since like today's wild animals, most of the 24 hours of his day were spent searching for food – life was a constant struggle for survival.

With the discovery of agriculture, especially cereals, man conquered his independence from nature. It is possible to store cereals for many years, as the story of Joseph of Egypt shows and, in fact, wheat grains were found in the tomb of Tutankhamun that is more than 5,000 years old, and which still germinated. By having food stored, man had time to devote to other things.

Where there was no cereal, there was no culture or civilization. This happened to the Indians of North America and the Africans of the sub-Saharan Africa. It is interesting that the word culture is ambivalent: it applies to both the cultivation of science and art and the cultivation of land. As we have already demonstrated in a previous text, European culture is essentially based on the cultivation of wheat. The Asian culture has as its stable food rice, and that of the American Continent, where there was culture, depended on the cultivation of corn.

On the other hand, we can say that whole grains are the basis of human food because they provide energy slowly and for a long time when ingested integrally. The basis of any healthy diet is always cereal.

If the grain of wheat doesn't die...
Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. Those who love their life will lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal lifeJohn 12:24-25

The Eucharist reveals to us the truth about life that emanates from these words of Jesus. Jesus interpreted his death as being necessary for life and for teaching us that there is no life without death or death without life. That death is a passage between a form of life based on space and time continuum to eternal life, beyond space and time.

That's exactly what we see in nature. "In nature nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed" said Lavoisier. Life and death follow each other, and death is only a passage and life a constant. The grass grows and dies in the gazelle’s teeth, the grass transforms into the gazelle that, in turn, dies in the teeth of the lion, turning into lion. The lion dies and the hyena and vultures eat it; they die and are eaten by worms; these die too and fertilize the earth, rich in humus where the grass grows again. In the food chain, both on land and at sea, every form of life is a form of food.

This is the law of nature and the human being who lives in it is certainly not governed by any other laws. Now we understand the issue of cannibalism or vampirism raised above. We do not live to eat the flesh of others and drink their blood, but rather to be eaten by them and drunk by them. Anyone who wants to gain his life will lose it. To live physically, we must kill, whether wheat grains, vegetables or animals like chicken, pig, cow, but to live humanly with meaning, to live spiritually, we must die, we must give ourselves to others as food.

No one has greater love than he who gives his life for his friends, Jesus said. A mother lives for her child and at the beginning of his life, the baby's food comes from her body. Therefore, the breast from which milk springs forth gave rise to the word mama/mommy. And when the child grows up, the first solid food that he eats is porridge, traditionally made of cereals grown by the father, whom the baby learns to call papa/daddy.

Beethoven gave his life to music, he was food for music, so much so that at the end of life he could no longer hear. To devote ourselves to a human task, to a human value, with heart and soul it is to give our life to be food for this cause, just as Gandhi was for the independence of India, just as Nelson Mandela was against racism.

The grain of wheat can die in the mill by turning into bread, or on the ground by turning into other grains of wheat. But let us imagine that the grain of wheat would not accept dying either in the mill or on the ground, and that it could flee from the miller and the sower: in the end, it would die anyway, since every living organism dies. But how would it die? It would die rotten.

But before dying, let us imagine that the grain of wheat wondered "what good did my life serve, what meaning did my life have, when I withdrew from the laws of nature and tried to save my life from the sower and miller?" Surely its life made no sense since it would only have made sense if it had agreed to die.

The Lord Jesus was right in saying that whoever clings to his life, who retains it for himself, loses it and whoever gives it away gains it. To live is always to give one’s life for a cause, and to be the food for a human cause to which we give ourselves totally, putting all the meat in the roaster, as a Spanish expression says, without reserving anything for ourselves.

To abandon the Eucharist is to abandon the Church
The first disciples to abandon the Master did so because they did not understand or accept that Jesus could give himself to them as food (John 6:51-69). From that time until our days, those who leave the Church begin by failing to participate in the Eucharist, that is, they stop celebrating the memory of Jesus as He himself had asked.

The episode of the disciples on the road to Emmaus is another example where it is proven that the abandonment of the Eucharist is the abandonment of the Church and vice versa. Jesus catches them leaving Jerusalem, abandoning the community; along the way, what Jesus does in explaining the scriptures to them is like the Liturgy of the Word, the first part of Mass. Later, when sitting at the table he shares the bread with them, the offertory and communion take place. The return to participate in the Eucharist led the disciples of Emmaus back to Jerusalem, to life with the Christian community that lived there.

PRIESTHOOD: PHYSICAL BODY OF CHRIST
The Mission, according to Luke, is not the exclusive task of the 12 Apostles, but of every disciple, of every Christian. This is clear from the very beginning of the Church: the name or title of apostle was given to everyone who acted as such, that is, to those who preached the gospel and not only to those who were directly chosen by Christ, like the twelve. Paul and Barnabas are a clear example of this: they were not in the company of Jesus, but they rightly claim the title of apostle.

It is more than clear today that at the Last Supper, where the Eucharist was instituted, the diners were not only the 12 apostles, as Leonardo da Vinci depicts in his famous painting, or even as the gospels describe that do not include nor exclude the female disciples of Jesus, such as Mary Magdalene and all the others who had followed him from Galilee and who contributed their resources to the support of the group.

We can also conclude that Jesus would have admitted some women, certainly his mother and Mary Magdalene, as he indicated in the episode of Martha and Mary of Bethany in which he accepted that Mary should put aside domestic service proper to women. It is precisely in this most important meal that he would have shared it with those closest to him. In fact, a Jewish Passover Seder begins with the lighting of candles and a sung ritual prayer; this rite was always done by the mother of the house, in this case quite possibly by the mother of Jesus. We can then conclude that yes, there were women at the Last Supper who were in charge of domestic service, but there would also be women sitting at the table with the disciples, at least Mary, mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

Today's priests are the successors of Jesus' apostles, from the inner most circle of those who accompanied him from Galilee to Jerusalem. The apostolic succession that confers today and always the priestly legitimacy on an individual refers to the rite of the imposition of hands of the 12 apostles on their successors from generation to generation, to this day. The Protestant clergy is not legitimate, because Luther broke away with this succession by breaking ties with the Church.

Pontifex Maximus
Whether Supreme Pontiff, or chief bridge engineer, this was the title of the Roman emperor and is today the title of the Pope as the bishop of Rome. One of the contributions of the Romans to the ancient world was the creation of roads and bridges. Many of Europe's current roads are built on top of Roman roads. The concept of bridge is original to the ancient world; the Greeks were great philosophers and artists, but weak builders and architects. The most they did was the Parthenon of Athens, a building that needed many columns to stand on. With an arch, the Romans were able to unite two different realities over the void that separated them, for example, the banks of a river.

Every high priest chosen from among mortals is put in charge of things pertaining to God on their behalf, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.  Hebrews 5:1

Christ being true God and true man, has one foot in God and the other in humanity: he is the true bridge between God and men. Jesus Christ is the only priest, mediator between God and men. The Catholic priest represents Christ today, he is an alter Christus, he is Christ here and now because he acts "In persona Christi", in the name of Christ, as we see what Peter and John did when they told the man lame from birth who asked for alms at the door of the temple: "in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazareth, stand up and walk!" (Acts 3:6)

Consecrated for a service
"I am among you as one who serves." Luke 22:27

The priest already lives on earth the life that we all hope to live in Heaven, which is why he does not marry, does not accumulate wealth. As a bridge between God and men, he lives with one foot on earth and the other in Heaven; he does not live completely in Heaven, because he has a physical body to satisfy, nor does he live completely on earth, because he does not live the life of ordinary mortals: getting married, having children, having a job or a profession to support the family...

Faithful to both sides, firmly resting on each, he does not belong to any of them because he is not entirely in one or the other: he has one foot in each. Since he does not live like the rest of the mortals, he does not live for himself, he has no personal life, he is a public person; he is, like Christ, 24 hours a day entirely at the service of others. He could not be a minister of Christ if he were not a witness and dispenser of another life other than the earthly life, but he could not serve men either if he remained completely detached from their lives and conditions.

The bridge supports the weight of those who pass over it, it is a place of passage, people do not live on a bridge, they pass over it. Those who seek affections ought to seek another profession, another kind of life where these can be found. The bridge is not valued for its beauty, but for its usefulness. The bridge is forgotten, because the person who crosses it remembers the shore he left and embraces the shore he comes to, but does not even remember the bridge that joined these two shores, he takes it for granted. In the same way, the priest who serves as an intermediary between God and men is a channel, not a shell.

The priest is always called to be a bridge and mediator between men, peoples, among ideas, between generations. Mediator, peacemaker, he reconciles the faithful with himself, with others and with God. That is why he is an instrument of divine mercy.

Abandonment of the sacrament of reconciliation
In relation to the mystical body of Christ, people abandon the Church by abandoning the Eucharist; in relation to the physical body of Christ, many abandon the Church by abandoning the sacrament of reconciliation, they cease to be in communion with Christ by rejecting in the priest the power or faculty to forgive sins in the name of Christ.

Lately, many other abandonments of the Church are due to the scandal that certain priests committed by not living their ministry as they should and as they promised before the Church on the day of their ordination or the imposition of hands. Those who left the Church felt defrauded by the behavior of the priest who, according to them, should be holy.

The Church is holy because she was founded by Christ, but she is human because she is made up of humans with their defects. A certain idolizing of the priest, promoted by himself or due to the veneration of the faithful, is also responsible for this scandal, when it is perceived that the priest is not on a personal level who he appears to be in public.

The faithful must remember that the priest is only an intermediary, or that he is only a bridge. The faithful must remember that his faith is in Christ, and that the priest, however well he represents Him, never represents Him perfectly; only Christ is Holy, Holy, Holy. A representative is an actor; there are good actors and bad actors. The holy priest, like Saint Cure of Ars and so many others, represents Christ well; others represent him badly, on account of certain behaviors

As someone used to say, a tree that falls makes more noise in the forest than a thousand trees that grow. The faithful must also remember that for every priest that causes a scandal, there are 20 or more who edify. The 20 who build should be more than enough reason for the faithful to remain in the Church with their eyes fixed on Christ. The first priests, the 12 that Jesus chose, also had their flaws, Peter denied him, Judas betrayed him, the rest abandoned him, and yet Jesus did not reject them and did not reject his project – the Church.   
 
Conclusion - The Church is Christ in his mystical body, the Eucharist is Christ in his sacramental body, the priest is Christ in his physical body. Both the Church, the Eucharist and the Priest, represent Him in the here and now, and act in His name.  

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC



May 1, 2021

3 Marys: Mother of Jesus - Magdalene - Wife of Cleopas

No comments:

"The Three Marys" is a popular expression that can be applied to any group of three women who do things together; it is the title of films and soap operas; it is also the name of three extremely bright stars in the constellation of Orion.

The expression "the three Marys" refers to the three women who were at the foot of Jesus' cross at the time of his crucifixion. Concerning the identity of these women, Mark (15:40-41) says that they are Mary Magdalene, Mary, mother of James the younger, brother of the Lord, and Salome. At the beginning of the next chapter, Mark says that these three women are the same ones who visit the tomb on the first day of the week.

In Matthew's Gospel (27:55–56), they are Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and the mother of the sons of Zebedee. Luke does not specifically mention them, but they should not be far away since they are present at his tomb, even if not at the foot of the Lord's cross (23:55-56). Their identity, however, is revealed to us when they go to the tomb as Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James the younger, the brother of the Lord. John places at the foot of the Lord’s cross, Mary, his mother, her sister also called Mary who is the wife of Cleopas, and Mary Magdalene.

Because she is mentioned in all four Gospels, we take Mary Magdalene as a safe bet for being at the foot of the Lord's cross, as John says, or from a distance, as the synoptic Gospels say. After her, the next most likely candidate is the mother of James the younger, the brother of the Lord, mentioned by Mark, Matthew and Luke. If Cleopas, as tradition says, is the brother of Joseph, Mary's husband, he and his wife are Mary's in laws. The second Mary would therefore be the mother of James the younger, the brother of the Lord, whom John mentions as being the wife of Cleopas.

As Mary, the mother of the Lord, is mentioned only in John’s Gospel, it is most likely that she was not there and that in her place was the mother of the sons of Zebedee, as mentioned in Matthew, and who would be the Salome in Mark’s Gospel.

In this case, at the foot of the Lord's cross or at a distance are Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger, also known as the wife of Cleopas, and Mary the mother of the sons of Zebedee (James the greater and John), also known as Salome.  

If instead of speaking about the three female witnesses of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, we refer to the three most important women in Jesus' life, therefore as the gospels tell us, Mary, his mother, comes first, followed by Mary Magdalene and then Mary of Bethany. As we make a synthesis of the most significant women to Jesus during his life and at the end of it, we are left with Mary, his mother, Mary Magdalene, the leader of Jesus' female disciples and an unknown Mary where there is no consensus as to who she is, so we designate her as Mary X.

In this text we will speak of Mary, mother of the Lord and Mary Magdalene. Under the heading of Mary X, we will speak of the other female disciples of Jesus, named or unnamed, as well as of all the women who have crossed paths with the Lord and who were part of his ministry.

MARY - MOTHER OF GOD
Our Protestant brothers and sisters are somewhat reluctant to call Mary the Mother of God. However, it is logical that this is the case, which can be demonstrated by a simple syllogism. Syllogism is a logical-deductive form of reasoning that consists of two true statements or premises with a logical conclusion deduced from the two premises. The first premise: Mary is the mother of Jesus; the second premise: Jesus is God; conclusion: therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. If the two premises are true even for Protestants, not accepting that Mary is the Mother of God is to defy logic.

Historically and chronologically, our mothers precede us, it is not in this sense that Mary is the Mother of God, for she does not pre-exist God the Father nor the second person of the Most Holy Trinity. Mary is the mother of the Incarnate Word, for this reason the Protestants are also somewhat right when they say that Mary is only the mother of the human part of Jesus. However, Jesus is truly man and truly God; just as when the half-cell from the man joins the half-cell from the woman, forming an indivisible cell, so also the union of the divine and human nature in the person of Jesus is indivisible.

Some parables of Jesus show the incarnation of God as a marriage between the son of God and humanity. When God sent his son into the world, he married mankind; marriage is the union of two destinies into one single destiny. Marriage is indissoluble, so the second person of the Most Holy Trinity has a human body, even today is seated at the right hand of the Father. This is exactly what Jesus wanted to tell us when he said that he was going to prepare a place for us; Jesus took our humanity to Heaven.

Mary became the mother of the second person of the Most Holy Trinity at the moment when the second person of the Most Holy Trinity incarnated in time in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Mary is today the Mother of God because she is the mother of the second person of the Most Holy Trinity.

Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not divine, she is not God, she remains human because it is her humanity that binds her to God, not her divinity which for all purpose is nonexistent. The existence of Mary, besides giving a human face to the son of God, takes the feminine gender to an excessively masculinized and patriarchal Heaven, representing today the feminine face of God.

It is in this sense that Pope John Paul I once said that God is not only a Father, but also a Mother. If Jesus represents God in his masculinity and fatherhood, then Mary, his mother, comes to represent God in her motherhood and femininity. Thanks to Mary, we have a more balanced vision of God; through her and with her, human beings are reconciled with their roots, that is, with the time when they used to conceptualize God as Mother. In fact, in the early days of human civilization, in the mind of primitive man, God before being the Father was the Mother.

Conceptualization of God as Mother
We are the objects of undying love on the part of God. We know: he always has his eyes set on us, even when it seems to be dark. He is our father; even more he is our mother. Pope John Paul I - Angelus 10 September 1978

According to tales told by ancient men to attain their political objectives "God is the Father." According to what we really know "God is the Mother."  Pope John Paul I - in an audience with Philippine bishops on 28 September 1978,

There is an absolute consensus among anthropologists that the first deity worshipped by human beings was a goddess, not a god. Reverence was given to divinity as the mother of all living things, and she was identified with the earth or soil. The earth, to this day, is feminine in most languages and mythologies of the world. The fact that today we still refer to nature as "Mother Nature" is an inescapable proof that in the mind of primitive man the Higher Being that humanity believed in was a woman, not a man, a Goddess, not a God.

Primitive men observe how plant life arises or sprouts from the earth, the same is observed in female animals, and without exception in female humans as well. The fertility of the female human was the origin of both men and women. The woman was the giver of individual life and of immortality for her tribe. In addition to the reproductive gift of life itself, the man was also drawn to the woman for sexual pleasure and gratification.

Since the connection between the sexual act and childbirth had not yet been established, the women of the tribe held true power. The intelligence of primitive men was still very low, they still lived in symbiosis with nature, as if they were connected to her by an umbilical cord, not detached from her as we now understand today; self-awareness was still much reduced.

With the intelligence we have today, it is hard to understand how humans did not realize that babies were the result of sexual acts, but that’s how it was, because the cause, the sexual act, and the effect were separated by nine months; it was too long for the primitives to be able to establish a cause-and-effect connection.

The analogy of the best poison to kill mice can help us understand this point. If we put a certain yellow poison in the corner of a house, a mouse passes by, eats the poison and dies right after; the other mice are able to establish a cause and effect connection and no other mice will touch the poison.

However, instead of the yellow powder we put another appetizing powder that does not cause anything immediately, instead it thins the blood in such a way that if the mouse that eats it has a fight or an accident and bleeds, it will bleed to death. Since the effect is far in time and distance from the cause, other mice are unable to establish the connection. Let us remember that there was a time when our intelligence was not much superior to that of today's mouse.

Conceptualization of God as Father
Once the connection between the coitus and childbirth was established, man's status began to rise. Men began then to be perceived as crucial to the reproductive process that guaranteed life. The original goddess of Mother Earth was then complemented by a consort, first thought of as the Father God of Sky. The rain that he sends from the sky is the divine semen that will impregnate Mother Earth so that life can spring from her. In the case of coitus, the man begins to realize that the woman is merely the fertile ground where he plants the semen, the seed of the human being.

With these thoughts, the self-awareness of the human being and the opposition of the Ego to nature, from thought to instinct, were born. Self-consciousness is believed to have surfaced some 7,000 years before Christ. The human being no longer sees himself connected to nature by a sort of umbilical cord, but opposed to her from the moment he established a difference between the person and the soil that sustains the person's life.  

The story of Abraham is the story of a man who through obedience to a call that he hears and feels in his innermost being, emancipates himself, and breaks his ties with the land, Ur of Chaldees, where he was born, and undertakes a journey in search of his identity and the God who sustains it. God of Heaven, God the Father becomes now more important than Mother Nature, since she without the rain coming down from above can produce nothing. This God the Father promises Abraham numerous descendants and compels him to break with the cult of human sacrifices offered to the goddesses of fertility.

Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it… Genesis 1:28 
Survival is now less a function of a woman's reproductive capability and more a function of a man's ability to make nature attend to his needs. This is the great difference between the Neanderthals and Homo sapiens: Neanderthals adapted themselves to nature, while Homo sapiens adapts nature to themselves.

From this point on, God is masculine, Father and absolute dominator. Man now not only subdues the earth and nature, but also the woman who is the image and likeness of Nature. The key to the fertility of the earth was the rain that came down from above, and this was sent by God the Father. The woman’s fertility also comes from outside of her, since it is the man who deposits in her the seed from which the human being arises; it depends, therefore, on the will of the man and not on the will of the woman.

From this time until the discovery of the human egg in 1928, the woman was passive in the act of giving birth, she was understood only as the ground where the human being would grow, it was not known then that half of the genetic material came from her as we know today. Saint Thomas Aquinas called the human semen the homunculus, that is, the little man. The act of blessing with water gushing from the hyssop, so similar to the act of man’s ejaculation, reminds us how tied up the act of blessing is still in man's dominion.

Mary and the restoration of divine motherhood and femininity
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. Galatians 4:4-5

Mary can very well be seen as a goddess because through her and in her the world was recreated or saved. From Mary and through Mary, Jesus was born, with no male competition, just as primitive man understood how human beings came into the world. From the human point of view, she and only she is the protagonist, the man has no art or part in the coming of Christ into the world, in the incarnation of God into a human being.

For this reason, we see in Mary the restoration of the truth, the long-awaited liberation of the woman from the guardianship and slavery to which the man has submitted her throughout history. In Mary, the woman finds herself avenged. After all, God needed a woman first to come into the world and not a man. Saint Paul says it clearly, Christ is born of woman by the work and grace of the Holy Spirit, with no contest from a man.

Contrary to a patriarchal world where the woman is always a property of a man, belonging first to the father until he gives her up or even sells her to her future husband, whom she serves for the rest of her life, Mary is a woman free from the guardianship of a man and does not live in function of any man, but her son. This is particularly evident in the sacred book of the Muslims, where Mary is the only woman whose name appears there and where a long chapter is dedicated to her. All other women mentioned in this sacred book never appear under their first name. For example, one speaks of Sarah, but not as Sarah, but as the wife of Abraham; of Rebeca, not as Rebeca, but as the wife of Isaac.

In Mary there is a compensation and rebalancing between the feminine and the masculine; in Mary there is a restoration of the feminine power, the values of virginity and motherhood. The male power of sex is dethroned in Mary. In her Assumption, Mary takes her femininity to an excessively masculine Heaven, inhabited by God the Father and myriads of male angels, and from there she reminds us as Pope John Paul I did in his time, that God is both Father and Mother and is even more Mother than Father.

MARY OF CLEOPAS, MARY OF BETHANY, ALL WOMEN...
The other Mary, we do not know for sure who she is. That is why we want her to represent all the women who crossed paths with Jesus. Jesus' humanity, his character, his personality, or his way of being, is revealed to us more by the way he connected with the people who crossed his path than by his sermons and miracles. Let us see then how Jesus related to the women of his time.

A story of vexation, humiliation, abuse and submission
(…) for from garments comes the moth, and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness. Better is the wickedness of a man than the goodness of a womanSirach 42:13-14

Since men established the link between the sexual act and birth, a history of domination of women began in all cultures and civilizations that have been existing on the face of the earth to date. In all cosmogonies, the woman is guilty for the coming of evil into the world; the Jewish cosmogony of Genesis and the Pandora's Box of Greek mythology are two examples taken from the Western culture.

We do not need to go back to the past to find examples of abuse against women who represent a little more than half of the world's population. When we can encounter abuse even today, under our very nose, in the 21st century, it is not difficult to imagine what was happening throughout history before our time.

Nyotaimori – It is the name of Japanese restaurants where food is served on top of the naked body of a woman, usually a teenager. Very popular in Japan and in many countries where Japanese emigrated to, it is something unthinkable in Western culture.

If we think that the abuse of women divides the rich world from the poor, we are very much mistaken. Violence against women and their submission, as we have said, is common to all cultures, to some more than others. Western culture is where the abuse is the least; proof of this is that it is unthinkable to have such restaurants in Japan’s neighboring country, the Philippines, culturally not very distinct, the only marked difference being their religion. The Philippines has been a Christian country for over 500 years and this is what is making the difference.  

Christianity is fundamentally a patriarchal religion, but when we compare it with all other religions, and cultures resulting from them, it is a lesser evil. It was in the Western world that women liberation movements arose and it is still in Western culture where women are more equal to men in dignity and rights.

Stoning of the adulterous woman – I am not referring to the gospel episode, but to a contemporary practice in certain Muslim countries, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we think that Jesus forgave a woman caught in adultery 2,000 years ago, it seems unthinkable that women still suffer this capital punishment, executed so often by adulterous male hypocrites. The same sin does not have the same weight between men and women. What Jesus meant is that the man is just as adulterous as the woman, that the woman does not commit the act of adultery alone, however only the woman is punished.

Endemic rape in India – the news of our days are the rapes of girls in India and the endemic impunity that occurs in society, especially in courts and with the police. It is often heard in court that it is the woman’s fault because of the way she was dressed, as if a woman was not free to dress in whatever way to please herself, her husband or her boyfriend. For this type of men who have no control over their impulses, women have to go around dressed in a tent and burka to avoid triggering male lust.

Ways of dressing – the burkas and tents that Muslim women wear in certain countries is the most distorting form of female beauty. As if the beauty of a woman's body were intrinsically evil, or intrinsically provocative. A woman all covered up from head to toe moving around in a tent, is like a walking prison. If female forms and beauty disturb some, the problem is not in the forms and in the beauty that are dear to God and created by Him; the problem and the evilness lie in those who see and interpret malevolently.

Circumcision or mutilation – in most African countries male circumcision is still practiced, and it is a relatively simple procedure without complications; the same is not true of female circumcision. Circumcision as a religious precept comes from Israel, but there has never been female circumcision, since the practice of religion was a matter for men and not for women.

Female circumcision came about as an instrument of domination, to limit the sexual pleasure of women by mutilating the tip of the clitoris; this is the Christian circumcision in Ethiopia. The Muslim circumcision consists of eradicating the clitoris from its root in such a way that a Muslim woman can never feel sexual pleasure.  

Bride abduction – in Ethiopia where I lived as a missionary, in addition to female circumcision, another instrument of humiliation of women is the act of marriage. The man picks a woman to be his wife and on a beautiful day, and without her consent, he kidnaps her; she therefore ends up married against her will to someone very often she has never seen. I'm not talking about something that used to happen a very long time ago, I'm talking about what I had lived through in Ethiopia and what is still happening today.

All this because the traditional marriage is very expensive; the bride's parents ask for exorbitant amount of money to give up their daughter, so the groom kidnaps her and, after the first night, the price drops drastically.

Physical virginity – I always understood it as an object of domination, vexation and humiliation. For reasons of the female anatomy, the vagina is partially closed to prevent the entry of pathogens that would lead to infections. There is no male physical virginity because the urethra being longer in men than in women, infections are less likely.

The cultural use of this detail of the female anatomy to control women's behavior in sexual matters has been an instrument of oppression throughout history in almost all cultures. I accuse my own Church of being colluding with this ideology when it exalts the female virginity in forgetting the male one. In the Church when the term "virgin" is used, we always refer to a woman and not to a man. Are there masculine values and feminine values, that is, are human values gendered?

Domestic violence – "the more you hit me, the more I like you," says a Portuguese proverb. Pitiful are the women who are led to look at violence as normal, as being part of a marriage. Many women live an authentic marital hell without anyone to help them, often suffering in silence practically their entire marital life.

Denouncing these crimes in a society where domestic violence is seen as normal aggravates the situation. But impunity also aggravates it and sometimes the denunciation does not come in time. Every year women die in Western countries as victims of domestic violence, and still many more suffer this fate in the rest of the world.

Lady of duties not of rights – in all countries, women are compelled to carry out not only the same duties but many more than men; however, when it comes to rights, men have a lot more rights than women. In Saudi Arabia, only now in the twenty-first century are women legally allowed to drive a car; in the USA, women only achieved the right to vote at the beginning of the last century, in 1920. In all countries of the Western world, even doing the same work as a man, and sometimes more efficiently, a woman receives a salary that is often lower.

Women before Jesus
"Woman, leg broken and at home" says the Portuguese proverb. In other words, a woman should live locked up at home and devote herself to domestic life. She should grind the grain, make the bread, cook, spin, weave, patch, wash clothes, take care of the children, wash her husband’s hands, face and feet, and treat him like a lord.

Every Jewish man in the recitation of his Shema Israel, "Hear O’ Israel You shall Love the Lord your God...", a prayer that works like a creed for every Jewish man, and at a certain time after giving thanks for so many blessings received from God, he also thanks God for making him a man and not a woman.

The woman is always seen as a suspect, frivolous, sensual, and dangerous; it is interesting that the word "wizard" in many languages has a positive connotation or not as negative as the word "witch", which is always negative. The woman was taken as being lazy, a gossipmonger, disorganized, ignorant, unintelligent, and living under the submission of the man. In fact, she was always a property, first of her father and then of her husband. On the street, she never walked alone, but always accompanied by a male family member.

She had no religious duties, because it was difficult for her to be pure in order to practice religion. Every month she was considered unclean 5 or more days due to her menses; when she gave birth to a boy she was unclean for a week, and when she gave birth to a girl she was impure for two weeks. She was not obliged to go to Jerusalem, nor to the Temple, nor to pay the temple tax. In fact, the woman would not have been able to pay it anyway because she did not and could not have anything of her own.

Her husband could divorce her for any reason of his choice, because she didn't cook well, because he found another prettier and younger woman, or even because he thought she had bad breath. But the woman, even if she wanted to, could not divorce her husband. If she was repudiated by her husband and if she was still young, the solution would be prostitution; if she was not young, she would share the same fate as so many widows in Israel, being abused and reviled.

Women after Jesus
We went pass Jesus to talk about the way early Christians treated women. Some influence of the way Jesus treated women is still found here and there, when we realize the importance of certain women in the expansion of Christianity, especially women who belonged to high society.

However, soon after Jesus' death, the nascent Church let itself be carried away much more by the surrounding culture than by the Master's behavior towards women; and this became more pronounced when the ancient, culturally superior, world was conquered by the cultureless peoples of northern Europe.

We purposely left out the way Jesus related to the women of his time to the end, in order to see the contrast in the way men treated women before him and after him. Jesus was a case apart with no precedent or consequence for many centuries.

The theologian or intellectual or ideologue of the early days of the Church is certainly St. Paul and not one of the fishermen that Jesus chose as his disciples. Let us see how St. Paul thought and to infer from that how women were treated as soon as Jesus left this world.

(…) women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35

For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, woman for the sake of man.  1 Corinthians 11:7-9

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.  1 Timothy 2:11-15

Already at the height of Middle Ages, the great theologian Thomas Aquinas argues that women are of a lower nature than men, and for this reason the inferior must serve the superior. For him there would be no impediment to the ordination of women if they were equal to men in dignity. And he concludes that since we cannot ordain a slave into priesthood nor can we ordain a woman.

Jesus and the women of his time
Even from the human point of view, putting faith aside, Jesus is certainly the person who reached the highest in humanity, He and only He can be considered the model, the paradigm or archetype of humanity. Jesus is the gold standard of humanity; therefore, when we want to know if we or someone is genuine or authentically human, it is to Him that we compare, and if we seek to be 100% human, it is in relation to him that we measure ourselves.

Gender equality
Neither before nor after Jesus was there anyone in all history of mankind who has treated women equally, with the same dignity and respect as men, not even the apostles, his immediate followers, treated women in this way; on the contrary, they immediately allowed themselves to be influenced by the prevailing culture of the world around them.

Accustomed to the treatment they had received from Jesus, the women must have played a leading role in the Christian community after Jesus' death. This would explain St. Paul's harsh words as an attempt to bring them back to the place that the surrounding culture attributed to them. Saint Paul in order to demote them to their inferior status even went on to quote the second chapter of Genesis in saying that they were created secondly, to be at the service of men. 

Demolished all prejudices against women
In clear opposition and in contrast to St. Paul, when speaking of divorce, Jesus quoted Genesis chapter one, where it says "man and woman (God) created them", thus affirming his conviction of gender equality. Jesus is the only founder of a religion who never made a derogatory statement about women, not even the prostitutes did he criticize. He did not do what the rabbis of his time did, he never warned anyone against the danger of dealing with women because of their presumed seductive tricks. On the contrary, he warned men against their own lust and urged them to take responsibility for their impulses and instincts (Matthew 5:28-29).

Completely ignoring the code of purity, he never considered women as a source of contamination; he spoke to them both in public and in private, and ate with them as well as with those whom society declared as sinners and outcasts. The women felt good and safe in his company; perhaps for this reason that although all the male disciples abandoned him, they never did and were the only witnesses to his death, burial, and Resurrection.

He had female disciples
Soon afterwards he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their resources. Luke 8:1-3

Only Luke openly admits that Jesus had female disciples who followed him just like the twelve. But the other evangelists, however much they try to avoid it, they could not hide the truth of the facts, and when they mentioned that at the foot of the Lord's cross or at a distance were the women, they had to say that they were there not by chance but that they had accompanied him from Galilee.

Women were protagonists in his parables
Within the theme of gender equality, because Jesus preached to both men and women, he always took care to include men and women in a balanced way in his parables. Thus, in telling the parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14), he also tells the parable of the lost coin (Luke 15:8-10), and in telling the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20), he also tells the parable of the yeast (Luke 13:20-21).

Since women could not own property, in the parable of the prodigal son he presents a Father with a markedly feminine and maternal personality. Rembrandt was able to capture this aspect in his painting, where it is clearly seen that the Father has one masculine hand – the one on his son's shoulder – and a feminine hand – the one further down, over his son's heart.

Opposed to the clichés of motherhood and housework
While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!’ But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!  Luke 11:27-28

In this episode, motherhood is placed as being the highest ideal, almost mandatory for women, something like their reason for being, their place in society. Jesus does not devalue either his own mother or the value of motherhood in his response, but he puts it second: the most important thing for every human being is to listen to the word of God and to put it into practice, for both men and women.

Implicit in this text he places the value of fatherhood as important as motherhood; the over-valorization of motherhood has often implied the infra-valorization of fatherhood, and the acceptance of the common practice of the absent father. A balanced human family requires less mother and more father, less the presence of a mother hen and more the presence of a solicitous father.

Implicit also in this text is the acceptance that the woman can also be fulfilled professionally, that motherhood should not be an impediment for her to fulfill any other vocation. Motherhood is, like fatherhood, a basic and common vocation for women and men; therefore, it does not count as a professional vocation.

(…) ‘Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her then to help me.’ But the Lord answered her, ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; there is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her. Luke 10:40-42

In addition to motherhood, the other service relegated to women was domestic work. The task reserved for women in society was to stay at home; public life was only for men. Martha reminds Jesus of this stereotype when she implicitly tells him that her sister Mary is behaving like a man in her attitude of listening to the master as a disciple.

In a society where women did not even have religious duties, such as paying the temple tax, or visiting Jerusalem, Jesus reminds Martha that in his school there is room for female disciples. Once again, an opposition to domestic service is implicit here as the only female professional accomplishment; this achievement must be within everyone's reach. Domestic service must be done yes, but it is not a vocation, so it must be divided in two or among all the members of a family.

Jesus proposes certain women as role models to follow
In the time of Jesus, anyone who put a woman as a role model for anything would risk being stoned or ridiculed. Jesus did not hesitate, against the winds and cultural tides of the time, to use certain attitudes of concrete women as examples of authentic humanity to be followed by both men and women.

Prophetess Ana (Luke 2:36-38) – we are baptized as priests, prophets, and kings; the Old Testament has only male prophets; the New Testament has prophetesses, and even deaconesses. The prophetess Ana is a model of patience and insistent prayer and  is also a missionary model, since she spoke to everyone about the infant Jesus.

Like the prophetess Ana, the gospel presents to us other missionaries: the Samaritan woman (John 4:1-42) who experienced the salvation that Jesus gave her and immediately made this experience a testimony, she intoned before her countrymen her magnificat, "The Lord (Jesus) has done wonders for me..."

Her people believed in her words, they came to see, and they too experienced salvation to the point where they ended up saying, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Saviour of the world." In this episode, we see the full circle of the Mission. Another great missionary is Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18), the only one who bore witness to the final events of Jesus – death, burial and Resurrection. She is a missionary of the Apostles, to the point of being called a proto apostle.

Peter's mother-in-law (Mark 1:29-31) – she is the first woman to appear in the public life of Jesus and teaches us that health, as well as life, is a gift from God. In recovering her health, she puts herself at the service of God in Jesus and her brothers and sisters, the fellow disciples of her son-in-law Peter. To live is to serve, those who do not live to serve are not fit to live. Jesus will say of himself, "I have come into the world to serve not to be served, and I am among you not to be served by you, but to serve."

Like Peter's mother-in-law, we have Martha and Mary of Bethany and the women who followed Jesus, such as Joanna and Susanna who put their resources, time and energy at the service of the Master and for evangelization. Women who, like the widow in the temple, gave all they had (Mark 12:41-44);

Widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-17) – a funeral procession for a young man, the only son of his mother who was a widow. It is hard for any writer to be able to put so much suffering into so few words. Jesus gives the young man his life back without his mother asking him. I have always seen in this episode a personal projection of Jesus; Jesus saw in Nain's widow his own mother, who would soon also bury her only son, being already a widow.

A woman who would not become a mother, a girl who would not become a woman (Mark 5:25-43) – because the woman had been hemorrhaging for 12 years, preventing her from becoming pregnant and being a mother, and the girl who died at the age of 12 without reaching adolescence, that is, without becoming a woman, it is not difficult to see the connection between the two episodes. "I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." (John 10:10)

Models of faith, hope and resilience – Jesus takes from the Old Testament to tell us about the faith of the widow from Zarephath (Luke 4:24-26) and the Queen of the South who came from so far to see Solomon (Luke 11:31). The Syrophoenician woman who is not intimidated by Jesus' tests and insists on the healing of her daughter (Mark 7:24-30). The 10 virgins of the parable who, unlike Jesus' three disciples, do not fall asleep and remain alert and vigilant (Matthew 25:1-13) and, finally, a widow who does not give in before a corrupt judge and does not give up until justice has been restored (Luke 18:1-8).

MARY MAGDALENE - LOVE OF PERDITION
There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, his mother's sister, and Magdalene, who was called his companion. His sister, his mother and his companion all three were called Mary. Philip's apocryphal gospel of the third century

None of the evangelists succeeded in hiding her, even Matthew who does not like to name women has to bow down to her. From the beginning to the end, in all four Gospels, she is omnipresent there. Being the only witness to the death and burial of the Lord and the first to his Resurrection, it is almost in anger that St. Paul, the first to write in the New Testament, said in 1 Corinthians 15:4-5, "he (Christ) was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve", purposely putting Mary Magdalene aside.

Another way of setting her aside came from the Church itself, by making us believe that she was a converted prostitute. Pope Gregory the Great, who invented this theory, thought this way to protect Jesus from his relationship with her. All that the gospel tells us (Luke 8:1–3) is that she was a very, very sick person: this is the meaning of the seven demons. Before Jesus, she had never known health; meeting Jesus was for her the beginning of living.

She was now free, she could choose a husband or make herself available for marriage, but she did not want to do so deciding instead to follow Jesus, the source and origin of her health. He would be the source and origin of her life too, as a disciple of Jesus and head of the other female disciples, just as Peter was of the male disciples. Mary Magdalene is the only woman who appears in the gospels without any reference of a husband; Jesus, to whom she gave her heart and soul, seems to be the only man in her life. It also seems that, among all of Jesus' female and male friends, she held a special place in His heart.

About the nature of this relationship much has been said, much has been invented and fantasized. In view of the only Gospel text that can shed some light on the subject, the appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene after his Resurrection (John 20:11-18), permit me to state the following:

They have taken away my Lord - the relationship they had was not that of an equal to an equal, that is, it was not a relationship of friendship, but rather a friendly relationship. Jesus has an inner circle of disciples composed of Peter, James and John and in addition to them, a beloved disciple whose identity is unknown, but who, according to St. John’s Gospel, is known to be a man. That is why Jesus on the cross tells his mother, “Here is your son…” and not here is your daughter if the beloved disciple was Mary Magdalene.

It is assumed that he was more intimate with the three disciples and even with the beloved disciple than with the rest of the twelve, but even with them, the relationship was one of master-disciple, that is, a relationship of authority and not a relationship of friendship, because the relations of friendship are of equal to equal.

As with the teacher-student, psychotherapist-client relationships, these relationships can and should be friendly, but cannot and should not be of friendship. Mary Magdalene refers to Jesus when she does not see his body in the tomb, as her Lord, not as her friend, so we can conclude that it was a relationship of authority.

My master (teacher) - Jesus addresses her by her first name in calling her ‘Mary’; she, however, recognizing him, responds in Aramaic, the language of Galilee, with the diminutive name of teacher, which we can translate as little teacher, my teacher or dear teacher, but always teacher. Therefore, once again we conclude that it was a relationship of master-disciple.

Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father – it gives the impression that Mary Magdalene threw herself at the Lord’s feet and embraced them, just like the sinner who poured the most expensive perfume on them; in this she showed and gave all her love which led Jesus to say to her, "Do not hold me, do not tie me, do not detain me, for now the most urgent thing is that you go to announce this great news to my brothers".

Conclusion – When things turned ugly for Jesus, Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him, the rest fled from him. Despite this shameful fact, and ignoring the respectful way Jesus treated women, the male disciples blatantly marginalized their female counterparts, even though the latter, unlike the former, did not abandon the Master in His passion and cross, but followed Him to His tomb, and saw Him first at His Resurrection.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC


April 15, 2021

3 Important apostles: Peter - James - Paul

No comments:

In addition to the many disciples Jesus had, at least 72 that Luke's Gospel says he sent on mission (Luke 10:1-24), Jesus had a closer circle of disciples called Apostle, or “person sent”. Although this number was 12, we do not know if Jesus had called one from each tribe of Israel.

If this were the case, it would prove that Jesus was looking for the restoration of Israel, but this was not the case. Jesus chose the twelve apostles from among his many disciples, without obeying any human criteria. From a human point of view, it seems that he chose them at random. But according to the proverb, "he who sees faces does not see hearts", whereas we only see faces, God sees the heart of each one, and according to that heart, Jesus would have chosen his twelve.

See, I am making all things new! (Revelation 21:5) – By choosing at “random" the twelve apostles, Jesus wanted to institute something new because, as he himself would say, "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom." Matthew 21:43

Within the circle of disciples, we have the circle of apostles and inside this circle, we have yet another formed, by coincidence or providence, by three apostles. Peter, James and John are the apostles closest to Jesus, his inner circle who accompanies him to places where the others do not go, the only ones who witness the healing of Jairus' daughter, the only ones who climb the Mount Tabor of the Transfiguration with him, and the only ones who see him sweat blood and water in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Peter, James and John are, therefore, the triad of apostles during the evangelical times of Jesus' life, but they are not the only triad. Even without the physical presence of Jesus, with the Church now guided by the Holy Spirit, there were also three apostles who acted as pillars. They are Peter, James and Paul.

The same Peter of the gospels, in order to establish the continuity between Jesus and his Church as his mystical body, is also part of this second triad. The second is James, but not the same James of the gospels who is also known as the Greater, brother of John, both sons of Zebedee. This James is the younger, also known as the Lord's brother. Finally, the third in the triad of the early days of the Church is Paul, the great Paul of Tarsus, who had previously persecuted the Church.

On what do we base the existence of this second triad? From the book of the Acts of the Apostles, we see how the figure of Peter appears as the authority, if not effectively in the first Christian community in Jerusalem, at least morally, which inspires the community and calls it to unity. James, the Lord's brother, is the effective authority of the Christian community in Jerusalem, the first to be formed; this authority is felt at the Council of Jerusalem. Paul is the protagonist of almost the entire book of the Acts of the Apostles, with his three apostolic evangelization journeys.

APOSTOLIC TIMES: PETER – JAMES – JOHN
Peter of the evangelical times
Simon John would have been his name, since in Israel and still today in Semitic countries like Ethiopia, the son's surname is the father's first name. On some occasions, Jesus called Peter by his real name – when he first met him and gave him the nickname Peter (John 1:42) and later when he asked him if he loved him (John 21:15-17).

Peter, the other apostles, and in general, all the people who came in contact with Jesus experienced salvation, that is, health of body and soul, forgiveness of their guilt, and a change of identity that comprised at times even a change of name, a change in the way they saw Jesus, in the way they saw themselves and the way they saw the world around them. On the other hand, it is also through these relationships that Jesus establishes with the people he meets along the way that his true identity is revealed to us.    

Peter and Andrew, his brother
As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake – for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, ‘Follow me and I will make you fish for people.Mark 1:16-17

The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, ‘Look, here is the Lamb of God!’ The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. (…) One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which is translated Anointed). He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. You are to be call Cephas’ (which is translated Peter). John 1:35-37, 40-42

Jesus calls busy people, people who already have a profession, not people who are doing nothing. It is said that if you want to ask someone for a favor, ask it from a busy person and not from one who is not, because the latter will invent a thousand and one excuses not to do it for you. The Gospel of Mark is famous for the word "immediately" that he repeats countless times.

There are opportunities in life that do not come twice. When the founder of the Consolata Missionaries, Father Joseph Allamano, decided to become a priest, his brothers tried to dissuade him by saying "Think harder and decide later"; he replied, "Jesus calls me today, I don't know if he will call me tomorrow.”

The shepherds were the first to visit the infant Jesus, but for his disciples, Jesus chose fishermen. A shepherd is only needed when there is a flock to keep and care for. Jesus did not have a flock yet, so he needed the skill of a hunter or fisherman first to attract people to himself and then to send them to draw others to his cause: the transformation of the world into the kingdom of God. In John's account, we see how Andrew does this with his brother Simon.

John's version of the call of the first disciples seems more credible and more historical than Mark's, although Mark was the first gospel to be written. Mark wrote his gospel for the Romans in Rome, so he purposely places more emphasis on Peter. In John's version, Andrew knew Jesus first because he was already a disciple of John the Baptist.

Peter - fisherman and sinner
When he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, ‘Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.’ Simon answered, ‘Master, we have worked all night long but have caught nothing. Yet if you say so, I will let down the nets.’ When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets were beginning to break. (…) But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, ‘Go away from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man!' (...) and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. Then Jesus said to Simon, ‘Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.’ Luke 5:4-6, 8, 10

Jesus fishes Peter in his imperfection even as a fisherman. Jesus does not seek out saints, because there are no saints before God. Jesus looks for sinners who are aware of their condition, and this is what being a saint means; a saint is not perfect, but is a person who recognizes his own imperfections. This quality, we find it already in King David, also a sinner aware of his condition.

Humility is the mother of all virtues; pride is the father of all vices. Whoever is humble lets himself be molded by God, like the child who lets the father guide his hand in writing his first letters. When I am weak, then I am strong, says St. Paul (2 Corinthians 12:10), when I am conscious of my fault, I obtain God's forgiveness; when I am conscious of my limitations, I let God’s power work in me and through me.

Peter is realistic about himself; he does not pretend to be who he is not, he accepts that he is a sinner in front of Jesus and weeps for his sinfulness when he denies him, seeking no justifications, explanations or excuses not before others, not before God and not before himself. He takes responsibility for his sin and weeps tears of guilt.

Later, Jesus gives him the opportunity to redeem himself by asking him three times if he loved him. And up to this point Jesus seems to be content with Peter’s best, giving up perfection, since by asking the question using the word "agape", the oblative love with which he loves us, he accepts that Peter loves him only with love of friendship, for he uses the word "philia". In other words, Jesus asked Peter, "Peter, do you love me?" and Peter answered, "I like you".

We are not attracted to people who hide their vulnerabilities, their complexes and feelings of inferiority behind their pride and boasting, showing themselves superior to others. Those who seek to show themselves superior often hide a sense of inferiority. Peter makes himself loved by Jesus and his companions because, despite being chosen from the twelve to lead, he does not hide his vulnerabilities, his condition.  

Peter's psychological profile - Sanguine
Warm, deep, dynamic, emotional, impulsive and vibrant; uninhibited and loquacious, but not just by words, decides and acts many times without thinking, but with courage; although deep down he is a fearful person, as a leader, he drags others with him.

He is open and free in his feelings and actions. Good communication and social skills, relates well with others. On the negative side, we stress the lack of willpower; emotionally unstable, explosive, impatient and selfish. Also, he is insecure, fickle, inconsistent and fearful. Because he is active, little is given to introspection.

Fickle and incoherent
Peter said to him, ‘Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.’ Jesus answered, ‘Will you lay down your life for me? Very truly, I tell you, before the cock crows, you will have denied me three times. John 13:37-38

Impulsive
Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." Matthew 14:28

Then Peter said to Jesus, ‘Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.’ Matthew 17:4

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. John 18:10

Braggart
Then Jesus said to them, ‘You will all become deserters because of me this night; for it is written, “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.” But after I am raised up, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.’ Peter said to him, ‘Though all become deserters because of you, I will never desert you.Matthew 26:31-33

Egocentric, insecure, fearful
Then Peter said in reply, ‘Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?Matthew 19:27

And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.’  Matthew 16:22

But when he noticed the strong wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, ‘Lord save me!' Matthew 14:30

Uninhibited and frank, obedient and eager to please
‘Master, we have worked all night long but have caught nothing. Yet if you say so, I will let down the nets.’ When they had done this, they caught so many fish that their nets were beginning to break. Luke 5:5-6

Primacy of Peter
Peter's role among the twelve was prominent; the earliest writings of the New Testament refer to him as the leader of the twelve and one of the first to see the risen Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:5). He was regarded by Paul and everyone in his time to be one of the pillars of the early Church movement (Galatians 2:9).

In all the gospels, Jesus differentiated Peter from the other apostles from the time he first met him. Having given him the nickname "rock" on which he was going to build his Church; this can be interpreted, as some Protestants do, as referring to Peter's faith on which, in fact, the Church was built. (John 1:42; cf. Mark 3:16; Cf. Matthew 16:18).

This interpretation would be correct if this was the only text alluding to Peter's primacy over the other apostles; but since this is not so, as there are many other texts that confirm this primacy, the name Peter indicates the function within the Church that was reserved for him and only him.

In all the mentions of the apostles, in the list of twelve, Peter always comes first; the Gospel of Matthew (10:12) expressly calls him the first. Peter, together with James and John, were the only witnesses to the resurrection of Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:37), the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), and the agony of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37).

Jesus preaches to the crowds from Peter’s boat (Luke 5:3), when he is in Capernaum, Peter's house is his own house (Mark 2:1-12), and among all the apostles' relatives Jesus cured only one: Peter's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-44). Jesus tells Peter to pay tribute to the Temple for both of them (Matthew 17:27), exhorts him to sustain the faith of the other apostles after his own conversion (Luke 22:32); after the resurrection, he first appears to Peter, before appearing to the other apostles (Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5). Peter almost always acts as the spokesman of the apostles who rarely speak directly to Jesus.

Peter was the only apostle who saw in Jesus something more than a prophet or the reincarnation of John the Baptist; the only one who affirmed that Jesus was the Messiah, the one expected by the nations (Matthew 16:17-19). Although this same power was also later given to the other apostles, it is significant that he first gave it to Peter directly and individually. To bind and unbind, in terms of the rabbinical terminology of the time, meant declaring to be in communion with the Church or to be excommunicated from it. Therefore, Peter not only had the function of teaching and supporting, but also the juridical function.

Peter's primacy is revealed in the gospels, even in episodes that portrayed this position in a negative light: the fear of sinking in the lake, (Matthew 14:30), the denial of the master, (Luke 22:54-62), the miraculous catch of the fish, (Luke 5:4-6, 8, 10), and even when Jesus called him Satan (Matthew 16:23).

Only those who do not want to see, cannot see; the denial of Peter's primacy, its importance within the college of the apostles, can only be done for ideological reasons to justify the Orthodox and Protestant churches.

When Jesus’ Mission was completed and he went to the Father, the Church which he himself had founded became his mystical body to continue his work of salvation from generation to generation till the end of time. As a body, for the sake of unity, can only have one head, it is only logical that the head of the Church be Peter as he was the head of Jesus’ disciples as we have seen.

For all that we know, Peter lived his last years, and breathed his last in Rome, the capital of the Roman Empire. According to St. Irenaeus (130-202) bishop of Lyon, and the historian Eusebius bishop of Caesarea Maritima in the year 314, Linus, a Roman mentioned in 2 Timothy (4:21) was appointed to be the second bishop of Rome by the apostles Peter and Paul.


The importance of Peter's primacy is the unity of the Church. "Each head, its own sentence," two authorities do not lead to unity, but to division. Monotheism, before being distinctive of the people of Israel, had been the policy followed by a pharaoh of Egypt in order to create greater cohesion among the peoples of the Nile. The existence of various gods, like the existence of various churches, is not conducive to harmony and peace, but to division and war. Religious wars can be worse than all other wars.

When we love only one God who is the Father of all, it is easier to see our brother in the other, no matter who he is. This same principle is in primacy of Peter. Jesus did not want several Churches, he founded only one, he himself prayed for the union of all Christians (John 17:20-23).

James and John sons of Zebedee
As he went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John, who were in their boat mending the nets. Immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and followed him. Mark 1:19-20

According to the first three gospels, Jesus called on the same day and at the same time four disciples who were two pairs of brothers. The former, Peter and Andrew, would be older than the latter, for they fished on their own; the second, James and John, would be younger because they were fixing fishing nets with their father.

The first pair of brothers were fishing, the second were fixing the nets. Both activities are important; one cannot fish without repairing from time to time the nets that break with usage. At first glance, it passes unnoticed that some were fishing and others were repairing nets, but I do not believe that this fact is in the gospel by chance, without any special meaning.

Fishing is an activity, fixing nets can be many things; it can be to pray, to meditate. Jesus abandoned the activity, went to quiet places, in the calm of the night or at dawn, to be alone with himself and with God his Father. Before beginning his public life, he spent 40 days and 40 nights fasting and praying. During his public life, before the most important moments, he prayed, he ended his life on Earth by praying. He taught his apostles to pray and exhorted them several times to do so in order not to succumb to temptation.

Fixing nets can mean the act of thinking, of programming the activity or even the study of fishing methods, of different nets and hooks for different types of fish. Every evangelical preacher knows that he has to adapt to the culture, age and idiosyncrasies of the people he preaches to, so that they understand the word.

One at the right and one at the left
James and John, the sons of Zebedee came forward to him and said to him, ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.’ And he said to them, ‘What is it you want me to do for you?’ And they said to him, ‘Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.’  Mark 10:35-37

 In general, throughout the Gospel of Mark, the apostles do not come out looking good and these two, despite belonging to the inner circle of the twelve, are the ones that come out looking the worst. Even thinking that the kingdom Jesus was talking about was the restoration of the Davidic kingdom, Israel's independence from the Romans, their request does not make sense, since the two already belonged to the circle closest to Jesus; therefore, when this kingdom is to come true, they would sit one on the right and the other on the left.

The only viable explanation is that they wanted to dethrone Peter from his position of prominence over the twelve. The incidence is so shameful of the two brothers that Luke does not mention it in his gospel and Matthew puts the request coming out of the mouth of the mother of Zebedee's sons. It is most certain that they said it themselves and this is evident even in Matthew because Jesus does not respond to their mother, but to them personally.  

Whoever does not live to serve is not fit to live. The authority in Jesus is one of service, he said of himself that he came into the world to serve, not to be served (Matthew 20:28). And he also said that his position among the apostles was to serve (Luke 22:27). And to be clear, at the last supper he did one of the lowest services of that time, in washing the feet to his disciples; the act itself was so dramatic that the disciples never forgot it (John 13:1-17).

Jesus was a layman, he was neither a scribe nor a Pharisee nor a priest, and yet his contemporaries recognized in him having more authority than the priests, scribes and Pharisees (Mark 1:22). Whether democratically elected or appointed, for Jesus, real authority is that which arises from within the person, it is a charismatic and moral authority, it is not inherent to the position one occupies in society.

More important than the place we occupy in society is the way we occupy it. Respect for authority is no longer automatically granted, or inherent to the office, as it used to be, but must be earned; an elected or appointed authority without a moral authority does not earn the respect of the people, but its contempt.

On the other hand, we should not call anyone Lord, since we are all equal, there is only one Lord who is God. In a heteronomous morality, people uncritically follow rules, commandments, laws, configuring their lives according to norms outside of themselves.

The moral that Jesus preached is not heteronomous in following rules, but autonomous in following one’s own experience in life and his own moral conscience as the legislative and executive power. He even did so by breaking the law of the Sabbath in situations where his own conscience found that healing a sick person was of a higher order than observing the Sabbath.

James and John sons of thunder
John answered, ‘Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.’ But Jesus said to him, ‘Do not stop him; for whoever is not against you is for you.’  Luke 9:49-50

On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him; but they did not receive him, because his face was set towards Jerusalem. When his disciples James and John saw it, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?’ But he turned and rebuked them. Then they went on to another village Luke 9:53-56

In addition to Peter's nickname, Jesus also baptized the other two apostles who were part of the inner circle of his disciples as the "sons of thunder". It is not difficult to guess why Jesus chose this name for these two brothers. Fanaticism and intolerance have always been the temptation of those who believe they are the sole holders of the truth or the whole truth.

The Church understands that there are "Semina verbum", seeds of the Word of God in all religions. We are far from the "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", that there is no salvation outside the Church. There is no salvation outside of Christ, because Christ is the son of God who came to save all mankind. Whoever, even without knowing Christ, follows him as the way, the truth and the life, is an anonymous Christian, as Karl Rahner said. Christ did not come to establish a new religion, but he came to teach men to be men.

Christian and human are synonyms, so whoever is authentically human is authentically Christian. At the end of our life, we will be judged not by our confession, not by our identity, but by our works. In chapter 25 of Matthew’s Gospel, in the questions about the final judgment, there are no questions about the identity of the person, regarding what he or she is or was, but they are all related to what he or she did.

Contrary to the fanaticism of the sons of Zebedee, Jesus counsels to move forward, not to force people into conversion. It's enough that the other is not openly against me to be with me in some way. If he is not openly against me, if he tolerates me, in some way he is with me. The fanatical and intolerant version of this phrase says otherwise, "Whoever is not with me is against me".

God who created us without our consent does not save us without it. Human freedom is the powerlessness of the almighty God. Salvation is a free choice, it cannot be forced upon anyone; this is what we see from the beginning in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and from the New Testament in Mary who freely said yes, but could have said no.

In the Gospels, the sons of Zebedee appear only few times separately. James never appears apart from his brother John, who appears without his brother James only twice, once in the episode we have already mentioned and then when he ran to the tomb with Peter and despite having arrived there first, he lets Peter be the first to enter.  

John, the son of Zebedee, is not the author of the fourth Gospel: none of the evangelists was an apostle of Jesus because the Gospels were written after the preaching of the apostles; the apostles preached and the disciples of these apostles wrote the Gospels.

Luke was a disciple of Paul, Mark was a disciple of Peter, and Matthew is also not the one who was a tax collector before becoming one of the twelve; he is most likely a scribe who converted to Christianity. John, the son of Zebedee, has always been presented to us as the beloved disciple, but today almost everyone seems to agree that the beloved disciple is not John and that he was not one of the twelve.

Of the three great apostles in the circle closest to Jesus, from the evangelical times, only Peter passes to the times of the New Testament and the first steps of the Church, being part of another triad, together with James the younger, the Lord’s brother and Paul. James, the son of Zebedee, was martyred by Herod Antipas in the year 44 (Acts 12:2), and ended up drinking the chalice he had desired to drink. John is probably the only one of the twelve who crossed the threshold of the first century, and died of old age.

In the end the sons of Zebedee failed to dethrone Peter, who turned out to be the continuity between the evangelical times and the times of the Acts of the Apostles. Zebedee's sons are still mentioned in this book, but no longer important; another triad formed, but the other two did not belong to the group of twelve. James the younger, the brother of the Lord, and Paul, a converted Pharisee.

FIRST CHURCH: PETER - JAMES - PAUL
History tells us that after a great charismatic, visionary founder of any movement, there is always a person who institutionalizes it, that is, who integrates it into the social and cultural reality of a place, at a certain moment of its history. If it were not so that charisma would be nothing more than a summer’s night dream that fades away as quickly as it appeared.

This task could not be carried out by simple fishermen who after Christ's death did not have a definite identity: while Jesus had criticized certain laws of the Jews, the apostles continued to follow them. Jesus had criticized the Temple, yet the apostles continued to frequent it daily, as the book of Acts tells us; they were incoherent and inconsistent, they reconciled the irreconcilable, the visits to the Temple with the celebration of the Eucharist in homes.

Without Saint Paul, who institutionalized the ideals of Jesus and gave them a theological consistency, perhaps Christianity would never had gained wings to fly otherwise. It would never have passed from a sect of Judaism, which, sooner or later, would end up being absorbed, supplanted or eliminated. And it was precisely the worst enemy of this new movement that turned out to be its best friend and savior: Saul of Tarsus.

This triad of the early Church, as the book of the Acts of the Apostles reveals to us, is not a more or less cohesive group like the first triad who lived together with the master. On the contrary, these three only know each other, since they live in different places and have different philosophies. Each of them plays a very important role in the first Christian communities.

Each of them is a leader in their own right, and the way each leads even caused some friction among themselves. Paul respects and accepts Peter as the leader of the Christians, but he does not spare him some criticism, and he is in clear confrontation with James, the Lord's brother.

James most likely does not accept Peter's leadership because, as he is from Jesus' family, he thinks by succession he should be the leader and, in fact, he is the leader of the first Christian community, that of Jerusalem. Peter is on the tightrope between these two and plays the balancing act; he recognizes Paul's overwhelming charisma and has a lot of sympathy for him; he proceeds with caution, respects or is afraid of James and tacitly does not seem disturbed by his leadership and figurative power.

Peter in the Acts of the Apostles
But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in God’s sight to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge; for we cannot keep from speaking about what we have seen and heard.  Acts 4:19-20

In the Acts of the Apostles, we see what the Spirit can do for a person. We see Peter transformed into his best, less impulsive and calmer as the situation requires of him, since he was the mediator between two hurricanes; but on the other hand, we also see him more proactive and less fearful, disobeying the high priests and even accusing them of having killed Jesus of Nazareth (Acts 5:28, 50-42).

After the great speech on the morning of Pentecost, Peter seems to take Jesus' place, following in the footsteps of the teacher, preaching and healing as Jesus did. Peter's first act as leader was to appoint a replacement for Judas.

The early Church begins to extend its mission outside the surrounding of Jerusalem and when the apostles heard about Philip's successful preaching in Samaria, Peter and John went there to lay hands on the new Christians. Later, Peter travels to Lydda and heals a paralytic named Aeneas; then to Joppa, modern day Jaffa, and resurrects Tabitha, a woman who had just passed away and who used to help the poor a lot.

In Caesarea, he has a mystical experience that will help him guide the rest of the Christians in the decision made regarding the Gentiles at the Council of Jerusalem. This experience culminates in the baptism of a Roman centurion named Cornelius and his entire family.

By this time Herod began to persecute Christians, he imprisoned James the Great, and beheaded him as he had done to John the Baptist. Seeing that this pleased the Jews, he also imprisoned Peter for being the leader of the movement. However, by virtue of the Holy Spirit who guided the Church from the beginning, Peter was miraculously freed.

To escape Herod's jurisdiction, Peter returned to Jerusalem, under the direct jurisdiction of the Romans, as we know. In Jerusalem, Peter took refuge in the house of Mary, mother of the evangelist John Mark (Acts 12:12). Moreover, this seems to be the residence of the first Christian community, that of Jerusalem.

From what we know from Papias who wrote around the year 90, Mark, after having been a disciple of Paul for a short time, followed in Peter’s footsteps as his disciple and secretary, from Jerusalem, Antioch to Rome; therefore, his gospel written in Rome and for the Romans is a reflection of Peter's preaching.

James, the brother of the Lord
There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. Mark 15:40

Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.  Matthew 27:56

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. John 19:25

If we compare these three accounts, we see three women named Mary at the foot of the cross: Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary Magdalene; and Mary, the wife of Cleopas, who was also the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark and Matthew tell us that at the foot of the Lord's cross was Mary, mother of James the younger, John places Mary the mother of the Lord and Mary Magdalene at the foot of the cross and reveals the name of the other Mary, saying that she is the wife of Cleopas and also saying that she is the sister of Jesus' mother.

We can then conclude with all certainty that James is the Lord's cousin, not a blood brother: Jesus and James the younger are the children of two sisters. We know from Matthew (10:3) that James' father was Alphaeus, a Hebrew name, which in Greek translates to Cleopas, so Cleopas and Alphaeus are the same person.

What we know about James is that he is not only the leader of the Jerusalem community, but he is also the leader of one of the factions of Christianity: the Hebrew Christians opposed to the Hellenistic Christians, whose leader was Paul. James is also the writer of an emblematic letter that apparently opposes Paul's theology. He seems to accept that salvation comes from our faith in Jesus, but he peremptorily declares that faith without works is a dead faith (James 2:14-26).

Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles
We can say that in the New Testament, after the Gospels, Paul is the most repeated name and undeniably the most important figure of the early Church. Chronologically, the first writer and the most long-winded is Paul with his letters. The Acts of the Apostles could well be called the adventures and misadventures of Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles, since like the Gospel of Luke, they were written by one of his disciples.

Paul's life can be recollected in the Acts of the Apostles and his letters, in which Paul mentions that he was a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin, his Jewish name was Saul (which was the name of the first king of Israel also from the tribe of Benjamin) born in Tarsus in Asia Minor. He was educated in the strictest observance of Judaism during his youth in Jerusalem by Gamaliel (Phil. 3:5-6; cf. 2 Cor. 11:22; Rom. 11:1, Gal. 1:14; 2:15).

At the same time, his roots are in Greek culture, especially with regard to philosophy and rhetoric. He is also a Roman citizen, a title that was obtained by his father and extended to the whole family. Paul is a man who lives between two or three worlds, familiar with Hebrew and Greek culture, as well as with Roman politics.

With a markedly choleric profile, Paul was instinctive and his intelligence was intuitive and cunning, very controversial, impulsive and conflictive. Although he was practically a contemporary of Jesus, he did not know him personally, neither before his death nor after, since he did not have, like the other apostles, a real experience of the risen Christ.

He was a persecutor of Jesus' movement until he had a mystical experience, an encounter with the same Jesus whom he was persecuting. Before his conversion, Paul used his strength and talent in favor of Judaism by terrorizing Christians. The same talents are used later to spread Christianity to the pagans.

Since he had been a persecutor of Jesus' movement, few believed in him and even thought he was a spy; however, Barnabas believed in him and so Paul began to put his skills of persuasion, previously at the service of Judaism, now at the service of Christ. The Acts speaks of Barnabas and Paul, but soon after it speaks of Paul and Barnabas and later only of Paul.

Paul possessed excellent theological gifts, but knew little about Jesus. That is why he surrounded himself with John Mark, who later became a disciple of Peter and the writer of the first gospel. Following Paul was very difficult and John Mark, longing for his family in Jerusalem, abandoned Paul. When he returned, he had a very violent argument with Paul. The latter did not want to forgive Mark who with Barnabas, probably his uncle, had to leave Paul (Acts 15:39). Paul repented and wished to have Mark back with him again; but by then, Mark was already a disciple of Peter (2 Timothy 4:11).

One hundred percent committed to the cause of Christ, he claims for himself the title of Apostle for the lot that he did for the Gospel, in founding Christian communities among the Gentiles in the course of three great journeys that he made. Based on Jesus' philosophy, Paul understands that being an apostle is not a title with pedigree, exclusive to the twelve which is never lost, even if it is not exercised, something like having blue blood. Faithful to Jesus’ philosophy of "by their fruits you will know them", for Paul an apostle is someone who acts as such.

And no one acted more like an apostle than him for the lot that he did to spread the gospel over the course of the three journeys, for the Christian communities he founded in his travels north and south of the Mediterranean, and for the many letters that he wrote: half of the New Testament. Paul not only retained the title for himself, but also gave it to his collaborators.

Competent, self-disciplined and firm (1 Corinthians 9:24-27), he can even be affective and sentimental (Philippians 1: 7-8), it is impossible to remain indifferent to Paul: one either loves him or hates him. While a prisoner, he became the ship's captain. Judged by Tertullus, Felix and Agrippa, he took the reins of his own fate, and in prison, the guards were his prisoners.

Council of Jerusalem
Most people understand that the Council of Jerusalem, like all councils, was about a doctrinal issue between two factions of Christianity, the Judaizers and the Hellenists. But it was not quite like that.

Rivalry between Jesus’ relatives and disciples
After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, ‘My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. (…) The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Simeon has relates how God first looked favourably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for him this agrees with the words of the prophets…  Acts 15:7, 12-15

At stake in this Council was also a less known issue, but one that is anticipated both in the Gospels and in the same text of the Acts about the Council: the rivalry between the blood relatives of Jesus and his disciples.

James, the Lord's brother and the leader of the Jerusalem community, was not only the leader of the Judaizers, but also considered himself Jesus’ successor because he was his most direct family member. We must not forget that Jesus is of David's lineage and that all kings after David were his descendants. Therefore, James understands that he and not Peter should be the leader of Jesus' movement.

In the text of the Council mentioned above, we see that Peter gives the inspiration to the Councilors, bearing in mind above all his experience of the baptism of the Roman centurion Cornelius; Paul and Barnabas present the question, but the one who decides and hits the hammer on the table is in fact James.

Mark, the first gospel to be written from the preaching of Peter the leader of the disciples, in fact conveys a bad image of Jesus' relatives, even saying that they considered Jesus mad; and when Jesus' relatives wanted to speak to him, Mark has Jesus saying that his relatives are not those of blood, but those who do God's will (Mark 3:31-35).

It apparently took time to resolve the question of rivalry between Jesus' relatives and his disciples, since the Gospel of John, the last to be written, returns to this issue, placing in Jesus’ own lips a form of reconciliation between Jesus' relatives and his disciples: When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, here is your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. John 19:26-27

Rivalry between the Judaizers and the Hellenists
James:  Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. Acts 15:19-20

"Against facts there are no arguments", says the people, but with regard to the facts about "Jesus of Nazareth", dissenting arguments surged from almost the very beginning. One thing is what happens, another is the different versions of what happens and the different interpretations of what happens.

It's not enough to see the facts, one needs to know how to interpret them. The disciples on the road to Emmaus saw the facts, but could not interpret them, they needed Jesus’ help. Now the nascent Church, in Jesus’ absence, had the aid of the Holy Spirit who helped her interpret the revelation that took place in Jesus of Nazareth.

When we speak of the first Church of Jerusalem, we tend to understand that it was a Church united in the same doctrine, but it was not so. Right from the beginning, there were two factions of Christianity in conflict with each other:  

The Judaizers – they were at the same time Christians and Jews who contradictorily reconciled the temple with the Eucharist, the law of Christ with the Law of Moses and who were a mixture of Christianity. Even today in Ethiopia there are Coptic Christians who place at the same level the Mosaic Law and Christ’s law and who do not eat pork, for example, prohibited by the Law of Moses.

The leader of this movement was neither Peter nor John who accompanied him many times, but James, the Lord's brother. Peter would have favored this movement at first, since in the book of Acts we see how he and John frequented the Temple. However, after his experience in Caesarea, he was more on the side of the Hellenists, especially since Paul became the leader of this movement. The Holy Spirit would have told Peter that there was little future with the Jews.

The Hellenists – they were the Jews from the Diaspora who had returned to Jerusalem; their first leaders were Stephen and Philip (Acts 6:5). The Hellenists, as their name indicates, did not speak Aramaic, but Greek; their culture was Greek. As we see in Stephen's speech before his death, they understood that Jesus had opposed the law of the Jews and the Temple, so it was a contradiction for them to be a Jew and be a Christian at the same time.

Familiar with the Greek culture, some of these Hellenists began to successfully preach to the Gentiles. The conversion of the Gentiles to Christianity was much greater than that of the Jews, so they understood that these new Christians who did not have Judaism as the basis of their culture should not submit to any of the prescriptions of the Law of Moses, especially that of circumcision.  

The Hellenists absolutize the figure of Jesus as being the new Moses, as being superior to the Sabbath, as being the new Temple, as the Gospel of Matthew, written for the Jews, well proves. And for them, Christ came to put an end to cultural, political, or racial divisions; they understand that Christianity has a universal vocation to unite peoples, so they fully subscribe to what St. Paul said:  

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

Between James, representing Judaism where Jesus’ movement was born, and Paul, representing the Hellenic world, Christianity would consolidate and grow. Peter is the Pontifex Maximus, not only uniting the two worlds at that time, but also allowing the new faith to move from Jerusalem to the rest of the world.

Fr. Jorge Amaro, IMC