The Good Shepherd, c. 300–350, at the Catacombs of Domitilla, Rome (Wikipedia)

Fourth Sunday of Easter
1 Peter 2:20B–25
May 3, 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the entire world to a standstill. This has caused considerable dislocation in every area of every society and has provided an opportunity to re-evaluate attitudes and world views. With the Internet, spokespeople for every philosophy and religion, new and old, have emerged to take advantage of this situation. Many of these are charlatans and huskers, but some intelligent and reasonable views have been raised. One of these is about the oldest: Stoicism.

We looked at the Stoics by comparing their view of fate with that of the great Jewish sage Ben Sirach. Fate was irresistible and unchangeable and the question for the Stoic is how to approach the inevitable. A Stoics facing the pandemic first ask, “Is what is happening to me under my control?” The Stoic answer is that the existence or non-existence of the disease, who will or will not contract it, and who will or will not die is simply not under our control. In the words of the great Stoic philosopher Epictetus: “I should be indifferent to things beyond my control. They are nothing to me. —Discourses 1.29.24.” Continue reading “Good Shepherd Sunday – Seeking the Hope Within” →

Supper at Emmaus, Matthias Stom, 1633-1639

Fr. Smith’s Commentary on the Second Reading
1st Letter of Peter 1:17–21
April 26, 2020

This week we continue our examination of the 1st Letter of St. Peter. We saw last week that either Peter or a close associate who felt comfortable using his name wrote from Rome to converts in what is now Turkey around 70 AD. He began this letter by offering hope and today he will be more specific on where this hope rests.

As gentiles, they would have been struck by the idea of creation that Christians took from Jews. That a loving God brought the world into being would have been foreign perhaps unbelievable to them. Indeed, even now when we look at the world, it seems difficult to believe that it was made by all-loving and all-powerful being. There is simply so much evil in it that the alternative views that “creation” came from accident, greed, or outright hatred may seem far more likely.

Yet they made this decision and creation has its consequences. Once we accept that we were made intentionally and out of love, there are other things we will need to accommodate into our lives.

Continue reading “3rd Sunday of Easter – Getting Our Hands Dirty in Love” →

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas, Caravaggio, 1603

Second Sunday of Easter
1st Letter of St. Peter 1:3–9
April 19, 2020

During the weeks of Easter, the first reading will be from the “Acts of the Apostles” and the second reading from the very intriguing “First Letter of St. Peter.” We will use this opportunity to examine this letter in some detail.

Often discussion of 1 Peter can become fixated on if it was, in fact, written by St Peter. We will avoid this issue to a great extent and simply hold that if it was not it was written by Peter, it was constructed by a close associate who would have communicated his thought faithfully and reverently. This is most important. We will assume that the letter was written if not by Peter, who was executed in 64 AD, then soon after it, no later than 90 AD and most likely closer to 70 or 80 AD—in any event, rather early in the Church’s history. The author is addressing the same issues as other New Testament writers of this time especially St. Paul, his followers, and St. Matthew. Although St. Peter has a distinctive viewpoint that is well worth hearing, we should keep in mind how similar his message is to his contemporaries. Continue reading “Second Sunday of Easter – No Time When We Cannot Hope” →

Resurrection, Benjamin West, c. 1808

Easter
Ezekiel 36:16–17a, 18–28
April 12, 2020

For most of the year, the first readings for the Mass are from the Old Testament. They are sufficiently diverse that over the three-year cycle we receive a very clear if not systematic understanding of its major themes. The exception to this rule is Easter time. For the weeks between Easter Sunday and Pentecost, our first reading will always be from the “Acts of the Apostles” and this year our second reading will be taken from the 1^st letter of Peter. Our commentaries for this season will rotate between the two. However, the Easter Vigil Mass has seven selections from the Old Testament. Although some are quite unfamiliar to us, I have decided to look at a reading from the prophet Ezekiel who is by now familiar.

A more extensive biography of Ezekiel may be found in the commentary for the first reading for March 29, but the high points of his life are illuminating enough. He was a priest at the temple in Jerusalem who was exiled to Babylon in 597 BC. This was the first exile and meant as a warning, but by 587 BC the Babylonians had become so exasperated with the leadership of the Jews they finally decided to level the temple and destroy them as a nation. Indeed, Ezekiel had a vision of the glory of God leaving the temple (Ez. 10:18). Temple worship gave them their meaning and purpose, and this should have been the end of the Jewish people. Continue reading “Fr. Smith’s Commentary on the First Reading – Conversion in Our Hearts and Our World” →

Photo by Srinivasan Venkataraman on Unsplash

Palm Sunday
Isaiah 50:4–7
April 5, 2020

Readers of these reflections with a good memory will note that this is the usual Old Testament reading for the Mass for Palm Sunday. It is considered so important that it is used other times of the year as well (24^th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year B). We read it this year during the coronavirus pandemic and its message is even stronger and more pertinent.

As with so many of the passages we have examined, we must return to the mindset of the people who rebuilt Jerusalem around 520 BC. A miracle had occurred. Jerusalem and the temple had been destroyed and the leaders brought into exile in Babylon. This should have been the end of the Jewish people. Yet God through the unlikely intermediary of Cyrus, Prince of Persia, has given them a chance to start again. Enough decided to return to the ruins of Jerusalem that they could contemplate reconstruction. Yet they needed a second miracle to know why they were there. Continue reading “Fr. Smith’s Commentary on the First Reading” →