Faith

Wednesday, 10th week in ordinary time – Matthew 5:17-19

The 400-year period before Christ is known as the intertestamental period’. It was period marked with the absence of a prophetic voice. Roughly halfway through this period arose a group that called themselves the Perushim or ‘the separated ones.’ We know this group as the Pharisees of the Bible. The Pharisees positioned themselves as the guardians of pure uncompromised Torah obedience in response to both the corrupt Jewish kings and the influence of Greek culture on the Jewish faith.

Rival to this group were the aristocratic Sadducees. They held on to the written text of the first five books, the Torah, while rejecting angels and the resurrection. The Pharisees however believed that God had given Moses extra oral explanations on Mount Sinai to clarify the written law. As a consequence of this belief, elaborate list of rules and regulations were created that fenced the Torah. They created a secondary parameter around the Torah to ensure a person never came close to breaking a primary biblical command.

Along comes Jesus. The teachings of this young Jewish rabbi got the attention of the Jewish religious establishment. While Jesus spoke with authority, unlike the religious establishment of his time, his teachings might have been interpreted as unorthodox, drawing some criticism from the Pharisees and other religious groups.

Jesus viewed the Pharisees interpretation of the Torah with respect and yet with great ethical frustration. He fundamentally shared their core theology and the authority of scripture that they held on to. However, he parted ways with their specific interpretive methodology of scripture. The fences around the law that they had built ended up suffocating  and contradicting the actual commandments of God.

He accused them of ‘leaving the commandment of God to hold on to human traditions.’ (Mark 7:8). He elaborated how they missed the ‘weightier matters of the law’ of justice and mercy while dropping a spotlight on calculating a tithe of tiny garden herbs. He criticized them for their sabbath restrictions which distorted the intention of God for the Sabbath. Our Lord saw the Pharisees as conforming to the law externally while lacking inward transformation. He called them “whitewashed tombs!”

Jesus came to help people see the law and the prophets the way God wanted it to be and not twisted in ceremonials like the Pharisees had made it out to be. In short, Jesus was here to give them the law as it should be, unadulterated by human tradition.

When Jesus said he was not here to abolish (kataluo, meaning to tear it apart, to loosen it) the law, He was conscious that this law had been practiced by the Jewish leaders and its people both in its judicial or moral aspect and in its ceremonial or sacrificial aspect.  So, to give an example, one of the things that the ceremonial aspect of the law stipulated was the slaughter of a lamb in sacrifice as an atonement for sin to be forgiven.  Sin was seen as serious business and for sin to be atoned, blood had to be spilt; a life was required. For the Jews, the life of an animal was in the blood. By spilling the blood of an animal, sin was atoned.

When Jesus says that He has not come to do away with the law (in this case ceremonial law) but to fulfil it (pleroo meaning “bringing something to an end”), He proves it by dying on the cross at Calvary. In shedding his blood and giving his life, our sins are washed away. Jesus does not abolish the ceremonial law; he fulfils it and goes beyond what was stipulated. He becomes the sacrifice.

What can we take away from this text for our reflection?

  1. While rigid legalism must be avoided at all costs, one can’t swing to the other end of the pendulum. The answer to rigid legalism is not in throwing out rules entirely under the guise of freedom. Jesus rejects both these approaches. Our Lord never abolished the law, but he never held that we are not called to personal transformation. True freedom isn’t the absence of boundaries; it’s the presence of the right ones.

  2. The spiritual life must never be turned into a cold mechanical check list. Rules are not the ultimate destination; they are signposts pointing to a deeply relational wholehearted way of living. The Law tells us what to do, Jesus gives us the heart that wants to do it.

  3. When Jesus speaks of every iota and every dot of the law being maintained, he reminds us that even our smallest obligations, private thoughts and minor interactions determine the structural integrity of our life. To relax the least things are to invite a slow, unnoticed erosion of the soul. Big characters are built up by small acts of micro faithfulness. If you dismantle the small boundaries of integrity, the whole structure eventually collapses. Sweat the small stuff!

  4. Many see religion as compliance. Such a n approach to religion lacks devotion and desire to serve God. When Jesus fulfills the law, He opens the door for it to be written on our hearts. Compliance teaches us not to steal; devotion teaches us to be intrinsically generous.

  5. Too often people ask spiritual questions framed around the minimum. How much can I do and still get away in the eyes of God? Fulfilling the law is not a matter of avoiding penalties. Jesus did not come to lower the bar of the Law; he came to raise our hearts to meet it.

Spread the love ♥
       
Continue Reading
Faith

Tuesday, 10th week in ordinary time – Matthew 5:13-16

The Sermon on the Mount which we began yesterday is one of the five blocks of teaching in the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus addresses his disciples. By calling them his disciples he has given them their identity. In the Beatitudes that follow, Jesus lays out the behaviour of the disciples.  If the Beatitudes are the description of the disciple, the text of today is the prescription; they are to be the salt and the light of the world.

Jesus presents us with two metaphors; salt and light. A modern mindset would look for more glamorous words to describe a disciple, but these metaphors were aptly chosen for the generation of Jesus.

Notice that Jesus does not say, ‘try to become the salt” or “if you work hard, you might become the light” Jesus states an objective reality; “you are’’. It is said in the indicative not the imperative. Jesus is not asking us to become something new, he is simply asking us to stop acting like something we are not.

Salt, as practical and useful as it may be today, was highly prized in the Roman world. While it may not be true that Roman soldiers were paid in salt, what is true is that the English word ‘salary’ has its roots in the Latin word, salarium, which in turn is derived from sal, the Latin word for salt. In Roman times, ‘Salarium’ was a specific monetary allowance given to soldiers to purchase salt and other necessities. Hence the phrase, “you are not worth your salt.”

But salt was also highly prized for two primary purposes. In a world that lacked refrigeration, salt was used as a preservative to stop meat from rotting. More essentially it was used as a flovouring, to make food palatable. Jesus is not calling us to be the whole meal. He is simply asking us to be the seasoning that makes people hungry for God.

The second metaphor of light to the world is drawn from the Old Testament. Israel as a nation was called to be a light to the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:6). Jesus gives this title to his disciples and redefines God’s people not by ethnicity but by faith to him. By calling a small band of Galilean peasants to be “the light of the world,” Jesus was making a radical exclusive claim. He was saying that true spiritual illumination does not come from Rome’s political power or Greece’s philosophies but through his followers. Yet, the mission is not exclusive but radically inclusive; the light must shine for ALL people.

Oil lamps, that dispersed light were placed on elevated stands in the house to illuminate the entire house. Lighting a lamp and keeping it under a bushel was illogical; as illogical as a Christian whose faith is ‘privately’ practiced or hidden from the world. Private faith is a biblical contradiction. A city set on a hill cannot hide its glowing torches at night.

What then can we learn from these metaphors?

  1. As disciples of Jesus who are called to be salt, we need to acknowledge that like salt we are essential and not some optional luxury item. You can do without a Gucci bag; you can’t do without salt. Like salt, a Christian is essential to preserve the world.

  2. Salt was a preservative; it kept things from rotting. As Christians, we must act as a moral preservative against society’s decay. We are called to bring flavour into the life of people.

  3. We need to acknowledge that our ‘saltiness’ that changes the world is gift of grace and does not come from our self-effort. We are not the primary source of illumination or flavour, rather we are mirrors reflecting Jesus.

  4. This gift can also be corrupted when we lose our saltiness because we watered down the message of Christ. Compromise does not make you relatable to the world; it makes you useless. Light does not negotiate with darkness; its mere presence expels it. Even a small fragile flame exposes hidden stumbling blocks and provides direction.

  5. Salt works silently to stop meat from rotting. It does not complain about the decay, rather it actively prevents it. Christians often complain about their situations around us rather than be the silent agent that prevents the rot. If your faith does not change the flavour of your workplace, then check your purity.

  6. Salt naturally makes people thirsty. As Christians we need to create a spiritual thirst for Jesus. We are called to make the world thirsty for Christ and not bitter towards us.

  7. The metaphor of light is as challenging as the metaphor of salt. A hidden lamp is just a waste of oil. Covering a lamp with a bushel is self-defeating. If believers hide their faith out of fear or rejection or a desire for comfort or social awkwardness, then they are as absurd as a lamp covered with a bushel.

Finally, Human nature craves for recognition. Jesus demands that his disciples do things selflessly and beautifully in order that the observer looks past the human delivery system and praises the divine architect. The goal of Christian visibility is radically different from the world of self-promotion. The light shines so that onlookers bypass the mirror and praise the source. As mirrors we shine the light but deflect the praise. Your job is to do the good deeds, God’s job is to receive the glory.

Spread the love ♥
       
Continue Reading
Faith

Corpus Christ – John 6:51-58

There is a raging debate online as to how Holy communion must be received. I have weighed in on this topic but today I want to take a different approach. I would like to present you with an understanding of what the Gospel of today says and let it lead you to the truth.

The Gospel of today is taken from John 6:51-58 and forms part of what has now been called the ‘bread of life discourse’. At the start of the sixth chapter of John, Jesus is in Galilee. It is here that he has performed the miracle that fed five thousand. The response of the crowd was to ‘take him by force and make him king’ (6:15). Jesus withdrew from them.

Scripture tells us, that the next day, they went seeking him, but Jesus confronts them; “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me not because your saw the signs, but because you ate your fill of the leftovers.” These are words that Our Lord could well say to us today.

Jesus then exhorts them to ‘seek the food that endures for eternal life’ and their response, which clearly lacked understanding was to ask for this food always. Now, Our Lord declares himself to be the ‘bread of life,’ with a further assertion, whoever comes to me will never be hungry and whoever believes in me will never thirst.

It is an assertion that he will make again in verse 48 and then by verse 51 he will assert that he is the LIVING bread that comes down from heaven. He is not just bread that fills your stomach but ‘living bread ‘that gives you eternal life and that the bread he gives us is HIS FLESH.

By now, the Jews thought that he was raving mad and perhaps we too would have had the same reaction had we not been Catholics by convention. Here in lies the problem. A Catholic by convention is not repulsed by talk of eating the ‘Body of Christ’ or as Jesus put it, REAL FLESH. But imagine convincing someone beyond our shared faith. To a person of another religious belief, this sounds nothing short of cannibalism.

Sadly, because of our faith is lived by convention, many Catholics receive this food meant for angels very casually, if not, as many pew studies have shown, they receive it symbolically. Ask many Catholic and they will say this is symbolic of Christs’ body. How else will we explain the casualness that the sacred species are sometimes treated both by priest and people?

Today’s Gospel lifts the veil of ignorance. Jesus is emphatic when he says, “Amen! TRULY, TRULY I say to you unless you, unless you eat the FLESH of the son of man and drink his BLOOD, you can have no life in you.” Jesus is not presenting us with some symbolic flesh and blood because he prefixes this statement with the words TRULY and AMEN. Even more, when we receive the body of Christ at communion, our response to the minister’s ‘the Body of Christ,’ is AMEN; a loud and emphatic SO BE IT! How can we deny what we profess as true?

It is understandable when one may say, my senses sees bread and not flesh, When St Thomas Aquinas was commissioned by the Pope Urban IV to compose the liturgical text for the newly instituted feast of the Corpus Christ in 1264, he gave us the ‘Tantum Ergo’ in which he declared and we today profess, “senses cannot grasp this marvel, faith MUST serve to compensate.”

In today’s text, it is Jesus who is teaching us the TRUTH about the Eucharist and he is emphatic, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you can have no life in you.” Jesus insists we EAT his flesh. In English this word sounds all tidied-up. In Greek, ethios does describe a manner of eating by which one bites and chews, but Jesus adds another dimension when he uses the Greek word trogos to describe the manner of eating his flesh. Trogos demands that you eat like an animal, that you munch and gnaw at your food, as if your life depended on it.

Now weigh this into the debate. This is HIS LIFEGIVING FOOD, THIS IS FOOD FROM HEAVEN THAT ASSURES US OF HEAVEN. THIS IS FOOD THAT RAISES US ON THE LAST DAY. How then would you like to receive this food? Would it not be with reverence?

Fr Warner D’Souza

Spread the love ♥
       
Continue Reading
Faith

7th Aug 2025 – Thursday of the 18th week in Ord. Time

Num 20:1-13; Ps 95; Mt 16:13-23

The passage from Numbers begins by narrating the death of Miriam at Kadesh. Miriam seems important enough for the writer to mention not just the place of her death but also that it was the “first month” (v.1). this is also a chapter of the death of Israel’s leaders – Moses is condemned to die without entering the Promised Land (vv 12-13) and Aaron’s death will close the chapter (vv. 22-29)

In response to the people’s complaining, Moses and Aaron “fell on their faces” before the Lord, possibly a sign of prayer & surrender, but also perhaps put of frustration whilst the people grumble and complaint, Moses and Aaron know that the solution to their problems lies with the Lord alone. We then come across a theological motif of the “rock” from which water is to gush forth at Moses’ command. Biblical scholars debate about what exactly was Moses’ sin; whether it was disobeying God in striking the rock instead of commanding it or whether he took matters into his own hands in striking the rock. While the text is unclear on the exact reason, what is clear is that God was displeased with Moses for striking the rock rather than commanding it to give out water. Paul reflecting of this scene, interprets this rock as Christ (1Cor 10:4). This interpretation affords us a new dimension into understanding the passage. Christ the rock had already been scourged and pierced and didn’t need to undergo another scourging. All that was needed was to appeal to him. For “anyone who is thirsty” is welcomed to come to Jesus “to drink”. And he who believes will experience “streams of living water” flowing from within them (Cf Jn 7:37-38). The water as John points out is symbolic of the Spirit (Jn 7:39). It is from the pierced side of Christ that Blood and water flows out (Jn 19:34)

Thus, looking at the passage through the eyes of the Church and the NT, one is able to gain greater insight into the text of Numbers. Moses’ sin then is much deeper than just mere disobedience: it is really his failure to grasp the deeper meaning of God’s command, namely, that the Rock was Christ and that the water is the gift of the Spirit. But why should Moses be condemned for not perceiving the deeper realities? Precisely because he was a prophet who spoke face to face with God (Num 12:7-8). Moses thus acted like the old generation of Israel who failed to perceive God’s action and deeper intentions in the signs He gave. Faith is a correct response to God’s Word irrespective of whether that word is one of promise or of command. The lesson then remains clear: God’s grace and His calling is never a ground for complacency. By being careless, we can easily forego the privileges of our calling and thereby our contribution to the purposes of God.

Jesus in the gospel takes his disciples to the northernmost region of Israel, as far away from Jerusalem and his opponents as possible. In this section (Chs 16:13-19:2), Jesus will give his disciples important revelations about himself and what lay ahead. Today’s reading deals with the revelation of who Jesus is. He arrives at Caesarea Philippi that lay 25 miles north of Galilee at the foothills of Mt. Hermon. This forms an excellent backdrop for what we will encounter in the gospel passage, namely, Simon being renamed as Peter which means “Rock”.

Jesus begins his instruction by asking a general question about himself, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” The disciples echo different opinions about the person of Jesus. Some, including Herod, would thing he is John the Baptist (Mt 14:2), others would think of Jesus as the fulfilment of the Elijah prophecy, thus making Jesus the forerunner to the Messiah (Mal 4:5-6; Mt 3:1-3; 11:9-10). The same aspect of being the precursor of the Messiah is echoed in the Jeremiah prophecy, for it was believed that Jeremiah who had hidden the Ark would restore it before the coming of the Messiah (2 Macc 2:1-8). But then Jesus makes his next question even sharper as he addresses the disciples, “Who do YOU (plural) say I am?” Peter responds then as the spokesperson of the group using two important terms, “the Christ” and “Son of the living God”. The “Christ” referred to the Messiah that the OT prophesied, the hope of Israel (Mt 1:1). The Jews referred to God as the living God as contrasted with the idols of the pagans. By referring to Jesus as the “Son of the Living God”, Peter leaves no doubt about Jesus’ parentage and which God was His Father. Peter expressed belief that Jesus was both Messiah and God. That also made him the king of the long awaited Davidic descendant (2Sam 7:14; Jer 23:5-6; Mic 5:2). The title of “Son of the Living God” would also have a special resonance considering the place where they were was Caesarea Philippi. This had a shrine to the Pagan god Pan (Canaanite Baal) and living sacrifices were offered at this place. Built of the foothills of Mt. Hermon, this was the site of a huge rock where the shrine was located. At the back of the rock was a deep pool of water believed to be bottomless and so often referred to as “the entrance to the netherworld” or “the gates of hell / the underworld”.

This imagery must be borne in mind as we listen to what Jesus has to say about Peter. He calls him a “Rock” and will build his church on this rock. Jesus is thus referring to himself as the new Solomon who built the Temple on Rock.  Jesus then is the wise man who builds his house on rock (cf7:24-27). Jesus build his “Church” on the rock of Peter’s confession of him as Messiah and Son of the Living God. The “gates of the underworld” would not prevail against this church in the context of the backdrop mentioned earlier, would refer to the realm of death. Death (and consequently evil) would not have power over the Church because Jesus is the Son of the LIVING GOD. and therefore death would never have power of life since life came from the Living God.

Jesus also gives Peter the “Keys” of the kingdom. The keys were a sign of authority. In the Jewish Monarchy, the keys were given to the steward / Prime Minister  (Isa 22:15,22) of the kingdom who was second in command only to the King. In the kings absence, it was the steward who took decisions on behalf of the king. We see Peter making pathbreaking decisions in the Early Church. He opens the doors of the church for Jews (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8) and Gentiles (Acts 10, 15). The terms “binding and loosing” in this context refer to legislative and judicial authority that came with the “Keys”

The second part of the Gospel passage deals with Jesus foretelling his Passion, Death and resurrection. Peter begins to remonstrate with him. No doubt Peter who just acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, meant well as he remonstrated with Jesus. But Peter’s concept of Messiahship needed maturity and deeper understanding. Looking at it from his perspective, Peter could never understand the full meaning of the Messiah he had proclaimed Jesus to be. Jesus upbraids Peter by calling him “Satan” which means “accuser” or “a stumbling block”.

 God’s ways requires not just a relationship with God but essentially thinking from God’s perspective. Paul will refer to this as putting on “the mind of Christ” (1Cor 2:14-16; Rom 12:2; Phil 2:5). Moses who spoke with God face to face, in a moment of weakness, failed to think as God did. Peter, in his zealousness to protect Jesus, failed to see the plan of God. we too can easily fall into this trap. What should we do? The Psalmist pitches in with an answer, “O that today you would listen to his voice! ‘Harden not your hearts.”

This Scripture reflection is an initiative of the Ministry of the Word group – laity trained & commissioned to spread the Word of God.

Spread the love ♥
       
Continue Reading
Opinion

Is the Church poor?

Speaking of the Archdiocese of Bombay, my late friend and mentor. Fr Larry Pereira once said, “There are no poor Churches.”  This statement needs context. Larry, as I called him since my youth, was an expert in his own right in ‘local’ Church History and even more had the power of observation and a memory to match it. His interventions at clergy meetings were insightful, based on reality and peppered with humour. If Larry stood up to speak at a clergy meeting, the house listened and often erupted into what many might consider an ‘unclergy-like chuckle,’ for his tongue-in-cheek comments. He spoke truth to power and truth to his companions, as he did with me.

Larry did not make this statement lightly. Having served as Youth Director for the Archdiocese of Bombay, he opted to work in the missions. He spent the next eight-odd years in Kalamboli which back then was just being urbanized. He took the state transport bus and never owned even a motorbike much less a four-wheeler. He did however come from a very affluent family and we would often ask him in jest to share a ‘thin slice’ of his property with us. From this context, he said, “There are no poor Churches in the Archdiocese of Bombay.”

Larry did not for a minute discount poverty or the fact that many Catholics in the Archdiocese of Bombay struggle to eke out a living. In effect, what he did by often making this statement, was to challenge the Church to be more Christ-like in its giving.

Several years ago, the former finance minister of India, P. Chidambaram added several clauses to the functioning of charitable trusts. One of them demanded that charitable trusts spend 85 per cent of their annual income within the financial year.  At a meeting with the clergy, the Archbishop of Bombay agreed wholeheartedly with the principle. He said, that by its nature, charitable trusts were created to assist in charity and not hoard cash deposits in the bank. If money is collected in the name of charity, then why is it not spent? And if we make a case for ‘saving for a rainy day’ then we throw the providence of God out of the window!

As former priest-in-charge of a small community of believers at St Jude Church, Malad East, I found myself ‘shepherding’ a congregation of 800 souls. A majority of these wonderful people were financially challenged and a Sunday collection never exceeded Rs 3000/- a week; two of which were sent to the Bishop’s House.

On making a representation for the needy in my parish to the archdiocese, its then financial administrator and also the present administrator (then an assistant) with the consent of the Archbishop, stepped up to the plate providing educational, medical and pastoral assistance on a project basis. Accountability was crucial to this process and only a scrutinized utilization certificate would see the next project passed. Anyone who chooses to ask on behalf of the poor will receive but must be ready for accountability. Checks and balances must be in place.

The Archdiocese of Bombay under the brilliant mind of Bishop Percival Fernadez (who baptized me, gave me my first communion and then inducted me as priest-in-charge) created a corpus fund to help Catholics in the Archdiocese of Bombay when in need of medical assistance. He did not want to see a catholic running helter-skelter when strapped for funds in medical emergencies.

He sent in place a simple but effective procedure to help the needy. The parish priest was to render immediate assistance from the community welfare fund. Half that amount would be reimbursed to the parish by the archdiocese. If the need arose and more financial assistance was required, the parish priest had but to write (with supporting documents) to the archdiocese. I can tell you that when I appealed for help in three such cases, the archdiocese sanctioned rupees five lakhs each.

Having said that, this corpus must grow as the interest of the corpus has to be scattered over a year. Bishop Percy does not need a reward. He who humbly washes his car and drives himself and long ran a premier Medical School has seen and understood pain and poverty. He saw and acted and to quote to him his often-said words to others, “God bless you!”

St Jude’s did not have much financially. It did however have generous souls. To meet the weekly quota of food grains for the needy, parishioners, many of whom themselves struggled, would wrap up the last hundred odd grams of grain, sugar, flour or rice in their kitchen and drop it in a box at the start of the mass for someone less fortunate. Offertory, at St Jude’s, began before the mass.

Poverty must not and should not be glorified. It needs to be addressed intellectually and pastorally in every parish. A Bishop once said to me that he sensed that some of his priests were not generous in caring for the poor and needy during the COVID period. Many middle-class Catholics slipped silently into poverty during this time. Here is my contention and perhaps a rather controversial one for some. If a bishop is forced to act against a priest for sexual misconduct or failure to perform sacramental duties, should he not act swiftly when the scandal of poverty is not addressed in a parish?

I am sure some will argue, “Have you not heard of the pride of the poor?” Ahh, but then the rich have no pride? Is it? Poverty cannot be condoned and Churches must respond and must do more to bring dignity to the lives of members of their congregation. If we are still debating on how many packets of food we need to give to a family and have not deliberated on how to educate their children or give them a home with dignity, then our pastoral care is lopsided. Even ‘The Master’ gave more than crumbs from his table!

There are many, who reading this article will begin with their ‘what aboutery’ or even more deliberating on issues such as, “is this the forum to address such matters? I have raised these and other issues at general and private forums. I often feel I am barking up at any tree much less the wrong one.

These articles are written to stimulate thought and growth within the Church. If we cannot be open to listening to viewpoints and want to hush every issue under the carpet then we are truly a POOR church and that poverty is the worst.

Spread the love ♥
       
Continue Reading