Whom did Christ offer his blood to? Part I

                                                             }}}}-- Fr. Conrad Saldanha

A pastor once preached from the pulpit and said that Jesus offered his blood to the devil as a ransom for the salvation of mankind. This is the price that he had to pay for our sins so that we could be free from the clutches of the devil. The whole world and all people are in the clutches of the evil one. The love of God is shown in this; He died offering his blood as a ransom to the evil one.

The idea of Jesus offering his blood to the Devil as a ransom for us can send many on a wild goose chase. But put in another way it can be a subject of a hot theological debate and which I myself would like to participate, answering the dispute in a two part series: “Whom did Jesus offer his blood to, in order to redeem us?”

There have often been attempts in the past to explain this at various times and various moments.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) only emphasizes on the offering of Christ’ whole life to the Father (606-7)

On the other hand the scripture which is normally quoted to give us the impression that Christ Offered himself to the Father is the text from Hebrews:

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. Heb 9:11-14

The argument then offered which makes many retract is this: How can God who is a loving Father require blood for appeasement. What difference is there between the God of the pagans and the Christian God?

The argument concerning Jesus offering his blood to the devil is a strong argument in some circles. Jesus has paid a price to ransom us who are under the power of the devil. Sin held us captive to the devil and we need to be redeemed from this captivity to the Devil and Jesus offered his blood to the devil in order to free us from this captivity to the devil; the price he paid to redeem us. “..You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”(1 Cor 6:19-20) Or the other text: “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.” 1 Cor 7:23-24

I propose that the problem has to be looked at from a broader perspective taking into consideration the Old Testament and also the relationship between God, Man and Satan.  These are the 3 characters in the whole drama of redemption and each have a role to play.  It is my opinion that all three had a stake in the Blood of Christ (life of Christ) in three different manners and that is the price that Jesus came to pay. To whom did he pay is the question we dwell on and seek to answer. 

A little historical background in the light of the Old Testament would help us in understanding the role of each of the characters and their role.

The offering of sacrifices is seen in the very first book, in the first children of Adam and Eve. By the time of Moses the laws of offering a sacrifice are streamlined with the appointment of the Levitical priesthood. The sacrifices for sin, under the Law, were sin-offerings: Lev. 4:3,4,23,24,27,31,34 and 35; Exod. 30:10; Lev. 5:11,12and Lev. 9:2,6,7, and 2 Chron. 29:7-10,20-24. 

In the Old Testament the offering was clearly made to God for the atonement of one’s self for sin.  The blood of the bull or goat or lamb was collected by the priest and was sprinkled on the veil of the sanctuary.    

Which clearly suggests that God required of them, an atonement with blood in order that his wrath may not come on the sinners who have broken his laws and commandments. In this we learn that there is a relationship between sin and blood.  Sin that is the result of breaking God’s commandment not only brings about a further divide between God and man but also separates man from each other. The worst consequence is that it reduces his life span through the working of the wrath of God, even leading to death. (Rm. 6:23) Thus atonement is through the blood; the life of a lesser creature than humans was the norm in the Old Testament.

Hence the significant point that we have in the Old Testament is that of a vulnerable humanity steeped in sin and wrong doing and the resultant bondage which is detrimental to his immediate wellbeing and eternal happiness. Therefore God has to intervene and offer them a solution that would represent and would be a fore runner to the ultimate plan which would unfold at an appointed time in history; Jesus, the Lamb of God who will come and offer himself as sacrifice to redeem us from under the power of death and sin.

Where Satan comes in the picture? As far as the Old Testament Sacrifice is concerned, Satan’s role finds no mention. But it is important to keep in mind the pagan sacrifices which were ghastly demonic and an offering to appease the deity whom the Apostle Paul would even refer to as Demons; “I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.” (1 Cor 10:20) The aim of their exercise was to appease Satan and the evil spirits so as to ward them off through satisfaction. This practice is still a common practice in pagan and modern paganised cultures especially if they are assailed by evil spirits and when they have to undertake a major task or for other evil purposes.  Blood of fowl or goats or bulls are offered in order to appease the deity or wandering spirits in order to ward-off any obstacles or evil.

Reflecting on man; the key character and primary centre among God’ vast creation. Ever since his fall the first man came under a curse, subjected to pain and suffering. Humans lost the sense of God and came under the power of sin and death, the power of the evil one.  In the history of the Old Testament we see a gradual decline in morality and goodness and a growing trend towards creating their own gods.  If we analyze sin then the primary sin is that of losing the sense of the one true God who created us and instead creating the one which suits our reasoning’s and fascination.  

Yet there is one thing that’s common both among some of the pagan religions of those times and the early ancestors of Noah and others and that is the offering of the blood sacrifice to make atonement for the guilt of one’s sins and to appease the deity in order to receive favors.

When it comes to humans, the Bible clearly forbids the consumption of blood in any form.  Yet in the history of the human race they have been abundant of instances of torture, murder, wars and even the drinking of human blood either as part of a ritual or apart. These have not just been an ancient reality but even in our times, these things exist in various measures. Often we find the best solution employed for survival and peace is the destruction of the other.  

Have humans been a slave to Satan, yes, each according to their sinfulness and choices are in a way under the yoke of the evil one.  Therefore we are also under the power of sin; Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.  (John 8:34) And then there is death under whose power we are subjected to and against which we constantly struggle against for survival. “..who has the power of death, that is, the devil.” Heb 2:14

Thus sin and death which are a visible reality are the weapons of Satan to trouble humans, especially the power thereof of guilt, shame, fear, uncontrollable anger, greed, addiction and every form of destructive behavior patterns.  One under the deception and influence of the devil begins to believe and think that it is self gratification is necessary in order to survive. The human nature by default manifests a pattern of behavior which seeks survival over death, gratification over sacrifice because of the many fears and anxieties, including the fear of death. “And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds” (Col. 1:21)

In the light of the above we shall now place Christ Sacrifice in its proper context; all three had a stake in the bloody sacrifice of Christ.

Though the God of the Old Testament desired as necessitated by human sinfulness that atonement be done by the blood of bulls and goats yet it was never his desire to continue with the bloody sacrifice of atoning with blood. It was as if he was waiting for a special moment, the appointed time to send his son Jesus to finish off with the ritualistic requirement according to the law that governed our life. The atonement with blood was necessary in order to prevent us from falling further prey to the devil, the angel of death.

                                                            (To be continued in Part II)

Prayer: Lord prepare my heart and mind that I may reap the benefit of the precious blood of Jesus Christ and thus participate fully in the life of Christ and the Most Holy Trinity.

Universal Brotherhood and Humanism

As a catholic priest I was invited, this week, to an inter-religious seminar. I was briefed that I would have to speak about my faith. On preliminary enquiry, I was not given much detail concerning the programme and the theme.  The theme at the entrance itself, read loud and clear: Revival of universal brotherhood and humanism.  Though this may not shock many, I was shocked. 

When I saw the theme I realized that I did not fit in with the so called pseudo-intellectuals who would display their merchandise and have scant regard for the truth.

At the outset itself, I was introduced to one of the key figures, who was an ex-IAS (Indian Administrative Service and still active), considered to be a well read man. In our preliminary discussion it was evident, that in his conviction and zeal to achieve this goal, he was willing to suppress every form of resistance through strong intellectual assertions, and he had a willing audience to accept it. 

He held a view: “When people believing in different religions will get united and cooperate for reviving global brotherhood and humanism there will be no problem in bringing about world unity.” He even had a view about every religion and what they are and what they should.

I was suggesting to him that true unity could consist in not ignoring the differences but by recognizing diversity and differences, and yet respecting the rights of each one to hold on to what they think as right. (This I did put into practice there, even though I was insulted and disrespected and yet responding with kindness and respect).  I chose to be gentle to them through enduring tolerance, and by not walking out of the seminar.  Ultimately, was this attitude of mine, viz. that of respect, kindness and gentleness considered as being an approval of their mindset and thinking, by them???  They seemed to know my religion better than me, and were keen on teaching me and interpreting it as they thought it fit, as if they had my stamp of approval to whatever seemed right to them. Alas for their zeal to unite religions!

I had only to fit in with their scheme of things: Revival of universal brotherhood and humanism – in what way is this not a new religion?

No doubt, the goal of moving towards a universal brotherhood and humanism, by bringing all religions together on a common platform, in order to get them to agree on being united in common purpose, sounds noble and very appealing but nevertheless belongs to the ideological world of ideas; it is not a new trend among humanity.

The aim of this article is to expose the hypocrisy in such thought patterns and analyze the underlying cause of such longings, and the reason for its seeming success with possible solutions. 

Years ago when I was serving in a particular parish there were emissaries sent by some priests to invite me to participate in a seminar on humanity, where the aim was to bring all religions on a common platform and help them realize humanity as the uniting factor for religions.  I was told that some prominent personalities would be there too. After having listened to their insistence I asked them; “Isn’t this goal of bringing people of all religions together on a common platform, in the name of humanity, and uniting religions under one banner was as good as starting a new-religion?”

I have seen such foolish participation by the elite class, the Judases of the faith, who may never have realized the disservice they were doing humanity in the name of humanism (Hindi/ Sanskrit: Manavta).

Overall Analysis of the problem:

Achievement factor:  The focus of this exercise should by now be clear: Bring people of all religions together on a common platform so as to unite them under the banner of humanism. The fruit thereof would be the establishment of a new world order based on humanism; one world, one government.

The reason for this exercise, on their part, is on account of the frustration with religion or could be their personal ambitions. Besides this, religions binding laws, the internal and external conflicts, the growing religious intolerance and the rise of religious terrorism may also be a cause for such a demand.  Such ideology may also be sown in human hope;  of achieving something credible. 

Though what is proclaimed by these is that every religion teaches one to love and respect and there is good in every religion, and that we must seek what binds rather than what divides - this in itself is a contradiction: If there is good in every religion then why seek what binds and not learn to respect and deliberate on what divides?  “There shouldn't be the dividing factor among religions”; as per their reasoning. 

The normal trend is to see all religions from one perspective and from one window, this sometimes holds true even in Catholic circles among priests and religious. When there is a manifestation of any form of fundamentalism or fanaticism in any religion, even if it is broadly manifested in a few religions, then the condemnation issued is towards all; "all religions are bad," - is what they would boldly assert.

On the other hand, the positive contribution of Christianity towards the development of cultures and people are all forgotten. Holding on to Christian fundamentals can only lead to a service of love and self-sacrifice.

For those who are working towards the goal of universal brotherhood and humanism, this new approach, to them, is the need of the hour, because they are tired of the many conflicts in the name of religion, the growing trend of religious terrorism and the division in society. 

Is it a new phenomenon to unite religions of the world? At least, to seek the unity of man is not new  a new trend and many think that it is religion that has been an obstacle towards achieving this goal. By what seems noble in his nature man always seeks unity, the goal does not matter to him or how this unity is achieved. At the ordinary level it is even unity for the sake of unity!.

I have seen and experienced for myself, how people with such mind set have been brutal in suppressing those who raise a prophetic objection to their scheming's  Hence, what I speak here is not based on armchair theories or ideas.

This unity which they normally seek is one of blind agreement on any issues, at any cost, irrespective of the truth concerning the issues; whether it is the issue of peace, religion, humanism, brotherhood, development, progress, health or business.

Hence, it is a strong current trend, a movement  towards uniting humans on the basis of humanism, which has seen its gradual rise and will definitely grow stronger and louder with time and even establish itself.  Unfortunately! We have reached a stage in human history whereby this ideological trend will grow and establish and even assert itself even in the church.

On the other hand there is a growing frustration due to various reasons, besides the religious conflicts; there are also the socio-economic factors, the growing fracture in all forms of committed relationships, lifestyles that are hostile to sound values, family and society, etc.  There are those who have made beating at religion their goal and also hit out at Christians who are already holding firm to the faith. Those agreeing with sound Catholic doctrine are already at the receiving end from such fundamentalists rooted in humanism and relativism. As Pope Benedict would call them; “dictator of relativism”

Consequences: This labor which is sown in hope today, viz,. the Universal brotherhood and humanism, will result in great unhappiness and destruction in the near future. For a little while everyone will rejoice and be happy. This will be looked upon as mankind’s greatest achievement. To help in the achievement of this goal there are already existing unions among nations on the basis of trade and development.

Why do these things happen in society? I see this as fruit of human aspiration and hope for a perfect society; an idealism. In which they hope to achieve peace and brotherhood, wealth and well being.  What one fails to realize is this; what we hope for and the outcome thereof is never the same, what we aspire for and what in reality we are is something which we have not fully comprehended about ourselves  We hope for a corrupt-free world, while we ourselves are corrupt. We hope for a society free of all kinds discrimination while we are ourselves discriminate. 

In my talk at the seminar I applauded this aspiration of the human heart to achieve universal brotherhood through humanism but at the same time pointed out the three basic flaws of humanity:

1)      Human beings are selfish and self centered; by nature they seek what suits best for them. They are greedy and ambitious and always, whether consciously or unconsciously, seeks their own gain. Their mortal nature seeks survival over sacrifice in a morbidly competitive world.

2)      Confused and the conflict within makes him 'want to do good but ends up doing what is evil: Even if they want to avoid evil they still end up doing it.' (cfr. Rm. 7:14ff)

3)      many a times, one does not know the difference between good and evil. This is a stark reality which stares at the face of every human being. Whether in the small choices of life or the big he is confused over his choices and sometimes looks to others for approval or create themselves a support structure to absorb the criticism or pain of the consequences of a wrong choice.  Even if he thinks he has taken a right decision in life, it is his value goal, his priority, which gives him a sense of satisfaction of taking right decision and yet may never be right: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.”  (Prov 14:12; 16:25)

In such a dark situation, I proposed Christ as the model. He is God who knew this reality of the human race and thus revealed himself and came in our midst to unite us under the perfect banner of the Fatherhood of God.  In other words: Not unity for unity sake, not unity by overlooking our differences or sinfulness, not a unity which would be sown in a false hope of human development, not the unity where man is the absolute centre; which would set him even above God.

Get me right: I am not against any form of unity or brotherhood but what I am definitely against is the reasoning’s and means that we are using to achieve it.  The way of humanism is neither the solution nor the way to Universal brotherhood. 

Jesus has already shown us the way and he himself, in human terms, can be termed as a failure in this cause. He was a perfect example of moral uprightness and perfection and yet never assures us that unity and perfection in society.  He has given us a way to unity in himself and under the Fatherhood of God and his failure is proved by the rejection he endured and ultimately his crucifixion:  “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Luke 12:51-53). Lest anyone misunderstand this statement of Jesus; what Jesus is reminding the human race is its sinful nature, which is selfish, unwise and foolish and gets carried away with that which pleases them. It will not easily accept that which is good for them in the long run, and hence will even reject his true followers and their teachings for their own criterion of life. 

Jesus can only unite us to the extent to which we are willing to allow him a say in our lives: How will they allow him that total Lordship over their lives? How many believe in the truth of his statement? If Christ came to establish a kingdom of justice, peace and brotherhood here on earth, as the humanist would have us believe, then he need not have proclaimed to the world, when he was brought before Pilate at the moment of his trial, that his kingdom is not of this world.

Therefore the only success achievable towards this end has to be through an adoption of devious means, false hope, poor logic, through the craftiness of men whose only goal is to unite and perhaps make a name for themselves as authors of a new world order.

Christian love on the other hand sees the difference and hence avoids a hypocritical approach to life. It recognizes the evil and yet tolerates but not without seeking a correction, it sees the hatred and yet loves, and it sees the discrimination and yet is patient. It only seeks the good of the other, even the eternal good. Thus in the history of the human race it can boast of a better ratio of love winning over hatred than any other major religion. There have been more deaths, in its long history, due to the self sacrifice and persecutions its adherents have faced rather than by seeking to vanquish others  .

Prayer:

The Salvation Issue -- Part III

                                                                  ~~Fr. Conrad Saldanha
I have often been posed this question, especially in a mixed gathering: “How can Catholics give so much of importance to Mary and the saints, more so, when Scripture clearly states that there is Salvation in no one else but Christ Jesus?”

My answer to them is: “Do not limit God’s action; for Jesus himself did not limit his action. (Let not some of you after reading this overtly broaden God’s action without reference to his word). True, Salvation is only in Christ but this salvation is handed down to us through the ministry of the Apostles and holy men and women down the ages. Among all these, Mary stands out as the humble servant of God, whom all generations invoking her intercession and salvific grace call “Blessed” (Lk.1:48).

'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' (Matt 25:40) “And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward."(Matt 10:42).  This is how Christ uses, what I would call a powerful chain reaction which on that day we may be able to see, as far greater than any chain nuclear reaction.

In him the dead are no more, but they belong to the living, and God allows them to minister to us the message of the power of salvation.  “..The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” (Matt 27:52-53).

All those who lead a life of union with God and are faithful and true to his word are ambassadors of Christ (2 Cor. 5:20). No one can insult an ambassador of a country and get away with it, because they represent the kingdom, which is Jesus, who in person is God’s kingdom.

The Christian privilege often makes one insecure.  They see it as an unnecessary arrogance bordered on exclusivity which they think needs to be condemned. Exclusive, yes and privileged, yes, arrogance sometimes, especially to a world that is blind and wants to stand on judgment over the righteous and chosen ones of God. 

If we limit ourselves here then it is only the partial truth. Christian privilege and exclusivity is not a call for arrogance or pride or domination which normally makes people insecure and fearful but, it is rather a call for service in humility.  This is so because that which is my gain, by virtue of my belief in Christ is not meant for me exclusively, but is meant for the whole world. Go therefore, He said, make disciples of all nations. In other words, the privilege that we as Christians enjoy is to be shared and not to be stored or hidden away.  The businessmen of the world keep the best portion and hold on to it.  God’s door is open for all peoples and every one can come in. For this very reason Jesus sent his apostles to all the nations to proclaim the good news of Salvation so that all may respond and come in; the greatest act of service. What if they refuse to come in or listen to the message that is able to save? It is not God’s problem if they do not receive. It is only arrogance clothed in garbs of humility that prevents them from accepting the truth of Christ, and then to sit in judgment over the chosen ones of God.

The TV/ Internet provide us with many channels/ websites for relaxation. But if we choose to find relaxation in the worldly serials, reality shows or action entertainment, and forget the greatest action, the greatest story and the actual reality which is true and without an iota of deception; the story of Jesus Christ, the Savior who proved it by the manner of his life and death, then do not blame God. And all who are in positions power and authority, ordained to proclaim the good news of Christ, if they find more meaning in proclaiming worldly wisdom and showing-off credentials and positions of power they hold, rather than the truth of the gospel of Christ then how will the truth in the church be promoted?  Go therefore, He said, make disciples of all nations.

There are some who having rejected the objective truth, i.e. Christ Jesus, seem to have found a new impetus in the Vatican II documents of the Church which they have read without a sound knowledge of scripture. Pope John Paul II often emphasized the reading of the Vat. II documents in the light of the scriptures as it was pastoral in nature.

They feel that the “trace of truth” which is in other religions will definitely lead one to salvation. Some even have claimed that this trace of truth means the whole truth. The Church has only asserted that this trace of truth points to Christ; who is the ONLY way, the truth and the life. (Jn. 14:6). There are many who have gone astray on account of the wrong interpretation of this assertion by the Church, and have imprudently plunged themselves into inter-religious dialogue, in order to search for the ultimate truth. Through the medium of inter-religious dialogue some are even teaching others to open themselves to all sorts of occult dabbling and influences.  Others have exposed themselves to spiritualities which are not in keeping with the Christian concept of God, who is a person, Supreme and yet always with us. Some even profess only one religion, and that is humanity with extremes of humanism.

This is the extreme interpretation of the term ‘traces of truth’.  Could this be a subliminal activity born out of a need for recognition and acceptance?  The quicker way of which is rebellion towards the truth. Can a trace of gold, in iron make the iron, gold? Or can traces of pure water in the sewage water make it pure?  The danger one overlooks in the realm of religious studies, is to approach these “traces” with human intellect which is fraught with pitfalls. “Apart from me you can do nothing” (Jn. 15:5). One must consider the many occasions, they have been deceived by other humans in the daily routine of life and the many occasions when they have been deceived and yet never realized it to this day. You need not bother about what you never know but do bother about the eternal truths because it matters; your future and salvation and the salvation of those who are dependent on you is at stake.

Finally, remember Satan too has traces of truth in him though he is the father of lies. He was created good and became evil by his own choice and every good lie has always a trace of truth in it, yet it will always remain a lie.  Would you knowing this, believe the enemy, yet whether you acknowledge him or not you still are slave to him and all that he has to offer to you in the name of “traces of truth”.

The relationship between truth and lies is this: Truth exposes lies, while lies can only contaminate truth. To those who believe and have faith in the living God to them this is a sure hope because of a concrete action in history: Truth will ultimately triumph over evil.

In keeping with the contamination there is a love brigade at work also. These are the ones who think that it is possible to attain salvation through love. After all, didn’t Jesus teach us the love commandment as the greatest and only commandment? Some of these are the ones who are uncomfortable with arguments and discussions on the truths of the doctrine but are never uncomfortable to gossip and slander about people and discuss worldly matters. Perhaps love as they understand, in the ideological sense, is the solution to the entire human problem, as if that was the only life line for sustenance of life. Hence in the bargain, these too end up being nicer than God himself. 

These love brigades understand love in the narrow sense of the term and as being pleasing to men. They seek every opportunity not to hurt the sentiments of anyone. The major problem arises when they have to judge between two people: then the rule they follow is this; be kind to one and be merciful to the other. Ultimately please no one!  What is the criterion for judging? Themselves! There is no justice in their love but only betrayal and wrongdoing. Having failed their master, they rule over God’s household by adopting unjust criteria to redeem their way out from their many follies.

There is also a category who believes that the salvation of an individual is here and now. Their priority is self. The goals that they work for is self development, self achievement, self progress. The spirituality that they adopt is practical to them; a spiritually that promotes their agenda of self gratification; New Age, holistic (wholistic) health and gratifying lifestyle. Take in whatever, as long as it helps and is useful for health.  There are some who have more confidence in their therapies’ (water, urine, food, cosmic energies, massages, acupuncture, etc.)  than in Jesus who is the truth and has given the sacraments of healing and reconciliation. 

Then there are some who believe that life is like being in a boat with rowing oars in their hands for satisfaction, on a vast ocean drifting as the winds take you.  For them God is at work in every situation and he will surely take you to your final destination.  No cooperation with his grace and power. No mention of his Salvation.  To such Jesus speaks again: “…no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6b) Drifting on the vast ocean does not lead one to his destination but can lead one to consequent destruction.

By their fruit you shall know what manner of tree it is (cfr. Lk. 6:44). We who are living in a Christian environment have Christ as the standard for judgment. But this understanding of Christ that we have and use as a criterion for judging ourselves and others is not always the Christ as revealed in the Word. We may sometimes have degrees and qualifications in theology and scripture and may be even experts at quoting from it yet it is no guarantee to walk the right path if we do not know Jesus, have a personal relationship with him and allow him to guide and thus rule our lives.

With this article, I conclude the three parts series on ‘The Salvation Issue’. Ultimately, any polemics still has its limitations. More so, if our answers are not sought in sincerity of heart and trusting in the eternal God in all sincerity and honesty to reveal his saving plan for us.  Only God knows the categories and world view we hold on to and the premise which hinder us from knowing or seeking the truth and the level of earnestness of the human heart. He, who looks at the hearts of men, is able to cater to our intellect and animate our mind with the divine wisdom without which we cannot be saved. He who had to open the eyes of his disciple and give them the key of understanding matters of the kingdom is indeed the Savior who can remove the scales that prevent us from knowing him and his riches.

Prayer: Lord God I come to you in all sincerity and total surrender, so that you may open my eyes to see the wonder of your loving plan of salvation.      

The Salvation Issue -- part II

                                                   >fr conrad saldanha

When discussing the issue of salvation and Jesus being the only way to salvation, the reaction of few (who do not understand this great truth) will always be that; “every religion feels the same, that their religion is true”.

How valid is this argument?

Though the Semitic religions are very particular about this aspect of exclusivity, the other religions are generally not interested. For some other religions, good and evil are part of the divine and they believe in the karmic re-incarnation for purification and hence they are not interested in this aspect.

For the sake of arguments; though religions may claim, but for the Christian, primarily speaking, it is not their religion that gives one salvation but the person of Jesus and all that he established towards this end.  The salvation for a Christian is in Christ Jesus who died and gave his life as a ransom to save humanity.  Take away the founders from their religions and one is taught that they can be saved by observing the laws and principles. On the other hand take Jesus away from Christianity and you cannot talk about Salvation. For he asserts; "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” John 14:6

 

On the other hand, there are some third world theologians who claim that the concept of exclusivity is a form of western colonialism and hegemony over the third world. If, they have not understood their own faith, how can they call themselves theologians? It sometimes seems like a colonial hangover born out of school education, steeped in false indoctrination which considered everything that the western domination brought about as evil. It is a ruinous divide which we hold on to when seeking to fight all divisions.  Add to this problem is the low self image the third world Christians carry with them while living among the dominant religious groups and the persecution and harassment they face due to constant suspicion of their motives.  We have failed to hold on to the good in our religion and its contribution to the very fabric of society and its cause. But yet we try to see the good in other religions!

Irrespective of the behavior of the adherents of the Christian faith, Christian tolerance is different. While for some, religious faith is exclusive and the other religions have no right to exist.  On the other hand, some would tolerate as long as you don’t cross their path. There are others who tolerate not by choice but by virtue of their existence in a particular belief which open themselves to anything because they are either searching or accumulate in the hope that one of the deity would work.  Give them Jesus and he is one among the many.  Or is it like the great Indian masala where more the better for taste, health and wealth. This approach becomes a major obstacle in morals and ethics, which is then considered as always evolving and never stable.  Today there are many in the Catholic Church who have allowed themselves to be influenced by such theories and have ended up demanding rights which are detrimental to life and contrary to sound doctrine. Their approach is myopic; the good is the useful and right, and they fail to realize that what is immediately good is in the long term detrimental and destructive.

Jesus teachings have ample example of tolerance both within and outside. He showed it in himself by offering his very life not by submitting to lies but asserting to the truth of the reality of God and he being the Son of God. He is the savior; from a position of absolute nothingness he shows us the rich merciful love of a God who saves: “Father, forgive them for they know not…..” (Lk. 23:24). He says this because he really knows and has revealed to us what we need to know. Then who is it that knows better than him?  Does one become wise after having studied about him and got a degree on studying his word and teachings?  Hence tolerance for a Christian would mean seeking to correct a situation and in the process even bearing up with the evil of the obstinate who are self-conceited and would not value a sound advice. The Christian bears up with the wrong with patience and fortitude, trusting a God who is still at work in creation.

A Christian is one who has arrived at the truth in Christ Jesus; the ultimate truth.  Any dialogue with any religion is never a search for the ultimate truth. Yet there are theologians who have this approach because they hold on to Kantian perspectavalism more than Divine revelation and the objectivity of truth.  This does not mean that we reject the concept of seeing things in perspective but rather we are on a sure foundation in Jesus; the only truth. (Jn.14:6) Though we are beings who look at things in perspective yet, we are sure about the ultimate truth with the guidance of the Holy Spirit who leads us in the daily practical truths of life. Life is thus sure and meaningful, even with the minor glitches and mistakes which we make in the absence of discerning the promptings of the Holy Spirit who indeed leads us to all truths. (Jn. 16:13). Christ Jesus is the beginning and the end of all truth, for the human being the Holy Spirit fills the intermediary gap of leading the soul in the daily perspectives of life.

How many of us understand the good news as good news?  We think the good news is the stories of Jesus and we stop at that.  Hence in our proclamation and attitude, the body language we manifest is the very antithesis of the message of hope we communicate. If we can’t see a crisis here, in the fruit we manifest, then we will never be able to see it.

Everyone has the right to proclaim his beliefs and for us, it is the right to proclaim what is true and good for the human race for all eternity; that’s the good news. If in the world of advertisement, we largely listen to all sorts of crap and even allow ourselves to be deceived by it then why can’t religions have the freedom to do so and present to the world how authentic they are? That would be implementing the fundamental right.  The job of governing authorities is to maintain law and order and not curbing people’s right to speak, practice and proclaim what is right and truthful. If these things disturb people then it their problem which they need to learn to handle at forums that are open to discuss rather than take matters in their hand.

For those who reject the objective truth that is Christ, for them Salvation is a human agenda with human emancipation as their goal.  They expect church communities to start community centers and Justice Organizations, to work for the marginalized and the oppressed in society, forming human communities.  They have never understood the faith of Christ.  For them to proclaim the Gospel means to thrust the Gospel down people’s throat forcibly or promote so called gospel values.  Their idea of proclamation is warped to the core and thus they abuse their positions to give long discourses on Proclamation with their petty concepts. If the premise is wrong the arguments can only be built on superficiality meant to deceive.

For them there are only good and bad in the world.  The good will be saved and the bad will be condemned. Some will even go further than this, for they are much more merciful and kind than the God who has revealed himself in human history.  For them, ultimately all will be saved whether it is Hitler or Stalin or Satan himself.  God’s mercy is greater than human love and far surpasses it but there is a limit to his patience which scripture speaks about. 

What are their criteria for judging what is good or bad? Me, myself; that person is better than me.  It is as if they are the criteria for judging the faith of the other.  Self proclaimed Saints without openly claiming it!  Let Jesus who is the way and truth be the criteria for judging the good and the bad. “No one is good but God alone,” says Jesus. (Mk. 10:18; Mt. 19:17) How can you who falsely accuse others as judging get into the business of judging yourselves by saying; “this one will be saved and that one will be saved because they have led good lives.”  Whereas, I have learnt through the word that man looks at the outside and God looks at the heart, but these theologians look much beyond God’s sight, ascended above the throne of god. “..for the Lord sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart." 1 Sam 16:7

All roads leads to God just as all road lead to one destination. If, that is truth to you then, what about the road that leads you away from your goal and destination?  And what about the road that leads to another goal or destination. To such thinking the scripture says: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.  (Pr.14:12& ps.16:25)

And if you thought, that was being intellectual, sorry, utter stupidity! It is no doubt emotional when people ask; “what about the vast majority that that do not know Christ?” The answer is not for the soft hearted, God’s terrible interventions in creation is not for the soft hearted. But for the moment, it should suffice to know what Christ teaches us and what the teaching of the Church affirms in the words of the Apostles: “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by whom we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

Look at Cornelius (the gentile) in the Acts of the Apostle, in the 10^th Chapter; “he was a good and righteous man and God saves him.” Those who thus deduce, suffer from a particular disease that many who approach the scripture like an academician suffer from;  A disease, which I would call; ‘chronological myopia’. Though Cornelius was a gentile who used to be generous with the things he had, by giving alms to the poor, yet it was not enough to save him and hence God speaks to him to call for Peter the Apostle from Joppa who proclaims to him the good news, which is the Saving message of God which he offers in His Son Jesus. The scripture tells us that Cornelius and his household believed in the message and were baptized in the faith of Christ. And thus they were saved.

Prayer: Lord, many are the deceptions and traps for the simple and unassuming, be Lord my Savior and help me hold firmly to you and your saving words.

                                                                 

The Salvation Issue Part-I

                                                                          > fr. Conrad Saldanha

The salvation of the righteous is from the Lord; he is their refuge in the time of trouble. The Lord helps them and delivers them; he delivers them from the wicked, and saves them, because they take refuge in him. Ps 37:39-40

The issue of Salvation has often bothered humanity, especially people of various religious orientation and background.  It’s not just the theologians who are concerned, but even the laity may some time or the other reflect on it.  But the difference is that the theologians are the ones they look up to and may put their faith more in them, than in the living God who still reveals his salvific plan to all who seek him with a sincere heart. “You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart.” Jer. 29:13

The stand of the Church: In contrast to the previous article in my blog site, Inspirations, (of 30^th July, 2011) which explained that Jesus did not shed his blood for all, here in this article on God’s Salvation (God’s saving grace),  the offer of God’s salvation is for all irrespective of caste, creed or colour. Though this salvation is for all, yet, it is an offer that has to be first received by an individual through faith. It is an offer of God made through the death of Jesus on the Cross. Thus Salvation is a free gift to all.  But just like a gift which does not become your own unless you receive it with gratitude and faith, so also the Salvation offered by God, cannot be yours unless you accept it.  Once received, this salvation has to be lived. Next follows the works, the works of faith, from faith and not just any work. 

With regards to the Catholic Church being an instrument of salvation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church quoting from St. Augustine is emphatic that Jesus is the only way. “In the later usage, the term sacramentum emphasizes the visible sign of the hidden reality of salvation which was indicated by the term mysterium. In this sense, Christ himself is the mystery of salvation: For there is no other mystery of God, except Christ."  (CCC)

The aim of this article is not to elaborate on the meaning of the universal salvation offered to us freely by God in his Son Jesus but to nullify the various fears and arguments that hinder one to believe in such an exclusive viewpoint.  The Church in the Vatican II Document makes a presentation of this subject with elements of confusion but latter cleared in Dominus Iesus (SCDF) and other such documents. But sometimes confusion arises, because one fails to read it in the light of the Scriptures and give much credence to emotional arguments which passes on as rational.

I personally believe that many a time our logic is guided by a deep latent fear and anxiety of the various consequences and implications of such a belief, the offense it may give the other irrespective whether we speak the truth or not. Then we present what we things are facts to validate our arguments.  The human insecurities, fears and anxieties work in various ways and what appears to be conviction are normally a sublimation of an underlying current.

One of the points of argument is the issue of exclusivity which Christians claim like most Semitic religions.  The issue, at stake is the consequence of such a belief. i.e. the fear, that it may lead to broken relationships and communal disharmony.  Such absolutism and exclusivism is interpreted as fundamentalism and if this is their conclusion after analyzing the issue then their conclusion is also according; intolerance of the other and if need be a civilized form of violence.

Is this a fact of Christianity and if so what could be the possible problem and solution to such a situation?

For this, we need to analyze the contribution of Christianity, made towards the development of Society and people. It is natural for humans to make a scapegoat of someone when evil befalls.  Many a time society in their desperation adopts wrong measures for a right cause.  For example a terrorist attack may prompt the government to adopt a strong repressive law rather than improving upon their preventive measures. The government may adopt repressive checks which impinge on the privacy of the person rather than seeking newer technical and innovative methods which respects human dignity.  For an individual too, a condom or an abortion may be considered as a better solution to solve problems of AIDs and population growth or unwanted pregnancy, rather than abstinence and responsible precaution.  Thus, in the worldwide scenario because of a few rare cases of extreme religious fanaticism, the larger community gets affected. It is not just the government; worse still are the so called progressive communities, within the Christian community who begin to tear and pull from within. Education and pseudo-rationality aids our many fears and insecurities and we are not able to handle them.

The question to always ask ourselves is this: What if there was no Christianity and no Christian contribution to the development of Individuals?

We have forgotten the good and the great Christian contribution to society, in spite of its belief in exclusivity; a contribution which the secularized world has failed to recognize. The contribution to culture, ethics and morality are great Christian contributions to the world. Europe may have been at war over religion in the 16^th and 17^th century.  Peace may have been brought about by keeping religious fervor aside, but the west has never kept religion out of bounds, because without religion it would be like choking oneself of life.  The morals and ethics of religion act as a life line to sustain life and improve the quality of life.

The Christian faith in keeping with the words of Jesus has had a great leavening effect on the various religions of the world. It has been a catalyst for change and morality which is so very strong in the Christian milieu that we have taken for granted this reality. This is so because we have time and again looked at only the flaws of individuals in the church and waited to see when they would fall rather than look at the good it has contributed to the society and the world as a whole.

How good is a society without the contribution of religion? We don’t have to go far in our search. The Communist nation reveal in their dark history what repression and absence of religion brings; that too by progressive men of revolution who sought to change the social fabric into a more just society: where justice, peace and brotherhood are the corner stone of their proclaimed agenda. But ultimately, repressive structures in the name of progress and which does not respect human life nor dignity had been the order of the day; a great moral decadence which does not respect life, beginning with life in the womb.

The church because of the confidence it has through divine revelation has been a moral voice through the Popes in voicing its concern about certain repressive laws and regimes which have been anti-life and humanity.  In spite of the conflicting voices from within and the negative pressure, it has still managed to voice its self against the atrocities against human life, dignity and many other moral issues.  The media glare ever willing to expose and blow out of proportion its selective faults has dwarfed the greater contribution it has made.     (to be continued……………)

Prayer: Lord we thank you for the gift of the Church and your special presence in it. May we through faithful adherence to you and its teaching come to the eternal life and joy you have prepared for all who accept your offer of salvation. We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. 

Desecration of the Body and Blood of Christ!

                                                  ```Fr. Conrad Saldanha

There was this little news article on Jul 28, 2011 in the Catholic News Agency which read as follows: “Spanish cardinal recommends that Catholics receive Communion on the tongue.”  Further the news article had the following to state: “He recommended that Catholics receive Communion on the tongue and while kneeling.”

”Receiving Communion in this way, the cardinal continued, is the sign of adoration that needs to be recovered. I think the entire Church needs to receive Communion while kneeling.”

“In fact,” he added, “if one receives while standing, a genuflection or profound bow should be made, and this is not happening.” “If we trivialize Communion, we trivialize everything, and we cannot lose a moment as important as that of receiving Communion, of recognizing the real presence of Christ there, of the God who is the love above all loves, as we sing in a hymn in Spanish.” (CNA)

The official church teaching:

The congregation for Divine Worship introduced a document in May, 1969;  Memoriale Domini, in which each bishops' conference was supposed to  petition the Vatican to allow the faithful in their jurisdiction to receive Communion in the hand. Until such permission is granted, it was not lawful for the faithful to do so (or for bishops or priests to allow it).

The instruction also said that “in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed.  Further, “The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs and out of concern for the common good of the Church.”

In 1977, the Congregation for Divine Worship reiterated this point: “The practice must remain the option of the communicant. The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion. It is the communicant’s personal choice.”

This recommendation also applies to the Priest, Bishop or Pope. It is said;  once, when Pope St. Pius X was on his deathbed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand. He received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church. And so, even in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest were assisting at Mass (and not celebrating) and if he wished to receive Holy Communion, he did not do so by his own hand; he received on the tongue from another priest. The same would be true of a Bishop or even a Pope.

Thus when this congregation was receiving specific complaints from the USA and other places, they had a strong rebuke against the imposed practices by the clergy and Bishops. This is what they had to say; “….and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that "sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them" (canon 843 ß 1)----July 2002; Responses to Questions on Kneeling for Holy Communion  by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments

Abuses in the Church: (Names have been withheld)

This made me go down memory lane on some of the more serious violations I have seen, heard or experienced.

There was this theologian whom I had come across who taught in keeping with his liberal view that everything is holy and that there was no difference between cow dung and a piece of Holy Eucharist.  Since he taught in a formation house I was compelled to report this to the authorities through proper channels after having confronted him myself on this and various subjects.

Further, it was the same priest whom I once witnessed inviting a non-Christian, who was invited by them for a mass to receive Holy Communion. 

There was another who continued in the same aberration and taught that rituals by themselves have no meaning and the only value they had was, of uniting people; a sociological viewpoint.  Hence, rituals were encouraged not because of the grace and sanctification they offered, but more because it helped achieve a social cause. For this very reason, we see, why many lay emphasis and participate in the Eucharist as if it were a mere meal rather than as a sacrifice; the sacrifice of Jesus for our sanctification and salvation. 

In one of the lectures I heard, one theologian was speaking more about the need of receiving communion in the hand, rather than teaching the norm. All were made to believe that receiving communion on the tongue was unhygienic and hence receiving on the hand was better. 

Even in parishes, we find the same irreverence. The communion plates have become obsolete and the children are specifically taught in catechism to receive communion in the hand.  Is receiving communion in the hand the rule that our children have to be taught and even be compelled to receive? Children should be taught the norm and not the exception.

Practicality, saving on time and hygiene is given precedence over reverence, divine presence and Godly wisdom. Thus the casualty has been a weakening of the faith.

While priests are being questioned for following the norm of insisting on communion on the tongue, there are others who insist on communion either standing or from lay people, and on hand, these continue unabashedly.

One theologian calls these liturgical abuses as progress in the church guided by the Holy Spirit. While he claims that the church is progressing, on the other hand the Master has already spoken prophetically; “when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?" (Lk. 18:8) Or is it a pressing on to the omega point of destruction in the name of progress?

In one particular parish I found the communion bowls kept inverted in the cupboard and the crumbs strewn at the base. The sacristan will do what he has been told. Are they well catechized to handle the sacred vessels?  When one parishioner wanted bowls to put petals to be sprinkled in order to welcome the holy image o f Mary, he willingly gave the communion bowls to be used.  One would, even in their personal life, not use a vessel that is used for ignoble use simultaneously used for a noble purpose.  

Those parishes which have non-Christian visitors for the Eucharistic celebration must make an announcement.  The Eucharistic ministers and rarely the priest, especially new or visiting priests are not equipped to discern the Catholic from the non-catholic.   This becomes all the more difficult in parishes which have a Syro-Malabar presence, where the laity is not trained to acknowledge with an Amen the proclamation of the ‘Body of Christ’ by the priest.

There are many other stories I keep hearing about the catechesis the children and the laity receive which are incongruous to the faith of the Church.

If hygiene is the major concern, I wondered what happens to the poor priest, who has to consume the crumbs and use those hands to purify and many a times consume from common vessels.

In one of my regular visitation I happened to visit a house and in keeping with the Indian Hospitality a poor old lady, shabbily clad, in a one room tenement insisted that I have something and she offered me a cup of milk. As she was pouring the milk into the cup she blew into it to push the cream back. How hygienic is the food that is laid at daily table, when one breathes and talks over the cooking pot and the raw salads?

Is hygiene a major concern? It could be more unhygienic giving holy communion in the hand than on the tongue. More germs are spread through the hand than through the tongue approach because the chances of touching the hand is significantly more while distributing Holy Communion, than when given on tongue.

There is a need to restore reverence and awe back into the worship life of the church.  This reverence and awe is best expressed by receiving communion on the tongue and if possible through kneeling.

 I have yet to come across a person who receiving Holy Communion in the hand has knelt down and closed their eyes in loving reverence.  This sort of reverence is only possible with Holy Communion on the tongue.

Catechesis which lays emphasis on the rational at the cost of faith has no room in the living Church of God. For rationality has its limitation before the ineffable mystery of God’s presence in our midst.  Restore the element of reverence and the sense of the divine. Celebration of the  Eucharist is not a mere ritual that has to be completed in 10-15 minute flat with smiling priests to soothe the nerves of the stressed up laity rather than seriously dispensing the sacrament of healing in which Jesus is present as a healer Body and Blood, soul and divinity. “Lord, I am not worthy to have you under my roof but only say the word and I shall be healed”. (cfr. Mt. 8:8; Lk. 7:6)

I am convinced from my many years of ministry that there are more people who are sick on account of their improper disposition in receiving communion than by receiving it on the tongue.“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”  1 Cor. 11:29-30

Prayer: Lord forgive us and hold not this sin against us which we have committed against your Holy Presence established by you in our midst through your most sorrowful passion. Have mercy on us, and on the whole world.