Annunciation — 2

I WANTED to continue the theme of the Annunciation because the words of Gabriel give us an insight into the mind of God and the meaning of eternity and infinity.

Let us clear up one misunderstanding first. There are those (and always will be) who take Gabriel’s message as recorded by Luke as simply a piece of story telling, a sort of parable or myth, or in current fashionable parlance “fake news”.

We are fairly sure from the differences between his Gospel and the others that he was a confidant of Our Lady; he includes details that could only have come from that source. So we either believe that Gabriel’s words as she remembers them are as Luke recounts them or Mary or Luke were making it all up. What we need to remember is that is not belief in the Annunciation that makes us Christians but our belief as Christians that lead us to believe in  the details of the Annunciation.

So what are those details, exactly?

 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David; he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and his reign have no end.

And again:

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.

I’m sure none of my readers need a lesson in the mechanics of conception. Where God is involved as the male partner things are likely to be done slightly differently. It is worth noting that, unless I am very much mistaken, parthenogenetic offspring in humans would in all instances be female. Since Jesus was demonstrably male it is certain that His Father provided, by miraculous means the necessary seed.

I have dwelt on this aspect for a minute or two because it is vital to what comes next. Since the conception was “normal” even if the process was miraculous Jesus is not only demonstrably male, he is also demonstrably human, carrying his mother’s genes and DNA. But since his father was God, he is also demonstrably God since God is eternal, infinite, indivisible. You cannot be half God and half man like a centaur is half man and half horse.

God could (in theory) have chosen any method he liked to effect mankind’s redemption; He could simply have pardoned the entire human race on the grounds that what Adam did is not his offspring’s fault (except that in the terms of the original deal the guilt persists, hence original sin — too deep for us today!); He chose not to do that but to make it possible for mankind to regain his favour by some supreme act of sacrifice. But how?

God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3.16)

The sacrifice, the atonement, had to come from mankind. But mankind is flawed and anyway how can the created atone for its sins to the Creator? Only a man who is also God Himself has the stature to provide the sacrifice needed to atone for humanity’s disobedience to and abandonment of its Creator. And the Creator willed that this should happen because He loved mankind so much that he allowed His Son to be born into the human race and offer His own life to reconcile mankind to God.

And that is the miracle of the Annunciation, that a young girl faced with the most awesome responsibility any human being has ever faced, said simply:

Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.

And in so doing freed the entire human race from the bondage of sin.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Annunciation — 1

LIKE TOTAL eclipses or comets, this weekend provides us with the sort of rare event that it is worth a blog post all of its own.

With Easter Sunday falling on April 16 (the next time will be in 11 years and the last time was almost 30 years ago) this weekend sees the Feast of the Annunciation and mid-Lent or Laetare Sunday fall on successive days, a slightly bigger than usual ray of sunshine in the solemn business of the penitential season.

Whatever you have given up for Lent , chocolates or wine (!), have one this weekend. But just one!

We have noted before that, while the Church needs to compress Our Lord’s life on earth into one year, all the events to do with His birth play out in real time so, in the words of the first intercession at Lauds today, “[t]oday we celebrate the beginning of our salvation.” with the birth of John the Baptist to follow in three months time and Jesus’ own nativity six months after that.

I am always impressed with the way in which Luke makes important announcements in his Gospel and generally his translators have kept faith with him.

The angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth,  to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Clear, concise, nothing missing! And the message too brooks no possible misunderstanding and we are perhaps left wondering at what point in all this did Mary know what was happening.

Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have won God’s favour. You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High.

Remember that Mary is the only person completely free of the stain of original sin. Did she feel any different because of this? Was she less inclined to sin, or even disinclined to sin, because of this? Do the words “you have won God’s favour” suddenly make everything clear? Does she say to herself “I know it!” as a sudden realisation that she is different strikes her? Perhaps, but the next words remove any doubt and lead maybe to a feeling of unease, which is finally confirmed with

The Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David; he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and his reign will have no end.

Wait a minute! He is talking about the Messiah. There can be no doubt in the mind of any Jew exactly what that last sentence means; the angel is describing the Messiah. He is telling me I am to be the mother of the Messiah.

It speaks volumes that this girl — how old? 16? not much older or she would already be married not merely “betrothed” — has the presence of mind simply to ask for more details.

How can this be, since I am a virgin?

And Gabriel explains, adding:

And so the child will be holy and will be called the Son of God.

Because that is exactly what He will be and the implications of that I shall be writing about in my next post.

Meanwhile let us enjoy this short break in our Lenten journey and check that we are keeping to out penitential plans. And for those in the UK where mid-Lent Sunday is Mothers Day or Mothering Sunday, let us remember all the mothers in our family, our own mother but also any aunts, cousins, daughters, and let us ask the greatest Mother of them all for her help, support, and encouragement.

God bless!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts for Lent — 3

EVERY NOW AND again, I find myself having a difference of opinion with some of my fellow-Catholics over what constitutes “love”.

Without wishing to judge their ability to understand the basics of their faith, it often seems that the modern Catholic — perhaps I should say the “modernist” Catholic — tends to equate loving with liking and some persistently tell me I am wrong when I claim it is possible to have one without the other.

A lot of people confuse the two anyway, mainly because — in the English-speaking world at any rate — we have a nasty tendency to use the words interchangeably. I say “nasty” because misusing words or using them in a slapdash “well, you know what I meant” way probably leads to more misunderstandings between people than anything else.So when I say that I “love” chocolate or that I “love” the symphonies of Vaughan Williams (to hark back to my last post) I really am saying that I like them very much.

To take the argument a step further, if we consider love purely on the emotional level it is something we feel or do not feel and therefore to an extent it is something over which we have little control. But if that were the case, how can we explain Jesus’ reply to the scribe who asked Him what was the most important commandment?

The gospel for today (Friday of week 3 of Lent, Mark 12, 28-34) recounts the incident and the telling reply:

… you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.

So we are commanded to love God as we are also commanded to love our neighbour. Love, our Blessed Lord tells us, is not something which is left to our feelings; it is something which we are obliged to do. So “liking” doesn’t come into it. Anyway, I could hardly be expected to like my next door neighbour who lets his eight-foot leylandii hedge continue to block out the light to my garden or plays heavy metal music till 3 o’clock in the morning or lets his out-of-control rottweiler do its business on my carefully tended lawn.

But, Jesus tells, me I have to love him. What Jesus does not say is that I have to like him, so love is something apart from that. I can behave charitably towards him; I can treat him honestly and fairly in my dealings with him; I can sympathise with him in times of trouble and be prepared to be happy with him and for him in the good times.

I can encourage him (to play his music less loudly and keep his dog under control — nobody says loving him means always putting up with his failings, just not making an issue of them!); I can refrain from judging him; I can pray for him.

So “love” in  the context that Jesus is talking about is not concerned with feelings towards people but with actions towards them. And when better time than Lent to look closely at ourselves and ask if we are demonstrating this sort of love for our neighbours, friends, work colleagues, and anyone else we associate on a regular basis?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts for Lent — 2

YESTERDAY’S atrocity in central London is one more reminder of the extent to which some people will go in furtherance of their beliefs. For us as Catholics such an action is a particular challenge for two different  but not unrelated reasons.

We are confident, most of us, in our belief that we are members of the One, Holy, Catholic (ie universal) Church, a membership which we might in more generous moments extend to other denominations which call themselves Christian though their beliefs may fall short of acceptance of the Trinity or Transubstantiation. We know we are right because God Himself has told us so.

With that belief and that conviction go the demand that we “preach the gospel to all nations”, unless of course we assume that this instruction was for the apostles only and is really nothing to do with us. “All” nations includes those who produce Islamist fanatics prepared to use bullets, bombs, and the occasional kitchen knife in pursuit of …

… of what, precisely? The logic is incoherent. Killing an unbeliever gets you no further forward. Neither does killing a planeload, at least to any meaningful extent.  Being killed in the process of killing unbelievers gets you martyrdom and instant transport to paradise where 72 virgins await your pleasure (if I have the right translation; others differ). Delightful as that might be it seems a rather limited, not to say nihilistic, view of eternity.

My own view, for which I have ample authority from a variety of sources, not least my favourite theologian Frank Sheed, is that heaven will provide all the joys that one could conceivably have enjoyed on earth but to perfection. All the delights of the senses — the music of Vaughan Williams or Ed Sheeran, the art of Rembrandt or Jackson Pollock — are God-created for our benefit and since we have been promised that we will be reunited with our bodies, perfect bodies that is, at the end of time we must presume if there is any logic to our belief that we will able to experience the same sensations as we do now only as God intended them to be experienced.

But we need to earn all this and meanwhile we have a job to do on earth which is to persuade our fellow beings that our path is the right one, that others may attain an eternal reward but that we have “the message of eternal life” because Jesus gave it to us. At the very least all those who have not found the true way need to be constantly in our prayers and that includes the misguided and the murderers as well as those who find themselves caught up and washed along in this tide of extremism.

That is one challenge for us. The other is to examine our own consciences and ask how far along the path of the extremist we ourselves would be prepared to go for what we believe in. How many of us would truly be prepared to die for the faith? If someone burst into our church next Sunday waving his Kalashnikov and yelling “Allahu akbar”, how many of us would throw ourselves at him and make ourselves willing martyrs to prevent him creating a dozen or more unwilling martyrs around us?

Rarely does God ask us to go quite that far. Lent is a good time to ask ourselves how far we do go, how far we can go, how far God is asking us to go. And how often we say to Him, “Here I am, Lord. I come to do Your will.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On Guardian Angels

THERE IS A story about Group Captain Cheshire who took over command of the famous ‘Dam Busters’ squadron in 1943.

For two days after he arrived his driver sat in the staff car with nothing to do, frequently watching him walk away to wherever it was he was going and apparently unaware of her existence. Eventually she took herself off to the station commander and asked if the Group Captain was indeed unaware of her existence. “You’d better ask him,” was the reply, so she did and was (in the words of Cheshire’s biographer Paul Brickhill), “… staggered when he confessed that he didn’t even know he had a car at his disposal.”

“It was fairly typical of the man,” Brickhill continues, “never taking for granted what lesser men demanded.”

I was reminded of this story when reading Francis Fernandez’s meditation on Guardian Angels on Tuesday of this week and it crossed my mind to wonder how many guardian angels are “sitting outside” waiting for us to remember or even to discover that they exist and are there for our benefit.

The Church teaches that every one of us has their own personal guardian angel appointed “to light and guard, to rule and guide” from the moment of conception to the moment of our death. Their whole purpose, if asked, is to look after our spiritual welfare, and our temporal welfare also to some extent since, as Fernandez points out, there is no reason not to ask for help even for something as mundane as being able to find a parking place! (In fact, given the congestion in modern city streets anyone who can help in that regard is well worth keeping on the right side of!)

The important phrase, of course, is “if asked”! Most of us already understand that trying to outwit Satan and his hordes on our own can only be disastrous and we seek help from Our Lord and Our Lady through Mass and the Rosary, through our daily prayers and meditations and the Sacraments — and rightly so — but how many of us bother to hold any sort of conversation with our guardian angel whose sole purpose while we live is to “hold our hand” and, again so the Church teaches, to accompany us on that final journey when we confront God to account for the life we have lived.

That conversation can never be two-way but there are times when it can come fairly close and the more we treat our guardian angel as a friend, confidant, and counsellor the more likely it is that we will be able to feel some sort of rapport.Don’t take my word for it; read any of the lives of the saints. But I will give one example because it happened to me and you are welcome to put your own interpretation on it.

One of the dangers of being retired in the computer age is that you find yourself at the breakfast table checking your e-mails on the iPad, reading the on-line newspapers, catching up on the social media (though I have managed to avoid Facebook and Twitter so far!) and finding before you know it that your shoulders hurt and your eyes hurt and it’s nearly time for morning coffee! So I made the decision that I would not do that. I would leave the table and do some definite outdoor task and on those days when there was no definite task to do I would spend a quarter-hour sitting quietly in an armchair. That’s it. I had nothing else in mind.

Until suddenly something inside me said — because these are exactly the words I ‘heard’ — “That’s a good idea. And just nice time for saying your Rosary as well.” Make what you will of it.

To return to Leonard Cheshire for a moment. After the war he became heavily involved in charitable work which in the early days was very much hand-to-mouth. In a brief description at the end of his book, Brickhill notes:

I’ve asked him several time how he paid it all off, and he always says, “I can’t really explain it. Things just seemed to work out.” He did, in fact, develop a fatalistic attitude that if he did not worry things would be all right. Peculiarly enough, they were.

He quotes three instances in which the Home he was running was within two days of being able to pay a bill only to have almost the exact amount required arrive unsolicited in the post just in time.

Coincidence? Or someone’s guardian angel working overtime?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

What about free will

I WAS TAKEN to task yesterday over my comment that Jesus could — in theory — have given in to Satan’s temptations. How could I suggest anything so outlandish?

Well, for a start if we didn’t occasionally suggest outlandish things, even hypothetical possibilities,we would never make any sort of progress as human beings. Some of the most outlandish ideas (at the time) have ultimately proven to be correct.

In this case I was simply pointing out that as a human being Jesus bar-Joseph was equipped with that essential God-given facility — free will. Had he not been then he would have been lacking in his humanity with all that that implied, as I said in yesterday’s posting. So allowing for that we have to assume that the possibility to succumb to temptation exists — in theory.

Our Lord resisted because of His love for His Father, His understanding of how wrong giving in would be, perhaps because He knew (who better?) that anything that Satan wanted Him to do would be bound to turn out badly. Did He at any stage feel that it would be so much easier to say ‘yes’? Perhaps.We do and why should the human Jesus feel differently?

There is a lesson to be learned here. Satan can only tempt us to the extent that God permits him to and we will not be tempted beyond our ability to resist. But if we understand that and we also love God and understand how wrong giving in would be and that anything Satan wants us to do will turn out badly and we ask for help from Our Lord and Our Lady and our guardian angel and our patron saint (and aren’t I the lucky one because mine is Michael?!) Satan and all his demons will rapidly go and look for easier pickings elsewhere.

Free will is about choices: we make them every minute of every day. The only free will that matters is the choice between saying ‘yes’ to God and saying ‘yes’ to Satan. “With a little help from our friends” in heaven making the right choice becomes much easier.

Happy Lent!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts for Lent— 1

THE TEMPTATION of Our Lord raises a whole series of questions which very often we don’t bother to answer though looking below the surface can be quite rewarding. Let us have a look.

The first question we perhaps ought to ask is: why did God allow Himself to be tempted at all? Most theologians agree that since temptation is an essential part of the human condition, for God not to have allowed for His Son to be tempted would have made Jesus less than human and the whole rationale behind the way in which our redemption was worked out meant that the Redeemer had to be “one of us”.

Which, presumably, means that Jesus could — in theory at least — have given in to any of those temptations. To have done so in the case of the first one — turning stones into bread — could hardly have been said to be sinful, at least per se. But when Satan in person comes to tempt you it is a fair bet that even doing something that is not itself sinful will rapidly lead him on to suggesting something that is!

A more intriguing question is whether Satan knew who it was he was trying to seduce. At least initially. It is extremely unlikely that God will have sent Satan an email quoting where and when and how mankind’s redemption was to happen. And even less likely that His internal communications were leaked! However it is highly likely that he knew fairly quickly that there was at least a new prophet on the scene and one who, according to his spies, apparently had God’s personal approval (Matthew 3.17, Mark 1.11, Luke 3.22).

Better take a closer look!

The first temptation is straightforward enough and on the face of it fairly harmless (aren’t they always?!). You are hungry; you are a prophet; can you turn stones into bread? “Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”, is not the answer he was looking for. Who is this guy? Try again.

So the second temptation focuses more on the possibility that this is indeed “He who is to come” of whom it was said (Psalm 91) “[the angels] will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone”. Of course, if Satan had really, really known who he was dealing with he would have realised that He had no need of angels to stop him from hitting the ground, but then while we know Satan is crafty we never said he was all that bright! Remember he is only allowed to tempt us to the extent that God allows him to.

And Satan lets Jesus “off the hook” as it were by saying “if you are the Son of God ..” giving Our Lord the perfect escape route and He immediately quotes back at Satan, “Scripture also says ‘you must not put the Lord your God to the test.

So far, not so lucky. But if this is the Son of God he has come to take away Satan’s kingdom. How, Satan doesn’t know. God, as I said, has not “cued him in” on what is in store but one thing is for sure and that is that He plans to take to Himself “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour” which is fine provided I can get Him to acknowledge me as top dog because that way I get them all and Him as well. (I did say he was crafty but not all that bright!)

So he tries the last throw of the dice. “You can have the lot! Just get down on your knees and worship me.” And now very quickly realised just who it was he was up against and retreated in confusion to have another think about things.

But though Satan has lost the war there are still skirmishes he can win. He may have lost the human race but there are still individuals that can be persuaded to sign up to his short-term gain which only turns into eternal nihilism. Lent is the ideal time to start making sure we aren’t among his conquests.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Going the extra mile

ONE PHRASE which annoys me is “go the extra mile”. My daughter is in full agreement on this since we have both at various times in our lives worked for the sort of company which uses management-speak as a substitute for intelligent communication with its employees. The follow-up is often “the rewards will be great” which is a further cause for gnashing of teeth because the rewards for going that extra mile never materialised in the wage packet of the dumb donkey that plodded on. Not in my experience at least. Perhaps his line manager was more fortunate

Of course, as Christians we ought to be happy to go the extra mile because we have been assured on the very best authority that the rewards will indeed be great and we have every reason to trust our Manager when He tells us so.

If I were a betting man, which I used to be but am no longer, I would risk a small wager that the advocates of (other people) going that extra mile do not have a clue where the phrase originates. We, of course, know better because it comes from Matthew’s gospel (ch5 v41) which was read as the Gospel for last Sunday (as I am sure you remember!)

We are still in the Sermon on the Mount with Our Lord continuing to expound on His text of two weeks ago: “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come to fulfil them”. And He adds that not one iota of the Law shall disappear until its purpose is achieved. It would do us all good, I am sure, to read and to re-read the whole of Chapter 5 (and of course the whole of all the gospels as often as we can) because this is another vital part of Our Lord’s message that the Commandments are still in place, there has been no resiling from the law as it was given to Moses but that we are now grown-up enough to understand that “Thou shalt not kill” was only the bare bones of what is needed for a righteous person to earn a place in paradise.

We must not just refrain from killing our brother but even a falling-out and harsh words are something to be repented of. Not just the act of adultery is sinful but so also is the thought, which (I think) is apart from and more speficic than the general command not to covet your brother’s wife which in most versions of the Commandments outside the Catholic Church is not “itemised” separately.

So more is going to be demanded of those who choose to follow Our Lord than simply the Commandments. The parable of the Good Samaritan tells us that acts of charity were not anything new. Nobody expressed surprise at the thought of someone stopping to help an injured man and I suspect that the man who asked “who is my neighbour?” knew quite well what the answer was going to be. The parable simply reinforces what most people knew all along if only anyone had ever asked them to think about it.

Be generous and outgoing in your dealings with your fellow human beings is at least part of the message. And that means all of them. Any fool can be pleasant with those who are pleasant with him. The test of what sort of a person you are is how you treat those who maltreat you. Do you sink to their level and trade insult for insult, blow for blow? As Our Lord might have said but didn’t quite, “animals do that and you are supposed to be better than animals.” Do you, as we say, “rise above it”?

Read again that passage from last Sunday, “… for He causes the sun to rise on bad men as well as good and the rain to fall on honest and dishonest men alike.” And think also what Our Lord says about judging, and motes and beams and remember that at times we are all “bad” and “dishonest” and in need of the very love that Our Lord commands that we show to those who are not our friends.

Maybe by our generosity, our “going the extra mile” they may become our friends because it is worth recalling something that Abraham Lincoln said when he was asked why he refused to destroy his enemies and was always lenient towards them. “Surely, ” he replied, “I destroy my enemies by making them my friends.”



Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on faith

FRANK SHEED’S book Theology and Sanity has long been a favourite of mine and one I return to frequently for inspiration. His premise is simple: the more you can learn about God, the better you come to know Him, the more you will love Him and that, in essence, is the basis of his theology.

At the same time he has a high regard for the faith of those perhaps not intellectually equipped to study their religion deeply but whose devotion to God is every bit as great and in its way perfect as anybody’s. The peasant woman (always a woman in these examples!) who goes to Mass most mornings and says her rosary every day will probably, Sheed says, end up in heaven before he will. Unmoved by doubts she simply takes her faith as she was taught it and believes it implicitly.

Which does not mean, he says, that learning more about God and listening to His teachings with an open ear and a receptive mind will not be profoundly beneficial to those who choose to follow that road.

In last Tuesday’s gospel the Pharisees expressed themselves shocked that Jesus’ followers did not wash their hands before they sat down to eat. Mark was evidently not amused because he adds his own editorial comment at this point about rituals that had been handed down regarding not just hand-washing but how to deal with all the crockery and cutlery as well. Nor was Jesus who picked out one example of how the Pharisees had perverted God’s teaching for their own benefit and quoted Isaiah (ch 29):

… this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips glorify me, but their heart is far from me, and they have feared me with the commandment and doctrines of men

He elaborates further and the gospel for last Wednesday tells us what it is that truly makes a man unclean:

the things which come out from a man, they defile a man for from out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.

In those three verses of Mark’s gospel (ch 7 vv 20-22) it seems to me we have the essence of Jesus’ teaching. If we were to stop there and go no further with the gospels we would still have the core of Christian teaching, simple guidance in 25 words. Avoid these things and you will be OK!

There is of course a lot more to Christianity than that — the Passion and Death of Our Lord, the Resurrection, the Mass and the Sacraments, all essential to our salvation — but if we also recall Jesus’ words that “unless you become as little children you cannot enter the kingdom” we can perhaps come to realise that we do not need to seek beyond the simple teachings. If there is greater understanding for us there, as Sheed would argue that there is, then well and good; we should not be discouraged from looking further into our faith but it is to be done with care and humility. In the words of Psalm 131:

O Lord, my heart is not proud, nor haughty my eyes. I have not gone after things too great nor marvels beyond me. Truly I have set my soul in silence and peace. As a child has rest in its mother’s arms, even so is my soul.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Times and seasons

THE FEAST which we celebrated last Thursday marks, for many of us “conservative” (read “traditionalist”!) Catholics the proper end of Christmastide. In fact before the modernisation/simplification/dumbing down (pick your own description) of the liturgy 50 years ago The Feast of the Presentation was officially the end of the Season of Christmas.

I have commented before on the Church’s helter-skelter dash through the very early days of Jesus’ public life from the marriage at Cana through his baptism by John to the calling of the first apostles and though this may leave us a little breathless there is really very little choice when we consider what needs to be got through between now and Easter, at best a bare three months away.

Why, then, does the Church deal with all the events associated with Jesus’ birth in real time? The Annunciation, which the Church quite logically takes as the date of His conception, is followed three months later by the birth of John the Baptist (“… she whom people called barren is now in her sixth month …”) and six months after that by Jesus’ own birth and 40 days after that by His presentation to God as a first-born son, “according to the scriptures” (a phrase we hear repeated frequently throughout the New Testament).

So ir is made abundantly clear to us that these are real events that really happened. The chronology of these events — the “time line”, if you like — from conception through to the requirement that a first-born be ‘redeemed’ by the offering of a pair of turtle doves is there in black and white. Whether any of those precise dates is correct is irrelevant but we can be assured because the gospels tell us so that these happenings did take place and the Church reinforces that by deliberately incorporating them into its liturgy and placing them correctly in relationship to each other.

The one episode in Jesus’ life not accounted for in the gospels so far is His 40-day fast in the desert which chronologically ought to follow from His baptism by John. But though chronology may have its uses  it is not everything and the beginning of Lent — itself a reminder of that episode — is the right and proper time for us to begin the serious matter of looking forward with Jesus to the Day of our redemption. I hope this year to have more frequent but shorter postings aimed at giving us all something to think about and reflect on during that time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment