"Pierre encouraged his fellow bishops to personally embrace the Eucharistic encounters they are promoting for their people, in order to allow the wounds of the risen Lord to heal their own wounds."
-Anyone have eyes on Cardinal Cupich when this was said?
For someone who claims that all Catholics have wounds, he sure spends a lot of time banging on other people’s wounds. Maybe he should concentrate on his own rather than assume something “that appeals to us because it seems like a better, simpler time” is some kind of sin. Just enough already.
I read Cardinal Pierre's entire speech given his words about “[T]he Eucharistic encounter with the risen Lord affords a new personal and ecclesial experience. "
I was struck by this passage:
"By means of this experience, the Lord invited them into a mystery that would
have life-changing implications for them. Because, while the Gospel account does
not say it explicitly, the unspoken reality is that the Apostles were also carrying the
trauma of wounds when they encountered the risen Lord. They had abandoned him
out of fear. One of their own had committed suicide. They were still grieving the
death of the One in whom they had believed, and they were grieving the hope that 4
they thought had died with him. (How hard is the suffering for us when the thing
we had been hoping for is not realized!) So yes, they had their own wounds. And
so, this became a meeting between the Lord’s wounds and their own. Jesus allows
the disciples to touch his wounds so that their own wounds might become the place
of an experience that consoles and gives discernment."
I think that the wounds of love shown by Christ are very different than the wounds of fear by the apostles and I believe it is unhelpful that he conflates the two. His theme is "Eucharistic transformation", a transformation that occurs through the wounds of love we suffer when we take up our crosses and follow Jesus along the path of "Thy Will Be Done". Our wounds of love make us more like Jesus while our wounds of fear do not. Certainly God can and does use our wound of fear to motivate us; however, I believe that the "Eucharistic transformation" occurs through our sacrifices of our hearts to God out of love for God as we become more like Jesus.
Be careful however, because we must be ready to deal with our brother’s needs before we will be welcomed by God:
[Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way. First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.] Matthew 5:23
"Bishops can only be effective shepherds and witnesses when they first present their own wounds to Christ and open themselves to his grace and power, Pierre said."
Here is a "wound" which the bishops should deal with:
“A preferential option for the poor” should be maintained in our Catholic Schools. If we find that we cannot afford to keep our schools open to the poor, the Church should be ready to use its resources for something else which can be kept open to the poor. We cannot allow our Church to become a church primarily for the upper classes while allowing the poor to remain in public schools. The priority should be given to the poor even if we have to let the middle-class and rich fend for themselves.
Practically speaking, the Catholic Schools must give up general education in those countries where the State is providing it. The resources of the Church could then be focused on “Confraternity of Christian Doctrine” and other programs which can be kept open to the poor. These resources could then be used to help society become more human in solidarity with the poor. Remember, the Church managed without Catholic Schools for centuries. It can get along without them today. The essential factor from the Christian point of view is to cultivate enough Faith to act in the Gospel Tradition, namely, THE POOR GET PRIORITY. The rich and middle-class are welcome too. But the poor come first.
My own experience (at 83) is that the surest way (nothing really sure, of course) to pass down a commitment to the Church is a Catholic education. Yes, a problem of access for the children of the poor, but if one thinks that state schools, especially given the anti-religious culture which now pervades almost everywhere, resolves the challenge of education, then that analysis differs from my own. I have told my sons that such money as they inherit is not to be spent on fancy cars, but rather on Catholic tuition fees for their children. (And why is it that the Church 100+ years ago could build and staff schools of solid quality, while we, now much richer, cannot? Priorities?) And I, for one, do not foresee a thriving and witnessing Church in which “the middle-class and the rich” have been left to “fend for themselves."
I’m afraid that we have another major scandal on our hands. We must deal with it. General education is an auxiliary function of the Church; not primary like evangelization. We must make it clear to people that we provide “a preferential option for the poor”.
General Catholic education is evangelization of the next generation. The Church needs to provide this service regardless of the wealth of the recipients. But of course I live in Indiana where poorer parents can receive scharship funds to pay for their education courtesy of the state allowing donors to take 50% of their donation off their taxes.
If “general Catholic education is evangelization of the next generation”, it must meet Gospel standards.
However, when this type of education favors the upper classes over the poor, it does not meet the Gospel standard of giving priority to the poor. Therefore, it is not really Catholic evangelization.
Where did Jesus forbid evangelizing the rich if one couldn't also evangelize the poor? And the rich one evangelizes may become the ones capable of evangelizing the poor. Personally, I think one should evangelize everyone one can. And providing education for the next generation is an important means of evangelizing.
Isn’t it clear from the Gospel generally that we must not favor the upper classes over the poor?
“Listen, my dear brothers and sisters! Didn’t God choose poor people in the world to become rich in faith and to receive the kingdom that he promised to those who love him?” James 2 :5-7
Keeping churches open for private prayer throughout the week, and telling their parishioners that they do so, would be a splendid way to promote Eucharistic prayer. There's a church near me that does that, and people make use of it.
Sometimes it's more about quantity time, than quality time.
"Pierre encouraged his fellow bishops to personally embrace the Eucharistic encounters they are promoting for their people, in order to allow the wounds of the risen Lord to heal their own wounds."
-Anyone have eyes on Cardinal Cupich when this was said?
For someone who claims that all Catholics have wounds, he sure spends a lot of time banging on other people’s wounds. Maybe he should concentrate on his own rather than assume something “that appeals to us because it seems like a better, simpler time” is some kind of sin. Just enough already.
I read Cardinal Pierre's entire speech given his words about “[T]he Eucharistic encounter with the risen Lord affords a new personal and ecclesial experience. "
I was struck by this passage:
"By means of this experience, the Lord invited them into a mystery that would
have life-changing implications for them. Because, while the Gospel account does
not say it explicitly, the unspoken reality is that the Apostles were also carrying the
trauma of wounds when they encountered the risen Lord. They had abandoned him
out of fear. One of their own had committed suicide. They were still grieving the
death of the One in whom they had believed, and they were grieving the hope that 4
they thought had died with him. (How hard is the suffering for us when the thing
we had been hoping for is not realized!) So yes, they had their own wounds. And
so, this became a meeting between the Lord’s wounds and their own. Jesus allows
the disciples to touch his wounds so that their own wounds might become the place
of an experience that consoles and gives discernment."
I think that the wounds of love shown by Christ are very different than the wounds of fear by the apostles and I believe it is unhelpful that he conflates the two. His theme is "Eucharistic transformation", a transformation that occurs through the wounds of love we suffer when we take up our crosses and follow Jesus along the path of "Thy Will Be Done". Our wounds of love make us more like Jesus while our wounds of fear do not. Certainly God can and does use our wound of fear to motivate us; however, I believe that the "Eucharistic transformation" occurs through our sacrifices of our hearts to God out of love for God as we become more like Jesus.
Be careful however, because we must be ready to deal with our brother’s needs before we will be welcomed by God:
[Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way. First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.] Matthew 5:23
"Bishops can only be effective shepherds and witnesses when they first present their own wounds to Christ and open themselves to his grace and power, Pierre said."
Here is a "wound" which the bishops should deal with:
“A preferential option for the poor” should be maintained in our Catholic Schools. If we find that we cannot afford to keep our schools open to the poor, the Church should be ready to use its resources for something else which can be kept open to the poor. We cannot allow our Church to become a church primarily for the upper classes while allowing the poor to remain in public schools. The priority should be given to the poor even if we have to let the middle-class and rich fend for themselves.
Practically speaking, the Catholic Schools must give up general education in those countries where the State is providing it. The resources of the Church could then be focused on “Confraternity of Christian Doctrine” and other programs which can be kept open to the poor. These resources could then be used to help society become more human in solidarity with the poor. Remember, the Church managed without Catholic Schools for centuries. It can get along without them today. The essential factor from the Christian point of view is to cultivate enough Faith to act in the Gospel Tradition, namely, THE POOR GET PRIORITY. The rich and middle-class are welcome too. But the poor come first.
My own experience (at 83) is that the surest way (nothing really sure, of course) to pass down a commitment to the Church is a Catholic education. Yes, a problem of access for the children of the poor, but if one thinks that state schools, especially given the anti-religious culture which now pervades almost everywhere, resolves the challenge of education, then that analysis differs from my own. I have told my sons that such money as they inherit is not to be spent on fancy cars, but rather on Catholic tuition fees for their children. (And why is it that the Church 100+ years ago could build and staff schools of solid quality, while we, now much richer, cannot? Priorities?) And I, for one, do not foresee a thriving and witnessing Church in which “the middle-class and the rich” have been left to “fend for themselves."
Dear Henry,
I’m afraid that we have another major scandal on our hands. We must deal with it. General education is an auxiliary function of the Church; not primary like evangelization. We must make it clear to people that we provide “a preferential option for the poor”.
General Catholic education is evangelization of the next generation. The Church needs to provide this service regardless of the wealth of the recipients. But of course I live in Indiana where poorer parents can receive scharship funds to pay for their education courtesy of the state allowing donors to take 50% of their donation off their taxes.
Dear Sue,
If “general Catholic education is evangelization of the next generation”, it must meet Gospel standards.
However, when this type of education favors the upper classes over the poor, it does not meet the Gospel standard of giving priority to the poor. Therefore, it is not really Catholic evangelization.
Where did Jesus forbid evangelizing the rich if one couldn't also evangelize the poor? And the rich one evangelizes may become the ones capable of evangelizing the poor. Personally, I think one should evangelize everyone one can. And providing education for the next generation is an important means of evangelizing.
Dear Sue,
Isn’t it clear from the Gospel generally that we must not favor the upper classes over the poor?
“Listen, my dear brothers and sisters! Didn’t God choose poor people in the world to become rich in faith and to receive the kingdom that he promised to those who love him?” James 2 :5-7
I was happy to see Bishop Waltersheid at the Eucharistic pilgrimage today.
Keeping churches open for private prayer throughout the week, and telling their parishioners that they do so, would be a splendid way to promote Eucharistic prayer. There's a church near me that does that, and people make use of it.
Sometimes it's more about quantity time, than quality time.