Saint Michael the Archangel Defend Us

Prayer to Saint Michael

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the Chaplet, please see Chaplet of Saint Michael.

Pope Leo XIII added it in 1886^[1] to the Leonine Prayers, which he had directed to be said after Low Mass two years earlier.^[2] The practice of reciting these prayers after Mass was suppressed in 1964. However, Pope John Paul II referred to the St Michael prayer in hisRegina Coeli address of 24 April 1994 as follows:The Prayer to Saint Michael is a prayer, used mainly by Catholics, which is addressed toMichael the archangel.

"May prayer strengthen us for the spiritual battle that the Letter to the Ephesians speaks of: 'Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might' (Ephesians 6:10). The Book of Revelation refers to this same battle, recalling before our eyes the image of St Michael the Archangel (cf. Revelation 12:7). Pope Leo XIII certainly had this picture in mind when, at the end of the last century, he brought in, throughout the Church, a special prayer to St Michael: 'Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil...' Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against the forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world."^[3]

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio; contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur: tuque, Princeps militiae Caelestis, satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo, divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen.[4]

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray: and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.[5][6][7][8]

The Prayer

The English translations used in various countries differ slightly.

[edit]History

This problem was resolved in 1929 by the creation of the State of Vatican City, and in the following year, Pope Pius XI ordered that the intention for which these prayers should from then on be offered was "to permit tranquillity and freedom to profess the faith to be restored to the afflicted people of Russia".^[9]This prayer, whose opening words are similar to the Alleluia verse for Saint Michael’s feasts on 8 May and 29 September in the Roman Missal of the time (which ran, "Sancte Michael, defende nos in proelio ut non pereamus in tremendo iudicio"), was added in 1886 to the Leonine Prayers that in 1884Pope Leo XIII ordered to be said after Low Mass, for the intention of obtaining a satisfactory solution to the problem that the loss of the Pope's temporal sovereignty caused in depriving him of the evident independence required for effective use of his spiritual authority.^[2]

The Leonine Prayers were officially suppressed by the 26 September 1964 Instruction Inter Oecumenici, 48 j which came into effect on 7 March 1965.^[10]

The opening words of the prayer ("St. Michael, defend us in battle") are sometimes used as an independent prayer, a short invocation, not as a fragment of the longer prayer.

Another prayer to St. Michael

O glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, defend us in battle, and in the struggle which is ours against the principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against spirits of evil in high places (Eph 6:12). Come to the aid of men, whom God created immortal, made in his own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil (Wis 2:23-24, 1 Cor 6:20).On 18 May 1890, twenty years after the Capture of Romehad deprived the Pope of the last vestige of his temporal sovereignty, and the papal residence at the Quirinal Palace had been converted into that of theKing of Italy, a much longer prayer to St. Michael, quite distinct from that in the Leonine Prayers, was approved for use:

Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in Heaven. But that cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with all his angels (Rev 12:7-9).

Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of man has taken courage, Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of his Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the Immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions (Lam 3:15).

In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

Arise then, O invincible prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and bring them the victory.

The Church venerates thee as protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious powers of this world and of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.

Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.

This prayer was replaced in 1902, a year and a half before the death of Pope Leo XIII, by a much shortened prayer:

O glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, defend us in battle, and in the struggle which is ours against the principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, against spirits of evil in high places (Eph 6:12). Come to the aid of men, whom God created immortal, made in his own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil (Wis 2:23-24,1 Cor 6:20).

The Church venerates thee as protector and patron; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.

Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.

In 1890, the longer form of this prayer was included as a sort of preface to a series of prayers of exorcism that was included in the Roman Ritual.^[11]

Speculation about the origin of the prayers

"I do not remember the exact year. One morning the great Pope Leo XIII had celebrated aMass and, as usual, was attending a Mass of thanksgiving. Suddenly, we saw him raise his head and stare at something above the celebrant's head. He was staring motionlessly, without batting an eye. His expression was one of horror and awe; the colour and look on his face changing rapidly. Something unusual and grave was happening in him.An article in the Roman journal Ephemerides Liturgicae (V. LXIX, pages 54–60) in 1955 gave an account in Latin and Italian of how the St. Michael prayer developed. Footnote nine of this account quotes an article in another Italian journal called La Settimana del Clero in 1947 by Fr. Domenico Pechenino who worked at the Vatican during the time of Leo XIII, in which he stated:

"Finally, as though coming to his senses, he lightly but firmly tapped his hand and rose to his feet. He headed for his private office. His retinue followed anxiously and solicitously, whispering: 'Holy Father, are you not feeling well? Do you need anything?' He answered: 'Nothing, nothing.' About half an hour later, he called for the Secretary of the Congregation of Rites and, handing him a sheet of paper, requested that it be printed and sent to all the ordinaries around the world. What was that paper? It was the prayer that we recite with the people at the end of every Mass. It is the plea to Mary and the passionate request to the Prince of the heavenly host, (St. Michael: Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle) beseeching God to send Satan back to hell."

According to the same article in Ephemerides Liturgicae,^[12] Cardinal Giovanni Nasalli Rocca di Corneliano wrote in his Litteris Pastoralibus pro Quadragesima (Pastoral Letters for Lent) that "the sentence 'The evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls' has a historical explanation that was many times repeated by his private secretary, Monsignor Rinaldo Angeli. Leo XIII truly saw, in a vision, demonic spirits who were congregating on the Eternal City (Rome). The prayer that he asked all the Church to recite was the fruit of that experience. He would recite that prayer with strong, powerful voice: we heard it many a time in the Vatican Basilica. Leo XIII also personally wrote an exorcism that is included in the Roman Ritual. He recommended that bishops and priests read these exorcisms often in their dioceses and parishes. He himself would recite them often throughout the day."^[13]

In the late twentieth century, more vivid stories circulated among traditionalist Catholics, according to which in that century Satan would be particularly powerful. They recounted that Pope Leo XIII was climbing the steps to the altar when he suddenly stopped, stared fixedly at something in the air and with a terrible look on his face, collapsed to the floor (some accounts say he fell shrieking). The Pope was carried off by those around him to another room where he came around. As one rendition of the story tells it:

"When asked what had happened, he explained that, as he was about to leave the foot of the altar, he suddenly heard voices - two voices, one kind and gentle, the other guttural and harsh. They seemed to come from near the tabernacle. As he listened, he heard the following conversation:

The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord: "I can destroy your Church."

The gentle voice of Our Lord: "You can? Then go ahead and do so."

Satan: "To do so, I need more time and more power."

Our Lord: "How much time? How much power?"

Satan: "75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."

Our Lord: "You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."^[14][15][16]

A variant of the story of the vision of Leo XIII was given by Father William Saunders in the Arlington Catholic Herald of 2 October 2003: "Pope Leo XIII (d. 1903) had a prophetic vision of the coming century of sorrow and war. After celebrating Mass, the Holy Father was conferring with his cardinals. Suddenly, he fell to the floor. The cardinals immediately called for a doctor. No pulse was detected, and the Holy Father was feared dead. Just as suddenly, Pope Leo awoke and said, 'What a horrible picture I was permitted to see!' In this vision, God gave Satan the choice of one century in which to do his worst work against the Church. The devil chose the 20th century. So moved was the Holy Father from this vision that he composed the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.^[17]

The first variant of the story to appear in print was that in a 1933 German Sunday newspaper article, which stated that, as a result of the vision, Leo XIII, shortly after 1880, ordered the prayer to Saint Michael to be recited. In reality, it was only in 1884 that the Pope instituted the Leonine Prayers, still at that time without the prayer to Saint Michael.^[18]

In 1934, a year after the appearance of the earliest printed version of the story, a German writer, Father Bers, tried to trace the origin of the story and declared that, though the story was widespread, nowhere could he find a trace of proof. Sources close to the institution of the prayer in 1886, including an account of a conversation with Pope Leo XIII about his decision, say nothing of the alleged vision. Father Bers concluded that the story was a later invention that was spreading like a virus.^[19]

The story is also found in Carl Vogl's 1935 Begone Satan: A Soul-Stirring Account of Diabolical Possession in Iowa^[20]

In a later version the vision is said to have occurred on 13 October 1884,^[21] the year in which the Leonine Prayers were instituted without the prayer to Saint Michael. And yet another date, 25 September 1888, two years after Pope Leo XIII had added the prayer to the Leonine Prayers, was given in a 1991 version.^[22]

References

1. ^ Irish Ecclesiastical Review 7 (1886),1050
2. ^ ^a b Decree Iam inde ab anno of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 6 January 1884, published in Acta Sanctae Sedis 16 (1884), pages 249–250
3. ^ Regina Coeli address; cf. Prayer to St Michael; Mary Serves Cause of Life
4. ^ [1]
5. ^ Raccolta Manual of Indulgences Published by St Athanasius Press, 2003 ISBN 0-9706526-6-6 page 340
6. ^ Prayer to Holy Michael the Archangel
7. ^ Common Catholic Prayers
8. ^ Rev. Alfred Boeddekker, Our Guardian Angels
9. ^ Allocution Indictam ante of 30 June 1930, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 22 (1930), page 301
10. ^ Inter Oecumenici, 48 j
11. ^ Rituale Romanum, 6th ed. post typicam, (Ratisbon: Pustet 1898), 163*ff.
12. ^ p.58-59, footnote nine
13. ^ This account, which speaks not of the prayer but of the exorcisms for which the prayer served as a sort of preface, claims that the Pope recommended bishops and priests to perform exorcisms often in their dioceses and parishes, and that he himself acted as exorcist often throughout the day.
14. ^ The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen
15. ^ Knights of La Salette
16. ^ Our Lady of the Roses
17. ^ Arlington Catholic Herald
18. ^ "Nachdem Leo XIII. eines Morgens die heilige Messe zelebriert hatte, begab er sich zu einer Besprechung mit den Kardinälen. Aber plötzlich sank er in Ohnmacht zusammen. Die herbeigeeilten Arzte fanden keinen Grund zu dieser Ohnmacht, obwohl der Pulsschlag fast aufhörte. Plötzlich erwachte er wieder und war frisch wie zuvor. Er erzählte dann, er hätte ein furchtbares Bild gesehen. Er durfte die Verführungskünste und das Wüten der Teufel der kommenden Zeiten in allen Ländern sehen. In dieser Not erschien St. Michael, der Erzengel, und warf den Satan mit allen seinen Teufeln in den höllischen Abgrund zurück. Daraufhin ordnete Leo XIII. kurz nach 1880 das allgemeine Gebet zum heiligen Michael an." Hg. Schnell in the Konnersreuther Sonntagsblattes (1933), no. 39, quoted in Bers “Die Gebete nach der hl. Messe”, Theol-Prakt. Quartalschrift 87 (1934), 161.
19. ^ "Like a perpetual sickness" – "Die Gebete nach der hl. Messe", Theol-Prakt. Quartalschrift 87 (1934), 162-163
20. ^ Reprinted by TAN Books (Rockford IL) in 1973, the year in which the film The Exorcist (film) appeared.
21. ^ Arthur H. Durand, "Satan's Hundred Year War", The Remnant (15 January 1984), 9–10
22. ^ Gary Giuffré, "Exile of the Pope-Elect, Part VII: Warnings from Heaven Suppressed", Sangre de Cristo Newsnotes 69–70 (1991), 4

External links

• Russia and the Leonine Prayers
• Pope John Paul II's Regina Coeli Address of 24 April 1994 (in Italian)
• The Vision Of Pope Leo XIII
• The Diabolical Vision of Pope Leo XIII with commentary

"AT THE HOUR OF OUR LAST WARFARE,

CALL ON ST. MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL"

By Fr. Jojo Zerrudo - 24 September 2001 - "Ala-Ala Walang Hanggan" Radio Veritas

On Sept. 29, the whole Church will be celebrating the feast of the angels St. Michael, St. Raphael, and St. Gabriel. These three chosen angels were named in the Holy Book. And out of the multitudes of angels in heaven, they are the only ones we know by name.

The name ‘Michael’ is from the Hebrew ‘Mikhael’, which means ‘who is like God’. This name is a war cry, a shield and a spear in battle, and the never-ending memory of the victory of God. Being an unusual name for an archangel, the name ‘Michael’ first appeared in the book of the Prophet Daniel where he was called ‘Michael’, one of the leading princes (Daniel 10:13). And again on the following verse "At that time there shall arise Michael, the great prince, guardian of your people" (Daniel 12:1). In the letter of St. Jude, Michael became known as an archangel. He wrote: "Even the Archangel Michael, when he fought the devil over the body of Moses, did not dare blaspheme. He said: ‘You will be punished by God’."

St. Michael gained greatness and power over and above that possessed by any other heavenly spirit because of his zeal for the glory of God and the safety of the other angels when Lucifer rebelled against God. St. Michael is truly the prince of the heavenly army. He is known as a warrior angel. He fought Satan and all the rebel angels from the very beginning up to the present against all the enemies of the people of God. He was the defender of Israel in the Old Testament. He is also the defender of the Catholic Church today.

In the book of Revelations, St. John had a vision in heaven of a pregnant woman clothed by the sun who later gave birth to a baby boy who would be king of the universe. A red dragon lurked nearby waiting to devour the child to be born of the woman. As Catholics we understand this to be the Blessed Virgin Mary. However, this woman also represents Israel and the Catholic Church, the new people of God. The woman saved the child and the woman was taken to a remote place where she remained hidden. According to the book of Revelations: "Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. Although the dragon and his angels fought back, they were overpowered and lost their place in heaven. The huge dragon, the ancient serpent known as the devil or satan, the seducer of the whole world, was driven out; he was hurled down to earth and his minions with him." (Apocalypse 12:7-9)

St. Michael is not just a warrior angel. In the liturgy of the Church, he accompanies the souls of the departed into the kingdom of light. The old song in the Christian burial mass states:

"O Lord, Jesus Christ, King of Glory, deliver the souls of all the faithful departed from the pains of hell and from the deep pit. Deliver them from the lion’s mouth that hell may not swallow them up; and may they not fall into darkness, but may the holy standard bearer, Michael, lead them into the holy light which You promised Abraham and to his seed of old."

At that moment of our greatest need, at the hour of our last warfare, the hour of our last breath, the great archangel will come to our rescue. He will take along his angels who will fight for the safety of our souls. He will defend us through his shield and he will save us from damnation at the hands of the enemies of our souls. It is good to call on St. Michael at the hour of our death because many have experienced his help at that hour.

From the writings of St. Alphonsus Ligouri one finds the story of how St. Michael helps at the hour of death. A man from Poland lived a life of sin over a span of many years. When the hour of his death came, fear and hopelessness over his sinful ways overwhelmed him. However, there was a time when he was still strong, he had a devotion to St. Michael and, at the mercy of God, St. Michael was given permission to give succor to this man at the hour of his last battle. St. Michael persuaded him to have a change of heart because he requested that this man be given enough time to straighten up the state of his soul. Thereafter, two Dominican priests arrived at his house. They said an unknown gentleman sent them there. The dying man knew it was St. Michael so he confessed his sins, received holy communion, and died reconciled with the Lord. As Cardinal Newman’s prayer goes:

"Thee, Michael thee, when sight and breathing fail, the disembodied soul shall see, the pardoned souls with solemn joys shall hail, when holiest rites are spent and tears no more avail."

The Church places the souls of her faithful children in the hands of St. Michael to accompany them into the kingdom of eternal light. If St. Michael cares for the salvation of the souls of the living and at the hour of death, we can be sure St. Michael is a good friend of the souls in purgatory. In the book of Revelations, it is written: "Another angel carrying an incense of gold came in. He took his place at the altar of incense and was given large amounts of incense to deposit on the altar of gold in front of the throne, together with the prayers of all God’s holy ones. (Apocalypse 8:3-4)

In the prayers of the Church, this angel is none other than St. Michael. In the old way of saying mass while the priest is preparing the chalice, he recites this prayer: "May the Lord be pleased to bless this incense and to receive its sweet fragrance through the intercession of the Blessed Archangel Michael who stands at the right hand of the altar of incense and of His chosen ones, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

"Tirelessly You gathered Your people from dawn until the setting of the sun so that a clean offering can be given to praise Your Name. And in every mass there are the angels, especially St. Michael, to lift up on the altar of God the holy offering. Almighty God, we implore You to allow Your holy angel to take these offerings on the altar in front of You."

This is where St. Michael becomes a good friend of the holy souls. Through his hands pass all our supplications for the release of the souls from purgatory. He brings virtue to the holy sacrifices to set free the souls from imprisonment from that place of suffering and purification.

A monk appeared before his priest friend after his death. He told the priest that he can be released from purgatory if during mass the priest will call on St. Michael for his intercession. The priest acceded to the request of the soul and, at that hour, he saw the Archangel escorting his friend into heaven. For this reason we should not ignore the important role that St. Michael plays. Let us call on him in life and in death. Let us always ask for his help, especially for the souls in purgatory. At the moment of our battle against the forces of evil, let us pray that he fights for us.

"St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of battle, be our safeguard against the wickedness and the snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all wicked spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen."

-o0o-

CLOSING PRAYER: Lord Jesus Christ, King of Glory, release all the souls from purgatory, relieve them of their suffering, defend them from the lion’s mouth so that they will not be swallowed in hell, so they don’t fall into darkness. Send St. Michael, Your archangel, to accompany them to the holy light that You promised Abraham and his seeds. We offer You, Lord, all the sacrifices and prayers. Receive these for the souls that we are remembering. Grant them, Lord, to cross from death to life eternal, the life that You promised Abraham and all generations after him forever. Amen.

...

Pope Benedict XVI on Hitler

....

At a meeting with Jewish leaders before a mass at the Olympic stadium in Berlin attended by 70,000, the Pope said: "The supposedly 'almighty' Adolf Hitler was a pagan idol who wanted to take the place of the biblical God, the Creator and Father of all men. What Man is capable of when he rejects God, and what the face of a people can look like when it denies this God, the terrible images from the concentration camps at the end of the war showed."

While trust had grown between the Jewish people and the Catholic Church, "a loving relationship of mutual understanding between Israel and the Church . . . still has further to grow", he said.

....

Taken from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pope-benedict-xvi-strikes-chord-of-unity-in-germany/story-e6frg6so-1226144862487

Simon Magus -- The lluminati's Jesus?



Taken from: http://www.henrymakow.com/simon_magus.html


January 3, 2011


Introducing the most important person in history you never heard of.

By Jack Walton

(for henrymakow.com)

The full life of Simon Magus is mostly unknown, just as the events of the life of the historical Jesus.

He was most likely the same age as Jesus, and died shortly before Peter, his greatest enemy, in Rome, before it was burned in 64 AD.

This is not disputed by Christian scholars. He was the towering figure of his time, along with his wife, Helen, the Jezebel and whore of Babylon from Revelation.

According to Bible Scholars ... Simon Magus was the founder of the Gnostic church and was the direct competitor with Christianity for the hearts and minds of the Greco Roman world.

Simon is the Beast, the original Antichrist, and the true identity of the number 666. He was so powerful in fact, that he is known by many different names in the Bible. Once all his "names" are learned, a very different picture of the Gospel emerges, one in which Jesus and Simon were creating two very different religions, for the reformation of Judaism, and the conversion of the Greco Roman/Pagan world to the Judaic god.

The circles that Magus worked in were the Illuminati of his time. At the time this consisted of what we would consider both "white" and "black" magicians ... and the sects they led, (the "good" guys) as well as the Herod family, and the higher echelons of Rome, and the gnostic magicians (the Saturnalian or "black" magicians).

Thus, the "good guys" and the "bad guys had their start together at this time and later split up. Simon Magus was a Samaritan Jew, whose particular version of Judaism incorporated the sexual licentiousness of the ancient Babylonian religions.

According to Clement, the early church father, Magus could, levitate items on command, speak with spirits, summon demons and place them into statues making the statues walk and talk, fly, and even raise the dead.

These were all deceptions designed to indoctrinate his followers into believing he was a god. His religion, the Gnostic religion, was the sect that preceded Christianity in the Diaspora. The current Illuminati religion (freemasonry) is based on Gnosticism and the ancient Babylonian mysticism (Satanism?) that he incorporated into his version of Judaism that he was selling (quite literally) to the masses of the Greco-Roman world.

He is the inspiration for Faust, and modern televangelist deceivers continue his tradition whether they realize it or not (i.e., religion based on deception.) Anytime there is a reference to someone selling their soul to the devil, it is a reference to Faust, who was inspired by Simon Magus.

The medieval Rosicrucians who compiled the story of Faust understood all this (are they not Illuminati?) One of the great untold stories of Christianity is how Peter and Paul came behind Simon and converted his many followers to Christianity.

In the beginning, Magus had been a follower of John the Baptist, and because of his genius and ability, was accepted by Jesus and the other Apostles. Simon's early role in Judaism before his diaspora career, would be seen today as like an intelligence operative. He was of course, cast out of their ranks when they learned who he was.

One of the major things he did was attempt to organize a mass revolt against Pilate and the son of Herod, which was put down brutally. ....

The Beast: Jewish or Roman



Taken from: http://www.preterist.org/articles/the_beast.asp


(Search The Scriptures, February 1985) All Rights Reserved.




Introduction

We are dealing with the character known as "the Beast" in the book of Revelation. Let me suggest, if you are not familiar with this subject, that you read the following passages before going on: Rev. 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 2, 3, 4, 5; and Matthew 24 (esp. vss. 23, 24).

The identity of "The Beast" has always intrigued theologians. Legions of theories have been conjured up to excite the imagination. This article will examine some of them. It is not our purpose here to identify specifically who the Beast is, but rather to clarify his general nature (i.e. whether he is a Jewish Beast or a Roman one). If we can determine that, maybe his specific identity will be easier to pinpoint. We want to show why the Beast cannot be Roman and why it must be Jewish in character.

The whole question as to the nature of the Beast (Jewish or Roman) and his identity is related closely to the date of the book of Revelation. This article assumes that the book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem (AD 70).

Past Theories

Some have identified the Beast as being an individual such as the Pope, Martin Luther, John Calvin, William of Orange or Hitler. Others have seen the Beast more as a group or movement of people, such as the apostate Roman Church, the Protestants, the Roman Empire (or the Common Market), the Roman persecuting power of the first century, or some other great world-power that will rise up to persecute Christians. Some of the more serious attempts have been to identify the Beast as Nero, based on the "666" number in Revelation 13. Another person (Spitta) urged a first-century application to the Biblical character of Simon Magus (Acts 8). Zullig interpreted the Beast as being the Herodian dynasty of rulers. J. S. Russell (in his book, The Parousia) suggests the Roman Procurators (from AD 44-66) and Nero. Once when walking in New York City, I was handed a sheet which stated that Rockefeller was the Antichrist! I've heard similar rumors about Henry Kissenger! Every famous person who was feared or hated was someone's "Beast!" This really illustrates how fear and hate (and other emotions) can affect one's exegesis!

An Alternative

Very few have mustered the courage to suggest a Jewish fulfillment of these "beastly" passages. Most modern interpreters (who are Amillennial) say the Beast is Rome. So, the thesis of a Jewish Beast will probably not be easily accepted.

I want to preface our study with some comments taken from Dr. Cornelius Vanderwaal's commentary on First John, where he deals with the antichrists: (from his commentary set entitled, Search The Scriptures, vol. 10, pp. 60,61) --

"John, who may have been on the island of Patmos when he wrote this letter, now declares that things have gone so far that many antichrists have already appeared. This indicates that it is the 'last hour' (2:18). Many false prophets have gone out in 'the world' (4:1), that is, the apostate Jewish world. (emphasis mine, ees). John's words make it clear that we must not think of the 'antichrist' in connection with a misty future. When John reports the vision of the Beast in the book of Revelation, he is not telling us about a future political antichrist with the reins of world government in his hands; he is indicating that some beastly devil will arise out of Israel to attack the church. 2 Thessalonians 2 follows the same line of thought. In 3:9, John distinguishes sharply between the seed of God and the children of the devil (see John 8:44)."

Who Were The Serpents?

The "Dragon" was the source of power and authority for the Beast. He is called "the Serpent" and "the Devil" also. He is clearly identified as "Satan" himself (Rev. 12:9, 20:2). Were the Romans ever called "children of the devil"? The Jews were: (John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10)! The Jews were also called "serpents" and "offspring of vipers" (Matt. 23:33)! And that same verse (Matt. 23:33) condemns them to a fiery end similar to the end of the Beast and his followers (Rev. 19:19-21)!

Two Beasts!

There are actually two "Beasts" mentioned in Revelation (ch. 13). The second of these is later identified as the "False Prophet" (cf. Rev. 13:11-14; 16:13 and 19:20). Throughout the Old and New Testaments the words "false prophet" are continually used to denote Jewish characters. It would be strange indeed to speak of a Roman Beast with such terminology. This is another indication that the Beast and those he associates with are Jewish in character.

The Beast Revived

If the Beast is a Roman Emperor (such as Nero or Domitian), we are going to have to deal with the lack of historical evidence for his resurrection. Rev. 13:2, 12, 14 make it clear that the Beast was killed with the sword but came back to life. Some who favor the idea that Nero is under consideration here recall the rumor that was circulated after his death that he really hadn't died but that he was over in Parthia gathering an army to come back to Rome and take over. There is, of course, historical evidence that such a rumor was circulated in the first century, but there is not the slightest evidence that the rumor was true, and Nero never reappeared. This theory (called the "Nero Redivivus" theory) has pretty well been abandoned by most who consider John's account in Revelation to be inspired. How could an inspired Apostle entertain such speculative notions which never did materialize? Neither Nero nor Domitian nor any other Roman emperor came back to life again. This would certainly militate against the Beast being Roman. And it can't be the Roman persecuting power that was revived, since the Roman persecution dragged on for several more centuries, and whatever persecution this is, was supposed to end shortly after the book was written (see Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6,10). This is interesting, because the Jewish persecution did come to a screeching halt shortly after the book was written! Before its end, the Jewish cause got a couple of extra lives: one in AD 66 when Cestius Gallus (the Roman general) withdrew his forces and suffered a humiliating defeat at the pass of Beth Horon. A second chance for their religion came when Yochanan Ben Zakkai pretended dead and escaped (in a coffin) out of Jerusalem to the Romans, where he was allowed by Titus to go to Yavneh and continue his teaching of the Law (where it continued until the destruction of Jerusalem in Hadrian's day (AD 135).

The Song of Moses

To anyone familiar with the Law of Moses and Jewish tradition, Rev. 15:2,3 will have meaning. It says that those martyrs "who had come off victorious from the Beast" were singing "the Song of Moses." Deuteronomy 32:1-43 is the song that John has reference to. The Jews were to sing this song to remind themselves of what would befall them "in the latter days" (Deut. 31:29). the song talks about "the end" of the Jews (Deut. 32:20), and details their destruction by a consuming fire (Deut. 32:22), "famine" (32:24), "plague" (32:24) and "bitter destruction" (32:24). God calls them a "perverse generation" (32:5,20), and says He will "render vengeance" upon them and "vindicate His people" (32:41 and 32:36 respectively). Why would Christian martyrs of the first century be singing this song about the Romans, when the song had reference to the Jews? It wouldn't make much sense. But if it was Jews who were killing them (like the book of Acts shows), then they had every

reason to be singing the Song of Moses! It was the Jews who were the real threat to the Christians! No one else knew better how to attack the church than the Jews. Paul said that his intention as a former persecutor was not just to debate the Christians and prove they were wrong. He was out to "destroy" them (Gal. 1:13,23; 1 Tim. 1:13; Acts 8:3; 9:21)! It was a Jewish beast who was persecuting and killing these Christians, and these martyrs were singing the Song of Moses to remind their Jewish persecutors of what was coming upon them! Aren't these the same martyrs who cried out earlier, "How long, Or Lord, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood" (Rev. 6:10)? Who was it who had all the "blood of the righteous" martyrs imputed against them - Jews or Romans? These Christians who had kept their faith in Jesus in spite of the intense persecution by the Jews were the ones "who had come off victorious from the Beast." (See Matt. 23:35 and Luke 13:33)! This passage (Rev. 15:2,3) points very clearly to a Jewish beast.

Gnawed Tongues and Wild Beasts

In Rev. 16:10,11, it says that the people in the Beast's kingdom "gnawed their tongues because of pain." They had great sores on their bodies along with other plagues that had been poured out on them. The question is, if this is Rome or a Roman beast of some kind, when were they ever in such a miserable mess? John makes it clear that these events were to happen soon after the book was written (Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6,10). When was Nero or Domitian's kingdom thrust into such dire straights? We know from Josephus when the Jews literally gnawed their tongues for lack of food during the siege of AD 70! And, it is interesting that Josephus even calls the Jewish Zealot forces a "wild beast" in several places (Wars V.1.1; IV.7.4; IV.9.8; V.2.5)! This doesn't fit the Romans at all, but it does fit the Jews very well! This point is emphasized even more by the fact that the whole context of the Song of Moses is full of references to "beasts," "serpents," and "dragons" (Lev. 26; Deut. 28-32; esp. Deut. 32:24,33).

The Beast Was Seized

The real clincher to the whole story is found in Revelation 19:11-21, where it says the Beast was "seized and "thrown alive into the lake of fire" (vs. 20). Keep in mind that these events were to happen soon after Revelation was written (Rev. 1:1,3; 22:6,10). Was Nero or Domitian seized and thrown into the Lake of Fire shortly after Revelation was written? Did Rome make war against Jesus and His angelic hosts and get defeated shortly after the book was written (Rev. 19:19)? Did the Roman armies get "killed with the sword" and become a feast for all the vultures, shortly after Revelation was written (19:21)? The Roman persecution did not end shortly after the writing of Revelation, but the Jewish one did. Whoever the Beast is, he is soundly defeated here, his persecution against the church is crushed and his armies become plunder for the birds of prey to eat. Rome didn't fall until the Fifth Century, and that's a long time after Revelation was written! This sounds more like a Jewish Beast trying to persecute and destroy the church, but finally getting itself destroyed! The Romans were the vultures of this text (Rev. 19:21) who circled outside the Jewish walls watching the Jewish factions kill each other, waiting until they wore themselves out enough to become easy prey. This soon happened (in AD 70) and Jews glutted the world slave market. The Roman armies weren't seized and "killed with the sword" in AD 70, nor in AD 96 either. Therefore, the Beast here (Rev. 19:19-21 cannot be a Roman one. It had to be Jewish!

Conclusion

We hope someone will go from here and discover the specific identity of the Jewish Beast. Whether he is an individual or a group within the Jewish nation is a matter that will be left to future studies. John Bray has suggested the Jewish Zealot leader, John of Gischala. Others have suggested Menachem, who was a relative of Judas the Galilean who had stirred up troubles back in earlier days. He gathered a zealot band and attacked Masada, captured the fortress, seized the armaments and paraded through Jerusalem with them. Menachem put on the purple robes, proclaimed himself Messiah, and went into the Temple, but he was assassinated in the Temple and his army vaporized. There may have been rumors about his coming back to life, but I haven't read of them so far. He never reappeared as far as Josephus recorded.

Last Supper Not Passover? But read more

Taken from:

http://www.catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?40216-The-Pope-and-the-Last-Supper

The Pope and the Last Supper Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

We have often discussed here whether the Last Supper should be regarded as a Passover Meal or something new. The Pope's new book comes down definitively in favour of the latter; here is the relevant extract:

One thing emerges clearly from the entire tradition: essentially, this farewell meal was not the old Passover, but the new one, which Jesus accomplished in this context. Even though the meal that Jesus shared with the Twelve was not a Passover meal according to the ritual prescriptions of Judaism, nevertheless, in retrospect, the
inner connection of the whole event with Jesus’ death and Resurrection stood out clearly. It was Jesus’ Passover. And in this sense he both did and did not celebrate the Passover: the old rituals could not be carried out—when their
time came, Jesus had already died. But he had given himself, and thus he had truly celebrated the Passover with them. The old was not abolished; it was simply brought to its full meaning.
The earliest evidence for this unified view of the new and the old, providing a new explanation of the Passover character of Jesus’ meal in terms of his death and Resurrection, is found in Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians:
“Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be new dough, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Paschal Lamb, has been sacrificed” (5:7; cf. Meier, A Marginal Jew I, pp. 429–30). As in Mark 14:1, so here the first day of Unleavened Bread and the Passover follow in rapid succession, but the older ritual understanding is transformed into a Christological and existential interpretation. Unleavened bread must now refer to Christians themselves, who are
freed from sin by the addition of yeast. But the sacrificial lamb is Christ. Here Paul is in complete harmony with John’s presentation of events. For him the death and Resurrection of Christ have become the Passover that endures.
On this basis one can understand how it was that very early on, Jesus’ Last Supper—which includes not only a prophecy, but a real anticipation of the Cross and Resurrection in the eucharistic gifts—was regarded as a Passover: as his Passover. And so it was.

....

Congratulations to Josef Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI for this year reaching his glorious Diamond Jubilee milestone. Sixty years as a priest!

Here we continue with the second part of our review of his book:

Jesus of Nazareth:

Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem

To the Resurrection

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world” ....

The present “world” has to disappear; it must be changed into God’s world. That is precisely what Jesus’ mission is, into which the disciples are taken up: leading “the world” away from the condition of man’s alienation from God ....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previously, we had touched briefly upon the Pope’s general intention of providing a better rounded than usual approach to biblical hermeneutics in line with Vatican II’s Dei Verbum, before our embarking upon a more thorough description of the Pope’s explanation of the Suffering Servant type of Messiahship as embraced by Jesus Christ, and how this challenged the pre-conceived notions of his disciples. In this regard we lingered notably on the wrong attitude to Messiahship of Saint Peter himself, as best exemplified by his reaction to the episode of the Washing of the Feet. Peter’s subsequent fall was there contrasted with the ‘dark destructiveness’ of Judas.

That has taken us about a third of the way through the nine chapter book, to Chapter 3 (“The Washing of the Feet”).

The remainder of the book contains, amongst its various themes, certain arguments that have aroused a fair amount of controversy. We refer especially to Pope Benedict’s treatment of the Last Supper (Chapter 5) - and “whether or not it was a Passover meal” (p. 145) - and of the Resurrection (Chapter 9), which some think to be completely inadequate, or worse. Anyway, these are to be the two areas upon which we shall be focussing in the pages ahead, whilst also sweeping up along the way certain other points of interest for us as raised by the Pope.

Like others we did tend to wince, at least initially (but see p. 36), when reading Pope Benedict’s bald statements as follows regarding the Last Supper and the Resurrection:

P. 103: “… the accounts of the Last Supper and the institution of the Eucharist are caught up in a dense undergrowth of mutually contradictory hypotheses, which seem to make access to the real event virtually impossible”, but more especially (p. 106): “The problem of dating Jesus’ Last Supper arises from the contradictions on this point between the Synoptic Gospels [the name given to the collective Matthew, Mark & Luke], on the one hand, and Saint John’s Gospel, on the other”. Then there is:

P. 269: “… the Resurrection. … Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative …”.

At the centre of the controversy, apart from the matter of any perceived contradiction between Saint John and the Synoptics, is the important consideration of whether or not a lamb was involved in the Last Supper. In other words, was it based upon a traditional Jewish Passover meal but then transformed into something far higher by Jesus, or - which seems to be the Pope’s view - was the whole thing entirely new?

The more traditional view has recently been defended by Fr. Brian Harrison of the Oblates of Wisdom and by Dr. Brant Pitre of the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. Fr. Harrison wrote firmly on this issue in an e-mail of 16 July 2011:

... Prof. Ratzinger's scholarship seems sloppy even by his own standards here, because when you read past the subtitle and first sentence (p. 106), which talk of a contradiction between the Gospels in "the dating of the Last Supper", you find that the "contradiction" he thinks he finds is over the character, not the date, of the Last Supper. (Ratzinger spends two or three pages discussing - and finally disagreeing with - a scholar who argued some decades ago that it took place on the Tuesday night, not the Thursday, of the original Holy Week. He himself doesn't deny that all the Gospels place the Last Supper on the Thursday night, and that he was crucified the next day.)

The alleged contradiction is, rather, about whether the Last Supper was the Passover supper or not. The Synoptics make it clear that it was, while John 18:8 says that the Passover meal was to be celebrated by the Jews on the Friday night, not the Thursday night. And indeed, Ratzinger claims that John really wants to tell us that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal. Well, I don't think he does that at all. Have a look for yourself at the relevant passage, John ch. 13 to ch. 18, which contains all that John says about the Last Supper. The only reference to the Passover is right at the beginning, where John says the supper took place "before the festival of the Passover" (13:1). The rest of Ratzinger's argument seems to be pretty much from silence; i.e., John says nothing in these chapters that would indicate they were celebrating a Passover meal. But on that sort of 'logic', you'd have to say John also "denies" the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, because he also says nothing about it. (Rather, he gives an account of the foot-washing, which the Synoptics don't mention.) .....

[End of quote]

And Dr. Pitre writes in his article, “Was There a Passover Lamb at the Last Supper?”:

…. As anyone who has read Pope Benedict’s new book, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week will know, the Pope devotes a substantial portion of his chapter on the Last Supper to the question of the date of the meal—specifically, whether or not the Last Supper coincided with the ordinary Jewish Passover meal (see pp. 106-115). And as anyone familiar with this extremely complex and age-old question knows, there is simply no way I can address it here adequately.

Thankfully, I am currently working on finishing a full-length scholarly book on the Last Supper (to be published by Eerdmans), in which I will offer a detailed solution to the date of the Last Supper. In that study, I will draw on the massive amount of contemporary research done in this area and add to it some important Jewish evidence that been neglected. (For some suggested readings on the question of the date, see pp. 214-215 in my book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist).

[End of quote]

Before we consider further these areas of controversy, though, and read more of what Fr. Brian and Dr. Pitre have to say, let us continue our sweep through the book, here just gathering a handful of interesting - and, we think, inspiring - points that we have picked up along the way.

Pope Benedict XVI has written:

P. 78: “According to the rabbinic theology, the idea of the covenant – the idea of establishing a holy people to be an interlocutor for God in union with him – is prior to the idea of the creation of the world and supplies its inner motive. The cosmos was created, not that there might be manifold things in heaven and earth, but that there might be a space for the “covenant”, for the loving “yes” between God and his human respondent”.

P. 80: “In [John 17: Jesus’ high-priestly prayer] the words addressed by Jesus to the Father, the ritual of the Day of Atonement is transformed into prayer. Here we find a concrete example of that cultic renewal toward which the cleansing of the Temple and Jesus’ interpretation of it were pointing. Sacrificial animals are a thing of the past. In their place are what the Greek Fathers called thysía logikê – spiritual sacrifices [literally: sacrifices after the manner of the word] – and what Paul described in similar terms as logikê latreía, that is, worship shaped by the word, structured on reason (Rom 12:1)”.

Pp. 89-90: “Between [John 17] verses 17 and 19, which speak of the consecration of the disciples, there is a small but important difference. Verse 19 says that they are to be consecrated “in truth”: not just ritually, but truly, in their whole being – that is doubtless how it should be translated. Verse 17, on the other hand, reads: “sanctify them in the truth”. Here the truth is designated as the force of sanctification, as “their consecration”.

            According to the Book of Exodus, the priestly consecration of the sons of Aaron is accomplished when they are vested in sacred robes and anointed (29:1-9); the ritual of the Day of Atonement also speaks of a complete bath before the investiture with sacred robes (Lev. 16:4). The disciples of Jesus are sanctified, consecrated “in the truth”. The truth is the bath that purifies them; the truth is the robe and the anointing they need.

            This purifying and sanctifying “truth” is ultimately Christ himself. They must be immersed in him; they must, so to speak, be “newly robed” in him, and thus they come to share in his consecration, in his priestly commission, in his sacrifice”.

Pp. 100-101: “The universal horizon of Jesus’ mission can also be seen in two other important texts from the Fourth Gospel: first, in Jesus’ nocturnal conversation with Nicodemus: “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son” (3:16), and then – with the emphasis here on the sacrifice of his life – in the bread of life discourse at Capernaum “The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (6:51).”

But how do we reconcile this universalism with the harsh words found in verse 9 of the high-priestly prayer: “I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world”? In order to grasp the inner unity of the apparently contradictory prayers, we must remember that John uses the word “cosmos” – world – in two different senses. On the one hand, it refers to the whole of God’s good creation, especially to men: his creatures, whom he loves to the point of the gift of himself in the Son. On the other hand, the word refers to the human world as it has evolved in history. Corruption, lies, and violence have, as it were, become “natural” to it. Blaise Pascal speaks of a second nature that in the course of history has supplanted the first. Modern philosophers have described this historical state of mankind in various ways, as for example when Martin Heidegger speaks of being reduced to the impersonal, of existing in “inauthenticity”. These same issues are presented in a very different way when Karl Marx expounds man’s alienation.

            Philosophy in these instances is ultimately describing what is known to faith as “original sin”. The present “world” has to disappear; it must be changed into God’s world. That is precisely what Jesus’ mission is, into which the disciples are taken up: leading “the world” away from the condition of man’s alienation from God and from himself, so that it can become God’s world once more and so that man can become fully himself again by becoming one with God. Yet this transformation comes at the price of the Cross; it comes at the price of readiness for martyrdom on the part of Christ’s witnesses”.

P. 134: “Now there is one further expression in Jesus’ words of institution that needs to be explained, one that has been extensively debated in recent times. According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus said that his blood would be shed “for many”, echoing Isaiah 53, whereas in Paul and Luke we read of the blood being given or poured out “for you”.

Recent theology has rightly underlined the use of the word “for” in all four accounts, a word that may be considered the key not only to the Last Supper accounts, but to the figure of Jesus overall. His entire being is expressed by the word “pro-existence” – he is there, not for himself but for others. This is not merely a dimension of his existence, but its innermost essence and its entirety. His very being is “being-for”. If we are able to grasp this, then we have truly come close to the mystery of Jesus, and we have understood what discipleship is”.

And, later (in the Epilogue), now on the episode of the Ascension:

Pp. 281, 283: “The joy of the disciples after the “Ascension” corrects our image of this event. “Ascension” does not mean departure into a remote region of the cosmos, but rather, the continuing closeness that the disciples experience so strongly that it becomes a source of lasting joy.

…. The departing Jesus does not make his way to some distant star. He enters into communion of power and life with the living God, into God’s dominion over space. Hence he has not “gone away”, but now and forever by God’s own power he is present with us and for us”.

P. 286: “Christ, at the Father’s right hand, is not far away from us. At most we are far from him, but the path that joins us to one another is open. And this path is not a matter of space travel of a cosmic-geographical nature: it is the “space travel” of the heart, from the dimension of self-enclosed isolation to the new dimension of world-embracing divine love”.

P. 292-293: “[At his Ascension] Jesus departs in the act of blessing. He goes while blessing, and he remains in that gesture of blessing. His hands remain stretched out over this world. The blessing hands of Christ are like a roof that protects us. But at the same time, they are a gesture of opening up, tearing the world open so that heaven may enter in, may become “present” within it”.

The traditional view that the Last Supper was a Passover Meal is fixed in our minds thanks to the famous eucharistic hymn of Saint Thomas Aquinas,Pange Lingua, “Sing, My Tongue”, with the translated words: “He the Paschal victim eating, first fufills the Law’s command”. Then follows the institution of the Eucharist, “[He] ... as Food to His Apostles gives Himself with His own hand”:

In supremae nocte cenae recumbens cum fratribus observata lege plene cibis in legalibus, cibum turbae duodenae se dat suis manibus.

On the night of that Last Supper, seated with His chosen band, He the Pascal victim eating, first fulfills the Law's command;then as Food to His Apostles gives Himself with His own hand.

Correspondingly, there does appear to be a strong case for a paschal lamb to have been involved at the Last Supper, as argued by Fr. Brian Harrison and Dr. Brant Pitre. We continue on with their discussions, beginning with Father Harrison’s e-mail letter:

     There are various explanations traditional exegetes have offered as a solution for this difficulty [i.e., no indication by St. John of a Passover meal being celebrated]. The majority view seems to have been that both the Synoptics and John are right, given that there is evidence for some degree of flexibility at that time among different Jewish groups, as to when the Passover meal (normally 14th Nisan) was celebrated (just as there is on our liturgical calendars, when a certain annual Feast can be displaced in a given year by a higher Feast).  Since - as we learn from Jn 18: 28 - the regular calendar followed in Jerusalem had the Passover on the Friday, that would have been another good reason why Our Lord would decide to anticipate the Passover meal with his disciples by one day, on 13th Nisan. For he knew he was going to dead by the time most folks there were celebrating their Passover meal; and in any case of course, the Last Supper wasn't going to be just a regular Passover meal, but was destined to include, at the end, something new, the institution of the Eucharist, in which he himself would be offered, anticipating Calvary, as the new Paschal Lamb. Ratzinger finally gets round to acknowledging this "paschal" (in a new sense) element in the Last Supper, but he doesn't retract his initial assertion that there is a "contradiction" between John and the Synoptics.

Presumably he thinks the latter are wrong in depicting the first part of the Last Supper as being a regular Passover meal. (That would seem to mean they put false words on the lips of Jesus, who is reported as saying that what he intended to do that night was "keep Passover" [Mt. 26: 18; Mk 14: 14; Lk 22: 11]. The evangelists then tell us that's exactly what the disciples understood: for they went and "prepared Passover" [Mt. 26: 19; Mk. 14: 16; Lk 22: 13].)   In that case they would of course have made sure they had an appropriately sacrificed Paschal lamb ready for the meal [cf. Mk 14: 12], even though the Jerusalem Jews in general would have been killing the lambs in the temple 24 hours later, while Jesus was on the Cross. In view of the latter fact, John is also right in 13:1 in saying the Last Supper was "before" the festival of Passover.

The relevant part of the Jerusalem Bible footnote to Mt. 26: 17 [Father Harrison had referred to this text in a previous correspondence] ... reads:

      "The 'first day' of the week during which unleavened loaves (azymes) were eaten, cf. Ex 12: 1 +, 23: 14 +, was normally that which followed the Passover supper, i.e., the 15th of Nisan; the Synoptics however give this title to the preceding day, thus attesting a wider use of the term, Further, if we take account of Jn. 18: 28 and of other details connected with the Passion, it seems fairly certain that in this particular year the Passover supper was celebrated on the evening of the Friday (or 'Preparation Day', Mt. 27: 62; cf. Jn 19: 14, 31, 42). Christ's Last Supper, which the Synoptics put on the day before, i.e., on the Thursday evening, must therefore be explained in one of two ways: either a whole section of the Jewish people thus anticipated the rite, or (and this is preferable), Christ anticipated it on his own initiative."

      Note the traditionally Catholic outlook of the JB commentator in lines 1-3 above.

It seems he is starting his exegesis from the premise of faith; and so rather than leap to the conclusion that the Synoptics are wrong in what they affirm, he infers that they are "attesting a wider use of the term". He then goes on to indicate how both John and the Synoptics are right as regards when the Passover was celebrated. Professor Ratzinger does not rebut the kind of explanation given by the JB commentator. He does not even address it. ....

[End of quote]

And, returning also to Dr. Pitre:

http://www.salvationhistory.com/blog/was_there_a_passover_lamb_at_the_last_supper/

…. Catholics everywhere will celebrate Holy Thursday by attending the Evening Mass of the Lord’s Supper.

At this Mass, we will read the institution of the Passover (Exod 12, OT reading), sing one of the most famous of the Hallel Psalms (Psalm 118, Responsorial Psalm), and then read the institution of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11, Epistle) and Jesus’ act of washing the disciples’ feet at the Last Supper (John 13, Gospel). This particular Eucharist is a momentous liturgical moment, where we both recall the institution of the very first Eucharist and enter into the beginning of the calendrical Holy of Holies—the sacred Triduum, climaxing in the feast of Easter (in Latin, Pascha).

But how did Jesus and his disciples celebrate the first Holy Thursday?

Specifically, was the Last Supper a Jewish Passover meal?

…. For now, all I would like to do in this post is one brief point about the first Holy Thursday: contrary to what is often claimed by some exegetes, the Synoptic Gospels clearly identify the Last Supper as a Jewish Passover meal—one that included the presence of a passover lamb. Allow me to explain.

A Lambless ‘Passover Meal’?

Anyone familiar with scholarly books on Jesus will be aware that one of the primary arguments against the Last Supper being a Passover meal is that “there is not a word about the lamb” in the Gospel accounts of the institution of the eucharist. In fact, for years, I myself agreed with this view and even have some recordings where I make just that point!

Alas, upon closer study of the entire context in the Gospels in their original Greek, I discovered that the idea that there was no lamb at the Last Supper is just not exegetically sustainable. Although the word “lamb” (Gk arnion) admittedly does not appear in any account of the words of institution, both Mark and Luke in particular explicitly testify that there was a Passover lamb (Gk pascha) at the Last Supper.

This is quite clear in the Gospel accounts—not first and foremost in the words of institution—but in the accounts of Jesus sending the disciples (Peter and John) into Jerusalem to prepare the Passover (Mark 14:12-16 parr.)

“When they Sacrificed the Passover Lamb (Pascha)”

So, for example, in the Gospel of Mark, we read: “And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the pascha, his disciples said to him, “Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the pascha”? And he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you…” (Mark 14:12-13)

Though English Bibles translate these with two different words, there is no way for the first use of pascha to refer to the Passover lamb that was sacrificed to be eaten and for the second use of pascha to refer to the now-popular idea of a “lambless Passover meal.” The only way to make this work would be to wrench the second occurrence completely out of context.

“Go and Prepare the Pascha, that We May Eat it”

The presence of the Passover lamb at the Last Supper is even more explicit in the Gospel of Luke. According to his account of Holy Thursday afternoon, the following took place: “Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the pascha had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the pascha for us, that we may eat it.” They said to him, “Where will you have us prepare it?” (Luke 22:7-8)

Same problem: there is no way I can see in which the first use of pascha in v. 7 refers to the Passover lamb, while in v. 8 pascha refers to a lamb-less Passover meal (if such a thing were even possible in the 1st century A.D.). The meal which they are preparing for Jesus and the disciples to eat in the upper room that evening clearly consists of the passover lamb which had been sacrificed that day.

“I Have Greatly Desired to Eat this Pascha with You”

To top it all off, in Luke’s account, Jesus even uses the same word in the context of the words of institution on two more occasions. Just a couple of verses later, we read: The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I am to eat the pascha with my disciples?’ And he will show you a large upper room furnished; there make ready.” And they went, and found it as he had told them; and they prepared the pascha….

And when the hour came, he sat at table, and said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this pascha with you before I suffer…” (Luke 22:11-13, 15)

It seems to me that far from the lamb never being mentioned, Luke’s Gospel refers to the Passover lamb in the context of the Last Supper some three or four times, both in the account of the preparation and in the account of the meal itself! ….

 [End of quote]

The traditional view, as espoused by Fr. Harrison and Dr. Pitre,  seems also to be well in harmony with Verbum Domini’s notion of ‘fulfilling the incarnational paradigm of the Word made flesh’, and of St. Paul’s idea of the Word emptying Itself to being “born under the Law ... to redeem those who were under the Law” (Galatians 4:4-5). We think that it may be preferable, therefore, to Josef Ratzinger’s view of a lamb-less Passover. So perhaps with this in mind we might raise the query with Isaac of old:

‘… but where is the lamb?’ (Genesis 22:7)

The Resurrection

This important subject is treated in some detail by Josef Ratzinger in Chapter 9.

The Rev. Donald Sanborn, whose caustic criticism of the pope’s book we had referred to in the June-July MATRIX - as a counterpoint for dialectical discussion, not for the sake of agreement with Sanborn, it should be noted - has lined up this part of the book for his main frontal attack.

“The principal error, indeed heresy, of this book is [Ratzinger’s] denial of the Resurrection of Christ” (Modernism Resurrected: Benedict XVI on the Resurrection).

.... Now someone might say that I am going too far in this accusation, since Ratzinger professes belief in the Resurrection of Christ. I respond that Ratzinger believes something about the Resurrection of Christ, but that he does not believe in the Catholic dogma of the Resurrection. For in order that we qualify as Catholics, it is necessary that we accept the dogmas of the Catholic Church according to the same sense in which the Church has always understood them.

Sanborn then goes on to test whether “Ratzinger [does] profess belief in the Resurrection in the sense that the Church originally held it”, before concluding emphatically that he doesn’t.

But one always needs to read most attentively what Josef Ratzinger actually writes.

Let us firstly, though, refresh our minds on what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I.     The Historical and Transcendent Event

639             The mystery of Christ's resurrection is a real event, wit­h manifestations that were historically verified, as the New Testa­ment bears witness. In about a.d. 56, St. Paul could already write ­to the Corinthians: "I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, that he was raised on the third ­day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the Twelve …" [I Cor 15:3-4]. The Apostle speaks here of the living tradition of the Resurrection which he had learned after his ­conversion at the gates of Damascus. … [Cf. Acts 9:3-18].

The empty tomb

640             "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not ­here, but has risen." …. [Lk 24:5-6]. The first element we encounter in the framework of the Easter events is the empty tomb. In itself it is not ­a direct proof of Resurrection; the absence of Christ's body from ­the tomb could be explained otherwise. … [Cf. Jn 20:13; Mt 28:11-15]. Nonetheless the empty tomb was still an essential sign for all. Its discovery by the disciples ­was the first step toward recognizing the very fact of the Resurrec­tion. This was the case, first with the holy women, and then with Peter. … [Cf. Lk 24:3, 12, 22-23]. The disciple "whom Jesus loved" affirmed that when he entered the empty tomb and discovered "the linen cloths lying there," "he saw and believed." … [Jn20:2, 6, 8].

This suggests that he realized from the empty tomb's condition that the absence of Jesus' body could not have been of human doing and that Jesus had not simply returned to earthly life as had been the case with Lazarus. … [Cf. Jn 11:44; 20:5-7].

The appearances of the Risen One

641                   Mary Magdalene and the holy women who came to finish anointing the body of Jesus, which had been buried in haste because th­e Sabbath began on the evening of Good Friday, were the first to encounter the Risen One. … [Mk 16:1; Lk 24:1; Jn 19:31, 42]. Thus the women were the first messengers of Christ's Resurrection for the apostles themselves… [Cf. Lk 24:9-10; Mt 28:9-10; Jn 20:11-18]. They were the next to whom Jesus appears: first Peter, then the Twelve. Peter had been called to strengthen the faith of his brothers … [Cf. I Cor 15:5; Lk 22:31-32], and so sees the Risen One before them; it is on the basis of his testimony that the community exclaims: "The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!" … [Lk 24:34, 36].

      642                   Everything that happened during those Paschal days involves each of the apostles - and Peter in particular - in the building of the new era begun on Easter morning. As witnesses of the Risen One, they remain the foundation stones of his Church. The faith of the first community of believers is based on the witness of concrete men known to the Christians and for the most part still living among them. Peter and the Twelve are the primary "witnesses to his Resurrection," but they are not the only ones - Paul speaks clearly of more than five hundred persons to whom Jesus appeared on a single occasion and also of James and of all the apostles…. [I Cor 15:4-8; cf.Acts 1:22].

      643   Given all these testimonies, Christ's Resurrection cannot be inter­preted as something outside the physical order, and it is impossible not to acknowledge it as an historical fact. It is clear from the facts that the disciples' faith was drastically put to the test by their master's Passion and death on the cross, which he had foretold. … [Cf. Lk 22:31-32]. The shock provoked by the Passion was so great that at least some of the disciples did not at once believe in the news of the Resurrection. Far from showing us a community seized by a mystical exaltation, the Gospels present us with disciples demoralized ("looking sad"… [Lk 24:17; cf. Jn 20:19]) and frightened. For they had not believed the holy women returning from the tomb and had regarded their words as an "idle tale." … [Lk 24:11; cf. Mk 16:11, 13]. When Jesus reveals himself to the Eleven on Easter evening, "he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen." … [Mk 16:14].

644                   Even when faced with the reality of the risen Jesus the disciples are still doubtful, so impossible did the thing seem: they thought they were ­seeing a ghost. "In their joy they were still disbelieving and still wondering" … [Lk 24:38-41]. Thomas will also experience the test of doubt and St. Matthew relates that during the risen Lord's last appearance in Galilee "some doubted" ….[Cf. Jn 20:24-27; Mt 28:17]. Therefore the hypothesis that the Resurrection was produced by the apostles' faith (or credulity) will not hold up. On the contrary ^­their faith in the Resurrection was born, under the action of divine grace, ­from their direct experience of the reality of the risen Jesus.

The condition of Christ's risen humanity

645                   By means of touch and the sharing of a meal, the risen Jesus establishes direct contact with his disciples. He invites them in this ­way to recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of his passion. … [Cf. Lk 24:30, 39-40, 41-43; Jn 20:20, 27; 21:9, 13-15]. Yet at the same time this authentic, real body possesses the new properties of a glorious body: not limited by space and time but able to be present how and when he wills; for Christ’s humanity can no longer be confined to earth and belongs hence­forth only to the Father's divine realm. … [Cf. Mt 28:9, 16-17; Lk 24:15, 36; Jn 20:14, 17, 19, 26; 21:4]. For this reason too the risen Jesus enjoys the sovereign freedom of appearing as he wishes: in the guise of a gardener or in other forms familiar to his disciples, precisely to awaken their faith. …. [Cf. Mk 16:12; Jn 20:14-16; 21:4, 7].

646                   Christ's Resurrection was not a return to earthly life, as was ­the case with the raisings from the dead that he had performed before Easter: Jairus' daughter, the young man of Naim, Lazarus. These actions were miraculous events, but the persons miraculously raised returned by Jesus' power to ordinary earthly life. At some particular moment they would die again. Christ's Resurrection is essentially ­different. In his risen body he passes from the state of death to another ­life beyond time and space. At Jesus' Resurrection his body is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit: he shares the divine life in his glorious state, so that St. Paul can say that Christ is "the man of heaven" … [Cf. I Cor 15:35-50].

Actually, Josef Ratzinger’s case for the Resurrection harmonises with all of this and fully accords with its sense. He takes up this last point (# 646), for instance, when he writes on page 243, differentiating the raising of Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus from Christ’s Resurrection:

Now it must be acknowledged that if in Jesus’ Resurrection we were dealing simply with the miracle of a resuscitated corpse, it would ultimately be of no concern to us. For it would be no more important than the resuscitation of a clinically dead person through the art of doctors. The miracle of a resuscitated corpse would indicate that Jesus’ Resurrection was equivalent to the raising of the son of the widow of Nain (Lk 7: 11-17), the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5: 22-24, 35-43 and parallel passages), and Lazarus (Jn 11: 1-44). After a more or less short period, these individuals returned to their former lives, and then at a later point they died definitively.

And, in the case of the Pope’s p. 269: “… the Resurrection. … Luke ends up contradicting his own narrative …”, this appears to be only the “view”, as he says, “Most exegetes take …”, not necessarily the Pope’s view.

Sanborn, commenting on this section, wrongly concludes: “So despite his assurance that Christ is “embodied” (page 268), [Ratzinger] again shows his revulsion for the Catholic dogma by reacting to St. Luke’s account of our risen Lord’s eating a fish (Luke XXIV: 42)”.

But it is apparent from various references by the Pope to the risen Jesus’s eating with his disciples (eating grilled fish; breaking bread with the disciples of Emmaus, p. 269; sharing meals, p. 271) that the author has no such reactive issue to these phenomena.

It is also quite clear from a close reading of the book, too, that it is the same Jesus who was crucified (“he is the same embodied man”, p. 266, “complete with his body”, p. 274), who rose, and who appeared to his disciples, but “not a ghost (spirit)”, “he does not belong to the realm of the dead [Hades], but is somehow able to reveal himself in the realm of the living” (p. 273). This whole transcendental paradigm presents an immense challenge to our narrow human thinking (pp. 274-275):

Essential, then, is the fact that Jesus' Resurrection was not just about some deceased individual coming back to life at a certain point, but that an ontological leap occurred, one that touches being as such, opening up a dimension that affects us all, creating for all of us a new space of life, a new space of being in union with God.

It is in these terms that the question of the historicity of the Resurrection should be addressed. On the one hand, we must acknowledge that it is of the essence of the Res­urrection precisely to burst open history and usher in a new dimension commonly described as eschatological. The Resurrection opens up the new space that transcends history and creates the definitive. In this sense, it follows that Resurrection is not the same kind of historical event as the birth or crucifixion of Jesus. It is something new, a new type of event.

Yet at the same time it must be understood that the Resurrection does not simply stand outside or above his­tory. As something that breaks out of history and tran­scends it, the Resurrection nevertheless has its origin within history and up to a certain point still belongs there. Perhaps we could put it this way: Jesus' Resurrec­tion points beyond history but has left a footprint within history. Therefore it can be attested by witnesses as an event of an entirely new kind.

Indeed, the apostolic preaching with all its boldness and passion would be unthinkable unless the witnesses had experienced a real encounter, coming to them from out­side, with something entirely new and unforeseen, namely, the self-revelation and verbal communication of the risen Christ. Only a real event of a radically new quality could possibly have given rise to the apostolic preaching, which cannot be explained on the basis of speculations or inner, mystical experiences. In all its boldness and originality, it draws life from the impact of an event that no one had invented, an event that surpassed all that could be imagined.

[End of quote]

To sum up: Whilst in the controversial case of the Last Supper we may be missing the body of a real lamb, with the Resurrection we are not, despite criticisms, missing the real body of the Lamb.

Cosmic Liturgy of Revelation

SATURDAY, JUNE 26, 2010

Archbishop Chaput: Liturgical renewal should create martyrs’ love for the Mass
The following comes from the CNA:

Christian witness is intended to prepare for and to live the “cosmic liturgy” in which all mankind adores God, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput declared in a lecture on Thursday evening. Noting the cultural obstacles to liturgical understanding, he said the renewed liturgy should create Christians who would die rather than not celebrate Mass.

Delivering the Hildebrand Distinguished Lecture at the Liturgical Institute of the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Illinois, the Archbishop of Denver praised Chicago’s “historic role” in the renewal of the liturgy and the evangelization of America. He said the 10th anniversary of the Liturgical Institute shows that this legacy continues.

He opened with a reflection on the respected liturgist and theologian Fr. Romano Guardini. Soon after the Second Vatican Council published its “groundbreaking” document on the liturgy, “Sacrosanctum Concilium,” the priest sent a letter to the Third German Liturgical Conference wondering whether man in an industrial and scientific age is “no longer capable of the liturgical act.”

“I think he put his finger on one of the key questions of mission in his time, and also in ours,” Archbishop Chaput remarked, explaining that the liturgical act is the transformation of personal prayer and piety into “genuine corporate worship” and “the public service that the Church offers to God.”

This act requires an inward awareness of the unity of the whole person, body and soul, with the spiritual body of the Church, present in heaven and on earth, he added.

“It also requires an appreciation that the sacred signs and actions of the Mass -- standing, kneeling, singing and so forth -- are themselves ‘prayer’.”

However, he warned, this awareness is obscured in a society organized around a “narrow” vision of technological progress in which truth is judged by what can be perceived and verified through research and experiment.

“In practice, almost nothing of what we believe as Catholics is affirmed by our culture,” commented the archbishop. “Even the meaning of the words ‘human’ and ‘person’ are subject to debate.”

This has implications for Catholic worship in which we profess to be in contact with “spiritual realities” and to receive the true Body and Blood of the Lord.

“We preach the good news that this world has a Savior who can free us from the bondage of sin and death. What can our good news mean in a world where people don’t believe in sin or that there is anything they need to be saved from?” Archbishop Chaput asked. “What does the promise of victory over death mean to people who don’t believe in the existence of any reality beyond this visible world?”

The archbishop said Chicago priest Fr. Robert Barron is one of the few to have wrestled with such issues. For him, the liturgy is not to be shaped according to modern suppositions; rather, the liturgy should “question and shape the suppositions of any age.” While modern man is probably incapable of the liturgical act, this is no grounds for despair. Instead, we should “let the liturgy be itself,” the priest has said.

Archbishop Chaput agreed with Fr. Barron that in recent decades the “professional liturgical establishment” chose to shape the liturgy according to the world, which has proven to be “a dead end.” Seeking relevance through “a kind of relentless cult of novelty” has only resulted in confusion and division between the faithful and the true spirit of the liturgy, continued the archbishop.

He said liturgical renewal should build “an authentic Eucharistic culture” to instill “a new sacramental and liturgical sensibility that enables Catholics to face the idols and suppositions of our culture with the confidence of believers who draw life from the sacred mysteries ...”

To this end, the Archbishop of Denver offered several suggestions: the need to recover the “intrinsic and inseparable connection” between liturgy and evangelization; the need to see the liturgy as a participation in the “liturgy of heaven” where Christians worship “in Spirit and truth” with the Church and the communion of the saints; and the need to recover and live the early Christians’ “vibrant liturgical and evangelical spirituality.”

“Liturgy is both the source of the Church’s mission and its goal,” explained the prelate. “The reason we evangelize is in order to bring people into communion with the living God in the Eucharistic liturgy. And this experience of communion with God, in turn, impels us to evangelize.”

The “pedestrian” and self-focused nature of many contemporary liturgies results from the loss of the sense of this participation in the heavenly liturgy, he suggested.

“The Eucharist … is a cosmic liturgy that unites the worship of heaven with our own worship here on earth… Heaven and earth are filled with the glory of God,” he continued. Worship is a window through which “the reality and destiny of our lives is glimpsed.”

This truth should “make us strive for liturgies that are reverent and beautiful, and that point our hearts and minds to things above.” The ultimate purpose of Christian witness is to “prepare the way for the cosmic liturgy in which all humanity will adore the Creator.”

The archbishop encouraged the faithful to look to the early Christians, who found their identity in the liturgy and said “we cannot live without the Mass.”

“This is the kind of faith that should inspire our worship. And this is the kind of faith that our worship should inspire. Can we really say today that we’re ready to die rather than not celebrate the Mass?”

Describing the liturgy as “a school of sacrificial love,” he said that all Christians should see themselves as a Eucharistic offering, “a perfect offering holy and acceptable to God.”

“The liturgical act becomes possible for modern man when you make your lives a liturgy, when you live your lives liturgically -- as an offering to God in thanksgiving and praise for his gifts and salvation. You are the future of the liturgical renewal.”

Archbishop Chaput closed his lecture with the words of one of the dismissal prayers of the new Roman Missal: “Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life.”

To read Archbishop Chaput's full lecture, click here.
POSTED BY PADRE STEVE AT 10:10 AM
LABELS: ARCHBISHOP CHAPUT, LITURGY


Taken from: http://salesianity.blogspot.com/2010/06/archbishop-chaput-liturgical-renewal.html