May 16 lectionary

Reading 1
Acts 16:1-10

Paul reached also Derbe and Lystra
where there was a disciple named Timothy,
the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer,
but his father was a Greek.
The brothers in Lystra and Iconium spoke highly of him,
and Paul wanted him to come along with him.
On account of the Jews of that region, Paul had him circumcised,
for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
As they traveled from city to city,
they handed on to the people for observance the decisions
reached by the Apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem.
Day after day the churches grew stronger in faith
and increased in number.

They traveled through the Phrygian and Galatian territory
because they had been prevented by the Holy Spirit
from preaching the message in the province of Asia.
When they came to Mysia, they tried to go on into Bithynia,
but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them,
so they crossed through Mysia and came down to Troas.
During the night Paul had a vision.
A Macedonian stood before him and implored him with these words,
"Come over to Macedonia and help us."
When he had seen the vision,
we sought passage to Macedonia at once,
concluding that God had called us to proclaim the Good News to them.


Gospel
Jn 15:18-21

Jesus said to his disciples:
"If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.
If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own;
but because you do not belong to the world,
and I have chosen you out of the world,
the world hates you.
Remember the word I spoke to you,
'No slave is greater than his master.'
If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.
If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
And they will do all these things to you on account of my name,
because they do not know the one who sent me."

VicarJoe wrote:Reading 1
On account of the Jews of that region, Paul had him circumcised,
for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Now what in the world does that mean?

VicarJoe wrote:
If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own;
but because you do not belong to the world,
and I have chosen you out of the world,
the world hates you.

Now this passage I find deeply comforting, for whatever reason. As I understand it, the more worldly I am, the more the world will love me, but when I opt out of the worldly (or really, as the passage implies, when Jesus chooses me out of the world), when I am no longer "owned" by the world (I don't belong to it, I belong to Someone Else), the world will want to hate me and kick me and kill me.

It almost sounds like a bitter love triangle, where because I left the world for Jesus, the world's love turns to hate and malice.

And here's the thing, this "world" the gospel speaks of can be understood, too, to go by another name:

secular, c.1290, "living in the world, not belonging to a religious order," also "belonging to the state," rom L.L. sæcularis "worldly, secular," used in ecclesiastical writing like Gk. aion "of this world." Secularism "doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter" first recorded 1846.

Wow, is that a rich mine of meaning.

So maybe you could even understand why a secular culture and a secular age has such contempt for Christianity. Maybe avowed and even militant secularists have always and will always hate us. "I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you." Opting out is not an option. Resisting secularism makes us loathsome.

I dunno, that's one way to apply the gospel to my experience of the present age.

You are up early. I was up at 5:45 but read the paper first. Let's get to it.

[quote="VicarJoe"]

VicarJoe wrote:Reading 1
On account of the Jews of that region, Paul had him circumcised,
for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Now what in the world does that mean?

This is interesting because this falls in the whole "To circumsice or not to circumsice" question as it related to enforcing Mosaic Law on Gentile-Christian converts (sorry for the run-on).

I think this is more of a blip on the radar. Timothy's mom was a Jew so maybe that is the difference. Call it a "political move", beside, Paul wasn't deep into Gentile territory.

Secularism "doctrine that morality should be based on the well-being of man in the present life, without regard to religious belief or a hereafter" first recorded 1846.

quote]

Now it is pretty cool that you included this detail on the definition of secularism. This is what causes the major rub between traditionalists and progressives, the seeming disregard that we traditionalists have for the well being of those presently alive. More specifically, out of the womb. What the progressives don't understand is there is a concern for those who are alive (out of the womb) but, there is also a concern for those yet to be born, presently conceived or yet to be conceived. Our concerns are further reaching and try to balance the immeadiate physical needs of those out of the womb with attempt to be more than monkies.

By the way I already miss the old Joe advatar. Although the new one is rather distinguished.

And I say a little prayer that my kids will sleep until 7 AM.

"Daddy" carves out a little adult thinking time wherever he can find it, usually at the absolute margins of the day.

VicarJoe wrote:

VicarJoe wrote:Reading 1
On account of the Jews of that region, Paul had him circumcised,
for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Now what in the world does that mean?

I went to Haydock's bible commentary and this is what I found:

Ver. 3. Circumcised him. Not to obstruct the conversion of the Jews; and because it was still lawful to observe the Jewish ceremonies, though the obligation of keeping the old law had ceased. (Witham) --- This St. Paul did in order to gain the Jews, and make Timothy acceptable to them. (Tirinus) --- To the Jew, says he, (1 Corinthians ix. 20.) I became a Jew, that I might gain the Jews. If he refused to circumcise Titus, in order to vindicate the Christian's independence of the Mosaic ceremonies; he now submits to the observance of them, to shew there is nothing of itself bad in them, and that they might without crime be practised, till time by degrees had abolished them. (St. Augustine, ep. lxxxii. ad S. Hieronymum)

http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id131.html

Here is another link about St. Timothy.

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=367

While submitting to circumcision alone was quite a demonstration of the type of sacrifice diciples of Christ are sometimes called to make, he gave his life in Christ's name in the end.

It certainly makes me pause and appreciate the sacrifices that many Christians have made over the past 2 millennia to get His message to us in this age. It also gives me a stronger resolve to carry on that mission and be ready to accept the sacrifices that that might entail.

Peace.

and very informative.

While we're on the topic of circumcision, it's one of my favorite things about the old church that it used to have feast days and celebrations year round, and one of the feast days was the Feast of the Circumcision.

"The circumcision of Jesus has traditionally been seen, as explained in the popular 14th century work the Golden Legend, as the first time the blood of Christ was shed, and thus the beginning of the process of the redemption of man, and a demonstration that Christ was fully human, and of his obedience to Jewish law."

So, in part, it was understood as a kind of pre-figuring or foreshadowing of the redemptive suffering of the cross. Traditionally celebrated on January 1.



I really have no idea what kind of actual feast is proper or customary for such an anniversary.

Alas, it's one of the lost parts of Catholic Christianity, wiped off the calendar by John XXIII around the time of Vatican II. I have to admit, I envy those people who used to live according to a calendar of constant feast days and fast days, the whole year marked by Saints' days and feasts marking milestones in the life of the holy family. It's a paltry legacy that we only have two widely-recognized feast days left.

Regarding the subject of my reply, my kids have been using this expression all the time lately. It is really driving me crazy, but as a joke, my wife and I are starting to use the expression in jest. I am pretty sure they picked that expression up at the YMCA and not the Catholic school that they attend.

VicarJoe wrote:Alas, it's one of the lost parts of Catholic Christianity, wiped off the calendar by John XXIII around the time of Vatican II. I have to admit, I envy those people who used to live according to a calendar of constant feast days and fast days, the whole year marked by Saints' days and feasts marking milestones in the life of the holy family. It's a paltry legacy that we only have two widely-recognized feast days left.

I have to admit, I am not that familiar with the changes that John XXIII instituted that changed the way that we practice and observe feast days. But, I agree, it is unfortunate that the observance of feast and fast days has gone by the wayside. It seems like a wonderful opportunity to keep the practice of our faith active throughout the week and learn about the significant moments in the life of the holy famiy, and of the stories of the great saints of the church. I feel inspired to pay more attention to them now.

VicarJoe wrote: I really have no idea what kind of actual feast is proper or customary for such an anniversary.

Yeah, I can only imagine. Since it is January 1'st perhaps that is how it was originally decided to have the big football bowl games on that day, in observance and recognition as a day "for the boys".

As a serious aside, circumcision and its relation to church history is certainly a subject I would not have bothered submitting a serious response to over on the other forum.

Peace to you.