The Man Who Wouldn't Stay Dead

There's a reason for Catholic churches having a statue of a corpse displayed prominently.

The death of Jesus is very important for the Catholic Church. So is what happened three days later - and I'll get back to that.

First, a little background.

"Tell the Israelites: I AM Sent Me to You' "

About three and a half or four millennia back,¹ someone named Abram moved out of Ur, changed his name to Abraham, and settled near the east end of the Mediterranean Sea.

Time passed. Descendants of Abraham moved to Egypt, ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom gave way to the Middle Kingdom, empires rose and fell, and eventually someone named Moses had a face-to-burning-bush talk with God:

" 'But,' said Moses to God, 'when I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," if they ask me, "What is his name?" what am I to tell them?'

"⁶ God replied, 'I am who am.' Then he added, 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you.'"
(Exodus 3:13-14)

Egypt's ruler learned - the hard way - that it's not prudent to ignore what God says, and descendants of Abraham moved back to the east end of the Mediterranean.

"...And You have Seen Abraham?"

About a dozen centuries later, Jesus compared some descendants of Abraham to their ancestor. Unfavorably:

"So the Jews said to him, 'You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?' ²³

"²⁴ Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.' "
(John 8:57-58)

Jesus had said, without any possibility of misunderstanding, "I am God."

Disorderly Conduct

Jesus made another remarkable claim, after engaging in disorderly conduct:

"^{10 11} Since the Passover of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem....

"...At this the Jews answered and said to him, 'What sign can you show us for doing this?'

"Jesus answered and said to them, ¹⁵ 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.'

"The Jews said, 'This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?'

"But he was speaking about the temple of his body.

"Therefore, when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they came to believe the scripture and the word Jesus had spoken,"
(John 2:13-22)

Big Talk, Breach of the Peace, Death

Jesus made an extravagant claim:

"²⁴ Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.' "
(John 8:58)

My Lord also committed a breach of the peace in the temple, and followed that up by saying:

"Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up."
(John 2:19)

Then he was tortured to death and buried.

That's where it gets interesting.

Lunatics Don't Stop Being Dead

Any crazy person might claim to be God. Or, these days, Napoleon. Or Steve Jobs.

Jesus had been about as blunt as a person could be, explaining how it was that He had seen Abraham:

"²⁴ Jesus said to them, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.' "
(John 8:58)

Small wonder that Jesus was executed shortly after that.

Make no mistake: Jesus died. The crucifixion of Jesus was handled by Roman soldiers. They were good at their jobs, and knew how to make sure that someone was thoroughly, sincerely, and permanently dead.

After being pried off the Cross, Jesus was buried. In a borrowed tomb, and that's another topic.

Up to that point, Jesus might have been any other lunatic, acting crazy because He really thought He was God.

His torture and execution should have been an end to the claim that "...before Abraham came to be, I AM."

Then, three days later, Jesus stopped being dead.

Jesus Stopped Being Dead

Jesus was raised from the dead, and is alive.

Really, physically, eat-a-baked-fish, put-your-hand-in-my-side, alive.² The Catholic Church thinks this is very important. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 638-655, for starters) So do I.

Anybody dying to save me would make an impression. When the Second Person of the Trinity volunteers: That's not something I'll forget.

Jesus the Crucified

Toward the end of Matthew, we're told that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb where a sincerely dead Jesus had been buried. There was an incident involving an angel, and that's where I'll pick up Matthew's account:

"Then the angel said to the women in reply, 'Do not be afraid! I know that you are seeking Jesus the crucified.

"⁴ He is not here, for he has been raised just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.

"Then go quickly and tell his disciples, "He has been raised from the dead, and he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him." Behold, I have told you.'

"Then they went away quickly from the tomb, fearful yet overjoyed, and ran to announce ⁵ this to his disciples.

"⁶ And behold, Jesus met them on their way and greeted them. They approached, embraced his feet, and did him homage.

"Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.' "
(Matthew 28:5-10)

The two Marys passed my Lord's message along. Here's how that meeting went:

"⁸ The eleven⁹ disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them.

"¹⁰ When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted.

"¹¹ Then Jesus approached and said to them, 'All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

"Go, therefore,¹² and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

"teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.¹³ And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.' "
(Matthew 28:16-20)

That was two millennia back, the orders haven't changed, and I've posted about that before. (August 25, 2011)

Related posts:

• "First Sunday in Lent; God is Reclaiming His Broken Creation"
  (February 26, 2012)
  • A guest post
• "Respect, Formality, and Titles of Christ"
  (July 6, 2011)
• "Christ is Risen!"
  (April 24, 2011)
• "I Worship a Jew"
  (April 3, 2011)
• "Just Who is This Jesus Person, and Who Does He Think He is?"
  (January 17, 2010)

Background:

• "A Little Look at the Big Picture"
  (February 13, 2012)
  Particularly
  • Living With Immensity
  • "Recent" Events

---

¹ Abram/Abraham may have moved out of Ur about 4,000 years ago. Or as recently as 3,500 years back. Considering how often languages and calendar systems have changed over the last 35 centuries, I don't regard "early part of the second millennium B.C." as an unreasonable sort of estimate. Not considering the condition that detailed records of, say, the Sumerians are in today.

"...With the story of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (⇒ Genesis 11:27-⇒ 50:26), the character of the narrative changes. While we do not view the account of the patriarchs as history in the strict sense, nevertheless certain of the matters recounted from the time of Abraham onward can be placed in the actual historical and social framework of the Near East in the early part of the second millennium B.C. (2000-1500), and documented by non-biblical sources...." (Preface to the New American Bible)

(from Footnote 9 (July 5, 2011))

² The "baked fish" thing is from Luke 24:41-43. Thomas, understandably, had trouble believing that Jesus was really alive. My Lord helped Thomas work that out:

"Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, 'Peace be with you.'

"Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.' "
(John 20:26-27)

Our Lady of Sorrows Crucifix, Art, and Being Catholic

There's good news from Detroit: an old crucifix, 13 feet tall with a five-foot corpus¹, is being restored. Catholics have been keeping it safe, after it survived a fire back in 1963 that took out the Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church.

More good news: nobody was killed in the fire.

Church Flambe

The bad news is that folks lost a church in the '60s. I think the story's best told by quoting part of a CNA article:

"Beloved Detroit crucifix saved from fire finds new parish home"
Marianne Medlin, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (July 10, 2011)

"...The cross was the only surviving artifact from a fire - believed but never proved to be set by arsonists - that destroyed Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic Church on the city's east side in 1963...

"...Pastoral associate Alton James [of Detroit's Good Shepherd parish, where the crucifix has been kept] told CNA/EWTN News that the spared crucifix was transferred to a nearby parish after the fire, which merged with other parishes over the decades and eventually became Good Shepherd...."

Torching a Church: Unpleasant Idea

If the church down the street, Our Lady of Angels, burned: I wouldn't like that at all. My wife and I were married there, it's the church she grew up in, and we've got decades of shared memories there.

I think I might feel worse, if I thought that someone might have deliberately torched the place.

That's not likely to happen. Sauk Centre, Minnesota, is largely Catholic. With so many of us around, there's even blatantly Catholic stuff in local stores. (December 2, 2010) And, although we've got the usual quota of jerks and soreheads, we're a fairly boring community. From the point of view of someone looking for strife, discord, deep-seated hatred, and all that dramatic stuff.

Vandalism as a Spiritual Exercise, Or Something

Not all areas have quite the infestation of malignant virtue that my part of the world did, when I was growing up. Once in a while, though, someone decides to smash a statue. One of those Catholic ones.

Sometimes, I'm pretty sure that vandalizing a Catholic church is simply - vandalism: the sort of impulse that ended in shot-out windows - around $20,000 worth - in the town where I live, back in November, 2005. Nobody was hurt, thank God, and the local kids may have learned something. And that's another topic. (Sauk Centre Journal (September 2, 2006))

Sometimes, though, I think the vandals are filled with what they probably think is holy zeal: and are, consciously or not, emulating the great Lord Protector. I'm just glad that it's illegal to hunt Catholics in this country.

'Smashing Statues for God?'

'Smashing statues for God' actually makes sense, given a few alternatively-accurate assumptions about Catholics and the Catholic Church.

Like the notion that Catholics are deluded, superstitious folks:

• " 'Death Cookie' Comic: Seemed Like a Good Idea At the Time?"
  (March 5, 2010)

Destroying religious art as a sort of spiritual exercise comes from the related idea that we worship statues.

With upwards of 1,000,000,000 of us alive today, the odds are pretty good that a few actually are superstitious. And some may worship statues. In direct violation of Church teaching.

As I've said before, I don't expect to change a zealot's mind: but I also think that a sort of reality check couldn't hurt:

• Catholics are forbidden to worship statues
  • That's a form of idolatry, and
    • Idolatry is something that's quite explicitly forbidden (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2097, 2112-2114, 2534)

Sacred Art, Yes: Worshiping Art, No

The interiors of all Protestant churches do not resemble sensory deprivation chambers, with plain white walls and plain - well, everything. And I've been in some Catholic churches that could, in my opinion, have stood a bit of livening up. Visually speaking.

Back to that CNA article:

"...'Religious art is absolutely crucial,' Alton said, referencing the growing local media buzz on the crucifix restoration. 'It always inspires us to prayer as well as enriching our faith experience.'

"Alton praised older Church art like the Belgian crucifix, saying 'it's a phenomenal inspiration' that helps us utilize our senses 'in order to draw closer to God.' "
(CNA)

I could say something like "well, that's one person's opinion," and go on with some conventionally-sophisticated observation about reality being relative. Or whatever is in fashion at the moment.

Not gonna happen.

Mainly because Alton's opinion is also what the Catholic Church teaches:

• Sacred art is okay
  • Truth is beautiful, art is okay, and bishops should promote sacred art (Catechism, 2500-2503)

There's some pretty high praise for art there. And, more importantly, an explanation for why art is important:

"Created 'in the image of God,'²⁹⁴ man also expresses the truth of his relationship with God the Creator by the beauty of his artistic works. Indeed, art is a distinctively human form of expression; beyond the search for the necessities of life which is common to all living creatures, art is a freely given superabundance of the human being's inner riches. Arising from talent given by the Creator and from man's own effort, art is a form of practical wisdom, uniting knowledge and skill,²⁹⁵ to give form to the truth of reality in a language accessible to sight or hearing. To the extent that it is inspired by truth and love of beings, art bears a certain likeness to God's activity in what he has created. Like any other human activity, art is not an absolute end in itself, but is ordered to and ennobled by the ultimate end of man.²⁹⁶"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2501)

Before wrapping up this post, here's the end of that quote, again:

"...Like any other human activity, art is not an absolute end in itself, but is ordered to and ennobled by the ultimate end of man.²⁹⁶"
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2501)

Art? That's fine. "Art for art's sake?" That's not a good idea. And I've harangued about that before.

Somewhat-related posts:

• Art - 'everybody's a critic'
  
  • "Crowbar for Christ in Colorado?"
    (October 7, 2010)
  • "Superstitions, Catholicism, and a Really Bad Experience With the Ark"
    (July 13, 2010)
  • "Statue of Saint Rita of Cascia, Biggest Catholic Statue, Unveiled Today"
    (June 26, 2010)
  • "Those Realistic, Ghastly Crucifixes: There's a Reason"
    (January 19, 2010)
  • "Jesus Christ, Beer, Tobacco, Idols and Indian Law"
    (February 22, 2010)
• Closer to home
  • "Religious Art in the Home: We Like It"
    (August 31, 2010)
  • "Photos and Faith in Sauk Centre"
    (August 22, 2010)
  • "Alone With a Crouching Angel"
    (August 5, 2010)
  • "Art, Catholic Teachings, and This Catholic"
    (August 9, 2010)
    Particularly
    • "Art For Art's Sake" - Seriously?!
    • Religious Art: From Jesus Junk to the Sistine Chapel
    • Truth? Beauty? Hope?! How Simplistic and Naive Can I Get?
  • "Raphael 'Transfiguration:'" My Take on Controversy! Conflict! and Discord! in the Vatican"
    (August 12, 2010)

In the news:

• "Beloved Detroit crucifix saved from fire finds new parish home"
  Marianne Medlin, CNA (Catholic News Agency) (July 10, 2011)

---

¹ "Corpus?!" That's the statue of my Lord, that's on a crucifix. The word has quite a few other meanings, all of which translate into English as "body." It's Latin, and means - "body." If you have more than one corpus, you've got corpora.

Why can't Catholics use English? Those of us who live in America do, for the most part. But English isn't the common language of the 1,000,000,000 or so Catholics living today. It's Latin - which served as a trade language around the Mediterranean two millennia back.

I suppose the Church could re-translate all its documents every century or so, as new languages emerge and become widely known. But that seems like an awful lot of fuss and bother.

Besides, although I like America just fine - my guess is that two thousand years from now, something besides English may be the language most likely to be understood by at least one person in town.

Religious Art in the Home: We Like It

As far as I know, there's no rule that says a practicing Catholic has to have a crucifix on the wall, or some sort of religious art on display. I think it's a good idea, though.

Besides, I like to display things that matter to me. Up in the attic, where I do most of my reading and offline research, I've got an M. C. Escher poster, a few maps, and assorted pictures on the walls. Also a little Holy Family desktop sculpture.

Next to the front door of my house, there's a sort of crucifix on the inside wall. My father-in-law carved it, several years ago. It's a little different: a representation of my Lord's face in profile is at the meeting of a cross's upright and bar.


By the front door: a sort of crucifix.

I like it. And it's one of the many reminders in the house of our faith.

The east wall of the kitchen has a few 'religious' pictures, including one of Jesus in Gethsemane. My wife's family had a picture of the Last Supper in the kitchen - a sort of tradition. We wound up putting a copy of The Last Supper in the north room.


The east wall of the kitchen. The framed words are a Norwegian meal blessing.

That Norwegian prayer to be said at meals is from my heritage. My mother is Norwegian, and taught me 'grace' in that language. A decade or so back, I saw a copy of the prayer in a religious book & gift shop in Alexandria and put it on the wall.

The wall sculpture in the upper right of the picture is a stylized Madonna and Child that my father-in-law carved. I think quite a few of his kids have one of those.


In the north room: a picture of the Last Supper, next to family photos.

This household's Last Supper picture is, of all places, in the north room: where we don't eat. Oh, well: it loses some of its symbolic significance here, but I see it every time I get up from my desk. Or do, if I remember to look to my right as I walk toward the kitchen.

So, why do I think having that stuff on the walls is a good idea? The pictures and carvings are reminders of what I believe. When I see one, it may encourage me to think about some aspect of my Lord, His life and teachings.

Some also have a certain amount of 'warm fuzzy' appeal. Which is okay.

I don't think that everybody should have things like that on their walls. Like I said, as far as I know there's no rule that says Catholics have to have any sort of art on display.

But it's something my family and I do.

Related posts:

• "Scapulars and a Crucifix: Showing Where You Stand"
  (April 20, 2010)
• "Feeling Forgiven: My Faith and Emotional Perks"
  (November 24, 2009)

Scapulars and a Crucifix: Showing Where You Stand

Another day is just about over, and I didn't find an 'I gotta blog about that' topic for A Catholic Citizen in America.

Well, actually, I did: but I'd posted about it before. CatholicChoice, on Twitter, asked "Do you remember or know the Catholic tradition on the Brown Scapular?" and linked to FreeBrownScapular.com, The Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. There's a pretty good writeup on the brown scapular there.

And, yes: I've heard of it. And the green scapular.

I wore a green scapular for a while, years back. I did not formally begin a devotion to that - or the brown scapular. But yeah, I know about them.

Starting in Lent, a couple years or so back, I've been wearing a small crucifix around my neck. It's the parish priest's idea: he said we should have something visible, to show our faith.



That's 'last year's' crucifix. The one I've got on now is the one my son gave me after this Lent. He'd been praying for me. It's a different design, but about the same size: a little over an inch and a half tall.

What I like about these 'chaplet' crucifixes is that they're visible. Sauk Centre is a quite Catholic community, so I'm hardly 'being brave,' wearing a crucifix. That's not the point.

What I figure is, it doesn't hurt to have another man walking around town with something around his neck that says 'I'm a Catholic' to anybody who bothers to look.

Might even do some good.

Related post:

• "Public Displays of Devotion, a Diverted Flight, and Me"
  (January 21, 2010)

Public Displays of Devotion, a Diverted Flight, and Me

I've been wearing a crucifix around my neck for some time now. Since last Lent, if memory serves. It's not particularly large - a bit over an inch and a half high - but hard to miss. The priest with Our Lady of the Angels parish, here in Sauk Centre, recommended that we wear these, praying each day during Lent, then giving the chaplet (the crucifix plus the knotted cord it's attached to) to the person we were praying for. I gave mine to my father: the one I'm wearing now is an 'extra' the household had.



For me, that crucifix isn't a fashion statement. The jewelry I wear are functional, meaningful symbols: a ring to show that I'm married, a bracelet that identifies me as a diabetic - and now this crucifix, which identifies me as a Catholic.

At least, that's the idea.

One of the problems with the display of symbols to communicate is that not everybody knows what the symbols mean.

Like a passenger on USAir Flight 3079, run by Chautequa Air, here in America:

"Religious item led to false bomb scare on US plane"
Reuters (January 21, 2010)

"A bomb scare that led to the diversion of a US Airways (LCC.N) flight to Philadelphia on Thursday was caused by a mistaken belief that a religious item was a bomb, Philadelphia police said...."

"...A passenger was alarmed by the phylacteries, religious items which observant Jews strap around their arms and heads as part of morning prayers, on the flight from New York's La Guardia airport heading to Louisville...."

"Flight Diverted To Philly After Incident"
myFOX New York (January 21, 2010)

"A plane made an emergency landing at Philadelphia International Airport on Thursday morning after an apparent misunderstanding over a man using a Jewish prayer device. There were fears the device was a bomb.

"The plane was headed from LaGuardia Airport to Louisville. The plane was USAir Flight 3079 run by Chautequa Air. The plane was described as a small commuter plane that holds 50 passengers. It's unknown how many people were on the plane.

"Sources now tell Fox News that a man on a plane was using a teffilin, a leather box worn on the arm and head during certain Jewish services and he was praying on the plane. Teffilin are a set of small cubic leather boxes painted black, containing scrolls of parchment inscribed with verses from the Bible...."

Not All Phylacteries are Teffilins

In one sense, I'm wearing a phylactery, sort of, right now. It's a generic term that's gotten to have a very specific meaning in American English: "phylactery, tefillin ((Judaism) either of two small leather cases containing texts from the Hebrew Scriptures (known collectively as tefillin); traditionally worn (on the forehead and the left arm) by Jewish men during morning prayer) " (Princeton's WordNet) Merriam-Webster Online does a better job:

• phy·lac·tery
  • "Pronunciation:
    • \fə-ˈlak-t(ə-)rē\"
  • Etymology:
    • Middle English philaterie, from Medieval Latin philaterium, alteration of Late Latin phylacterium, from Greek phylaktērion amulet, phylactery, from phylassein to guard, from phylak-, phylax guard
  • 1
    • "either of two small square leather boxes containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages and traditionally worn on the left arm and on the head by observant Jewish men and especially adherents of Orthodox Judaism during morning weekday prayers"
  • 2
    • "amulet"
    (Merriam-Webster Online)

Today's passenger was wearing a tefillin. In American English, we call a tefillin a "phylactery."

Which, according to Merriam-Webster, is a sort of amulet.

Let's see what Merriam-Webster has to say about "amulet:" "a charm (as an ornament) often inscribed with a magic incantation or symbol to aid the wearer or protect against evil (as disease or witchcraft)". (Merriam-Webster Online) It's also the name of a hardcore punk band - but that's an entirely different topic.

Phylacteries? Amulets? How Superstitious Can You Get?

I can see where a nice, normal, all-American might assume that the crucifix I'm wearing is an amulet, sort of, in the Merriam-Webster Online sense of the word.

It's got inscriptions on it: "INRI" on the front and "Italy" on the back. Actually, the one I have has "INR" - the last "I" either got worn off - or didn't make it through the manufacturing process.

"Italy" is there, because that's where the pieces of metal were formed into their present shape. Nothing particularly magical there.

"INRI" - that's an acronym, standing for "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum", the Latin part of the sign on my Lord's cross. In English, it'd read "Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews." (John 19:19)

Nothing particularly magical about that, either: important, pivotal, vital, earthshaking (literally); but not magical. Except, maybe, in one of the definitions given by Princeton's WordNet: "...possessing or using or characteristic of or appropriate to supernatural powers..." (Princeton's WordNet [emphasis mine]) But, in my opinion, that's a stretch.

My Lord, Jesus? Yeah: as the Son of God, he's supernatural. in the sense of being above nature.

For that matter, I'm supernatural, too: and so are you. Every human being is a material body and a spiritual soul: both of which have a supernatural destination. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 360, for starters) Which is a whole different topic - and one that books have been written about.

But my crucifix isn't magic. Yes, it's been blessed: but that doesn't mean it's magic. It won't protect be from falling rocks, or keep me from getting caught if I decide to rob a store (I won't by the way).

On the other hand, it's pretty good for reminding me of who my Lord is; and what he did for me and all other people. (As I understand it, Jesus died for the salvation of all people - whether we take him up on his offer is up to each one of us.)

Who Told That Man to Wear a Phylactery?

Immediately, my guess is that the man on that airplane learned about wearing a teffilin from his father. The orders though, go back to God, as received by Moses.

"On this day you shall explain to your son, 'This is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.' It shall be as a sign on your hand and as a reminder on your forehead; thus the law of the LORD will ever be on your lips, because with a strong hand the LORD brought you out of Egypt."
(Exodus 13: 8, 9)

I think it's possible that some of the sons of Abraham have taken a metaphorical statement 'way too literally: but I've been wrong before.

Who is To Blame For Today's Incident?

Nobody, in my opinion.

USAir Flight 3079 would have gone more smoothly, if that passenger had recognized the teffilin for what it is. But not everybody is up to speed on the customs and observances of Judaism. And American culture isn't geared, again in my opinion, for understanding visual religious symbols.

After 9/11, and the attempted downing of an American airliner over the Christmas holiday: air travelers are going to be acutely aware of possible threats. (December 27, 2009, in another blog) It'd be nice if that were not the case - but it is.

I don't blame the man who was preparing for prayer for doing so.

I don't blame the passenger for being apprehensive and perhaps a trifle ignorant. Or extremely cautious.

Let's remember: it's possible to reschedule your itinerary, and apologize to someone for mistaking a pious symbol for a lethal threat. Raising a planeload of people form the dead? Not even the Supreme Court of the United States of America can do that.

It's a cliche, but "better safe than sorry" seems to apply here.

Still, I think there's room for improvement, in terms of Americans' knowledge of religious observance. Just a thought.

Those Realistic, Ghastly Crucifixes: There's a Reason

I ran into this post, in another blog. It gives one of the better explanations for those (by American tastes) ghastly, bloody crucifixes you see in parts of Latin America and elsewhere.

"Bloody Crucifix"
Adoro te Devote (February 16, 2008)

"Cathy has a great series of interesting posts on the Cross, and as a result I find that I must offer some thoughts on this subject as well.

"Lent is the perfect time to regard the Cross, with or without a corpus, whether we are following the Carmelite tradition of placing ourselves upon that cross to unite ourselves with the suffering of Christ, or whether we need to be faced with His extreme suffering on our behalf. (Please note: I mentioned the Carmelite tradition as they follow a very austere life and thus their cross is not representative of the Resurrection, but rather is its own spirituality of suffering taken on by each soul. Thus their 'corpus' is still present.) As Cathy points out in her posts, for the rest of us, we as Catholics need to see the corpus of Christ on the cross, for there is no Easter Sunday without a Good Friday. I would like to take this theme a little further, however.

"When I lived in Mexico, although I never attended Mass there (which I will forever regret as long as I live), I went to a lot of churches. And in many of them one can find Jesus laid out as though in a tomb, but covered by glass. There were prie-dieus (kneelers) so that the faithful could kneel and meditate upon their Savior, focusing on His terrible wounds. He was bloody, he was bruised, and He was a horror to behold...."

The people in what's now Mexico, remember, were Aztecs and their neighbors: folks about as soft and safe to be around as my ancestors were, when the first Christian missionaries reached them.¹ They didn't know about Christianity: but they understood the bloody, messy sacrifice of a chosen victim quite well.

Americans today live in a much more sanitized, antiseptic world. Those statues look like the body of a man who was tortured to death - and was tough enough to hold out through a really bad night and most of the next day. We're not used to seeing that sort of thing.

Lent is coming up. I generally make a point of thinking about what my Lord went through, particularly during Lent.

Which I see is coming up soon.

---

A tip of the hat to dontracy, on Twitter, for the heads-up on this post.

---

¹ My ancestors, as far back as the family has been able to trace them, came from northwestern Europe. Before missionaries came, we were a colorful lot.

Human sacrifice was part of the cultural tradition of the British Isles - and practiced in Viking country into the 11th century, according to Adam of Bremen.

It's arguable that we got chivalry from the Church's efforts to work with Europe's warlords. Which is one reason why I'm not upset with the Pope having diplomatic relations with the United Nations and individual countries. The Church has a long record of being willing to take people as they are, and work from there.