1. Today St Peter's Basilica resounds with the liturgy of an unusual solemnity. In the post-conciliar liturgical calendar, the Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ King of the Universe has been linked with the last Sunday of the ecclesiastical year. And that is good. In fact, the truths of the faith that we want to manifest, the mystery that we want to live, enclose, in a certain sense, every dimension of history, every stage of human time, and open up, at the same time, the prospect of "a new heaven and a new earth" (Rev 21:1), the prospect of a kingdom, which "is not of this world" (Jn 18:36). It is possible that one misunderstands the meaning of the words about the "kingdom", pronounced by Christ before Pilate, about the kingdom that is not of this world. However, the singular context of the event, in the context of which they were uttered, does not allow them to be understood in this way. We must admit that the kingdom of Christ, thanks to which the extraterrestrial perspectives, the perspectives of eternity (Jn 18:37) are opened before man, is formed in the world and in temporality. It, therefore, is formed in man himself through "the testimony to the truth" that Christ rendered at that dramatic moment of his Messianic Mission: before Pilate, before death on the cross, asked of the judge by his accusers. Thus our attention must be drawn not only to the liturgical moment of today's solemnity, but also to the surprising synthesis of truth that this solemnity expresses and proclaims. This is why I have taken the liberty, together with the Cardinal Vicar of Rome, of inviting today those belonging to the various sectors of the lay apostolate of all the parishes of our City, all those, that is, who together with the Bishop of Rome and the pastors of souls of each parish accept to make their own the witness of Christ the King and seek to make room for his kingdom in their hearts and to spread it among men.

2. Jesus Christ is "the faithful witness" (cf. Rev 1:5), as the author of Revelation says. He is "the faithful witness" of God's lordship in creation and especially in human history. For God formed man from the beginning as Creator and at the same time as Father. He is therefore, as Creator and as Father, always present in his history. He has become not only the beginning and the end of all creation, but has also become the Lord of history and the God of the covenant: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, He who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev 1:8).

Jesus Christ - the "faithful witness" - came into the world precisely to bear witness to this. His coming in time! how concretely and suggestively the prophet Daniel had foretold it in his messianic vision, speaking of the coming of "a son of man" (Dan 7:13) and outlining the spiritual dimension of his reign in these terms: "He gave him power and glory and a kingdom; all peoples, nations and languages served him; his power is an everlasting power, which never fades, and his kingdom is such that it will never be destroyed" (Dan 7:14). Thus the prophet Daniel, probably in the 2nd century, saw the kingdom of Christ before he came into the world.

3. What happened before Pilate on the Friday before Easter enables us to rid Daniel's prophetic image of any improper associations. For here the "Son of Man" himself answers the question put to him by the Roman governor. This answer sounds like this: "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have fought lest I should be delivered up to the Jews; but my kingdom is not of here" (John 18:36).

Pilate, the representative of the power exercised on behalf of mighty Rome over the territory of Palestine, the man who thinks according to temporal and political categories, does not understand this answer. So he asks for the second time: "So you are king?" (Jn 18:37).

Christ also answers for the second time. Just as the first time he explained in what sense he is not king, so now, in order to fully answer Pilate's question and at the same time the question of all human history, of all rulers and politicians, he answers like this: "I am king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world: to bear witness to the truth. Whoever is of the truth listens to my voice" (cf. Jn 18:37).

This answer, in connection with the first, expresses the whole truth about his kingdom; the whole truth about Christ the King.

4. In this truth are also contained those further words of Revelation, with which the Beloved Disciple completes, in a certain way, in the light of the conversation that took place on Good Friday in Pilate's Jerusalem residence, what the prophet Daniel had once written. St John notes: 'Behold, he comes on the clouds (this is how Daniel had already expressed it) and everyone will see him; even those who pierced him... Yes. Amen!" (Rev 1:7).

Exactly: Amen. This single word seals, as it were, the truth about Christ the King. He is not only "the faithful witness", but also "the firstborn from the dead" (Rev 1:5). And if he is the prince of the earth and of those who rule over it ("the prince of the kings of the earth" [Rev 1:5]), he is so because of this, above all, and definitively because "he loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, who has made us a kingdom of priests for his God and Father" (Rev 1:5-6).

5. Here is the full definition of that kingdom, here is the whole truth about Christ the King. We are gathered here today in this Basilica to accept these truths once again, with our eyes of faith wide open and our hearts ready to give the answer. For this is truth that particularly demands a response. Not only understanding. Not just acceptance by the intellect, but a response that emerges from the whole of life.

That response was beautifully pronounced by the Episcopate of the contemporary Church at the Second Vatican Council. One would even, at this moment, want to reach out to those texts of the Constitution Lumen Gentium that dazzle with the simple depth of truth, to the texts charged with the fullness of Christian 'praxis' contained in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, and to the many other documents that draw from those fundamentals concrete conclusions for the various fields of ecclesial life. I am thinking in particular of the decree Apostolicam Actuositatem on the apostolate of the laity. If I ask anything of the laity of Rome and the world, it is that they always keep an eye on these splendid documents of contemporary Church teaching. They define the deepest meaning of being Christian. These documents deserve more than simply to be studied and meditated upon; if we do not look to them for support, it is almost impossible to understand and realise our vocation and, in particular, the vocation of the laity, their particular contribution to the building of that kingdom, which, although it is not "of this world" (Jn 18:36), nevertheless exists here below, because it is in us. And, in particular, it is in you: lay people!

6. Christ ascended the cross as a singular King: as the eternal witness to the truth. "For this I was born, and for this I came into the world: to bear witness to the truth" (Jn 18:37). This witness is the measure of our works. The measure of life. The truth for which Christ gave his life - which he confirmed with the resurrection - is the fundamental source of human dignity. The kingdom of Christ is manifested, as the Council teaches, in the 'kingship' of man. We must know how to participate in and shape every sphere of contemporary life in this light. Indeed, in our times, there is no lack of proposals addressed to man, no lack of programmes that are invoked for his good. Let us know how to reread them in the dimension of the full truth about man, the truth confirmed with the words and the cross of Christ!

We know how to discern them well! Is what they proclaim expressed in the measure of man's true dignity? Does the freedom they proclaim serve the kingship of the being created in the image of God, or on the contrary does it prepare for the deprivation or constriction of it? For example: does man's true freedom serve or does marital infidelity, even if sanctioned by divorce, or the lack of responsibility for conceived life, even if modern technology teaches how to get rid of it, express his dignity? Certainly all moral permissiveness is not based on human dignity and does not educate man to it.

How can we not recall, here, the diagnosis that the Cardinal Vicar made of the socio-religious context of our city at your assembly last 10 November? He pointed out the main 'sufferings' that anguish the city of Rome: the social insecurity of families with regard to housing, work, and the education of their children; the spiritual and social bewilderment of immigrants from rural areas; the incommunicability between families, who live in large working-class apartment blocks without knowing each other and without the courage to solidarise; organised crime, particularly in the service of drugs; crazy and unmotivated violence and political terrorism, to which must be added the multiple manifestations of immorality and irreligiousness in personal and social life.

The causes of these evils were identified, inter alia, in the decline of interest in the problems of education and schooling left increasingly at the mercy of minority, but highly disturbing forces; and in the disintegration of the family, subjected to the corrosive action of multiple environmental and customary factors. The deepest root of these must be found, however, as the Cardinal said, 'in the constant depreciation of the human person, of his dignity, rights and duties' and of the religious and moral meaning of life. The Cardinal Vicar also urged from all of you a courageous assumption of responsibility, placing before you some 'concrete perspectives of commitment', and precisely the construction of a true Christian community capable of proclaiming the Gospel in a credible manner; the cultural commitment of research and critical discernment, in constant fidelity to the Magisterium, in order to have a correct dialogue between the Church and the world; the commitment to contribute to the increase of the sense of social responsibility, stimulating in the clergy and in the faithful solidarity for the common good of both the ecclesial and civil Community; the commitment, finally, in the pastoral care of vocations, particularly urgent today, and in that of social communications.

Behold, dear brothers and sisters, there stand before you some precise lines of pastoral action, on which each one is invited to measure himself or herself, in coherent and courageous adherence to the demands posed by Baptism and Confirmation and confirmed by participation in the Eucharist. I ask each and everyone not to shy away from their responsibilities. I ask this on the liturgical Solemnity of Christ the King.

Christ, in a certain sense, always stands before the tribunal of human consciences, as he once stood before the tribunal of Pilate. He always reveals to us the truth of his kingdom. And he always meets, on so many sides, with the reply "what is truth" (Jn 18:38).

Therefore let him be even closer to us. May his kingdom be ever more in us. Let us reciprocate him with the love to which he has called us, and in him let us love the dignity of every man more and more!

Then we will truly be sharers in his mission. We will become apostles of his kingdom.

[Pope John Paul II, homily 25 November 1979]

On this last Sunday of the liturgical year, we celebrate the solemnity of Christ the King. And today’s Gospel leads us to contemplate Jesus as he introduces himself to Pilate as king of a kingdom that “is not of this world” (Jn 18:36). This doesn’t mean that Christ is the king of another world, but that he is king in another manner, but he is king in this world. It is a contrast between two types of logic. Worldly logic is based on ambition, competition, it fights using the weapons of fear, extortion, and the manipulation of consciences. On the other hand, the logic of the Gospel, that is, the logic of Jesus, is expressed in humility and gratuitousness. It is silently but effectively affirmed with the strength of truth. The kingdoms of this world at times are sustained by arrogance, rivalries and oppression; the reign of Christ is a “kingdom of justice, love and peace” (Preface). 

When did Jesus reveal himself as king? In the event of the Cross! Those who look at the Cross cannot but see the astonishing gratuitousness of love. One of you could say, “Father, that was a failure!”. It is precisely in the failure of sin — sin is a failure — in the failure of human ambitions: the triumph of the Cross is there, the gratuitousness of love is there. In the failure of the Cross, love is seen, a love that is gratuitous, which Jesus gives us. For a Christian, speaking of power and strength means referring to the power of the Cross, and the strength of Jesus’ love: a love which remains steadfast and complete, even when faced with rejection, and it is shown as the fulfillment of a life expended in the total surrender of oneself for the benefit of humanity. On Calvary, the passers-by and the leaders derided Jesus, nailed to the Cross, and they challenged him: “Save yourself, and come down from the cross!” (Mk 15:30). “Save yourself!”. But paradoxically the truth of Jesus is precisely what is hurled at him in a mocking tone by his adversaries: “he cannot save himself!” (v. 31). Had Jesus come down from the Cross, he would have given in to the temptations of the prince of this world. Instead, he cannot save himself precisely so as to be able to save others, precisely because he has given his life for us, for each one of us. To say: “Jesus gave his life for the world” is true. But it is more beautiful to say: “Jesus gave his life for me”. And today, in this Square, let each one of us say in his or her heart: “He gave his life for me, in order to save each one of us from our sins”.

Who understood this? One of the criminals who was crucified with him understood it well, the so-called “good thief”, who implored him, “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingly power” (Lk 23:42). But this was a criminal, a corrupt person, and he was there in fact because he had been condemned to death for all of the brutalities that he had committed in his life. But he saw love in Jesus’ manner, in Jesus’ meekness. The kingship of Jesus doesn’t oppress us, but rather frees us from our weaknesses and miseries, encouraging us to walk the path of the good, of reconciliation and of forgiveness. Let us look at the Cross of Jesus, let us look at the “good thief”, and let us all say together what the good thief said: Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom”. All together: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom”. Ask Jesus, when we feel that we are weak, that we are sinners, defeated, to look at us, and say to him: “You are there. Don’t forget me”.

Faced with so many lacerations in the world and too many wounds in the flesh of mankind, let us ask the Virgin Mary to sustain us in our commitment to emulate Jesus, our king, by making his kingdom present with gestures of tenderness, understanding and mercy.

[Pope Francis, Angelus 22 November 2015]

(Lk 20:27-40)

The defeat of death is the cruel fate that has clouded the mind of all civilizations.

But if God creates us and calls incessantly to enter into dialogue, then what remains of us? Is the goal of all our turmoil a pit?

The Sadducees want to ridicule the doctrine of the resurrection dear to the Pharisees and - it seems - also to Jesus.

However, Master does not apply provisional categories of this world to dimensions that go beyond.

The ties also must be conceived in the relief of the divine reality.

Members of the priestly class did not believe in another life, and in the Torah it seemed to them that there was no note about the resurrection.

In short, they conceived the relationship with God in the dimension of life on earth.

In fact, the Pharisees believed in the raising of the dead in a very banal sense: a sort of improvement and sublimation of the (same) conditions of being natural.

For them, the existence of the afterlife was only an accentuated, ennobled and embellished extension of this form of our being.

Instead life «in the era, that» [v.35 Greek text] is not a strengthened existence, but an indescribable and new condition - as of direct communication. Comparable to the immediacy of love.

The body decays, gets sick and undergoes dissolution: it’s a natural cycle.

‘Resurrection of the flesh’ designates access to an intimate existence of pure Relationship, in our weakness and precariousness, assumed.

Evangelists use two terms to indicate the difference between these forms of life: (transliterating) Bìos and Zoe Aiònios [Life of the Eternal] which has nothing to do with the biological reality [v.36: «equal to angels»].

Life «in the era, that» is not an enhanced existence with respect to this mode of existence, but an indescribable and new condition - precisely, as of ‘direct communication’.

Comparable to the one-to-one of Friendship: a ‘being-with and for’ others; readily, everywhere.

Collimating with the way of existence of the Angels: they do not have a life transmitted by parents, but by God himself.

«About the bush...» - Jesus replies. He also silences the Sadducees by making them reflect; and He draws the foundation of the Resurrection (but as He understands it) precisely from Exodus.

Thus He shows that already in the Law there is a presentation of God incompatible with a destiny of humanity devoted to extermination.

The Father does not seek dialogue with the sons and then make them fall on the most beautiful.

Since creation, He takes pleasure in walking with man, and from the patriarchs he has been looking for empathy with us. His Love does not abandon.

In the archaic religious mentality the Most High was named after the region or the heights in its borders [es. Baal of Gad, Baal of Saphon, Baal of Peor, etc.].

The God of Israel already from the First Testament binds his heart to man - no longer to a territory: He is the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob.

The Father of life arouses all understanding, Alliances, and if the ally could be annihilated, the same divine identity would be shattered.

All the Scriptures attest to this: He is a God of the living, not of dust or of the nothingness.

This is why we call our missing loved ones «deceased» or «departed» - not "dead".

[Saturday 33rd wk. in O.T.  November 23, 2024]

And God binding His heart to humanity

(Lk 20:27-40)

The defeat of death is the cruel destiny that has clouded the minds of all civilisations, infusing disorientation and anguished thoughts about the meaning of life, about why each of us exists.

If God creates us and calls us ceaselessly, to enter into dialogue with us, then what is left? Is the goal of all our agitation a pit?

The Sadducees want to ridicule the doctrine of resurrection dear to the Pharisees and - it seems - to Jesus as well.

He, however, held that the Father was far more than a Living One... who finally began to raise corpses!

[This is why we call our departed loved ones 'deceased' - not 'dead'].

In the Semitic mentality, the norm of 'levirate' mirrored a feeble idea of existence after death - relegated to mere continuity of name.

The members of the priestly class did not believe in another life: they preached the religion that served to obtain blessings for existing on this earth in a comfortable manner - and that was enough for them.

In short, they conceived their relationship with God in the dimension of life on earth.

The Sadducees had already built their 'paradise' for themselves in the city and outside.

Their large villas with courtyards and private pools for ablutions were right on the hill opposite the Temple in Jerusalem, on the opposite side of the Mount of Olives (i.e. towards the west).

Their second homes - where they spent the winter - were in Jericho.

Also because of their direct interest in the sacrificial activity they carried out, they still believed that prophetic texts had no dignity as sacred Scripture: only the Law reflected God's will.

And in the Torah it seemed to them that there was no note about the resurrection of the dead.

So they also tried to frame Jesus, with an artfully constructed paradox, to highlight the contradictions of this belief - which only appeared from the 2nd century BC in the book of Daniel and in Maccabees.

They considered it absurd - therefore they intended to discredit the 'Master' [a term they used to designate him in order to ridicule him: v.28].

Indeed, the foothold was there, for the Pharisees believed in the resurrection in the trivial sense. A kind of accentuation, improvement or sublimation of (the same) natural living conditions - and bonds.

Thus not a definitive, boundless, qualitatively indestructible form.

In essence, in the 'world beyond' everyone would fully enjoy the family and clan affections of the previous form of life - and so on.

The 'afterlife' was to be nothing more than a sublimated, ennobled and embellished extension of this way of existing; without disease, suffering, various problems.

[In short, life only advanced; perhaps as it was once conveyed to us by willing catechists... but little attentive to the Word of God].

So precisely the Sadducees - conservatives - who only accepted the Pentateuch - where they maintained that there is no mention of another, further life.

In this way, they had an easy job of exposing the fragility of that popular belief, to which the leaders of Phariseeism were conversely attached.

However, the Master does not apply categories of this world, provisional, to dimensions that go beyond.

Even bonds must be conceived in the relief of divine reality.

In the Latin milieu, even today, the way of understanding the Resurrection is influenced not a little by the representational modes of the pictorial tradition.

Reading the representations to which we are accustomed... we notice that immediately the Risen One puts down the gendarmes and frightens everyone.

He emerges from the tomb with the banner of victory, strong and muscular. He bursts in as if coming back this way to beat his adversaries.

Descriptive and naturalistic claims that do not do credit to the Faith and almost ridicule the Gospels.

Conversely, in Eastern icons, the Resurrection is understood and depicted in a substantial, mysterious way: the Descent to the Underworld.

It is not a triumph of God, who imposes himself on the world. He has no need of it.

Rather, the theological event remains in support of the victory of his children, who receive life directly from the Father.

Here is the redemption of the ordinary woman and man [Adam and Eve] who are drawn from the tombs by the divine - not natural - power of the Risen Christ.

The ultimate world turns the idea of the Sheôl upside down and totally unhinges it, clearing away the darkness - and that great drama of humanity.

One enters God's world; one does not return this way - perhaps to live better: rejuvenated and healthy rather than sick, in a villa with a garden rather than a studio apartment.

Life 'in the age of that' [v.35 Greek text] is not an enhanced mode of existence, but an indescribable and new condition - as of direct communication.

Comparable to the immediacy of love: a being-with and for others. Collimating to the Angels' mode of existence (v.36): they do not have a life transmitted by parents, but by God himself.The body decays, falls ill and goes into dissolution: it is a natural cycle.

"Resurrection of the flesh" designates access to an intimate existence of pure relationship, to the very intimacy of God - in our weakness and precariousness, assumed.

Obviously we cannot believe that we are being brought into the Divine Condition if during our earthly course we have not experienced a constant existential death-resurrection vector.

It is the experience of gain in defeat; in particular, the discovery of an unthinkable life, which made us rejoice with Happiness. For Amazement: in the providential transmutation of our weak and obscure sides, from sluggish appearances to strengths.

Becoming evolutionary, perhaps the best of us.

The evangelists use two terms to indicate the difference between these two forms of being: (transliterating from the Greek) Bìos, and Zoè Aiònios.

The Zoë, Life itself of the Eternal, is keenly relational and experienceable - but it has nothing to do with biological existence and our carcass ["equal to the angels" v.36].

What does not die is not the DNA of the body, but the heavenly DNA, which we have received as a gift from the Father.

The divine Gold dwells in us and - if we wish - can surface already, in a full existence, of realisation of one's Vocation, in an atmosphere of Communion.

Life "in the age of the one" is not an enhanced existence compared to this mode of existence, but an indescribable and new condition - as of direct communication.

Comparable to the face-to-face of Friendship: a being-with and for others; readily, everywhere.

Collimating to the Angels' way of existence: they do not have a life transmitted by parents, but precisely by God Himself.

"About the Bush..." - Jesus retorts.

He also muzzles the Sadducees, making them think, treating them as incompetent.

He draws the foundation of the 'doctrine' of the Resurrection [but as He understands it] precisely from the book of Exodus.

Thus he shows that right from the scrolls of the Law there is a presentation of the Eternal One that is incompatible with the destiny of a humanity doomed to extermination.

The Father does not seek dialogue with His children only to have them fall at the most beautiful moment.

Since creation He has delighted in walking with man, and since the patriarchs He has sought empathy with us.

His Love does not abandon.

In the archaic religious mentality, each shrine was named after the deity, specified by its territory or the heights in its borders [e.g. Baal of Gad, Baal of Saphon, Baal of Peor, etc.].

A bad pagan vice that we have unfortunately inherited.

The God of Israel since the First Testament binds his heart to man - no longer to a territory: the 'God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob'.

It was possible for the three Patriarchs to have descendants, not by natural concatenation.

In that mentality, the only possibility of perpetuating life from generation to generation was to be able to pass on one's name to the firstborn male.

This happened instead by intervention from above, while the wives were sterile [infertile matriarchs: Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, long without heirs].

The Father of life gives rise to all understandings, covenants, and if the ally could be annihilated, the divine identity itself would crumble.

All Scripture attests to this: he is a God of the living - not of the dead (of dust, of insubstantiality, of nothingness).

The five Books of Moses were the only ones that the Sadducees recognized in the canon of the Old Testament and there is no mention in them of the Resurrection; so they denied it. The Lord shows the reality of the Resurrection precisely by these five Books and says: “Have you not read what was said to you by God, ‘I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?’” (cf. Mt 22:31-32). God therefore takes these three and in his very name they become the name of God. To understand who this God is it is necessary to see these figures who became the name of God, a name of God, who are immersed in God. In this way we see that anyone who is in the name of God, who is immersed in God, is alive, because God — the Lord says — is not a God of the dead but of the living, and if he is the God of the latter, he is a God of the living.

The living are alive because they are in our memory, in God’s life. And this happens to us in being baptized: we come to be inserted in the name of God, so that we belong to this name and his name becomes our name and we too, with our witness — like the three in the Old Testament — can be witnesses of God, a sign of who this God is, a name of this God.

Consequently, being baptized means being united to God; in a unique, new existence we belong to God, we are immersed in God himself.

[Pope Benedict, Lectio 11 June 2012]

1. We resume today, after a rather long pause, the meditations we have been holding for some time and which we have called reflections on the theology of the body.

In continuing, it is worthwhile, this time, to return to the words of the Gospel, in which Christ refers to the resurrection: words that have a fundamental importance for understanding marriage in the Christian sense and also "the renunciation" of married life "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".

The complex casuistry of the Old Testament in the field of matrimony not only prompted the Pharisees to come to Christ to put to him the problem of the indissolubility of marriage (cf. Mt 19:3-9 ; Mk 10:2-12 ), but also, another time, the Sadducees, to question him on the law of the so-called Levirate (this law, contained in Deut 25:7-10 , concerns brothers living under the same roof. If one of them died without leaving children, the brother of the deceased had to take the widow of the dead brother as his wife. The child born of this marriage was recognised as the son of the deceased, so that his lineage would not be extinguished and the inheritance would be preserved in the family [cf. Deut 3:9-4:12 ]). This conversation is reported in agreement by the Synoptics (cf. Mt 22:24-30 ; Mk 12:18-27 ; Lk 20:27-40 ). Although all three redactions are almost identical, some slight but, at the same time, significant differences can be noted between them. Since the colloquy is referred to in three versions, those of Matthew, Mark and Luke, a more in-depth analysis is required, as it includes contents that are of essential significance for the theology of the body.

Next to the other two important colloquies, namely: the one in which Christ refers to the "beginning" (cf. Mt 19:3-9 ; Mk 10:2-12 ), and the other in which he refers to the intimacy of man (to the "heart"), pointing to the desire and concupiscence of the flesh as the source of sin (cf. Mt 5:27-32 ), the colloquy, which we now propose to analyse, constitutes, I would say, the third component of the triptych of Christ's own utterances: a triptych of essential and constitutive words for the theology of the body. In this colloquy, Jesus refers to the resurrection, thus revealing a completely new dimension of the mystery of man.

2. The revelation of this dimension of the body, stupendous in its content - and yet connected with the Gospel reread in its entirety and to its very depth - emerges in the conversation with the Sadducees, "who affirm that there is no resurrection" (1); they have come to Christ to present him with an argument that - in their opinion - validates the reasonableness of their position. This argument was to contradict "the hypothesis of the resurrection". The reasoning of the Sadducees is as follows: "Master, Moses left us written that if the brother of one dies and leaves his wife childless, the brother shall take his wife to give offspring to his brother" ( Mk 12:19 ). The Sadducees refer here to the so-called law of Levirate (cf. Deut 25:5-10 ), and referring back to the prescription of this ancient law, they present the following "case": "There were seven brothers: the first took a wife and died without leaving any descendants; then the second took her, but died without leaving any descendants; and the third likewise, and none of the seven left any descendants. Finally, after all, the woman also died. In the resurrection, when they rise again, to which of them will the woman belong? For seven had her as their wife" ( Mk 12:20-23 . The Sadducees, turning to Jesus for a purely theoretical "case", at the same time attack the Pharisees' primitive conception of life after the resurrection of bodies; in fact, they insinuate that belief in the resurrection of bodies leads to the admission of polyandry, which is contrary to the law of God.

3. Christ's answer is one of the key-answers of the Gospel, in which another dimension of the question is revealed - precisely from and in contrast to purely human reasoning - namely that which corresponds to the wisdom and power of God himself. Similarly, for example, the case of the tribute coin with the image of Caesar and the correct relationship between what in the sphere of power is divine and what is human ("Caesar's") (cf. Mt 22:15-22 ). This time Jesus replies as follows: "Are ye not in error, since ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they will not take wives or husbands, but will be as angels in heaven" ( Mk 12:24-25 ). This is the basic answer to the 'case', i.e. to the problem contained therein. Christ, knowing the conceptions of the Sadducees, and intuiting their authentic intentions, takes up, later, the problem of the possibility of the resurrection, denied by the Sadducees themselves: "Concerning the dead who are to be raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, concerning the bush, how God spoke to him, saying: I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and Jacob? He is not a God of the dead, but of the living" ( Mk 12:26-27 ). As we can see, Christ quotes the same Moses to whom the Sadducees referred, and ends by saying: "You are in great error" ( Mk 12:27 ).

4. Christ also repeats this concluding statement a second time. In fact, the first time he pronounced it at the beginning of his exposition. He said then: "You deceive yourselves, knowing neither the scriptures nor the power of God": so we read in Matthew ( Mt 22,29 ). And in Mark: "Are ye not deceived, since ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?" ( Mark 12,24 ). By contrast, Christ's own reply, in Luke's version ( Lk 20:27-36 ), is devoid of polemical accent, of that "you are in great error". On the other hand, he proclaims the same thing insofar as he introduces some elements into his reply that are not found in either Matthew or Mark. Here is the text: "Jesus replies: the children of this world take a wife and take a husband; but they that are accounted worthy of the other world, and of the resurrection from the dead, take neither wife nor husband: neither can they die any more, for they are equal to the angels, and being children of the resurrection, they are the children of God" ( Lk 20:34-36 ). Concerning the very possibility of the resurrection, Luke - like the two other synoptics - refers to Moses, that is, to the passage in the Book of Exodus 3:2-6, where it is narrated that the great legislator of the Old Covenant had heard from the bush, which "burned in the fire and was not consumed", the following words: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob" ( Ex 3:6 ). In the same place, when Moses had asked the name of God, he had heard the answer: "I am he who is" ( Ex 3:14 ).

Thus then, speaking of the future resurrection of bodies, Christ refers to the very power of the living God.

[Pope John Paul II, General Audience 11 November 1981]

Within just days of the Solemnity of All Saints and of the Commemoration of the faithful departed, this Sunday’s Liturgy invites us once again to reflect upon the mystery of the resurrection of the dead. The Gospel (cf. Lk 20:27-38) presents Jesus confronted by several Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection and considered the relationship with God only in the dimension of earthly life. Therefore, in order to place the resurrection under ridicule and to create difficulty for Jesus, they submit a paradoxical and absurd case: that of a woman who’d had seven husbands, all brothers, who died one after the other. Thus came the malicious question posed to Jesus: in the resurrection, whose wife will the woman be (v. 33)?

Jesus does not fall into the snare and emphasizes the truth of the resurrection, explaining that life after death will be different from that on earth. He makes his interlocutors understand that it is not possible to apply the categories of this world to the realities that transcend and surpass what we see in this life. He says, in fact: “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage” (vv. 34-35). With these words, Jesus means to explain that in this world we live a provisional reality, which ends; conversely, in the afterlife, after the resurrection, we will no longer have death as the horizon and will experience all things, even human bonds, in the dimension of God, in a transfigured way. Even marriage, a sign and instrument of God in this world, will shine brightly, transformed in the full light of the glorious communion of saints in Paradise. 

The “sons of heaven and of the resurrection” are not a few privileged ones, but are all men and all women, because the salvation that Jesus brings is for each one of us. And the life of the risen shall be equal to that of angels (cf. v. 36), meaning wholly immersed in the light of God, completely devoted to his praise, in an eternity filled with joy and peace. But pay heed! Resurrection is not only the fact of rising after death, but is a new genre of life which we already experience now; it is the victory over nothing that we can already anticipate. Resurrection is the foundation of the faith and of Christian hope. Were there no reference to Paradise and to eternal life, Christianity would be reduced to ethics, to a philosophy of life. Instead, the message of Christian faith comes from heaven, it is revealed by God and goes beyond this world. Belief in resurrection is essential in order that our every act of Christian love not be ephemeral and an end in itself, but may become a seed destined to blossom in the garden of God, and to produce the fruit of eternal life. 

May the Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven and Earth, confirm us in the hope of resurrection and help us to make fruitful in good works her Son’s word sown in our hearts.

[Pope Francis, Angelus 6 November 2016]

Little House of God? We no longer haggle

(Lk 19:45-48)

The teaching of Jesus in the sacred place is presented by Lk as enduring: «He was teaching every day» (v.47). Main topic: the Grace.

So over time we learn conviviality: encouraged to dialogue with our personal, unrepeatable Vocation, which captivates because it really corresponds.

And the intimate conviction is alone, incomparable, precious energy of transformative valence - which leads to not withdrawing from oneself, nor disregarding the reality of sisters and brothers.

Rather it induces to make Exodus, explore new conditions of being, transfigure perception into blissful action.

Hunting the false friends of religiosity, the Lord is not so much oriented to compensate the purity of the Place, nor to mend and revive the enamel of the sober original cult - as Prophets wanted.

He renders a holy service not to ancient God, but to people - by that system [or tangle] made totally unaware of their vocational dignity: only chained, milked, and sheared.

The first Tent of God is therefore humanity itself, its beating heart - not a delimited space:

Upon entering Jerusalem, the Master takes possession of the heavenly House - which is not the Temple, but the People.

He doesn’t teach to enter into habitual and formal armor accepted by the contour, but distant from persons.

Rather, He stimulates us not to restrain our true nature with costume hoods, according to which "it’s never enough".

Our inner world should not be hysterically regarded as a dangerous stranger.

Innate roots and our natural energy have the right to flourish and prevail over common manners or ideas: they are an experimental trace of the Divine.

In them there is a Personal bond, which wins every intimate torment.

We must therefore change our approach. He himself is the essential point of the Eternal’s worship.

In this light of Person in his Person, everyone can embrace proposals that are not of others and intruders; wich will not turn out to be ballasts.

The phantasmagorical ancient culmination is becoming periphery, it’s decaying. And to find ourselves, we have difficulties.

An opportunity not to be missed to proceed in a living and singular way, in tune with an ever new teaching on unprecedented Love, which takes our step.

It’s the burning Appeal of «the Mount», which focusses on ‘passion’: precisely on Desire.

No more a strict call to the "no" of great appearances - but finally Listening to the Voice in the soul, which amazes (v.48).

Authentic sacred of the temple.

With what does not correspond, even from a cultural, social and spiritual point of view, we no longer haggle.

[Friday 33rd wk. in O.T.  November 22, 2024]

Little House of God or place of business? No more haggling

(Lk 19:45-48)

Jesus notes that around the activity that took place within the perimeters of the Temple a whole ambiguous structure of sin had been articulated.

The Sanctuary's business eagerness was not even hidden - indeed, it even confronted it.

But the priestly perspectives of the holy tribute and the horizons of the people's full life conflicted.

Ditto for the aims of jurists and doctors, who willingly flocked especially under Solomon's porch [on the other side, towards the east] to 'grant' advice.

The exclusive function of fostering an encounter with the presence of God was totally mortified.

The sacred area had become a den of shrewd merchants, businessmen perpetually on the prowl, always intent on changing currency.

This was with the blessing of the sect of the ruling Sadducees, who could not resist the temptation to pull the strings of the lavish trade.

In ousting the false friends of the succouring Father, the parasites of religiosity, the Lord does not so much aim to restore the purity of the Place, nor to restore the polish of the original sober worship - as the Prophets intended.

He renders a holy service not to the ancient God (as in the religions) but to the people - by that system [or tangle] rendered totally unaware of their own vocational dignity: only chained, milked, and sheared.

Indeed, the Zealots aimed to restore the purity of rituals. They imagined that they could somehow recover their coherence.

The Essenes, on the other hand, had abandoned the Temple altogether. They considered the shameful situation now compromised.

John the Baptist had made the same detachment.

Although of priestly lineage, he preached to the people the forgiveness of sins through a conversion of life, not through the sacrifices of the liturgy [only in Jerusalem].

Instead, the authentic Angel of the Covenant was definitely intransigent, far more radical than any of them!

In fact, according to the very first Christians, who frequented the Temple, the place of encounter with God, the land from which his Love radiated, was no longer linked to material aspects.

Nor was it in itself religious; much less imbued with doctrinal observances, moralistic codes, or one-sided worldviews.

Thus, for us too, the divine Presence and its Communion are not caught in mythical purity, ancient magnificence, perfectionist endeavours - or à la page adherence.

Service to God is honouring woman and man as and where they are: sacred respect starts from a Gift that already runs through our lives. Opinions are of no use.

The unknown Friend wants to dwell in us not to appropriate, but to merge and expand our relational and qualitative capacities. Our own, not others' or on the side.

In Christ, we move from obedience to more or less dated norms [even futuristic ones] to the style of personal likeness. That which builds living shrines.

Honour to the Father is realised not in the details or in the spirit of the body already dictated, but in the sons and daughters, however - if they live in fraternity.

This happens especially when they assimilate Jesus' Teaching [on Grace] (v.47).

Thus in time, they learn conviviality from Himself, and together they are encouraged to dialogue with their exceptional and unrepeatable Vocation, which captivates because it truly corresponds.

And intimate conviction is alone, incomparable and precious energy of transformative value - which leads one not to withdraw from oneself, one's own exceptionalism, nor to overlook the reality of one's brothers.

Rather, it induces one to make Exodus, to explore new conditions of being, to transfigure perception into blissful action.

Only from here does coexistence arise.

And Sin indeed remains deviation, but no longer transgression of the law - but inability to correspond to the Call that characterises, unleashes and empowers a surprising uniqueness of Relationship.

The first Tent of God is thus humanity itself, its beating heart - not a space of stones and bricks, fixed, delimited, or fanciful... to be adorned with overlays.

Having entered Jerusalem, the Master takes possession of the heavenly House - which is not the Temple, but the People.

That is why He casts out of the sacred imagery inculcated in the naive, precisely the most uneducational traits of the festival - and especially teaches the unhealthy, to feel already adequate!

Unbelievable: to each Christ changes the mental atmosphere.

The true Lord does not teach us to enter into habitual or abstract and formal armour, accepted in outline but distant from ourselves, from creatures.

Rather, he encourages us not to restrain our true nature with cloaks of habit [dated or not] according to which 'it is never enough'.

Behind our character essence lies a fruitful, unrepeatable, singular Calling; with visual and social implications that we do not know.As we are - just so - we are fine.

There is no need to exorcise anything of our deepest being, which spontaneously manifests its compressed discomforts and joyful correspondences, even in outward eccentricities.

Rather, any conventional epidermal, adaptive, or cunning domestication stifles the core of the Calling by Name - authentic Guidance, impulse of Spirit.

Our inner world is not to be hysterically regarded as a dangerous outsider to be reconfigured.

Our innate roots and natural energy have the right to flourish and prevail over common ways or ideas: they are experimental traces of the Divine.

There is a Personal bond in them.

The Lord's claim is immediately countered by the hostility of the paludates, interested in the give-and-take of that mannerist theatre.

They make him out to be deranged, to be eliminated immediately: a very dangerous dreamer, because he activates and enhances souls, instead of the mediating structure.

This is the condemnation handed down by the 'big boys' in society: the outcome of any truth operation.

This is how they try to tarnish any attempt at emancipation of the oppressed in spirit, in the core of the self - whether through fear of God or obsession with unworthiness.

But in today's reality, which heels us in, the Risen One continues to demythologise the excessive preoccupation with identified places, the "heights" of settled and material character.

With their implications that do not nourish in a full and stable way - on the contrary, they become a cankerworm.

In short, a change of approach is needed.

He himself is the essential point of worship of the Eternal.

In such a light of Person in His Person, each one can embrace proposals that are not others and intrusive; that will not prove to be ballast.

And the Church's authentic prestige will be to echo the proclamation that liberates and truly pleases.

Obviously provoking the same mercantile tensions; litmus test of our divine action.

Through the work of apostles frightened by the bluntness of the authorities, and perhaps themselves prone to compromise - the magnificent sanctuary that Jesus had explicitly described as a den of scoundrels will once again become the centre of the ecclesial assembly [Lk 24:53; Acts 5:12].

It will provide more effectively... not the burning conscience, but the tragic history of the holy city, to make its excess of importance fade away.

Even today: the ancient phantasmagorical culmination is becoming periphery, decay. And to find ourselves, we make it difficult.

An opportunity not to be missed to move forward in a lively and singular way, in tune with an ever new teaching on Love, which takes our step.

It is the burning Call of "the Mount", which centres on passion: precisely on Desire.

No longer a stern call to the 'no' of great appearances - but finally Listening to the Voice in the soul, which amazes (v.48).

Authentic sacredness of the temple.

Jesus' teaching in the venerable place is presented by Lk 19:47 as enduring: "he was teaching every day" [Greek text].

Through the Word that does not remain on high but partakes of our humanity (finally opened wide) He also finds His Temple today. 

Dwelling place cleared of old and new hunters.

He only longs for his People - women and men freed from the cave of robbers [Jer 7:11; Lk 19:46] who still try to penetrate our quality of relationship.

Paraphrasing the encyclical Fratelli Tutti (No. 226) we gladly reiterate with Pope Francis: "there is no more room for empty diplomacies, for dissimulations, double talk, cover-ups, good manners that hide the reality" (irritating) of business partners with God.

The rubbish must be eliminated. The stakes are too high and personal.

With what does not correspond, even culturally, socially and spiritually, one no longer bargains.

To internalise and live the message:

Do you still need set times, carved-out places, gestures of atonement and propitiation, or do you feel a living relationship with God?

What is your House of Prayer?

Churches of service, not supermarkets.

The most important temple of God is our heart

"Churches of service, churches that are gratuitous, just as salvation was gratuitous, and not 'supermarket churches'": Pope Francis did not mince words in re-proposing the relevance of Jesus' gesture of driving the merchants out of the temple. And "vigilance, service and gratuitousness" are the three key words he relaunched in the mass celebrated on Friday 24 November at Santa Marta.

"Both readings of today's liturgy," the Pontiff explained, "speak to us of the temple, indeed of the purification of the temple. Taking his cue from the passage in the first book of Maccabees (4:36-37, 52-59), the Pope pointed out that "after the defeat of the people that Antiochus Epiphanes had sent to paganise the people, Judas Maccabaeus and his brothers wanted to purify the temple, that temple where there had been pagan sacrifices, and to restore the spiritual beauty of the temple, the sacredness of the temple". For this "the people were joyful". Indeed, we read in the biblical text that "great was the joy of the people, because the shame of the pagans had been wiped away". Therefore, the Pope added, "the people rediscovered their own law, they rediscovered their own being; the temple became, once again, the place of the encounter with God".

"Jesus does the same when he expels those who were selling in the temple: he purifies the temple," said Francis, referring to the Gospel passage from Luke (19:45-48). In doing so, the Lord makes the temple "as it should be: pure, only for God and for the people who go to pray". But, on our part, "how do we purify the temple of God?". The answer, said the Pope, lies in "three words that can help us understand. First: vigilance; second: service; third: gratuitousness'.

"Vigilance", therefore, is the first word suggested by the Pontiff: "Not only the physical temple, the palaces, the temples are the temples of God: the most important temple of God is our heart, our soul". So much so that, the Pope pointed out, St Paul tells us: 'You are the temple of the Holy Spirit'. Therefore, Francis reiterated, 'within us dwells the Holy Spirit'.

And this is precisely 'why the first word' proposed by Francis is 'vigilance'. Hence some questions for an examination of conscience: "What is happening in my heart? What is happening within me? How do I deal with the Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit one more of the many idols I have within me or do I care for the Holy Spirit? Have I learnt to be vigilant within myself, so that the temple in my heart is only for the Holy Spirit?"

Here, then, is the importance of "purifying the temple, the inner temple, and keeping watch," said the Pope. With an explicit invitation: "Be careful, be vigilant: what happens in your heart? Who is coming, who is going... What are your feelings, your ideas? Do you speak with the Holy Spirit? Do you listen to the Holy Spirit?" It is, therefore, a matter of "watchfulness: be attentive to what is happening in our temple, within us".

The "second word is service," continued the Pontiff. "Jesus," he recalled, "makes us understand that he is present in a special way in the temple of those in need". And "he says it clearly: he is present in the sick, those who suffer, the hungry, the imprisoned, he is present there". For the word "service" Francis also suggested some questions to ask oneself: "Do I care for that temple? Do I take care of the temple with my service? Do I approach it to help, to clothe, to console those in need?"

"St John Chrysostom," Francis noted, "rebuked those who made so many offerings to adorn, to beautify the physical temple and did not take care of those in need: he rebuked and said: 'No, this is not good, first the service then the ornaments'". In short, we are called to "purify the temple that is others". And to do this well, we must ask ourselves: "How do I help to purify that temple?". The answer is simple: "With service, with service to the needy. Jesus himself says that he is present there". And 'he is present there,' the Pope explained, 'and when we approach to give service, to help, we resemble Jesus who is there'.

In this regard, Francis confided that he had 'seen such a beautiful icon of Cyrene helping Jesus carry the cross: looking closely at that icon, the Cyrene had the same face as Jesus'. Therefore, 'if you guard that temple which is the sick, the imprisoned, the needy and the hungry, your heart will also be more like that of Jesus'. Precisely "that is why guarding the temple means service".

"The first word, vigilance," the Pontiff summarised, expresses something that "happens within us". While "the second word" leads us towards "service to the needy: that is purifying the temple". And "the third word that comes to mind," he continued, "reading the Gospel is gratuitousness. In the Gospel passage, Jesus says: "My house shall be a house of prayer. You, on the other hand, have made it a den of thieves'. Precisely with these words of the Lord in mind, said the Pope, "how many times with sadness do we enter a temple - think of a parish, a bishopric - and we do not know whether we are in the house of God or in a supermarket: there are businesses there, even the price list for the sacraments" and "gratuitousness is missing".

But 'God saved us gratuitously, he did not make us pay for anything,' the Pontiff insisted, inviting us to be of help 'so that our churches, our parishes are not a supermarket: that they are a house of prayer, that they are not a den of thieves, but that they are free service'. Of course, the Pope added, someone could object that 'we must have money to maintain the structure and also we must have money to feed the priests, the catechists'. The Pontiff's answer is clear: "You give freely and God will do the rest, God will do what is lacking"."Guarding the temple," Francis affirmed, "means this: vigilance, service and gratuitousness". First of all "vigilance in the temple of our heart: what happens there, be careful because it is the temple of the Holy Spirit". Then "service to the needy" he repeated, also suggesting reading chapter 25 of Matthew's gospel. Service also "to the hungry, the sick, the imprisoned, those in need because Christ is there", always with the certainty that "the needy is the temple of Christ".

Finally, the Pope concluded, the 'third' point is the 'gratuitousness in the service that is given in our churches: churches of service, churches that are gratuitous, just as salvation was gratuitous, and not 'supermarket churches'."

[Pope Francis, St. Martha, in L'Osservatore Romano 25/11/2017]