Catholic Thought discussion

Here is our schedule for Acts:

Week 1: 7 - 13 February, Chapters 1 - 8
Week 2: 14 - 20 February, Chapters 9 - 14
Week 3: 21 - 27 February, Chapters 15 - 21
Week 4: 28 Feb - 6 Mar, Chapters 22 -28

According to the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament Acts has the following outline:

Preface: 1:1 - 5
Ascension to Pentecost: 1: 6 - 2:13
The Gospel in Jerusalem: 2:14 - 8:3
The Gospel in Judea and Samaria 8:4 - 12:25
The Gospel to the End of the Earth: 13:1 - 28:31

So the first week we'll be geographically still in Jerusalem, and the remainder we'll follow the proclamation of the Gospel into the world.

Fantastic. I’ll get reading.

One of my first thoughts on Acts of the Apostles is just how purely narrative it is. When you compare to the Gospels, I find Acts to be so much more apparent to the reader than the Gospels. The narrative in the Gospels deal with the life of Jesus, and so right away you have the mystery of both man and God merged into a person. You also have the complexity of the Old Testament rituals and commandments that Jesus addresses in some fashion. And you have the institution of Christian rituals (Baptism, Eucharist, etc.) and Christian modifications to Jewish practices (Passover becomes Easter). Acts seems to be much more a historical telling of the early Church, mostly through the lives and actions of Peter and Paul. There are some noted exceptions (receiving of the Holy Spirit and the debate over circumcision) but in my mind Acts is a much simpler work. Perhaps I will be proven wrong on this. Feel free to prove me wrong. I welcome someone expanding my insight on Acts.

Yessssss. Acts is my favorite book in the NT (Outside of the Gospels) and I have done a good deal of study in it. I look forward to these conversations!

Zac wrote: "Yessssss. Acts is my favorite book in the NT (Outside of the Gospels) and I have done a good deal of study in it. I look forward to these conversations!"

Wonderful Zac! I welcome your insights.

It’s interesting how Luke starts the narrative. He actually back tracks to the end of his Gospel. From Luke:

Then he [Jesus] led them [out] as far as Bethany, raised his hands, and blessed them. As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven. They did him homage and then returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and they were continually in the temple praising God. (Luk 24:50-53)

Compare with first chapter of Acts.

While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for “the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak; for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit.” When they had gathered together they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going* to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He answered them, “It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority. But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight. (Acts 1:4-9)

It’s the same set of actions (go to Jerusalem and pray, Jesus ascension), only now there is more detail filled in. There was discussion about restoration of the kingdom of Israel, expectation of the Holy Spirit, and Jesus ascending into the clouds.

Also interesting are the two men. There were two men at Jesus’ tomb in Luke. Again from the last chapter of Luke:

But at daybreak on the first day of the week they took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb; but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were puzzling over this, behold, two men in dazzling garments appeared to them. They were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground. They said to them, “Why do you seek the living one among the dead? He is not here, but he has been raised. Remember what he said to you while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners and be crucified, and rise on the third day.” (Luk 24:1-7)

And then from Acts:

When he [Jesus] had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight. While they were looking intently at the sky as he was going, suddenly two men dressed in white garments stood beside them. They said, “Men of Galilee, why are you standing there looking at the sky? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will return in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11)

So who are these two men? I have no explanation, and why don’t the other Gospels mention them? It’s rather odd.

There are several passages in the Old Testament I struggle to accept but there is only one in the New Testament and it’s in Acts chapter 5, the telling of Ananias and his wife Sapphira.

A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the Holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, “Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?” She answered, “Yes, for that amount.” Then Peter said to her, “Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things. (Acts 5:1-11)

Does anyone else struggle with this passage? I don’t struggle to accept any of the miracles, but this just doesn’t cohere in my brain. It happening to the wife three hours later after the husband just strikes me as funny. I sort of giggle when I read this. If God struck everyone dead for not giving every penny of their resources to the church, then there would hardly be anyone around. Perhaps the metaphorical point is that you’re supposed to give your whole heart to the church, but the narrative is just too realistic for this to be taken only as a metaphor.

I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this funny. Maybe I've watched too much Monty Python in my life :-)
The scene is from The Holy Grail

Old Man from Scene 24: What is your name?
Sir Lancelot: Sir Lancelot of Camelot!
Old Man from Scene 24: What is your quest?
Sir Lancelot: To seek the Holy Grail!
Old Man from Scene 24: What is your favorite colour?
Sir Lancelot: Red!... I mean blue! [falls down the crevice screaming]

Manny wrote: "So who are these two men? I have no explanation, and why don’t the other Gospels mention them? It’s rather odd."

Oh, I didn't catch this detail! You are right, it is rather odd. They could be angels.
Since there is no explanation in the comment section of my bibles, I turned to the Catholic Bible Dictionary and there isn't a direct answer either. What they do mention is that the Ascension "was anticipated in the Old Testament by the bodily assumptions of Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kgs 2:11)." It would be interesting to find out what tradition made of this detail.

Kerstin wrote: "Manny wrote: "So who are these two men? I have no explanation, and why don’t the other Gospels mention them? It’s rather odd."

Oh, I didn't catch this detail! You are right, it is rather odd. They..."

Most of the commentaries I looked up believed they were angels. One commentary however thought they might be Moses and Elijah because the dazzling white recalled the Transfiguration scene.

Kerstin wrote: "I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this funny. Maybe I've watched too much Monty Python in my life :-)
The scene is from The Holy GrailOld Man from Scene 24: What is your name?
Sir Lancelot..."

Yes! They just fall down dead as they were in conversation.

Every commentary I have ever encountered has connected the two men at the Ascension with the men at the empty tomb and have understood both as angels.

Also, every commentary I have encountered has understood the sin of Ananias and Saphira as lying to the Holy Spirit, not withholding funds. This account highlights the connection between the church and the Risen Lord. It is a theme in Acts. Paul struck down is asked by the voice "Why do you persicute me?" To persecute the church is to persicute Christ. To lie to the church is to lie to the Holy Spirit. The only unforgivable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit )Luke 12?). I agree, it is a difficult, potentially disturbing, passage. But I think it is also a theologically rich passage.

Yes, I agree those two at the ascension and the resurrection are angels. I thought it interesting they’re also there at the ascension.

Part of the confusion I think is that the three other Gospels identify the angel(s)—there is only one in Matthew and Mark, while two in John and Luke—while only Luke calls them “men.” But I think it’s clear they are angels. There’s no reason to believe they are Moses and Elijah, but I thought that a worthwhile thought.

It did not occur to me to connect Ananias's sin with the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit mentioned in the Gospels. Yes I see that now.

Still I must admit the scene dissatisfies me, and as I think about it for three reasons.

(1) As I alluded earlier, it feels like one of those scenes in the Old Testament where it seems God is being unloving and uncompassionate. When God comes across vengeful in the Old Testament, it tends to ring false to me. Here Ananaias and his wife are struck dead without warning or chance for repentance. Even though it’s a sin against the Holy Spirit, it still has to be a metaphor. I’m sure everyday someone sins against the Hily Spirit and they’re not struck dead. The moral is locked in a metaphor, but the action is presented as real.

(2) There are no occasions in the New Testament where God or Jesus kills or even harms anyone. (I guess the apocalypse in Revelation might be another exception, but that’s end of times.) Indeed, Jesus does the very opposite, He heals and cures and forgives. That scene seems discordant with the rest of the New Testament.

(3) The scene as delineated seems contrived. It feels more like a folk tale than a real event. The deaths are so instantaneous. And they repeat like a folk tale. Poof – death 1 and poof – death 2. And Peter has instantaneous knowledge, as if he can read the couple’s minds and hearts. Where does anyone, other than Jesus, do that in the Gospels? None of the epistles mention Paul or Peter or John reading anyone’s minds. And the compression of story and time makes it farfetched. Ananias dies, gets wrapped up, taken away and buried in three hours? What about all the Jewish rituals of cleaning a dead body? Without informing his wife or family and having a proper burial? And then his wife comes into the same room as if nothing has happened, and everything is repeated? Luke is the best of the Gospel storytellers but here he has really done a poor job.

Anyway, like I originally said, this is the one scene in the New Testament that just feels fake. I’m sure something along these lines happened, but there has to be more to the story.

Remember, the Evangelists are writing theological texts, not histories or biographies in the modern sense of the word. So, elements like time, dialogue, sequence of events are used to present theological truths, not to present journalistic accounts. Your perception that the events in this story don't reflect a credible realistic timeline is accurate. That was not the intent of the Evangelist.

Irene wrote: "Remember, the Evangelists are writing theological texts, not histories or biographies in the modern sense of the word. So, elements like time, dialogue, sequence of events are used to present theol..."

Yes, I agree with all that Irene. I'm not against the moral presented. Some passages are just better written than others, I suppose.

And, what speaks to one person may not speak to the next. What speaks to me at one moment in my life may feel very different at another. I rather like this story for its shocking, dramatic impact. I love the way the reader is stopped in his/her tracks when this passage is read. I love the way it forces both individuals and communities to grapple with the message. For me, it has the impact of a parable. I have heard the parables in the Gospels so often that they fail to catch me up short. I imagine that the original hearers of the parables may have had the response to them that current readers have to this story. But I can also see how other readers would be put off by this short section.

Yes, this does read like a parable. Interesting thought.

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is disturbing but I see it as that shock factor to remind us of the severity of sin. God, in His infinite wisdom, saw the lack of remorse and repentance by both. So is it really God killing them or them choosing death over life? Moses warns of this.

I was reading a homily by St John Chrysostom on this passage. He points out that St Peter asked the wife about the incident leaving the opportunity for her to confess. She didn’t seize the opportunity. This is like Adam and Eve in the Garden who are questioned by God, giving them the opportunity to confess their sin. It’s not God trying to trap as much as wanting to give the opportunity to pour out His mercy. This differs from the woman at the well, who as Jesus asked her questions she was very forthcoming with the reality of her life and we hear Jesus speak in a merciful way to her.

Was St Peter reading their minds or their hearts? I believe he was reading their hearts. And knowing his past this was a gift given to him by God. God has gifted the reading of hearts to various saints including St Pio of Petrocina (sp?)

The thing I try to remember when reading Scripture is this is the same God in the NT as in the OT. When God saw a similar theft occur in Joshua, the Israelites were defeated in battle at Ai because Achan took what belonged to God in a previous victorious battle. God is a generous and patient God. Is He lacking in mercy with these deaths? I hope not.

Excellent comments Catherine, thank you. We'll be reading through Acts for the next couple of weeks. The reading schedule is up above in Comment #1.

For anyone interested, here is the homily by St. John Chrysostom on Acts 5.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210...

Kerstin wrote: "For anyone interested, here is the homily by St. John Chrysostom on Acts 5.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210..."

Thanks Kerstin. That was a good read.

I have to say the first part of Acts 9 has to be one of the most scintillating scene in all of Acts, if not in the New Testament. That’s where Saul is blinded and becomes a believer. As crudely written as I thought Acts 5 was, Acts 9, at least the first half, is just superbly written. I love this so much I’d like to walk through it in detail.

In just a couple of precise and probing sentences, Luke captures Saul’s intent and actions, and then suddenly Saul is struck.

Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:1-4)

“Still breathing murderous threats,” is such a great detail. You could almost hear Saul muttering to himself profanities and oaths. And the detail of going to the high priest and asking for letters makes it so real. There is a whole drama there before the journey in just one sentence. And then there is the flash of light which knocks Saul to the ground. Notice it flashed “around him,” not in front of him. It’s as if he were enveloped or swallowed by the light. And then the voice says, “why are you persecuting me?” And we know from homilies that “me” refers to the Body of Christ, which is the Church and all its members.

We don’t get Saul’s thoughts but certainly he must be confused.

He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus. For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank. (5-9)

Interesting he calls the voice “sir.” I guess I would too. Or would I? Would I be pugnacious? It’s possible. Certainly Saul could have reacted differently. But he is completely compliant. He is aware that something beyond nature has whacked him, something of immense power. From here on he doesn’t try to control events, he lets them play on him. It’s not the small voice outside the cave that Elijah hears. We don’t get Saul’s thoughts in any of this, but three days is a long time to be blind. At that point he must be wondering if he will ever get back his sight. And in those three days, how many times must he have recalled those words in that voice, “I am Jesus.”

And then Luke shifts to different scene.

There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” He answered, “Here I am, Lord.” The Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul. He is there praying, and [in a vision] he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay [his] hands on him, that he may regain his sight.” But Ananias replied, “Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man, what evil things he has done to your holy ones in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call upon your name.” But the Lord said to him, “Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.” (10-16)

Ananias? Didn’t we just have an “Ananias” in Acts 5? That’s the same name of the guy who held back money and was struck dead. That’s kind of odd. Is there a connection? I don’t see it if there is. Also interesting is the street is named “Straight.” It echoes John the Baptist, “I am ‘the voice of one crying out in the desert, make straight the way of the Lord”’ (John 1:23). But it’s also in all three synoptic Gospels, with Luke phrasing it this way: “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, make ready the way of the Lord, make His paths straight” (Luke 3:4). I don’t think the street name is a coincidence. Saul is going to undergo a repentance and conversion and a baptism. It’s as if Saul is being led to John the Baptist.

For me the most powerful part of that Ananias section is Christ’s closing sentence: “I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.” Christianity gives us great consolation and joy, but we should never forget that we are called to suffer.

And then Ananias meets Saul and cures him.

So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. (17-19)

Interesting, Ananias calls him his brother, before he’s even converted. And through the power of his touch, Saul regains his sight. The phrase “things like scales fell from his eyes” has become well known in the culture. What do you think of when you read “scales”? What kind of scales do you think of? Fish scales? “Scales” has a lot of definitions in the dictionary. It mentions some sort of membrane. It mentions an encrusted coating. When I was a kid I had some sort of eye issue that when I would wake up from a night’s sleep I would have some encrusted something – like the grit that forms in the corner of your eye—across my entire eye lid. I would have to rub it and it would fall off. I think of something like that.

From there Saul gets stronger and goes on to preach that Jesus is the son of God.

He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus, and he began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. All who heard him were astounded and said, “Is not this the man who in Jerusalem ravaged those who call upon this name, and came here expressly to take them back in chains to the chief priests?” But Saul grew all the stronger and confounded [the] Jews who lived in Damascus, proving that this is the Messiah. (20-22)

Recovering his strength is something that is repeated. How did he lose his strength? It’s not mentioned but apparently the experience sapped him of his vigor. Perhaps being blind and stunned, he didn’t eat for three days. And then we see him going to Jerusalem and preaching, and being threatened like he had threatened Christians before. So we have a complete turnaround.

For me, that passage is Luke at his best. There are so many memes in that passage that echo in Christianity: light, the laying of hands, the curing of sight, the voice, repentance, conversion.

And then oddly we have a completely different scene in the second half of the chapter. It’s not even about Paul. It’s about Peter healing Aeneas and raising Tabitha from the dead. Sometimes unrelated scenes are put together in a chapter in the New Testament to reflect off each other. I can’t see the interconnection in these two scenes. It seems to me Luke just had space on his scroll for more and instead of starting a new scroll continued with a new narrative. It cold easily have been a new chapter. The only connection I see is that it brings Peter and Paul together in one chapter for the first time.

Manny wrote: "And then there is the flash of light which knocks Saul to the ground."

I cannot resist and linking to the famous Caravaggio painting of the conversion of Paul. There is so much humor. The horse looks at him as if to say, "What did you expect?"
https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.or...

Manny wrote: "What do you think of when you read “scales”? What kind of scales do you think of? Fish scales?"

Yes. In German translation the word "Schuppen", meaning fish scales, is used.

There’s a very interesting thing to note in Acts chapter 10 if you didn’t know this. Some of the newer versions translate verse 3 as “One afternoon about three o’clock,* he saw plainly in a vision an angel of God come in to him and say to him, “Cornelius.”’ (NAB). If you look at some of the older translations you will get, “This man saw in a vision manifestly, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in unto him, and saying to him: Cornelius.” (Douay-Rheims)

And then later in the chapter you have verse 30 as “Cornelius replied, “Four days ago* at this hour, three o’clock in the afternoon, I was at prayer in my house when suddenly a man in dazzling robes stood before me and said…” (NAB) or “And Cornelius said: Four days ago, unto this hour, I was praying in my house, at the ninth hour, and behold a man stood before me in white apparel, and said…” (Douay-Rheims).

The older versions refer to the time as the “ninth hour” while the newer versions spell out that the hour was three o’clock. The ninth hour doesn’t refer to nine o’clock. The Jewish day would start at dawn, and that would be nominally 6 AM. A lamb would be slaughtered at both the third and ninth hours, so that would be 9 AM and 3 PM. There would be prayer for each of those major hours, so that is why at the ninth hour Peter and the apostles are praying.

Actually if you go back to Acts 3, first verse, you have “Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.”

Jewish prayer of every three hours is where the Christina practice of the Liturgy of the Hours comes from.

Notice also, Christ is crucified at 9 AM and dies at 3 PM, the hours to slaughter the daily lamb.

There is an important milestone in Chapters 10 & 11: the moving out from a purely Jewish movement to the Gentiles. First Peter has a vision of a large sheet on which are

"all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." But Peter said, "No, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean." And the voice came to him again a second time, "What God has cleansed, you must not call common." This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.

All foods are made clean, including the foods of the Gentiles (as it says in the comment section of my Bible.) Then this is taken further in 10: 28

...but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Peter then reports his vision to the Church in Jerusalem after which

When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life." 11: 18

God specifically instructs Peter that everything He has created is clean. He removes religious (dietary laws) and cultural hurdles for Peter, giving him and the nascent Church full permission to go out and proclaim the Gospel to all nations. God is repeating what Christ had said to the disciples before, to go out and baptize all nations, but this time these are the actual marching orders.

Good point Kerstin. That might be considered the point where Christianity was no longer a Jewish sect. I found the command "kill and eat" rather odd. The "kill" part anyway. Somehow it must connect to the Jewish sacrifices in the Temple.