Friday, February 1, 2008

Charismatic Prayer Meeting at Fatima Church

Prayer Meeting at Maradana Church

Rev. Fr. Britto Aloysius O.M.I. invites you for a prayer meeting (in Tamil) in preparation for the Lent at Fatima Church, Maradana at 5.00 p.m. on Monday, 4th February.

Prayer Requests for this Week

We have received the following Prayer Requests or this week:

* Mr. Chandrasena, of Kotahena - who is warded at the General Hospital Colombo undergoing treatment for kidney ailment. His condition is improving but not too well.

* Mrs. rani Felix - is in the intensive care of the General Hospital in a serious condition.

* Mr. A. Anthonipillai - needs your prayers. He has just been discharged.

Hotline for requests 077 5505059 in Sri Lanka

The speech Pope Benedict did not deliver



The following is the text of the address that the Holy Father Benedict XVI was supposed to have given during a visit to Rome's Università degli Studi "La Sapienza", scheduled for, Thursday, January 17, and cancelled at the last moment.

It is a great joy for me to meet the community of "La Sapienza - Università di Roma" on the occasion of the inauguration of the academic year. For centuries, this university has marked the progress and the life of the city of Rome, bringing forth intellectual excellence in every field of study. Both during the period when, after its foundation at the behest of Pope Boniface VIII, the institution was directly dependent upon ecclesiastical authority, and after this, when the Studium Urbis became an institution of the Italian state, your academic community has maintained a very high standard of scholarship and culture, which places it among the most prestigious universities in the world. The Church of Rome has always looked with affection and admiration at this university centre, recognising its sometimes arduous and difficult efforts in research and in the formation of the new generations. There has been no lack, in recent years, of significant instances of collaboration and dialogue. I would like to recall, in particular, the worldwide meeting of university rectors on the occasion of the Jubilee of Universities, which saw your community take the responsibility not only for hosting and organising the meeting, but above all for making the complex and prophetic proposal for the development of a "new humanism for the third millennium".
I am moved, on this occasion, to express my gratitude for the invitation extended to me to come to your university to deliver an address to you. In this perspective, I first of all asked myself the question: What can a pope say on an occasion like this? In my lecture in Regensburg, I indeed spoke as pope, but I spoke above all in the guise of a former professor of the university, seeking to connect memory and the present. But at the university "La Sapienza", the ancient university of Rome, I have been invited as "Bishop of Rome", and so I must speak in this capacity. Of course, "La Sapienza" was once the pope's university, but today it is a secular university with that autonomy which, on the basis of its founding principles, has always been part of the nature of the university, which must always be exclusively bound to the authority of the truth. In its freedom from political and ecclesiastical authorities, the university finds its special role, and in modern society as well, which needs institutions of this nature.
I return to my starting question: What can and should the pope say in meeting with his city's university? Reflecting on this question, it has seemed to me that it includes two more questions, the clarification of which should by itself lead to the answer. It is necessary, in fact, to ask: What is the nature and mission of the papacy? And again: What is the nature and mission of the university? It is not my intention here to belabour either you or myself with lengthy examinations of the nature of the papacy. A brief summary should be enough. The pope is, first of all, the bishop of Rome, and as such, in virtue of apostolic succession from the Apostle Peter, he has Episcopal authority in regard to the entire Catholic Church. The word "bishop"—episkopos—, which in its immediate meaning refers to "supervision", already in the New Testament was fused together with the biblical concept of the shepherd: he is the one who, from an elevated point of observation, surveys the whole landscape, making sure to keep the flock together and on the right path. This description of the bishop's role directs the view first of all to within the community of believers. The bishop—the shepherd—is the man who takes care of this community, the one who keeps it united by keeping it on the path toward God, which Jesus points out through the Christian faith—and He does not only point this out: He himself is the way for us. But this community that the bishop cares for as large or small as it may be—lives in the world; its conditions, its journey, its example, and its words inevitably influence the rest of the human community in its entirety. The larger it is, the more its good condition or eventual decline will impact all of humanity. Today we see very clearly how the situation of the religions and the situation of the Church—its crises and renewals—act upon the whole of humanity. Thus the pope, precisely as the shepherd of his community, has increasingly become a voice of the ethical reasoning of humanity.
But here there immediately comes the objection according to which the pope does not in fact truly speak on the basis of ethical reasoning, but instead draws his judgments from the faith, and therefore he cannot claim that these have validity for those who do not share this faith. We must return to this argument later, because it poses the absolutely fundamental question: What is reason? How can an assertion—and above all a moral norm—demonstrate that it is "reasonable". At this point, I would like to note briefly that John Rawls, while he denies that religious doctrines overall have the character of "public" reasoning, he nonetheless sees in their "non-public" reasoning at least a reasoning that cannot simply be dismissed by those who support a hard-line secularist rationality. He sees a criterion of this reasonableness in, among other things, the fact that that such doctrines are derived from a responsible and well grounded tradition, in which over a long span of time sufficiently strong arguments have been developed in support of the respective doctrines. It seems important to me that this statement recognises that experience and demonstration over the course of generations, the historical backdrop of human wisdom, are also a sign of their reasonableness and their lasting significance. In the face of an a-historical form of reason that seeks to construct itself in an exclusively a-historical rationality, the wisdom of humanity as such—the wisdom of the great religious traditions—should be viewed as a reality that cannot be cast with impunity into the trash bin of the history of ideas.
Let's return to the opening question. The pope speaks as the representative of a believing community, in which throughout the centuries of its existence a specific life wisdom has matured; he speaks as the representative of a community that holds within itself a treasury of ethical understanding and experience, which is important for all of humanity. In this sense, he speaks as the representative of a form of ethical reasoning.
But now we must ask ourselves: What is the university? What is its purpose? It is a huge question which I can only answer once again in almost telegraphic style by making just a few observations. I believe that it can be said that the true intimate origin of the university lies in man’s craving for knowledge. He wants to know what everything around him is. In this sense the Socratic questioning is the impulse that gave birth to the Western university. I am thinking here, just to mention one text, the dispute that sets Euthyphro, who defends mythical religion and his devotion to it, against Socrates. In contrast Socrates asks: “And do you believe there is really a war amongst the gods, with terrible feuds, even, and battles . . . Are we to say that these things are true, Euthyphro? (Euthyphro, 6: b and c). In this apparently not very devout question—but which drew in Socrates from a deeper and purer sense of religiosity, one that sought a truly divine god—the Christians of the first centuries recognised their path and themselves. They accepted their faith non in a positivist manner or as a way of getting away from unfulfilled desires but rather as a way of dissolving the cloud that was mythological religion so as to discover the God that is creative Reason as well as Reason-as-Love. For this reason, asking themselves about the reason for the greater God as well as the real nature and sense of being human did not represent for them any problematic lack of religiosity, but was part of the essence of their way of being religious. They therefore did not need to solve or put aside the Socratic dilemma but could, indeed had to accept it. They also had to recognise as part of their identity the demanding search for reason in order to learn about the entire truth. The university could, indeed had to be born within the Christian world and the Christian faith. We must take another step. Man wants to know; he wants the truth. Truth pertains first and foremost to seeing and understanding theoria as it is called in the Greek tradition. But truth is not only theoretic. In correlating the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mountain and the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Isaiah 11, Augustine asserted the reciprocity of scientia and tristitia. For him just knowing is source of sadness. In fact those who only see and learn all that happens in the world end up becoming sad. But the truth means more than knowledge. The purpose of knowing the truth is to know what is good. This is also the sense of Socrates’ way of questioning: What good thing makes us true? Truth makes us good and goodness is true. This optimism dwells in the Christian faith because it was allowed to see the Logos, the creative Reason that, in God’s incarnation, revealed itself as that which is Good, as Goodness itself.
In medieval theology there was a great dispute over the relationship between theory and praxis, over the proper relationship between knowledge and action, a dispute that we must not go into further here. In fact with their four faculties medieval universities embodied this correlation. Let us begin with medicine, which was the fourth faculty according to the understanding of that time. Although it was seen more as an “art” than as a science, its inclusion in the realm of the universitas meant that it was seen as belonging to the domain of rationality. The art of healing was seen as something guided by reason and was thus beyond the domain of magic. Healing is a task that always requires more than simple reason but exactly for this reason it needs the connection between knowledge and power and must belong to the realm of ratio. Inevitably in law faculties the relationship between praxis and theory, between knowing and doing takes front seat for it is about giving human freedom its right shape which is always freedom in reciprocal communion. The law is the premise upon which freedom is built; it is not its adversary. But this raises another question. How can we identify what the standards of justice are, that is those that make freedom as part of a whole possible and serve mankind’s goodness? Let us come back to the present. It is a question that is related to how we can find legal rules that can govern freedom, human dignity and man’s rights. It is an issue that concerns us insofar as it relates to the democratic processes that shape opinions but also one that can distress us insofar as it relates to humanity’s future. In my opinion Jürgen Habermas articulates a view, widely accepted in today’s world of ideas, in which the legitimacy of a constitution as the basis for what is legal stems from two sources: the equal participation of all citizens in the political process and reasonable conflict-resolution mechanisms in politics. Insofar as the reasonable mechanisms are concerned he notes that the issue cannot be reduced to a mere struggle for who gets more votes but must include a “process of argumentation that is responsive to truth” (wahrheitssensibles Argumentationsverfahren). This is well said but it is something difficult to turn into political praxis. We know that the representatives of this public “process of argumentation” are for the most part political parties which shape the formation of the public will. In fact they invariably will seek a majority and will almost always take care of the interests they pledge to protect which are very often partisan and not collective interests. Responsiveness to the truth always takes the back seat to partisan interests. To me it is significant that Habermas should say that responsiveness to truth is a necessary component of political argumentation, since it reintroduces the concept of truth in philosophical and political debates.
Pilate’s question then becomes inevitable: What is truth? How do we recognise it? If we turn to “public reason” as Rawls does, another question necessarily follows: What is reasonable? How does a reason prove to be the true reason? Whatever the case may be, it is obvious that in the quest for freedom and for living together equitably groups other than parties and interest groups must be heard; although that does not mean that the latter are any less important. Let us go back to medieval universities and the way they were set up. Along with law, philosophy and theology had their own faculty with the task of studying mankind in his totality and thus keep alive responsiveness to truth. One might even say that this is the real and enduring meaning of both faculties—they maintain responsiveness to truth and prevent man from being distracted in his quest for the truth. But how can they do this? This is a question which we must always work at and which can never be raised and answered once and for all. Hence at this point not even I can properly give you an answer. I can though invite you to keep asking this question, one that has involved all the great thinkers who throughout history have fought for and sought out the truth, coming up with their own answers and enduring their own fears, always going beyond any one answer.
Theology and philosophy are an odd couple; neither can be totally separated from the other and yet each must keep its own purpose and identity. Compared to the answers Church Fathers formulated in their day and age, St Thomas Aquinas deserves a special place in history for highlighting the autonomy of philosophy as well as that of the law. He equally has the merit of pointing out the responsibilities that fall on reason when it questions itself on the basis of its own strengths. Unlike neo-platonic ideas that saw religion and philosophy inseparably intertwined, the Church Fathers had presented the Christian faith as real philosophy, insisting that this faith corresponded to the needs of Reason in its quest for the truth, that is a faith that was a “Yes” to truth when compared to mythical religions that had ended up turning into mere custom. However, when universities were founded in the West those religions were no more—only Christianity existed. This meant highlighting in a new way reason’s own responsibility, one that was not absorbed by the faith. Thomas lived at a special time. For the first time all of Aristotle’s philosophical writings were available as were the Hebrew and Arabic text that embodied and extended Greek philosophy. Thus as Christianity interacted with others and engaged their reason in a new dialogue it had to fight for its own reasonableness. The Faculty of Philosophy, i.e. the so-called artists’ faculty, was until then only a preparatory stage before moving onto theology. Afterwards it became a faculty in its own right, an autonomous partner to theology and the faith which the latter reflected. We cannot dwell on the gripping confrontation that followed. I would say that St Thomas’ idea about the relationship between philosophy and theology can be expressed by the formula handed down by the Council of Chalcedon on Christology, namely that philosophy and theology must relate to each other “without confusion and without separation.” “Without confusion” is understood in the sense that each will maintain its own identity so that philosophy is truly a free and responsible search for reason and aware of its own limits and thus of its own greatness and vastness. Theology must instead continue to draw from a source of knowledge that it has not invented and that is always greater than itself, and which always renews the process of thinking since it is never totally exhausted by reflection. “Without confusion” does not stand alone for there is “without separation,” that is the idea that philosophy never starts from scratch in isolation but is part of great dialogue found in the accumulated knowledge that history has bequeathed and which it always critically but meekly accepts and develops. Yet it should not shut itself off from what religions, especially the Christian faith, have received and given to humanity as a sign for the path to follow. Indeed History has shown that many of the things that theologians have said in the course of time or that Church authorities have put in practice have been proven false and today they confuse us. But it is equally true that the history of the saints and the history of the humanism that has developed on the basis of the Christian faith are proof of the truth of this faith in its essential core, making it something that public reason needs. Of course, much of what theology and faith say can only be appropriated from within the faith and thus cannot be seen as a need for those to whom this faith remains inaccessible. It is true however that the message of the Christian faith is never only a "comprehensive religious doctrine" in Rawls’ terms, but that it is instead a force that purifies reason itself, further helping the latter to be itself. On the basis of its origins the Christian message should always encourage the search of the truth and thus be a force against the pressures exerted by power and interests.
Well, so far I have only talked about the university in the Middle Ages, trying however to show to what extent its nature and purpose have remained the same all along. In modern times knowledge has become more multi-faceted, especially in the two broad fields that now prevail in universities. First of all, there are the natural sciences which have developed on the basis of experimentation and subject matters’ supposed rationality. Secondly, there are the social sciences and the humanities in which man has tried to understand himself by looking at his own history and uncovering his own nature. From this development humanity not only acquired a great deal of knowledge and power but also an understanding and recognition of the rights and dignity of mankind. And for this we can be grateful. But man’s journey can never be said to be over and the danger of falling into inhumanity is never just warded off as we can see in today’s history. The danger faced by the Western world, just to mention the latter, is that mankind, given its great knowledge and power, might give up on the question of the truth. At the same time this means that reason in the end may bow to the pressures of partisan interests and instrumental value, forced to acknowledge the latter as the ultimate standard. From the point of view of the academic world this means that there is a danger that philosophy, feeling incapable of fulfilling its task, might degenerate into positivism, a danger that theology and the message it has for reason might be confined to the private sphere of a group more or less big. If however reason, concerned about its supposed purity, fails to hear the great message that comes from the Christian faith and the understanding it brings, it will dry up like a tree with roots cut off from the water that gives it life. It will lose the courage needed to find the truth and thus become small rather than great. Applied to our European culture this means that if it wants to constitute itself on the basis of its arguments and whatever appears to it to be convincing, with concerns about its own secular nature, it will cut itself off from its life-sustaining roots, and in doing so will not become more reasonable and pure but will instead become undone and fragmented.
And so let me go back to the initial point. What does the Pope have to do or say in a university? He certainly should not try to impose in an authoritarian manner his faith on others, which can only be freely offered. Beyond his ministry as Pastor of the Church and on the basis of the intrinsic nature of this pastoral ministry, it is his task to keep alive man’s responsiveness to the truth. Similarly he must again and always invite reason to seek out truth, goodness and God, and on this path urge it to see the useful lights that emerged during the history of the Christian faith and perceive Jesus Christ as the light that illuminates history and helps find the way towards the future.
From the Vatican, 17 January 2008
BENEDICTUS XVI

POPE'S LENTEN MESSAGE 2008

Almsgiving is theme of Pope's Lenten message
Vatican , Jan. 29, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Pope Benedict XVI , in his Lenten message for the year 2008, reflects on the value of almsgiving as a spiritual exercise.
The theme of the Pope's message is taken from St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians: "Christ made Himself poor for you." In the text, the Holy Father observes that in the practice of charity, Christians combine "a specific way to assist those in need and, at the same time, an exercise in self-denial to free us from attachment to worldly goods." Thus, he writes, "inward cleansing is accompanied by a gesture of ecclesial communion, mirroring what already took place in the early Church."
Lent begins unusually early this year, with Ash Wednesday on February 6. The full text of the Pope's Lenten message is available in an official English translation on the Vatican web site. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/lent/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20071030_lent-2008_en.html
During the penitential season of Lent, the Pope reminds his readers, "the Church makes it her duty to propose some specific tasks that accompany the faithful concretely in this process of interior renewal: these are prayer, fasting and almsgiving." This year, his annual message concentrates on the last of these three mainstays of Lenten spiritual discipline.
Christian teaching emphasizes that the world's goods are intended for the benefit of all mankind, and individual owners should see themselves as stewards, using their wealth to help others, the Pope says. Helping those in need, he says, "is a duty of justice even prior to being an act of charity."
Moreover, the Pope reminds his readers, generosity is repeatedly praised in the Bible as an indication of righteousness. He points out: "St. Peter includes among the spiritual fruits of almsgiving the forgiveness of sins." God's forgiveness is given to men as a gift, the Pope explains, and "sharing what we possess with the poor disposes us to receive such a gift."
Finally, the Pope writes, almsgiving is a form of imitation of Christ, who "gave his entire Self for us." The Pope suggests: "In his school, we can learn to make of our lives a total gift."

Scripture Readings for the 4th Sunday in Ord. Time,

Reading 1
Zep 2:3; 3:12-13

Seek the LORD, all you humble of the earth,who have observed his law;seek justice, seek humility;perhaps you may be shelteredon the day of the LORD’s anger.But I will leave as a remnant in your midsta people humble and lowly,who shall take refuge in the name of the LORD:the remnant of Israel.They shall do no wrongand speak no lies;nor shall there be found in their mouthsa deceitful tongue;they shall pasture and couch their flockswith none to disturb them.

Responsorial Psalm
Ps 146:6-7, 8-9, 9-10
Blessed the poor in spirit; the kingdom of heaven is theirs!or:R. Alleluia.
The LORD keeps faith forever,secures justice for the oppressed,gives food to the hungry.The LORD sets captives free.R.
Blessed the poor in spirit; the kingdom of heaven is theirs!or:R. Alleluia.
The LORD gives sight to the blind;
the LORD raises up those who were bowed down.
The LORD loves the just;the LORD protects strangers.
R. Blessed the poor in spirit; the kingdom of heaven is theirs!or:R. Alleluia.
The fatherless and the widow the LORD sustains,but the way of the wicked he thwarts.The LORD shall reign forever;your God, O Zion, through all generations. Alleluia.R. Blessed the poor in spirit; the kingdom of heaven is theirs!or:
R. Alleluia.

Reading II1 Cor 1:26-31
Consider your own calling, brothers and sisters.Not many of you were wise by human standards,not many were powerful,not many were of noble birth.Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise,and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong,and God chose the lowly and despised of the world,those who count for nothing,to reduce to nothing those who are something,so that no human being might boast before God.It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus,who became for us wisdom from God,as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,so that, as it is written,“Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord.”

GospelMt 5:1-12a

When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain,and after he had sat down, his disciples came to him.He began to teach them, saying:“Blessed are the poor in spirit,for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are they who mourn,for they will be comforted.Blessed are the meek,for they will inherit the land.Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,for they will be satisfied.Blessed are the merciful,for they will be shown mercy.Blessed are the clean of heart,for they will see God.Blessed are the peacemakers,for they will be called children of God.Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute youand utter every kind of evil against you falsely because of me.Rejoice and be glad,for your reward will be great in heaven.”

Holy Father's Prayer intentions for February 2008


General:

That the mentally handicapped may not be marginalised but respected and lovingly helped to live in a way worthy of their physical and social condition.


Missionary:

That the institutes of Consecrated Life, which are so flourishing in mission countries, may rediscover the msisionary dimension and, faithful to the radical choice of evangelical counsels, be generous in bearing witness to and announcing Christ to the ends of the earth.

The long journey towards real freedom


January 31st, 2008

Rt.Rev Duleep de Chickera:
A Message to the Nation on the occasion of Sri Lanka’s National Day


This year we celebrate 60 years of independence from British colonial rule. Our history as an independent people was interrupted and suppressed at the beginning of the sixteenth century with the invasion by the Portuguese, followed by the Dutch and the British. There is yet to be an apology from the former colonial powers, for the violence and exploitation to the economy and cultures of countries like ours.
Today sixty years after self Government we still are a deprived and divided people. While there is no such thing as a perfect nation, our performance continues to be traumatic and tragic. Our growth and progress as an independent people has been violated by confrontational party politics, greed, and lack of vision and planning of the political leadership of the country, and an indifferent civil society. There has yet to be an apology from our successive layers of political leaders for depriving our people of a legitimate, secure and integrated quality of life.
A long journey lies ahead towards freedom. True freedom is freedom for all. There can be no freedom for some at the expense of freedom for others. Any such promise is immoral and a political lie.
The journey towards freedom must acknowledge and overcome the immediate national threats of poverty, impunity and violence, the oppression of ignorance and disease, the hypocrisy, rhetoric and lies of politicians, and growing corruption, suspicion and fear amongst the people.It is a journey that will require forgiveness, reconciliation and healing between the communities.
It is a journey in which each is called to see the other as a gift. It is a journey that will only reach its destination through a transformed and participatory political vision as well as the patience and courage of all.
It is then that our people will be free to;dance and sing on the streets,dream and discover themselves,think and disagree,relate and integrate,be different but one,and move and live without restriction.
“May God give us the courage to change the things we can,the humility to accept the things we cannot change,and the wisdom to know the difference.”
Feb 4, 2008
[The Rt Revd Duleep de Chickera is the (Anglican) Bishop of Colombo]

Presentation of the Lord

At the end of the fourth century, a woman named Etheria made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Her journal, discovered in 1887, gives an unprecedented glimpse of liturgical life there. Among the celebrations she describes is the Epiphany (January 6), the observance of Christ’s birth, and the gala procession in honor of his Presentation in the Temple 40 days later—February 15. (Under the Mosaic Law, a woman was ritually “unclean” for 40 days after childbirth, when she was to present herself to the priests and offer sacrifice—her “purification.” Contact with anyone who had brushed against mystery—birth or death—excluded a person from Jewish worship.) This feast emphasizes Jesus’ first appearance in the Temple more than Mary’s purification.
The observance spread throughout the Western Church in the fifth and sixth centuries. Because the Church in the West celebrated Jesus’ birth on December 25, the Presentation was moved to February 2, 40 days after Christmas.
At the beginning of the eighth century, Pope Sergius inaugurated a candlelight procession; at the end of the same century the blessing and distribution of candles which continues to this day became part of the celebration, giving the feast its popular name: Candlemas. Comment:
In Luke’s account, Jesus was welcomed in the temple by two elderly people, Simeon and the widow Anna. They embody Israel in their patient expectation; they acknowledge the infant Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah. Early references to the Roman feast dub it the feast of St. Simeon, the old man who burst into a song of joy which the Church still sings at day’s end.Quote:
“Christ himself says, ‘I am the light of the world.’ And we are the light, we ourselves, if we receive it from him.... But how do we receive it, how do we make it shine? ...[T]he candle tells us: by burning, and being consumed in the burning. A spark of fire, a ray of love, an inevitable immolation are celebrated over that pure, straight candle, as, pouring forth its gift of light, it exhausts itself in silent sacrifice” (Paul VI).
(This entry appears in the print edition of Saint of the Day.)

‘Islamic Jesus’: Setting the record straight

(from the Daily Mirror of 31st Jan 2008)

I write with reference to the article of Farhad Pouladi titled ‘Islamic Jesus hits the Iranian movie screens’ on page D8 of your renowned Daily Mirror of 16th January. In all fairness to Christianity I hope my comments will find favourable publicity. I have many Muslim friends and I do not wish to hurt their feelings but my commitment to the faith in Jesus and to the Catholic Church prompted me to write this.

A very basic tenet of Christianity is questioned. Jesus’ first coming to the world over 2000 years ago, his birth, teachings, suffering and death were prophesized in the Old Testament of the Bible, especially in the books of Isaiah and Micah. Jesus is the Son of god and his divinity is explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament, eg. Isaiah, the New Testament and in the writings of the early fathers of the church. The book of Hebrews 1:1-2 says; “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways through the medium of the prophets, but in the last days He has spoken to us through the Son whom he appointed heir iof all things.” Other numerous passages in the Bible are not quoted for the sake of brevity.

Farhard Pouladi quoting Nader Talebzadeh gives a false impression that Jesus who was only a prophet escaped crucifixion as God took him to heaven. Judas was crucified instead. I don’t think any offence was intended by the author:

Jesus’ second coming in triumph is explicitly mentioned in the New Testament. There is no mention of another person except for the angels.

Who are we to believe? On the one hand there are the eye witnesses who experienced the teachings suffering death, period after resurrection and the ascent of Jesus to heaven. Mind you all the apostles with the exception of Judas who committed suicide as he could not come to terms with the remorse after betraying Jesus and apostle John who passed away in old age in Patmos, died upholding their faith in Jesus.

Peter 1:16 relates, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ but we had been eye witnesses to His Majesty.” Peter also adds that when Jesus was transfigured on the holy mountain, John and Peter heard the voice of God from heaven: “This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.”

Most of the apostles faced martyrdom for not disavowing Jesus. The crucifixion of Peter with the head lowered and the beheading of Paul, both in Rome are well documented by some ealy fathers of the Church. Many thousands of Christians became martyrs in the hands of the Roman emperors.

Flavius Josephus a Jewish historian (AD 37-110) wrote many books and a reference to Jesus in the English translation by William Wiston which reads thus: “Now there was about this time, Jesus a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men who received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and many of the Gentiles… Pilate condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day as the divine prophets foretold in…..”

References to persecution of the early Chrsitans by Roman emperors are found in the writings of historians; Cornelius Tacitus (AD 55-120) and Pliny the Younger (AD 61-113); Prof. Simon Greenleaf a Jewish lawyer who was a skeptic and set out to disprove the divinity of Christ ended up by becoming a Christian. He wrote that when the early Christians propagated the new faith in a most inoffensive and peaceful manner –received contempt, opposition and death.

Jesus on several occasions referred to his impending death and rising again on the third day. If Judas was substituted for Jesus to the victim of crucifixion, why was there no protest? There was no galvanic value in Judas’ death. One would have to postulate that Judas after capture was rendered unconscious, carried to Mt. Calvary and hung on the cross until death. Mother Mary, some women followers and apostle John were eye witnesses to the crucifixion on Mt. Calvary. How did they fail to recognize the identity of the person crucified? Jesus dying on the cross pleaded with the Father to forgive his persecutors who did not know what they did. If for some curious reason the apostles etc. deliberately resorted to skullduggery to spread a new faith, why should they die for a cause that they know to be hoax? The Islamic version of Jesus Christ defies common sense.

One can understand some followers of Islam to give a different significance to Christ when Islam emerged six centuries later as a religion. In the first three or more centuries after Christ, Christianity was spread entirely by preaching and good example, the impetus being received at the Pentecost.

Christians and Muslims have a common ground in monotheism. It is in this they can build a dialogue and learn to love and respect one another. The dichotomy arises in their perspective perceptions of Christ which should not be a bone for contention.

NATIONAL SANCTUARY/SHRINE AND BASILICA OF OUR LADY OF LANKA, Tewatta, Ragama.


The origins of this shrine date back to the beginning of this Century, when a little shrine to Our Lady of Lourdes (a little Chapel) was erected by a few Catholic laymen and Father A. Kieger OMI, in 1911, the area being then a part of the parish of Ragama. On 11 November 1917 Father A. Collorec OMI built a small Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes assisted by some Catholic workers from Colombo. The Chapel was later enlarged to accommodate the increasing number of pilgrims, and in the 1930's the side of the Church built a large Grotto to Our Lady of Lourdes. The Church and Shrine with the "Holy Well" by its side gradually became a place of pilgrimage to the Catholics of Colombo Archdiocese.
When the War was declared in 1939, this Shrine gained prominence because of a Vow that the then Archbishop of Colombo, Mgr. Jean Marie Masson OMI, made to Our Lady (26 may 1940), that if Ceylon was spared the horrors of War, he would build a Votive Shrine in her honour under the title of Our Lady of Lanka. The mantle of fulfilling this vow and building the votive Shrine (later declared a Minor Basilica by the Holy Father), fell on this shoulders of his successor, Archbishop Cooray, (later His Eminence Thomas Cardinal Cooray OMI). The construction of the edifice was completed in 1974. The Holy Father Pope Paul VI endowed the Church with the title of a Minor Basilica in 1973. The Basilica was consecrated on 6 February 1974 and Our Lady crowned as Our Lady of Lanka the same day.
The new Grotto to Our Lady of Lourdes, quarried into a huge rock was completed in 1959, and blessed by the Most Rev. James R. Knox, the Apostolic Delegate for Ceylon, on 11 February 1959 (later Cardinal Knox)