Pantocrator

Pantocrator
Dominus Iesus

Monday, July 27, 2009

PERLUASAN GEREJA MARIA ASSUMPTA BABARSARI PAROKI KRISTUS RAJA BACHIRO, YOGYAKARTA

PROPOSAL PENCARIAN DANA

Ketika Roh Kudus, Roh Allah menyapa siapakah yang bisa berdiam diri? Ia selalu terdorong untuk bertindak menuruti kehendak Roh itu. Karena dorongan Roh Kuduslah, para Rasul berkata-kata dan berani mewartakan kabar suka cita tentang Kerajaan Allah yang diajarkan Kristus. Kira-kira demikianlah suasana kerinduan hari para jemaat Babarsari, untuk mengembangkan Kerajaan Allah. Roh Allah itu pulalah yang mendorong mereka untuk mendirikan rumah ibadat, tempat berkumpulnya umat Allah di Babarsari.


Februari 1991 Dewan Stasi Santo Florentinus Babarsari mengeluarkan SK No 04 FBRS/X/90 serta memberi mandat kepada Panitia Pembangunan Gereja. Pada tanggal 15 Agustus 1994 dimulai peletakan batu pertama oleh Bapak drs, Arifin Ilyas, Bupati Kepala Daerah Tk. II Sleman disaksikan oleh Vikjen Keuskupan Agung Semarang mewakili Uskup Keuskupan Agung Semarang. Tanggal tersebut ditetapkan sebagai hari berdirinya Gereja Maria Assumpta, Stasi Florentinus Babarsari, Paroki Kristus Raja Baciro, Yogyakarta.


Rupanya, umat percaya bahwa Allah yang telah memulai karyaNya akan menuntun dan menyelesaikannya. Paling tidak dalam perjalanan Gereja setempat, nampak dan terasa kerjasama Allah dan GerejaNya. Semangat kerjasama, saling membantu, dan melalui perjuangan dan pengorbanan akhirnya pada tanggal 16 Februari 2003 Gereja Maria Assumpta diresmikan dan dipakai umat Babarsari sarnpai sekarang.


Gereja tersebut dibangun lengkap dengan pastoran dan ruangan untuk aktivitas umat termasuk mahasiswa Katolik yang berdomisili di sekitarya. Seiring dengan perkembangan wilayah dan tumbuhnya kampus-kampus perguruan tinggi dengan mahasiswanya yang datang dan berbagai daerah di Indonesia, Gereja Maria Assumpta Babarsari dengan reksa pastoralnya menjadi penyanggga kegiatan umat dan mahasiswa dan mempertajam visi latihan dan pengembangan dalam pembentukan karakter kader-kader Katolik, kaum muda, mahasiswa di masa depan. Dengan dernikian fungsi gereja menjadi nyata menjamin kebutuhan umat dimana tidak menutup diri terhadap masyarakat luas.


Gereja Maria Assumpta sangat menaruh perhatian khususnya kepedulian terhadap generasi muda dan mahasiswa terkait dengan iman dan kehidupan moralnya yang perlu mendapatkan pendampingan terus menerus agar menjadi kader-kader Katolik yang bertanggung jawab di dalam kehidupan berbangsa dan bernegara di masa yang akan datang.


Maka gereja sebagai pusat pelayanan dalam lingkungannya tentu memerlukan fasilitas pendukung gereja. Demi terlaksananya kegiatan tersebut, Panitia Perluasan atas persetujuan dan ijin Mgr. Ign. Suharyo Uskup Agung Semarang, pada tgl 15 Desember 2008 telah melaksanakan pembelian tanah seluas 2082 m2 yang letaknya bersebelahan dengan lahan Gereja Maria Assumpta sebelah Tirnur, dengan harga Rp. 1.250.000/m2.


Pembayaran kepada Pemerintah Daerah telah diselesaikan secara kontan pada tanggal yang sama sejumlah 2082 x Rp. 1.250.000 = Rp. 2.801.650 000.


Jumlah tersebut dihimpun dan beberapa sumber dana dengan rincian sbb:

Harga tanah Rp. 2.801.650.000

Biaya sertifikasi Rp. 3.000.000

____________

Rp. 2.804.650.000

Surnbangan dari donatur Rp. 1.376.650.000

Pinjaman jangka pendek (3 bulan) Rp. 1.428.000.000


Pinjaman jangka pendek tersebut harus diangsur selama 3 (tiga) bulan, sampai dengan tanggal jatuh tempo 15 Maret 2009.


Waktu 3 bulan untuk mengumpulkan sejumlah itu tidak gampang bahkan mustahil. Tetapi kita harus percaya bahwa bagi Tuhan tidak ada yang mustahil. Tuhan akan menggunakan caranya sendiri untuk melaksanakan kehendak Nya. Benar, cara Tuhan sangat misterius, kita tidak tahu apa-apa karena begitu kerdilnya kita dibandingkan dengan Tuhan. Yang diperlukan kerjasama kita.


Jumlah yang kelihatan besar itu, akan menjadi kecil dan ringan apabila kita tanggung bersama.


Han ini, kembali Roh Allah yang Kudus akan menerangi dan membuka hati Bapak/Ibu dan siapa saja untuk ikut serta memikul kebutuhan dana bersama, dan bersedia menjadi donatur. Partisipasi Bapak/lbu/Saudara sangat diharapkan.


Sumbangan dapat diberikan secara tunai melalui Panitia atau ditransfer rnelalui Rekening Bank:

  1. Tabungan BANK NIAGA

Jl. Jendral Sudirman, Yogyakarta

No-Rek : 018-01-00156-17-9

An, PGPM GEREJA ST. PETRUS RASUL

BACIRO, YOGYAKARTA

Pan Bang Gereja Babarsari

Romo Gregorius Suprayitno Pr atau Odilia Sumarini


2. Tabungan BANK BCA

KCP Urip Sumohardjo, Yogyakarta

No-Rek : 4560759229

An. PGPM GEREJA ST. PETRUS RASUL

BACIRO, YOGYAKARTA

Pan Bang Gereja Babarsari

Romo Gregorius Suprayitno Pr atau Odilia Sumarini


PANITIA


Ketua : EV Budiadi, Hp. 081578507884

Sekretaris : Br. Bambang Sumanto, Hp. 081802678426

Bendahara : Odifia Sumarini, Hp. 08164268559

Pastor Paroki Kristus Raja Baciro, Yogyakarta

Rm. G. Suprayitno Pr

Rim G. Kriswanta Pr

Sekretariat:

Gereja Maria Assumpta

Jl..Inspeksi, Babarsari, telp. 0274 - 487202

Yogyakarta

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

150 TAHUN SERIKAT JESUS

Harus Banyak Mencetak Ahli Nonhumaniora

Serikat Jesus di Indonesia masih mempunyai pekerjaan rumah yang pelik, yakni ”mencetak” para ahli di bidang kehidupan masyarakat, terutama nonhumaniora, berikut riset-risetnya. Ini untuk menjawab tantangan pada era global, yakni segala bentuk kemiskinan.

Hal itu disampaikan Robertus Bellarminus Riyo Mursanto SJ, Provinsial SJ Indonesia dalam perayaan Jubileum 150 Tahun Serikat Jesus (SJ) di Indonesia (9 Juli 1859-9 Juli 2009) di Universitas Sanata Dharma Yogyakarta, Minggu (19/7).

”Yang banyak dicetak SJ adalah ahli di bidang humaniora. Melihat tantangan global saat ini, SJ perlu banyak ahli selain bidang humaniora, misalnya ahli lingkungan hidup, politik, hingga ekonomi. Ini sangat penting,” ujarnya.

Tantangan SJ pada era global, menurut Romo Riyo, adalah segala bentuk kemiskinan, tak hanya dalam ekonomi. Kemiskinan tersebut mencakup kemiskinan dalam memahami nilai manusiawi, pendidikan, kedalaman spiritual, dan relasi antarmanusia.

”Sejak masuk ke Indonesia, Jesuit bisa menjaga fokus perhatian untuk hal-hal itu. Yang Jesuit lakukan adalah yang menjadi berkat bagi sesama. Namun, zaman terus berkembang dan Jesuit harus merespons. Juga menjadi contoh,” paparnya.

Salah satu penyebab kurangnya ahli nonhumaniora adalah minimnya jumlah Jesuit. Saat ini ada 356 Jesuit di Indonesia, meliputi imam, bruder, dan frater. Jumlah Jesuit di seluruh dunia saat ini hanya 18.500 orang.

”Jika direntangkan, dari 100 calon Jesuit, yang akhirnya jadi hanya 60 persen. Dengan masa pendidikan 12 tahun dan dari sisi manusiawi yang berat, memang hanya sedikit yang jadi. Memang sulit karena menjadi Jesuit adalah panggilan,” ucap dia.

Jangan puas

Jenderal Jesuit Adolfo Nicolas yang hadir pada acara itu mengatakan, para Jesuit jangan merasa puas dengan apa yang sudah dikerjakan.

”Ada tantangan ke depan yang selalu berubah,” ujar Nicolas yang dulu merupakan misionaris di Jepang ini.

Apa yang dilakukan Jesuit, menurut Nicolas, juga tak lepas dari bantuan mereka yang peduli dan menaruh perhatian yang sama dengan Jesuit. ”Para Jesuit di seluruh dunia harus terus berkreasi dengan apa yang sudah dibangun dan dikerjakan,” katanya.

Sejarah Gereja Katolik di Indonesia bermula tahun 1560 ketika misionaris Santo Franciscus Xaverius datang. Tahun 1682, upaya para Jesuit terhenti karena diusir oleh penjajah Belanda. Momen terpenting bagi Gereja Katolik akhirnya datang juga ketika dengan persetujuan Raja Louis Napoleon, Paus Pius VII mendirikan Prefaktur Apostolik bagi Hindia Belanda (Indonesia) pada 8 Mei 1807.

Sebagai utusan Apostolik pertama ditunjuk seorang imam diosesan Jacobus Nelissen (1808-1817). Ditemani seorang imam lain, yakni Lambertus Prinsen, mereka sampai ke Jakarta pada 4 April 1808. (PRA)

Yogyakarta, Kompas - Selasa, 21 Juli 2009 | 03:38 WIB

Source:http://koran.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/07/21/03382132/harus.banyak.mencetak.ahli.nonhumaniora


Monday, July 13, 2009

Pandangan Orthodox Tentang Vassula

Some readers may not understand the distributed nature of the organization of the Orthodox Churches. Whereas The Patriarch of Constantinople has recognized seniority, over the other Patriarchs, this seniority does not in any way imply overseeing responsibilities. Each of the other Patriarchs is independent and has the right to administer his domain as he is inspired, according to the canons and traditions of the Orthodox Church. Because there is no centralized authority, the Orthodox require a synod in order to reach decisions on significant matters of faith. Individual Bishops report to one of the Patriarchs and those bodies are administered as distinct Sees.

Thus, the Orthodox Churches (they are Catholic, also) do not have a unified ecclesiastical hierarchy. With respect to TLIG most of the Bishops prefer to maintain a “wait & see” attitude.

The Editor of one of the journals of the Orthodox Church of Greece states that Vassula has by her own accord “fallen away” from the Church in form, if not in substance”. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Vassula has not “fallen away” by herself. In fact, Vassula maintains her standing in the Orthodox Church by having an Orthodox Priest as her confessor, and she continues to receive the Orthodox Sacrament of Holy Communion in the Orthodox Church, on a very regular basis.

Again, misinformation that circulates against TLIG includes a statement that because Vassula has received Holy Communion from the Roman Catholic Church, that event would render an Orthodox in violation of the Orthodox Canon. Indeed, the Orthodox Canon prohibits Orthodox from receiving the Eucharist from a Church that the Orthodox have excommunicated (“anathema”). This had been historically the case between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, with the mutual excommunication over FILOQUE, which was put in effect by Pope Leo IX and Michael, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1054 AD.

However, at this present time, these two churches are NO LONGER EXCOMMUNICATED FROM ONE ANOTHER! On December 7th, 1965 both the Pope Paul VI and the Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras HAVE LIFTED the excommunication toward one another, and as a consequence, the Roman Catholic Church now permits the Orthodox to receive the Eucharist (Canon 844 §3).

Sadly, it is the practice of most of the Orthodox Bishops to not reciprocate, by refusing to grant Holy Communion to Roman Catholics that are in good standing with their Church.

Orthodox Clergy think of themselves as the “guardians of the true faith” and therefore they probably believe that to share their Holy Eucharist with those of the Roman Church may in fact be perceived as betraying the true faith, in that dogmatic differences exist between those two sister Churches (the “Eastern vs. the Western Church”). Mutual discussions continue between the two, at an extremely slow pace, the most “sticky” point of disagreement being whether the Pope has authority to oversee the affairs of the Orthodox Patriarchates.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that the mutual excommunication between the Eastern and the Western Churches has been lifted, by both Churches!

Some may question whether Paul VI and Athenagoras had the authority to lift the excommunication on their own individual ecclesiastical authority… in fact they did: Patriarch Athenagoras was the legitimate successor to Patriarch Michael and Pope Paul VI was the legitimate successor of Pope Leo IX. Therefore, according to the Apostolic Canon both Patriarch Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI had the legitimate authority to lift the mutual excommunication. And this is exactly what they did on that December 7th of 1965!

The decision of Patriarch Athenagoras to lift the Excommunication of the Roman Church was reaffirmed by his successor, Patriarch Dimitrios who directed that “an Orthodox could receive Holy Communion from a Roman Catholic Priest”.

Yet, it appears that Church politics interfere with God’s desires that we may all be one[1]. The Orthodox Bishops continue being too slow to accept the lifting of the excommunication, and they have been pressuring[2] Bartholomew I, the current Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, to distance his Church from the Roman Church.

Nevertheless, the former excommunication remains officially lifted, in compliance with the Canon of the Church! The Orthodox do not subscribe to the infallibility of any Patriarch or Bishop. They must all follow the Canons and the tradition of the Church. Therefore, if certain Orthodox Bishops forbid their flock to receive Roman Catholic Eucharist, on what canon do they base their judgment? Why would it be wrong for any Orthodox to receive Holy Communion from a Roman Catholic Priest?

The previous notwithstanding, for the Orthodox Churches to approve TLIG as one body, it probably requires a world-wide synod… something that last happened in the eighth century AD. The author believes that only a divine intervention would cause the Orthodox to convene in a Panorthodox Synod in order to approve TLIG!

By Jim Peters, December 2, 2008

Source:http://www.defending-vassula.org/orthodox-churches

Menjawab Tuduhan kepada Vassula Tentang Kesesatan dalam Konsep Trinitas

A method which enables heresies to be found anywhere

Although the teaching on the Holy Trinity in ’True Life in God’ is the same as in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vassula Ryden and her writings often become the object of sharp criticism and accusations and allegations of heresy. Thus some theologians accuse her writings of portraying the Persons of the Holy Trinity as identical, and thus expounding heretical trinitarian teaching.

But is it really true that ’True Life in God’ is in opposition to the dogmatic teaching of the Church, according to which there exists a real distinction between the Divine Persons? (see CCC 253, 254, 255)

A careful study of the writings of Vassula, and the analysis of that which she herself speaks about in her numerous witnessings, in no way at all warrants such judgment, since in ’True Life in God’ the three Divine Persons reveal themselves as really distinct from one another.

This real distinction of Persons becomes apparent in the fact that the Divine Persons speak separately. First and foremost however – and surely this is the most important point – the relation of origin of the Divine Persons, through which they are really distinct from each other, is never questioned in these writings (see CCC 254). Thus the Son does not identify with the Father as a Person, because He is never described as He "who generates", but as He "who is begotten". Similarly, the Holy Spirit does not identify Himself with the Father or with the Son as a Divine Person, because nowhere is He called "the One who generates" (that is, the Father), nor is He called "He who is begotten" (that is, the Son). He also is sent by the Father and by the Son. In this act of being sent His separateness is made apparent, because no one can send himself, but a separate person.

Therefore throughout the writings of Vassula the Divine Persons are portrayed – in conformity with the teaching of the Church – as really distinct from one another. There is not a single sentence in the entire work of ’True Life in God’ which could contain a trinitarian heresy, not even in those extracts which have been criticised as allegedly presenting the Divine Persons as having similar names. A trinitarian error could only be when there is clear assertion made of the following nature: "In God there is no relation of origin", "There is only one person in God", "The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same Person", "I, Jesus Christ, am the same Person as the Father and the Holy Spirit", "The Father, Son and Holy Spirit identify themselves as Divine Persons, and do not distinguish themselves from one another as Persons". There are no such heretical statements that do not conform to the teaching of the Church in Vassula’s writings. If then, there are no doctrinal errors in ’True Life in God’, then how is it possible for the opponents of this work to allegedly find them? Those who attack this work know very well that they would be wasting their time in trying to find formal heresies – that is, those that are expressed unambiguously and intentionally – because they do not exist in this work. That is why they choose a particular method in order to find errors and heresies ’in spite of all’ and ’at any cost’.

What characterises this method? Its basis is simple. It is enough simply to read the text of ’True Life in God’ according to the following principle: when it is possible to interpret the messages of the Divine Persons either in the spirit of the teaching of the Church or contradictory to it, then the messages are given a meaning which is at variance with the teaching of the Church. Thanks to this method – which is applied with great glee with regard to Vassula’s writings – one can always arrive at the desired conclusion: that her writings negate the dogmas of the Church and spread heresies.

Such a way of interpreting the texts is, however, false. If it were applied also with regard to the Sacred Scriptures, there too one would be able to ’discover’ a multitude of ’heresies’.

This method is not only false but also immoral; it is contrary to God’s eighth Commandment, which forbids us to bear false witness against one’s neighbour, to slander him or to judge him rashly.

The Catechism reminds us with these words: "To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret in so far as it is possible his neighbour’s thoughts, words and deeds in a favourable way (CCC 2478).

The Catechism also cites a valuable teaching of St Ignatius Loyola: "Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favourable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved". The words of the Catechism which forbid us to pass unfounded harsh criticism are very severe. "He becomes guilty of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbour (CCC 2477).

’Unclear’ or ’ambiguous’ does not mean erroneous or heretical

The favourite weapon used in fighting against Vassula’s writings is to accuse them of being obscure, of double meaning or ambiguous. This accusation is not honest, because it suggests that ambiguity or lack of clarity is an error, or that ambiguous expressions are nonsensical and of no value. In this way one can easily put down even the most highly esteemed theological works. To suggest an error where something is unclear or ambiguous, is inadmissible, and contradictory to the true principles of interpretation of texts. If this were the case, it would undermine the value of all poetic expression, metaphors and similes which so frequently occur even in the sacred Scripture. Error or heresy are only found in explicit statements or negations. As regards ambiguous or unclear sentences, they could be erroneous or true. However the deciding factor is the context and not the whim of the reader. It is the context which defines the real meaning of ambiguous of unclear expressions. Ambiguity per se is therefore not necessarily an error or a heresy.

In connection with the problem of so called unclear texts, it is useful to turn our attention to one other thing: that this is not necessarily the fault of the writer or his intellectual failings. There are many texts which are unclear only because they are beyond the capability of understanding of the reader, who cannot grasp them; for example, as with a child reading with difficulty many parts of a book, which adults understand without difficulty – to the child these parts seem incomprehensible and unclear. Let us now go on to a more detailed analysis of these parts of ’True Life in God’ which are attacked and labelled as heretical by their opponents. At the same time we shall investigate the methods used which ascribe the worst possible meaning to the messages, even if it does not harmonise with the whole context of this work.

(From an article of Fr. Michal Kaszowski, teacher of theology at the Archdiocesan Seminary, Katowice, Poland)

Source:http://www.defending-vassula.org/errors_trinity

The Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, Theodoros II Menyambut Vassula dan TLIG

The Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, Theodoros II, opened the doors of the Patriarchate in Alexandria of Egypt in April of 2008 with a welcoming embrace and gave a moving speech in the Throne Room to officially welcome TLIG and Vassula. Here is what he said:

"From the depths of my heart, I wish to welcome you all officially, here in the Throne Room, where our companion is St. Mark, the Apostle and Evangelist. In the morning, I received you at the monastery of St. Savvas, a humble monastery, which was founded in the 4th century. Today, I greet you officially here, in our Patriarchate, whose history spans 2,000 years from the time of Jesus Christ to the present. Thus, on the one hand, with the exception of the Apostle Paul, we have our history involving the great Apostles, whose successors were the Great Fathers of the Church. That history brings us to present times and, thus, you can see all the Patriarchs that have been appointed to Alexandria on your right and left.

All this is our heritage, the future lies before us: it is for us the entire land of Africa. That is why I want you to know that, before I ascended the steps to the Throne of St. Mark, I was a missionary in Cameroon, the Sudan, Gabon, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi, Botswana and Angola. As a missionary, therefore, I really got to know Africa: the difficulties that it faces and the enormous poverty issues but, most of all during my journeys, I meet people that are searching - searching for the love of Jesus. That is why, Vassula, I was very moved when you all sang to Jesus Christ a few minutes ago as my thoughts went immediately to all my African children who also raise their hands towards the heavens and sing in thousands of languages about Christ; the love of Christ that we so desperately need. I am planning shortly to make a long journey to Ghana, having recently returned from Madagascar.

And now, I would like to welcome you all from the bottom of my heart, especially you, Vassula, as I said in church this morning, welcome to your homeland, welcome to the country of your birth, and greetings to all who accompany you. As they say here, Vassula, "Anyone who drinks from the waters of the Nile never forgets this country."

I would also like to greet the Bishop from India - welcome dear brother to our Apostolic Patriarchate. I wish to welcome the monk, you, Sister, you, Father and you, Father from the Roman Catholic Church and tell you all that with much love we receive you, we love you and that we are under the same protection and love of our Great Lord, Jesus Christ.

Vassula, I would like to thank you for this opportunity, to be together over the next few days. This evening, we will follow together the Passion of Our Lord. Tomorrow, we shall worship before His Epitaph and we shall live, in our devoutly beating hearts, His Passion and His Resurrection. And that joy - that is my wish - that the joy of the Resurrection and the Light may be with us always all the days of our lives. In the name of Jesus Christ I wish to bless you all and your families and please know that Alexandria’s and the Patriarchate’s doors will always be open to you. Thank you"

Source: http://www.defending-vassula.org/orthodox-alexandria

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Immaculate Conception dan Sang Perempuan Yang Berselubungkan Matahari

Pesan Yesus kepada Vassula Ryden tanggal 20 Maret 1996

Mari kita simak amanat Yesus tentang begitu besarnya penghormatan Yesus kepada Bunda Teotokos kita. Bahkan dalam Pesan-pesanNya ini, Yesus mengamini bahwa Bunda Maria adalah Bunda Yang Dikandung Tanpa Noda Dosa (asal), suatu doktrin khas Katolik yang masih banyak diragukan oleh orang lain bahkan oleh sebagian internal umat Katolik.
Pesan Yesus sbb:
…………………..*) Jika kalian berkata: "Kami tidak memerlukan Hati Maria", ketahuilah bahwa kalian sebenarnya berkata: "Kami tidak memerlukan Hati Tuhan Yesus!" belajarlah, hai manusia lemah, bahwa Hati Kudus Ku dan Hati Tak Bernoda Bunda kalian begitu bersatu dalam kesatuan yang sempurna yakni Dua Hati Suci menjadi Satu; Aku berkata sesungguhnya: apabila kalian mengakui Hati Maria, bukan hanya kalian akan mengakui HatiKu tetapi juga Hati Bapa, Bukankah Aku telah berkata bahwa Aku ada dalam BapaKu dan BapaKu ada dalam Hatiku? Apabila Aku ada dalam Bapa dan Bapa ada dalam Aku, maka HatiKu begitu pula, ada dalam Bapa dan HatiNya ada dalam HatiKu; dengan mengatakan bahwa Kami terpisahkan satu sama lain dan Kami tidak satu, maka kalian mengingkari SabdaKu; oleh sebab itu janganlah kalian menjadi budak dari rohmu sendiri dan janganlah kalian menerima argumen dunia ini;
Katakan kepadaKu, hati ciptaan mana yang menyerupai Hati Maria? Tidak ada satu pun yang menyerupai Hati Maria; Hatinya sempurna sejak permulaan, Tanpa Noda Dosa (Immaculate) sejak kelahirannya[13] dan penuh rahmat, bahkan melebihi rahmat yang diterima oleh segenap MalaikatKu; inilah sebabnya kumpulan para MalaikatKu bertanya satu sama lain begini:

“mengapa puncak-puncak gunung menundukkan kepalanya, memberikan salut kepadanya setiap kali dia melewati gunung-gunung tersebut?”

“siapakah gerangan tanpa sedikit pun cela dalam Hatinya dan begitu menyenangkan Allah?’; “apakah kalian sudah melihat bagaimana ciptaan Allah menatap ke bawah setiap kali dia lewat?”

“siapakah dia yang seperti air mancur membuat taman menjadi subur oleh rahmatnya, sebuah sumur air hidup ini?”

“siapakah Dia, dengan Hatinya begitu murni terisi kasih ilahi, selalu berhasrat akan Allah setiap siang dan malam, setiap hari dan ada dalam kesatuan sempurna dengan Yang Maha Tinggi?”

“siapakah Sang Perawan ini yang begitu rendah hati meskipun memiliki begitu banyak kebaiakn dan penuh rahmat sehingga Mata Allah Yang Maha Kuasa tidak pernah berhenti menatapnya?”

banyak dari MalaikatKU tertegun diam dalam kekagumannya, tidak ada lagi kata-kata yang terucap dari mereka….

Yang ada dalam Hati itulah, yang ada dalam lembah rahmat, Aku menjalankan KuasaKu; Pencipta langit dan bumi ini, Pencipta rahmat ini menemukan SurgaNya dalam surga; RahmatNya dalam rahmat; untuk datang ke dunia dalam kondisi seorang budak; Aku datang kepada sifat Kerendahan hati yang Luar Biasa[14] untuk melayani dan bukan dilayani; Aku, Penebus umat manusia, Mesias yang dijanjikan, datang kepada gambaran sempurna dari Hati KudusKu untuk berbagi duka, suka-cita, penderitaan, kemartiran, mujizat, bahkan penghianatan, kesengsaraan, siksaan, tusukan, dan penyaliban; bersama-sama Hati Kami menebus kalian;

setiap saat Bunda SuciKu menghabiskan hidupnya di dunia merupakan madah kasih, amal, kerendahan hati dan kemurnian; suatu harta karun dari HartaKu; Aku datang ke dalam Hatinya Yang Suci ini, kepada gambar dan rupa Hati KudusKu, untuk menjadi Manusia-Allah sehingga Aku mengikuti jejaknya[15] dan kemudian Dia mengikuti Jejak-Ku[16]; Aku telah berkata bahwa Dia dan Aku berbagi segalanya dalam rangka menuju ke SalibKu;

Persatuan Kami begitu sempurna sekali dan eratnya sehingga Kami tidak memerlukan kata-kata untuk bicara, karena ucapanKu satu-satunya berlangsung dalam Hati Kami; Kata-kata-Ku dan PikiranKu tidak perlu disampaikan kepadanya dalam Ketidak-hadiranKu; dalam Kuasa Tertinggi dari Roh Kudus-Ku; segala sesuatunya diketahui oleh dia; dalam HatiNya yang perawan segala sesuatu diketahuinya karena Dia memiliki Allah dan Allah memiliki Dia;

Oh ciptaan! JiwaKu ada dalam kecemasan besar ketika begitu banyak dari kalian menolak Hatinya! Dan MalaikatKu bergetar ketakutan ketika pada suatu hari nanti Aku akan menyatakan orang-orang ini bersalah! Namun bagi mereka yang menghormati BundaKu dan mencintainya, Gerbang Hatinya akan terbuka bagi kalian untuk melangkah masuk ke dalam surga; dan Aku akan berkata kepada kalian yang mencintai dan menghormatinya: ”mari datanglah! Cintamu kepadanya begitu besar di bumi sehingga hari ini kalian dapat masuk ke ruanganmu dan di depan Bait[17] KudusKu kalian merendahkan badan;”

ciptaan, Tanda Besar[18] ini dalam surga, adalah Sang Perempuan yang berselubungkan Matahari sedang memegang iblis lumpuh yang ketakutan, Tanda Besar yang menyinari surga dan membuat takut Sang Kegelapan[19] itu adalah tiada lain daripada BundaKu sendiri; berlawanan sekali dengan kegelapan itu, Aku malah mengangkat Perawan Suci ini untuk menjadi Pilar Api berkilauan bagi kalian agar setiap malam Dia membimbing langkah kalian dan setiap siang hari Matahari menyinari kegelapan kalian yang menyeramkan;
Ketika pada hari itu Aku dikandung oleh Roh Kudus dalam Rahimnya Yang Perawan, seluruh setan dilumpuhkan dengan penuh ketakutan sementara di surga pada saat yang bersamaan sekumpulan besar penghuni surga memuliakan Allah dan bernyanyi: “Kemuliaan kepada Allah di Tempat Yang Maha Tinggi, dan damai di bumi bagi orang yang percaya kepadaNya;” demikianlah, Aku turun dari surga ke surga yang lain, dari Tahtaku ke Tahta yang lain…
Ya, setiap kebaikan berkembang mekar, menggairahkan Hati KudusKu oleh keharuman Cintanya yang sempurna; Hati SuciKu Yang Sempurna dan Satu itu tidak ada tandingannya dan seluruhnya dapat dicintai….Hatinya, sejak Dia Dikandung Tanpa Noda (Immaculate Conception) adalah suatu doa yang tak putus-putusnya, suatu dupa penebusan, suatu adorasi yang tak habis-habisnya bagi Allah; Ini adalah Kebun AnggurKu[20] yang kepadanya Tangan Perkasa Bapaku memanennya sehingga Anggur Sejati ditanamkan pada akarNya dalam tanah ini;

Datanglah kepada Hati Bunda Kalian, yang terangnya seterang siang hari; datang dan terimalah Rahmat-rahmatnya, yang tak terhitung jumlahnya dan memancarkan kilatan sinar dari Tangannya; HatiKu, yang adalah penuh rahmat dan kebenaran, dijadikan dari daging dalam Rahimnya Yang Perawan penuh dengan rahmat dan kebenaran; dan sekarang, Dua Hati Kami, bergabung menjadi Satu akan mengalahkan Wabah Ganas ini, bukan dengan kekuatan fisik atau pun kekuatan senjata melainkan melalui cinta dan pengorbanan;

*) Diterjemahkan bebas dari sebagian Amanat Yesus. Terjemahan oleh Leonard T. Panjaitan dari http://www.tlig.org/en/messages/961/



[13] Dia dikandung tanpa noda dosa (Immaculate Conception-red)
[14] maksudnya adalah Bunda Maria
[15] ketika Yesus kanak-kanak mengikuti IbuNya
[16] Aku paham bahwa Bunda Maria juga mengikuti Yesus dalam MisiNya
[17] Bait Allah: Bunda Maria
[19] Sang Iblis
[20] Bunda Maria

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Petrus dan Kephas dalam Galatia 2:7-14 Adalah Orang Yang Berbeda

Galatia 2:11-14, terdapat adegan dimana Paulus memarahi Petrus. Ayat ini biasanya digunakan untuk mematahkan Primat Paus sebagai Pengganti Petrus. Ayat ini juga dipakai oleh mereka yang tidak mengerti tentang Gereja Katolik. Namun sejarah tidak bohong. Ternyata Petrus dan Cephas adalah 2 orang yang BERBEDA. Penelitian ini dilakukan oleh Pastor Jesuit D Pujol dalam tesisnya yang berjudul "ETUDES" pada abad 19 lampau. Mari kita baca tulisan di bawah ini *):

Romo Jesuit D. Pujol mempublikasikan topik ini dalam bukunya yang berjudul "Etudes" di abad 19 lalu dan ia menjelaskan secara luar biasa dan efektifnya bahwa Rasul Petrus dan Cephas dari Antiokia dan Korintus TIDAK MUNGKIN ORANG YANG SAMA. Hal ini sungguh mengejutkan terlebih lagi tidak ada yang membantah argumentasi Rm. D Pujol tersebut. Sang Romo Jesuit ini menunjukkan lebih jauh lagi bahwa Petrus dan Cephas adalah dua individu berbeda dimana fakta ini mewakili tradisi kuno yang tidak pernah hilang dalam sejarah Gereja. Pada abad 3 M St. Clement dari Alexandria mengamati bahwa "Cephas adalah salah satu dari 70 murid yang kebetulan memiliki nama yang sama dengan Rasul Petrus." Keyakinan yang sama ini juga ditemukan dalam tulisan-tulisan dari Santo Dorotheus dari Tyre (abad ke-4 M.) dan Eusebius, yang dikenal sebagai sejarawan ulung Gereja kuno (abad ke-4 M.). Bahkan diawal-awal tulisan Bapa-bapa Gereja perdana yang berjudul "Epistle of the Apostles" kira-kira bertahun 160 M dapat dibaca sbb:


"Kami, Yohanes, Thomas, Petrus, Andreas, Yakobus, Filipus, Bartholomeus Matius, Nathaniel, Yudas orang Zelot, dan Kephas, menuliskan kepada Gereja-gereja di sebelah timur dan barat, di sebelah utara dan selatan ..." Lebih lanjut, orang-orang Kristen yang berbahasa Yunani yang telah mengenal sejak awal Injil Matius (aslinya Injil Matius ditulis dalam bahasa Ibrani atau Aram), hanya akan mengetahui nama Rasul melalui nama Petrus. Dalam teks yang terkenal tentang Petrus pada Mat 16:15-19 kata “Cephas” tidak muncul! Adalah nama Petrus-lah yang selalu akrab di telinga orang-orang Yunani di luar wilayah Palestina.


Berikut adalah ringkasan kesimpulan yang dibuat Rm. Pujol, SJ tentang analisa teks Perjanjian Baru:


  1. Yoh. 1:42 - Teks Yohanes 1:42 di mana Kristus memanggil "Simon, anak Yohanes, dengan sebutan “Cephas” (yang diinterpretasikan sebagai 'Petrus')" tidak mungkin dapat diketahui oleh orang-orang Yunani (yang telah memeluk agama Kristen) yang berasal dari Antiokhia dan Korintus pada masa beredarnya Surat-surat Paulus. Orang-orang Yunani hanya mengenal nama "Petrus" yang merujuk kepada Kepala para Rasul.
  2. Gal. 1:18 – adanya kesalahan teknis penyalinan sehingga mengakibatkan munculnya nama “Cephas” yang seringkali menggantikan nama “Petrus”.
  3. Gal. 2:7-14 –ujian kritis menunjukkan bahwa rujukan kepada Petrus dan Cephas harus dipahami sebagai cara membedakan Petrus dari Chepas. Jika mereka adalah dua orang yang sama, mengapa Paulus merujuk Petrus dalam 2 tempat dan di lain pihak Paulus juga merujuk Cephas dalam 3 tempat yang berbeda? Oleh sebab itu ketidak-konsistenan di sini menunjukkan sesuatu yang tidak masuk akal.
  4. Selain itu, dalam Galatia. 2:9, kita mendapatkan contoh lain pembacan teks Injil yang tidak ada. Ini adalah suatu asumsi nyata bahwa untuk mengidentifikasi "Yakobus, Cephas, dan Yohanes" yang disebutkan di sana akan menjadi Rasul Petrus, Yakobus dan Yohanes. Sebaliknya, Yakobus, Cephas dan Yohanes bersama yang lain sedang berhadapan dengan orang-orang Yahudi dari Yerusalem dimana Paulus sangat menentang mereka.
  5. 1 Cor. 3:21 dan 9:5 - Cephas jelas berada di bawah peringkat para Rasul.
  6. Tidak juga di Korintus. 15:5 membuktikan bahwa Cephas adalah Rasul Petrus karena teks ini justru mengimplikasikan adanya perbedaan diantara mereka, karena Cephas dibedakan dari Daftar Dua Belas Para Rasul. Lalu siapa Cephas itu sesungguhnya ? Rm. Pujol, SJ setuju dengan beberapa kritik yang meyakini bahwa Cephas kemungkinan adalah salah satu dari dua murid dimana Yesus menampakkan diri sesaat setelah Kebangkitan-Nya. Kita tahu bahwa Cleophas adalah salah satu dari dua murid dimana Kristus muncul setelah Kebangkitan. Mengapa tidak orang lain saja yang bernama Cephas? Hal ini tentunya akan menjadi petunjuk yang menjelaskan orang-orang beriman ketika berkumpul di Yerusalem sehingga si Cephas ini menjadi lawan berat dan "pemimpin partai kaum Yahudi" yang menyebabkan keributan di Korintus dan Antiokhia.
  7. Orang-orang yang berpendapat adanya dua identitas berbeda antara Cephas dan Rasul Petrus tentu akan bersikap biasa-biasa saja ketika Paulus dengan percaya diri memarahi si Cephas waktu mereka di Antiokia setelah Konsili Yerusalem. Perselisihan antara Santo Paulus dan Cephas di Antiokhia berlangsung sebelum mulainya Konsili Yerusalem. Lebih lanjut perlu diketahui, adalah TIDAK MASUK AKAL bagi para Rasul yang menghadiri Konsili Yerusalem untuk bertindak diluar sifat-sifat mereka dengan memaksa orang lain yang masih berpegang pada adat Yahudi untuk meninggalkan kebiasaan Yahudinya setelah memeluk Kristen. Potret psikologis dari tokoh Cephas seperti yang digambarkan oleh St. Paulus TIDAK COCOK dengan PENGGAMBARAN KARAKTER dari St. PETRUS setelah PENTAKOSTA.


Selain hal itu di atas, ada argumen yang dibuat oleh Rm. Pujol, SJ secara impresif yakni kesaksian seorang visioner stigmata terkenal yang bernama Theresa Neumann (wafat 1962). Dalam buku kecil tahun 1942 yang berjudul "The Passion Flower of Konnersreuth", Rm. Frederick M. Lynk, S.V.D. membuat pengamatan dari salah satu penglihatan Theresa Neumann sbb:


"Cephas yang dimaksud oleh Surat Paulus ke Galatia, yang kepadanya St. Paulus memarahi di depan wajahnya BUKANLAH PETRUS, Pangeran Para Rasul itu. Tidak ada disebutkan dalam tokoh terkemuka ini berdasarkan fakta kuno bahwa Cephas itu tenggelam di laut saat menjalankan misinya dan oleh karena itu timbul pendapat bahwa dia tidak berbuat apa-apa dalam usahanya menyebarkan ajaran Kristen atau adanya catatan bahwa Cephas jatuh dari imannya”.


Dalam paragraf sebelumnya, saya berani menyatakan secara kredibel bahwa tesis “Etudes” (1865) yang diperbaharui oleh Pastor Jesuit dari Perancis ini (Rm. D. Pujol, SJ) adalah bahwa "Cephas" yang dicela oleh Santo Paulus dalam Suratnya ke Galatia (2:7-14) TIDAK MUNGKIN RASUL PETRUS, Pangeran Para Rasul itu. Rm. Pujol sendiri mengambil tesisnya dari sebuah tradisi kuno yang ditemukan dalam tulisan-tulisan Santo Clement dari Alexandria (abad 3 M) – suatu tulisan yang juga diakui oleh St Jerome dan juga dipakai oleh beberapa penulis lain dijamannya yakni antara tahun 340 - 420. Walaupun Santo Jerome menyangka bahwa Cephas dan Petrus yang disebutkan oleh Santo Paulus dalam surat-suratnya itu adalah orang yang sama, namun St. Jerome mengakui adanya bukti sbb:


"Ada orang yang berpikir bahwa Cephas, yang kepadanya Paulus memarahi di depan wajahnya, BUKANLAH Rasul Petrus, tetapi orang lain dari ke-70 murid, dan mereka menuduh bahwa Petrus tidak mungkin makan bersama dengan bangsa-bangsa Kafir, sebab Petrus sendiri telah membaptis Kornelius Komandan Pasukan Romawi, dan pada saat ia pergi ke Yerusalem, setelah ditentang oleh orang-orang Kristen yang bersunat dan lantas ada suara yang berkata, "Mengapa Engkau tidak masuk ke mereka yang tidak bersunat dan makan bersama-sama dengan mereka?", setelah mendapatkan penglihatan demikian, Petrus akhirnya sadar dan menjawab: "Jika, demikian maka Allah telah memberikan anugerah yang sama dengan kita karena mereka juga percaya kepada Yesus Kristus, lalu katanya: siapalah saya yang bisa menahan Kuasa Allah?" Setelah mendengarkan Petrus, sidang itu diam sesaat dan kemudian mereka memuliakan Allah, dan lantas berkata: "Karena itu kepada bangsa lain juga, Allah memberikan hidup bagi mereka yang bertobat”.


Seperti yang digambarkan oleh St. Lukas, penulis sejarah itu, St. Lukas tidak menyebutkan adanya pertikaian Petrus dan Paulus ini, atau bahkan St. Lukas pernah mengatakan bahwa Petrus ada di Antiokhia bersama dengan Paulus, dan kejadian ini mungkin dapat disampaikan kepada Porphyry karena dia telah menghujat, bahwa katanya : kita bisa percaya bahwa Petrus telah berbuat salah atau bahwa Paulus secara tidak sopan telah mencela Pangeran Para Rasul tersebut”.


*) Sebagian artikel diterjemahkan secara bebas oleh Leonard T. Panjaitan dari:http://credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/cephas.htm


Tulisan asli dan lengkap sbb:


There is no question that mainstream opinion in the Church has held that the Apostle Peter and the Cephas whom St. Paul rebuked in [the Epistle to the] Galatians were the same person. After all, did not the Gospel of John note that Christ Himself gave the name Cephas (meaning 'Rock') to his leading Apostle? Have not some of the greatest Fathers and Doctors of the Church and modern exegetes all taken for granted the identity of Peter and the Cephas mentioned in Galatians and I Corinthians? Was not Peter-Cephas censured by St. Paul who "withstood him to his face"?

Needless to say, if the Apostle Peter and the Cephas rebuked by St. Paul were not the same person, the polemical arguments of Protestants and Eastern Orthodox claiming that St. Paul's severe rebuke of St. Peter constituted a denial of Peter's Primacy of authority among the Apostles — fall by the wayside.

The following are the Scripture texts which refer to Cephas:

John 1:42 "And Andrew led him (Simon) to Jesus. But Jesus looking upon him, said, 'Thou art Simon, the son of John: thou shalt be called Cephas' (which is interpreted Peter)."
Galatians 1:18 "Then, after 3 years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter [some manuscripts have 'Cephas'] and I remained with him for 15 days."

Galatians 2:7-14 "On the contrary, when they saw that to me was committed the gospel for the un-circumcised, as to Peter that for the circumcised (for he who worked in Peter for the apostleship of the circumcised worked also in me among the Gentiles – and when they recognized the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John who were considered the pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised) provided only that we should be mindful of the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was deserving of blame. For before certain persons came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles, but when they came, he began to withdraw and to separate himself, fearing the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews dissembled along with him, so that Barnabas also was led away by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: 'If thou, though a Jew, livest like the Gentiles, and not like the Jews, how is it that thou dost compel the Gentiles to live like the Jews?'"

I Cor. 1:11-13 "For I have been informed about you, my brethren, by those of the house of Chloe, that there are strifes among you. Now this is what I mean: each of you says, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ. Has Christ been divided up?"

I Cor. 3:21 "Let no one take pride in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death; or things present, or things to come - all are yours, and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."

I Cor. 9:5 "Have we not a right to take about with us a woman, a sister, as do the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"

I Cor. 15:5 "For I delivered to you first of all, what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures and that He appeared to Cephas, and after that to the twelve."
The Jesuit Father D. Pujol published in "Etudes" in the last century some remarkable articles effectively demonstrating that the Apostle Peter and the Cephas of Antioch and Corinth could not have been the same person. It is surprising that more notice was not given to his arguments. He showed, moreover, that Peter and Cephas as two distinct individuals represents an ancient tradition that has never been lost in the Church. In the 3rd century Clement of Alexandria observed that "Cephas was one of the 70 disciples who happened to have the same name as Peter the Apostle." This same belief is found in the writings of St. Dorotheus of Tyre (4th c.) and Eusebius, the well-known historian of the ancient Church (4th c.). In yet another early Christian writing "Epistle of the Apostles" dated about 160 A.D. can be read:

"We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathaniel, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and west, of the north and south... "
Further, Greek-speaking Christians who would have known Matthew's early Gospel (originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic), would only know the Apostle by his name of Peter. In the famous Petrine text Matt. 16:15-19 the word 'Cephas' does not appear! It is always Peter whom the Greeks outside of Palestine would be familiar.

Here is a summary of a few points made in Fr. Pujol's analysis of New Testament texts:
1. Jn. 1:42 — The text of John 1:42 wherein Christ calls "Simon, son of John, 'Cephas' (which is interpreted as 'Peter')" could not have been known to the converted Greeks of Antioch or Corinth at the time of Paul's epistles. The Greeks only knew the name "Peter" as referring to the chief of the Apostles.

2. Gal. 1:18 — Errors of copyists were responsible for "Cephas" often being substituted for "Peter"

3. Gal. 2:7-14 — A critical examination shows that the references to Peter and Cephas must be understood as distinguishing Peter from Cephas. If they were the same, why does Paul refer to Peter in 2 places and to Cephas in 3 others? This strange lack of consistency makes no sense.

4. Moreover, in Gal. 2:9, we have another example of reading into texts something which is not there. It is a pure assumption to identify the "James, Cephas, and John" mentioned there to be the Apostles Peter, James and John. Rather, James, Cephas and John were others: troubling Judaizers from Jerusalem whom St. Paul bitterly opposed.

5. 1 Cor. 3:21 and 9:5 — Cephas clearly ranks below the Apostles.

6. Nor does I Cor. 15:5 prove that Cephas is the Apostle Peter for that text implies a distinction between the two, since Cephas is distinguished from the Apostolic Twelve. Then who is Cephas? Fr. Pujol agrees with certain critics who believe the Cephas in question would have been one of the two disciples to whom Christ appeared after His Resurrection. We know that Cleophas was one of the two disciples to whom Christ appeared after the Resurrection. Why could not the other have been Cephas? This would certainly explain the prestige he had among the faithful in Jerusalem enabling him to be a formidable opponent and "party leader of the Judaizers" causing trouble in Corinth and Antioch.

7. Those who opine for the identity of Cephas and the Apostle Peter take for granted the dating of Paul's rebuke of Peter at Antioch after the Council of Jerusalem. But the dispute between St. Paul and Cephas at Antioch took place before the Council. Further, it makes no sense for the Apostle who presided at the Council of Jerusalem to have acted so out of character in forcing others to retain Jewish customs no longer binding upon Christians. The psychological portrait of Cephas given by St. Paul does not match the character of St. Peter after Pentecost.

Other arguments are made by Fr. Pujol to make an impressive case for his thesis. It is interesting that in one of the visions of the famous stigmatist Theresa Neumann (died 1962) one finds further food for thought on this fascinating subject. In his 1942 booklet, "The Passion Flower of Konnersreuth", Fr. Frederick M. Lynk, S.V.D. makes this observation regarding one of the stigmatist's visions:

"Cephas of the Epistle to the Galatians, whom Paul withstood to his face was not Peter, the prince of the Apostles. That there is no mention of this important personage in antiquity is based on the fact that Cephas was drowned in the sea while on a mission tour and thereupon the opinion arose that he did nothing in his new field of endeavor or even fell away from the faith."
In the preceding paragraphs, I ventured to declare credible the thesis upheld by the French Jesuit Fr. D. Pujol in "Etudes" (1865) that the "Cephas" denounced by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians (2:7-14) could not have been Peter, Prince of the Apostles. Fr. Pujol drew upon an ancient tradition found in the writings of St. Clement of Alexandria (3rd c.) – and a view acknowledged by St. Jerome to have been held by certain writers in his own time (c.340-420 A.D.). Though St. Jerome himself thought that Peter and Cephas mentioned in St. Paul's letters were the same person, he acknowledged that:

"There are those who think that Cephas, whom Paul here writes that he resisted to the face, was not the Apostle Peter, but another of the 70 disciples so called, and they allege that Peter could not have withdrawn himself from eating with the Gentiles, for he had baptized Cornelius the Centurion, and on his ascending to Jerusalem, being opposed by those of the circumcision who said, 'Why hast thou entered in to men un-circumcised and eaten with them?', after narrating the vision, he terminates his answer thus: 'If, then, God hath given to them the same grace as to us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I should withstand God?' On hearing which they were silent, and glorified God, saying: 'Therefore to the Gentiles, also, God hath given repentance unto life'. Especially as Luke, the writer of the history, makes no mention of this dissension, nor even says that Peter was at Antioch with Paul; and occasion would be given to Porphyry's blasphemies, if we could believe that Peter had erred or that Paul had impertinently censured the Prince of the Apostles."

The noted 19th c. Catholic apologist, Paul Schanz, in his "Christian Apology", vol. III, page 462, echoed other prominent Catholic writers in observing that:
"Some of the Fathers have tried to solve the difficulty (presented by the Galatians' account) by a distinction between Cephas and the Prince of the Apostles, or by representing the whole dissension as a simulation."

This latter explanation was that of St. Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of his time, and who disputed St. Augustine's interpretation which involved St. Augustine's praising St. Peter for his humility in accepting the sharp rebuke of his fellow-Apostle.

It is fascinating to see how the Fathers of the Church who accepted the identity of Peter and Cephas came to contradictory explanations of the alleged dispute between Peter and Paul. Though they bent every effort not to disparage Peter's Primacy among the Apostles, there is no question that the Galatians' incident has always been seized upon by enemies of the Faith to discount Peter's supremacy of authority in the Apostolic College.
That Peter and the Cephas (of Antioch and Corinth) are two different personages needs to be seriously re-examined and not be testily dismissed as a "cockeyed theory" by a recent contributor to a "traditionalist" publication which only too often takes upon itself the role of a Paul castigating the present successor of Peter.

In a response to my critic, Mr. Charles Hart replied appropriately:

"The word Cephas appears only 9 (8?) times in the entire New Testament; and 8 (7?) of those are in St. Paul's letters (Galatians and I Corinthians). The sole exception is in St. John's Gospel (1:42) where it is immediately translated for the reader's benefit, to "Petros" – since "Cephas" would not have conveyed Simon's designation as Rock to the Greek-speaking audience to whom John's written Gospel is addressed. It should be observed that the name "Cephas" which St. Paul uses 4 times in I Corinthians and 4 (3?) times in Galatians is not a translation of the name "Rock" which Our Lord conferred on Simon – that name in Aramaic is Kepa and "Cephas" is a transliteration – not a translation – into phonetically adaptable Greek. A Greek reader – in the absence of translation – would have no reason to think that "Cephas" means "Petros" – which is, of course, the Greek translation of Kepa.

We see in St. John's Gospel, therefore, that the meaning of the title (or office) which Our Lord conferred on Simon had to be translated if it were to retain its significance. Thus, if a person's given name in Aramaic were Kepa it would be transliterated into "Cephas" for Greek-speaking Christians, — which is just what we find in St. Paul's letters. But, if the title of his office, in Aramaic, were Kepa (so that it is the title's meaning which is important) that title must be translated to "Petros", just what we find in St. John's Gospel."

The upshot of all the above is that in Gal. 2:7-14 where Petros is mentioned and then followed by a shift to Cephas, two distinct personages are differentiated. Similarly, there is reason to believe that in Gal. 2:9 – "James and Cephas and John" – these are not the three Apostles, but rather Judaizers disputing Paul's authority in the matter of circumcision.

Fr. Pujol's thesis is reinforced by such observations as the following:

 Whether the dispute at Antioch between Paul and Cephas occurred before or after the Council of Jerusalem, it was chronologically impossible that Peter could have been there at either time.

 The assumption that Peter and Cephas were the same person is dependent upon the Antioch incident occurring after the Council of Jerusalem (with Peter strangely subverting the Council's decree for which he was largely instrumental in obtaining). The fact is that the Antioch incident must have taken place before the Council of Jerusalem at a time, however, when Peter could not have been present in Antioch.

 If the "New American Bible" (NAB) is correct in stating that the James of Gal. 2:9 – "James and Cephas and John" – could not have been the Apostle James the Less, why jump equally to the conclusion that the Cephas in the passage was the Apostle Peter, or that "John" was the Apostle? Moreover, "reputed to be pillars" is a strange expression to apply to Apostles whose role as foundations of the Church was indisputable. The expression rather smacks of irony as applied by Paul to his three Judaizing opponents.

 The word-order of personages (in I Cor. 1:11-13 and 3:21) further militates against Cephas' identification with Peter whose primacy as first and chief of the Apostles would ordinarily have received due recognition.

 Both I Cor. 9:15 and I Cor 15:5 are better interpreted as viewing "Cephas" as someone distinct from the Apostles.

 The common opinion identifying Peter and Cephas has been based on the supposition that the name Cephas was borne by only one person in history, Simon Peter. The name Kepa (Kephas or Cephas) was surely more common than has been thought. Fr. Joseph A. Fitzmeyer has noted an ancient non-Palestinian Aramaic legal document (dated c. 416 B.C.) which witnesses to the existence of "Aqab, son of Kepa" (See his "To Advance the Gospel", Crossroad, N.Y., 1981).

 Lastly, as Fr. Pujol has insisted, the "vulgar confusion" of Cephas with Peter was fostered by a faulty reading of Scripture resulting from the error of early Greek and Latin copyists who substituted Petros for Cephas and Cephas for Petros in various passages in Galatians.

It is not surprising that some of the Fathers (and later commentators) were misled in identifying two distinct personages.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Para Ahli Bicara Soal Makam St.Paulus

Affirms Rome's Centrality to Christianity

VATICAN CITY, JULY 6, 2009 (Zenit.org).- A Vatican spokesman is affirming that recent discoveries confirm Rome's centrality to Christianity due to the presence and veneration of the tombs of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, stated this on the latest episode of "Octava Dies," a weekly Vatican Television program.
He focused his commentary on results of scientific research regarding the remains contained in the sarcophagus under the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls.
The priest noted that Benedict XVI's announcement of the results "provoked an understandable emotion in the Catholic world at the close of the Pauline year."
At the June 29 vespers service that closed the Pauline Jubilee Year, t he Pope reported the scientific discoveries that "seem to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition which claims that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul."

This "great emotion," Father Lombardi affirmed, is analogous to the reaction surrounding "the major archaeological investigations that took place beneath St. Peter's Basilica following the wishes of Pius XII, which confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that exactly beneath the central altar was the tomb of the Apostle Peter in the ancient Vatican necropolis."Rome is the center of Christianity not because it was capital of the ancient empire," he explained, "but because in it the princes of the Apostles suffered martyrdom and their tombs have always been looked after and venerated."

The spokesman continued, "Even if in our modern culture the veneration of relics is not as much practiced as in the past, the places and concrete mementos of th e life and witness of those who preceded us, the saints in particular, retain great value for understanding our rootedness in the living tradition of the faith."
Referring to the Pontiff's words, the priest affirmed, "Peter and Paul, the rock and the light of proclamation, these disciples of Jesus, who were so different, but in a certain complementary sense, continue attracting our attention and our steps toward Rome 'ad limina Apostolorum' [to the thresholds of the Apostles].

"He concluded, "They remain alive among us to orient and impassion our faith and to re-launch it to the ends of the earth."
--- --- ---
On the Net:
Papal announcement at vespers: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html

Monday, July 6, 2009

Codex Sinaiticus: Alkitab Tertua di Dunia Dionlinekan

London - Sebuah Alkitab berusia 1.600 tahun hari ini dipublish secara online oleh British Library di London. Setiap pengunjung yang masuk ke situs www.codexsinaiticus.org akan bisa melihat kumpulan naskah yang diyakini sebagai Alkitab tertua di dunia ini.

Sebanyak 800 halaman naskah Codex Sinaiticus (naskah manuskrip lengkap Perjanjian Baru dari abad ke-4) akan menguak perkembangan agama Kristen. Selain untuk membuka jendela pengetahuan bagi masyarakat luas, naskah ini juga sebagai bukti bagaimana teks Alkitab telah ditransmisikan dari generasi ke generasi.

"Ketersediaan naskah virtual agar bisa dipelajari oleh para pelajar di seluruh dunia, sehingga membuka kesempatan penelitian bersama yang dalam beberapa tahun lalu tidak mungkin terjadi," ujar Dr Scot McKendrick, kepala bagian naskah barat di Perpustakaan Inggris (British Library).

"The Codex Sinaiticus adalah salah satu harta karun tertulis paling berharga di dunia." tambahnya seperti yang dilansir detikINET dari BBC, Senin (6/7/2009).

The Codex Sinaiticus sendiri ditulis tangan dalam bahasa Yunani di pertengahan abad ke-4 dalam kertas yang berasal dari kulit.

Sebanyak 800 dari 1.460 halaman aslinya yang dirilis online tersebut tersebut merupakan hasil jerih payah bersama institut-institut dari Inggris, Jerman, Mesir dan Rusia yang mengumpulkan tiap potongan dengan hati-hati.

Jika pengunjung bingung dengan bahasa Yunani, versi terjemahannya akan segera menyusul. ( sha / faw )

Sumber:http://www.detikinet.com/read/2009/07/06/152601/1159870/398/alkitab-tertua-di-dunia-dionlinekan

Hidup Di Tengah Budaya Dekristenisasi

Britain’s Leaders Warn of the Loss of Common Values


By Father John Flynn, LC

ROME, JULY 5, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The decline of Christianity and moral values in general is reaching new lows in Britain. While the number of faithful has been decreasing for some time now, warnings about the situation are starting to come from all quarters.

Britain is no longer a Christian nation, affirmed Anglican bishop, Paul Richardson, in an article published Jun. 27 in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper.

The Anglican prelate was also critical of his fellow bishops for not understanding just how serious the change is in contemporary culture, and for their lack of action in dealing with this serious crisis of faith.

Only around 1% of Anglicans attend Sunday services on average, according to Richardson. "At this rate it is hard to see the church surviving for more than 30 years though few of its leaders are prepared to face that possibility," he warned.

He also noted that out of every 1,000 live births in England and Wales in the period 2006-07 only 128 were baptized as Anglicans. This compares to 609 per thousand in 1900.

Just the day before, in the Times newspaper, Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, deplored the lack of a shared moral code in Britain.

Reflecting on the current financial crisis and the recent revelations of scandals over Parliamentarians' expenses, he commented that these and other problems have resulted in a loss of trust in society.

There is an underlying problem, however, that is much more serious, he said: the loss of the traditional sense of morality.

We are very moral in some things, such as world poverty and global warming, the rabbi contended, but these are remote and global. Sacks declared that when it comes to matters closer to our own lives we have lost our sense of right and wrong regarding our personal behavior.

"Instead, there are choices. The market facilitates those choices. The state handles the consequences, picking up the pieces when they go wrong," the Jewish leader observed.

It's no use just treating the symptoms with more laws and surveillance systems. "Without a shared moral code there can be no free society," Sacks argued.

Who's that?

While opinion polls have limitations, a couple recent surveys provided confirmation of the warnings by religious leaders. A study carried out by Penguin books, albeit in conjunction with a promotion of a recent book on the topic, said that nearly two-thirds of teenagers do not believe in God.

According to the Jun. 22 report in the Telegraph newspaper the study of 1,000 teens showed that 59% thought religion has a negative influence on the world.

The survey also revealed that half of those questioned have never prayed and 16% have never been to church.

A week later the Independent newspaper published the results of a survey about Bible knowledge. The Jun. 29 article reported that many are ignorant of the stories and the people who are fundamental to the history of Christianity.

According to preliminary results of the National Biblical Literacy Survey, carried out by St. John's College Durham, as few as 10% of people understood the main characters in the Bible and their relevance.

About 60% were unaware of the story of the Good Samaritan and figures such as Abraham and Joseph were also foreign to many.

According to the Independent's article, Anglican priest David Wilkinson from St John's, said the consequences of such ignorance go well beyond just being unaware of the Bible. Knowledge of these stories and persons in the Bible is essential in order to understand our history and culture, and not least art, music and literature, so much of which is bound up with religious themes, he observed.

This is an ignorance that the well-known proponent of atheism, Richard Dawkins, is trying to promote. A Jun. 28 article published in the Guardian newspaper reported that he is organizing an atheist summer camp this year in England.

Camp Quest UK, will be "free of religious dogma," the article added. Apparently the five-day camp, subsidized by a grant from the Richard Dawkins Foundation, is fully booked

Drifting

The recent warnings from religious leaders followed on the heels of similar expressions of concern. On April 5, Anglican bishop Michael Nazir-Ali published an article in the Telegraph newspaper on the occasion of his resignation as bishop of Rochester.

In his nearly 15 years there he said: "I have watched the nation drift further and further away from its Christian moorings."

This has led, he continued, to a loosening of the ties of law, customs and values, and also to a loss of identity and cohesiveness. Similar to Rabbi Sacks, he commented that society needs a "social capital of common values and the recognition of certain virtues which contribute to personal and social flourishing."

"Our ideas about the sacredness of the human person at every stage of life, of equality and natural rights and, therefore, of freedom, have demonstrably arisen from the tradition rooted in the Bible," he added.

Bishop Nazir-Ali observed that the Anglican church is growing rapidly in places such as Africa. Perhaps they have a lot to teach the Western churches, he concluded.

Selling its soul

The new Catholic leader of England and Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichols addressed the same topic shortly before becoming the archbishop of Westminster.

In an article published by the Telegraph newspaper on Mar. 29 he affirmed that Britain has sold its soul b y pursuing a purely secular reason over religion.

As a result, faith is now confined to a purely private pursuit and values are drawn from secular and material sources.

Not only do Britain's politicians live in a purely secular and material world, but they also do not allow for a mature consideration of the key role of religious belief in society, he contended.

The affirmations by Archbishop Nichols were published in a recent book of essays titled "The Nation That Forgot God."

In common with the other religious leaders Archbishop Nichols also pointed out the lack of social cohesion that results when there are no shared moral principles and values. The secular, liberal view of the human person is mistaken and simply won't work, he argued.

Unfriendly

His predecessor, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, was of similar views. In a report last Dec. 6 by the Telegraph newspaper he commented that Britain has become an "unfriendly" p lace for religious people to live in.

His comments also came from a contribution to a book of essays, "Faith in the Nation."

The rise of secularism has resulted in a society hostile to Christianity, and in general, religious belief is looked upon as "a private eccentricity."

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor also noted that atheism is now more aggressive and that there is now a vocal minority who argue that religion has no place in modern society.

Statistical evidence backs up his concerns. The number of marriages being celebrated in Catholic churches in England and Wales has fallen by a quarter over the last decade, the Telegraph reported, Jan. 8.

In the year 2000 there were 13,029 Catholic marriages, compared to 9,950 last year. Only one in three marriages in England and Wales are now in the form of a religious ceremony, according to the Telegraph.

Evidence abounds of the severe decline in religion in Britain, and the repeated declarations by church leaders point to a growing awareness of the urgency of the situation. What is more elusive is identifying how to turn the trend around.