It Is Good That We Are Here

Make your own jokes about my having been put on penicillin for a week, but the requirement not to eat for at least two hours before taking it or an hour afterwards makes it a splendid aid to Lent.

At the Transfiguration, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him,” echoes Abraham to Isaac, God’s adoption of King David, His words to the Suffering Servant in Isaiah, and the voice at the Baptism of Jesus. It is echoed in the profession of the centurion at the foot of the Cross.

As here, it is with Peter, James and John that Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, and when He raises the daughter of Jairus. Peter is the first to confess Him as the Messiah. James was the first of the Apostles to be martyred. John is preeminent in love for Him, to the point that He entrusts His Mother to him from the Cross. At the Transfiguration, they see Him as our confession of Him, our suffering for Him, and our love of Him, offer us the path to seeing Him. Not for nothing is the Transfiguration the titular feast day of the seat of the Pope, the Archbasilica Cathedral of the Most Holy Saviour and of Saints John the Baptist and John the Evangelist in the Lateran.

Moses and Elijah are of course the Law and the Prophets, fulfilled. And as at the Baptism of Jesus, all Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are present in a manner capable of sensory perception. At the Transfiguration, the Holy Spirit is made manifest as the cloud, from which the voice of the Father is heard.

My friend Fr Dwight Longenecker writes:

At the Transfiguration Christ’s glory is revealed to the Apostles in the midst of Elijah and Moses because they were given the same grace: Moses on Mt Sinai, and then Elijah on Mt Horeb (and did you know that Horeb is just another name for Sinai?).

So Elijah went to the same holy mountain where Moses had encountered God. But their epiphanies were complementary. Moses beheld God in the earthquake, fire and thunder on the mountain. Elijah in the still, small voice.

Both pointed to the coming of Christ the Tiger. He who comes with the power and majesty of God, but in the form of the meek and gentle Master. He is both the Lion of Judah and the Lamb of God.

And:

You probably know that most liberal New Testament scholars don’t have time for miracles. All those miracles stories and supernatural events? They’re all pious fiction. Somebody made it up. It’s “mythical.” 

They say the early Christians added that fairy tale stuff to make Jesus more special. They added that stuff to make it seem like he was fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. They cooked up those stories to make him into the Son of God. 

“Pshaw!” they sneer, “It never happened! How gullible are you? C’mon. Get real. He was just an ordinary country preacher who had a run of bad luck.”

They might continue the debunking: “What could be more supernatural than the experience of the Transfiguration? Jesus takes his friends up a mountain and hey! He starts to float off the ground and goes all radiant, and guess what — he conveniently fulfills the prophecy of Daniel who saw a radiant man in the sky who was the Son of God. Then Moses and Elijah appeared — but how did they know they were Moses and Elijah — did they wear labels?”

Okay. Let’s get down to earth a little and look closely at the story. There are five reasons why this story must have happened as it was written. Let’s look at the story from the Gospel of Mark:

Jesus took Peter, James and his brother John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no fuller on earth could bleach them. Then Elijah appeared to them along with Moses, and they were conversing with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus in reply, “Rabbi, it is good that we are here! Let us make three tents: one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” He hardly knew what to say, they were so terrified. Then a cloud came, casting a shadow over them; from the cloud came a voice, “This is my beloved Son. Listen to him.” Suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone but Jesus alone with them. As they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them not to relate what they had seen to anyone, except when the Son of Man had risen from the dead. So they kept the matter to themselves, questioning what rising from the dead meant.

The first reason this must have happened as reported is something New Testament scholars call the “criterion of embarrassment.” Basically, if part of a story puts Jesus or the disciples in a bad light it is not likely to have been either invented or airbrushed. Let’s face it — Peter looks like a dunce in this story. He doesn’t really get what is going on, and puts his foot in his mouth with his comment about building tents for everyone.

Furthermore, this is from Mark’s gospel and the tradition says that Mark’s gospel was based on Peter’s memoirs and sermons. Therefore the homely detail about Peter not knowing which end was up was likely to come from Peter himself. The same goes for the detail at the end that they didn’t have a clue what Jesus was talking about concerning rising from the dead.

The second reason why the story is likely to be true is the “tents” themselves. Mark is writing to a Gentile audience, and like us, they wouldn’t know what on earth the line about the tents is about. In fact Peter was suggesting that he build three little tabernacles for Jesus, Elijah and Moses.

This was like the Tent of Meeting that Moses built when the glory of God came down. This connects with the Jewish feast of Tabernacles when they all built little tents to serve as holy places — like the Tent of Meeting. The fact that this detail was kept in rather than excised for the Gentile audience attests to the story’s authenticity.

Thirdly, Matthew places this story directly after Jesus’ conversation with Peter in which Peter acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah and Jesus says, “You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church.” That Peter not having a clue what was going on is placed directly after the bold claim for Peter in the chapter before indicates that this detail of the story is a direct memory of an eyewitness account — otherwise, Matthew (out of respect for Peter) would have airbrushed that embarrassing detail out of the story.

Fourth: the criterion of impossibility comes into play. Basically, the more supernatural a story is, the less it was likely to have been made up. If someone reports to you that they saw a ghost you tend to believe that they really saw something and had some sort of weird experience because to tell people that you’ve seen a ghost or a Jewish rabbi all radiant like a god is overwhelmingly embarrassing. While you can’t say what happened when weird things are reported, it is very reasonable to say something happened. If people are making up stories they would make up believable ones. Because the transfiguration is so “unbelievable” they must have had a genuine mystical experience.

Finally, the idea that the supernatural stories about Jesus were just a pious fiction or a myth were clearly circulating in the early days of the Church. The first reading from the second epistle of Peter says this:

Beloved: We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

Scholars debate whether 2 Peter is really written by Peter (here’s a good article supporting Petrine authorship) but there is no reason to reject the idea that the epistle at least echoes Peter’s voice and may be based on Peter’s preaching. Therefore we can hear Peter himself correcting any idea that the Transfiguration was some kind of pious fiction.

De-mythologizers? They were clearly around within the first few decades of the Church, and Peter puts paid to the idea that the supernatural dimension to the story is a “cleverly devised myth.” Peter, the first pope, says clearly that he was an eyewitness to that extraordinary revelation. So we should be skeptical of the skeptics.

Most of all we should ask a more fundamental question. “Why do people want to get rid of the supernatural element in religion?” After all, that’s what religion is about. It’s about the encounter between God and human beings, about the interface between this world and the next, the interruption of this order by the divine.

If you get rid of the supernatural from religion, it’s not a religion anymore — it’s just a set of table manners.

Father recommends this book. And Bishop Stephen Wright writes:

On the Second Sunday of Lent we always listen to an account of Jesus’ Transfiguration. It is a foretaste of the glory of the Resurrection that is to come. The disciplines of Lent only make sense because of Easter.

Jesus’ disciples needed this insight into Jesus’ glory. They were tired and had been listening to some hard-hitting teaching from Jesus. Just prior to climbing the hill, Jesus had been teaching them that they must take up their crosses, they must lose their lives to save them, and if they are ashamed of Jesus and his words then the Son of Man will be ashamed of them. Perhaps part of the Lord’s intention in displaying His glory in the Transfiguration was to affirm and reassure his followers. Every Sunday we receive that same affirmation and reassurance from the Lord. We all need it. Every Sunday the glory of the Risen Lord is present in the Eucharist. The Bread and Wine are transfigured into the Body and Blood of the Lord and given to us. The Eucharist is our foretaste of the heavenly banquet that is to come.

Peter, James and John were taken by surprise by the sight of Jesus’ glory. Jesus shows Himself to be the completion of the Law and Prophets as he appears with Moses and Elijah. Struggling for words, Peter suggests, “Let us make three tents,” one for Jesus, Elijah and Moses. Why not mark such a holy event with buildings? Jesus had other ideas, and the cloud, the image of the presence of God, descends and the voice of God is heard, “This is my Son, the Chosen One, listen to him!” The Transfiguration is not a call to build structures rather it is a call to mission, to build the Kingdom of God. We are invited to listen to the Lord and put into practice His ministry here and now. It is a call to mission with Heaven as our focus. As St. Paul writes in our Second Reading,

“But our citizenship is in Heaven, and from it we await a saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body…”

To be a baptised Christian is to have a vocation to build the Kingdom of God here and now. The focus must be mission. Not buildings, not structures, but mission. Buildings and structures serve mission, not the other way round.

Last year I shared with you all an initial vision for us a diocesan family. It was not simply my words but the product of listening and discerning with a cross section of the diocesan family. In summary we offered four major themes for mission: To Walk with Jesus and Enable Others to Encounter Him; To Grow as one Diocesan family – Building Relationships; Forming and Developing People for Mission and Living Justly and Caring for our Common Home.

My hope is that parishes and partnerships will reflect together on the draft Diocesan Vision, engaging in synodal conversations to discern their response. There are resources for these synodal reflections on the diocesan website. I thank those Parish and Partnership Councils who have already begun discernment on the Diocesan Vision and have shared their reflections with me. I invite us all to be involved - people and clergy. We all have gifts and talents to offer. We are all co-responsible for the mission of the Church, which continues Jesus’ ministry.

The third part of our diocesan vision is to form and develop all people for mission. Please discern how you can assist in the mission of your parish and please be generous. Speak with your clergy. Some of us will have more time to offer than others but we can all offer something.

Pope Francis encourages all parishes to have a pastoral council. Indeed, he made them mandatory in his Diocese, Rome. I know many of our parishes have pastoral councils that function well. Many of our parishes also come together to form partnership councils, a welcome outcome of “Forward Together in Hope.” Partnership Councils can discern and co-ordinate mission over a wider area. At a diocesan level I meet regularly with the chairs of the partnership councils that exist. I welcome that forum to listen and share. In effect we have a diocesan pastoral council, which I wish to continue. At our last meeting I was asked what our priority should be now, I replied, “mission, mission, mission.” Without mission it is irrelevant what diocesan structures or buildings we have.

For effective mission, I invite and encourage us all to breathe new life into parish and partnership councils. We need formation to do that. As part of the formation, we will be sharing materials and running pilots with the willing in each deanery. In time these materials, and good practice will be shared across all our parishes and partnerships. I am very grateful to the lay faithful and clergy who have worked hard at putting together such accessible materials to assist us all. If you would like more information, then please contact our Department for Faith and Mission. Materials are on the diocesan website.

There is no one size fits all on offer. Our parishes and partnerships are diverse. However, I trust we can all agree on some basic principles for mission. We are all co-responsible for the mission of the Church. Yes, our responsibilities in so many lay ministries, as deacons, priests and as Bishop are different, but we are all involved. Parishioners and clergy must work together, affirming one another, encouraging one another, caring for one another and lovingly challenging one another to listen to the Lord and carry out his will. Parishes must work ever more closely together in partnerships. Over time parishes will become larger than they are now, as in many cases a partnership becomes a parish. We need to share our human and material resources much better for mission.

Christ’s glory shines in the Transfiguration. We are called to shine with the same glory in our mission. May part of our mission be ever better co-responsible ministry in our parishes and partnerships. May we be open to be transfigured in mission by the Lord.

Therefore:

A bishop’s status is given by the Holy See and not the diocese. The commonly used and standard term “Bishop Emeritus” is not a title bestowed by anyone. Nor is it a judgement of the bishop’s ministry. It is simply a description of the status of particular bishops. It refers precisely to a former diocesan bishop who is still alive and has not been reappointed to another ministry. This description correctly applies to Bishop Robert Byrne and to Bishop Seamus Cunningham.

The diocese will always listen to victim/survivors. The content on the website has been amended in accordance with some of their requests. A bishop’s title is “Right Reverend” and for pastoral sensitivity to victim/survivors that title is not used on the diocesan website. We have also amended texts and removed a photograph in response to concerns raised by victim/survivors. However, the diocese is not prepared to mislead people by giving false information, even if it is requested to do so by victim/survivors.

Master, it is good that we are here.