Simon of Cyrene

So much of Christian theology is based on the cross. So what are we to make of Simon of Cyrene, who actually carried the cross, at least part of the way?

A great question. One I have never considered.

Perhaps Simon points to the human side of Christ's work. His pain, weakness, exhaustion.

Yet we are already told that the crucifixion is the ultimate symbol of his sacrifice and humanity. Particularly, we are told to take up our own crosses, to bear our troubles as Christ bore his. We are told Jesus paid the ultimate price by dying, but here we have Simon paying a price, just as many of his followers-- Peter, the guilt of denial, Judas the price of betrayal (he takes his own life). I grew up Catholic, where there is alot of emphasis on the crucifixion, as well as on sin. Personally, this is why I'm more of an Easter person. I don't want to suffer always, and if I have to suffer, that suffering isn't for or in imitation of Jesus. I feel I have more empathy/identification with the Virgin Mary. Or even Job. Its hard to believe Christ's message was that we all have to suffer if we want eternal life, something I believe we have already. My Jesus is the one of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Beatitudes and the Resurrection. Forgive me if I have gone on too long. Also, please no anti-Catholic responses, people.

I think to take up the cross of Christ means that when we become followers of his, we will see the world through his eyes. The difference between how things are in this world and how things could be are painful to the believer, causing suffering. This spurs us on to work to make the world a better place, to work along side Jesus to bring the ideal closer to reality. This is fulfilling Christ's call to take up the cross. While this is a heavy responsibility, it's also a great gift. To paraphrase Jesus, "...no longer do I call you servant, but brother and sister."

If this is the Simon mentioned in Romans, it would seem he indeed became a follower of Jesus.

Was Jesus not able to carry his cross?

Does that perhaps mean we are not required to carry our own cross? At least not alone? That others might help?

pmackey-- i'm familiar with that argument but the Buddha says suffering is a fact of life, too, and somehow there is no guilting people about "original sin" or "judgement day".

Richard-- I love your comment, about not carrying the cross alone.

>6 emthefemme:

There are many interpretations of original sin, different probably from the ones that you and I were taught in our Catholic upbringing. I don't think original sin is about guilt, but rather it is a way of expressing the alienation in our lives - from self, from each other, from the environment, from God. It can also be seen as an expression of social or systemic evil, which we all share responsibility for in some way as part of society.

Richard Rohr refers to original sin in his daily meditation today, although I have to concede that his thinking is often pushing the boundaries;

The message of falling down is very counter-intuitive, yet it is found in most of the world's religions, especially Christianity. We grow spiritually much more by doing it wrong than by doing it right. That might just be the central lesson of how spiritual growth happens, yet nothing in us wants to believe it. I actually think it is one of the only workable meanings of "original sin." There seems to have been a fly in the ointment from the beginning, but the key is recognizing and dealing with the fly rather than throwing out the whole ointment! Falling down is how humans come to consciousness.

Original sin comes up from time to time in conversations on the Catholic Tradition group but I can't remember exactly where.

johnthefireman-- thank you for that. I also have ambivalent feelings about Richard Rohr, but I do own an excellent book of his about the meaning of Job, and suffering in general. It is interesting that the "fall" metaphor is used to describe both Adam and Eve's fall and the fall of Lucifer. Why does God always have to be vertical and external, rather than a being in the world, and also within each of us?

>8 emthefemme: Why does God always have to be vertical and external, rather than a being in the world, and also within each of us?

God is both. Our tradition contains both the immanence and transcendence of God. Unfortunately the transcendent seems to have got most of the attention.

do you know of any philosophers/religious books that address immanence?

There seems to be a whole genre of writings on immanence and experience the spirit. Would Fox, Merton, and Rohr fall under that idea.

One might go back a bit and look at Brother Lawrence, John of the Cross, and Teresa of Avila?

I am familiar with all those authors except Fox and Brother Lawrence.

>11 richardbsmith:

Thanks, Richard.

Julian of Norwich, Meister Eckhart, Hildergard of Bingen, the author of The Cloud of Unknowing

I'd have to go back to my catalogue to check on other modern authors, but I agree about Matthew Fox, Thomas Merton, and Rohr.

You have probably heard of Matthew Fox - Cosmic Christ.

And Brother Lawrence is my pick of them all - Practice the Presence of God.

All those John mentioned. And I like especially Cloud of Unknowing.

>14 richardbsmith:

The first book that always comes to my mind when I think of Fox is Original Blessing, which is pertinent to a conversation on original sin - I had forgotten Cosmic Christ.

But thinking of Cosmic Christ immediately brings to mind Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

thank you both for those excellent recommendations. I am going to get Fox and Chardin.

As a matter of interest, Rohr's daily meditations are somehow related to this all week - eg today.

Both the pious Pharisees and the Publicans were serving Empire. Usually in the gospels Jesus DOES tell people to "repent, and sin no more" as a condition of his mercy. But sometimes he just loves being contrary, even if he is contradicting himself. Its one thing to say Therese had sinful urges and surrendered herself to grace, its another to act on those urges and surrender to God's grace. It sounds like the former.

>6 emthefemme: I'm afraid I'm missing the connection to original sin or judgment day and my post (4).

Suffering is universal, unfortunately, to the human condition. I think the Buddhist approach to inappropriate desires is good, as is the Stoic's indifference to things beyond our power to change. The difference is suffering for things you shouldn't want or are bad for you is a waste of time, whereas suffering because you follow Christ results in good. But I want to draw a line because I've seen some Christians who seem to seek it out purposely and make mountains out of mole hills.

There are different kinds of suffering. For example, I suffer when I realize I've screwed up (sometimes on purpose because I enjoy the sin) and have to face how far off the mark I am. This suffering is because I realize I let God down and leads to repentance. Another type of suffering is far worse (IMO) such as the killing of Iraqi or Pakistani Christians because they're Christians. The specific type of suffering I was focused on in my post is the suffering we feel when we see how far the present world is from God's Kingdom. It's the suffering we experience observing others' suffering in this world of sin. In response to seeing the disconnect of is and ought.

thanks pmackey.

>20 emthefemme:

A concentration only on Jesus as an atonement for our sins can definitely give the impression of him as an unnecessary middleman.

I would see him rather as an expression of God with us and indeed God in us. In the divinisation concept of the eastern Church, the Christ is who we aspire to be. In the Cosmic Christ of Teilhard de Chardin (and probably Fox - it's so long since I've read his views on the Cosmic Christ that I can't remember the details), he is the Omega Point to which the Universe is evolving. Contemplating the opening of John's Gospel ("In the beginning was the Word") and other texts pointing to Christ the Alpha and Omega, the eternal Logos, etc, would perhaps bear fruit as you continue on your faith journey.

Grateful for your comments johnthefireman. Why can't God be the Alpha and Omega though? What I am searching for is the particularity of Christ. Was he just another Jewish rebel? How can I know for sure he is God? I prayed only to Mary growing up. I have never had a strong, unambivalent relationship with Jesus. I remember a huge crucified Jesus hanging above everything in my church. I remember feeling oppressed by this silent, suffering man who seemed to be doing nothing to help me in my suffering. I have experienced Mary's and God's miraculous intercession, but nothing of Jesus.

Some of the writers mentioned above might help. It might be something to consider to do a daily devotional, like John linked for Rohr.

Perhaps even more helpful would be resources at your local church.

My thoughts though, it matter less the name that you address your prayers to than it matters the intention of your prayer.

thanks, Richard. No, my local church would not be helpful, for reasons I don't want to go into.

I've found great help in reading Introduction to the Devout Life by Francis de Sales and the The Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis. Same with Revelations of Divine Love by Julian of Norwich. It's helpful to revisit some of the great classics of Christian thought. I'm reading Catherine of Siena from which I'm getting a lot, but she gets into details and repeats herself a bit. She has some good insights on suffering for Christ, and Christ as the bridge between humanity and God.

One caveat I have for the books I suggest is to get readable translations.

Regarding your local church not being helpful... church is like family and can be complicated: You should love them, but you don't always like them.

pmackey-- thanks for the recommended reading. As for my local church, my family have not gone there in 24 years due to abuse.

>26 emthefemme:

Of course I have no idea of your circumstances or your location, but are there other churches within reach that you could explore? When I was growing up your local parish was your parish and that was it; there were no other options. Nowadays it is much more common for people to find a parish where they feel comfortable, even if it involves driving some distance. Geographical church communities are giving way to "intentional" communities.

Have you thought about doing a retreat at a religious community somewhere? Spending a few days with a wise spiritual accompanier can sometimes help to see more clearly. During certain periods of my life I have had a spiritual director, a nun or priest whom I meet regularly (anything from weekly to once every six to eight weeks, depending on the dynamics at that time), just to talk my spiritual journey through with them as I seek clarity.

For several years I attended a church an hour away in San Francisco, where I got confirmed. Then I went away to college and stopped attending church. About a year ago I attended a few masses at a church in Oakland, but ended up having anxiety and breaking down in tears. As for retreats, I've considered them but feel they would be a bigger risk, because if something goes wrong, you are just stuck there. I have been thinking about looking for a new church again. I am an introvert and don't know if church is the right path, as I feel a lot of anxiety, but I will consider going to a new one.

>28 emthefemme:

I'm so sorry to hear about the abuse, and it's understandable that going to church raises such anxiety.

Have you thought about engaging with a nun to talk it through, as a first encounter with the church? US sisters are renowned for their openness, and are very aware of issues around abuse. I work with some first-rate US sisters in South Sudan. If it would be helpful to you I could ask them for contacts within their own religious orders in the San Francisco area. Maybe they could recommend a sister or a community that you could talk to about your journey.

>28 emthefemme: You are not alone. We are here and praying for you. It breaks my heart that the church itself can be an obstacle. I think JohntheFireman offers good advice.

God bless, heal and comfort you.

Regarding looking for a new church, that can be challenging- especially for an introvert. I'd suggest you look close to your spiritual roots first. Catholic? Or you may want to look into an Episcopal church. Finding a new church home is challenging and scary. I remember when I did it back in my 30s. Daunting, but it was worth it.

You're encouraging me, too, because you remind me how much I miss going regularly. I was very active in my Episcopal parish until about 10 years ago. I burned out. It's time to go home. Being a lone ranger is hard.

thanks for both your prayers and offers. As I search, I will ask if I need any additional help. I have a few ideas for churches, and I will let you both know how it turns out.

ACTS 13.1 tells us “Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.”

My question is; when Jesus called Simeon “Niger”, how did he pronounce it? “ Simeon, you’re always calling yourself 'my Niger', help me with this cross".

Inspired, God (2011-01-08). Bible (KJV with Apocrypha) (best navigation with Direct Verse Jump) (Kindle Locations 56051-56054). OSNOVA. Kindle Edition.