Was St. James the Just the leader of the early Church–or was St. Peter?
Some claim that it was James, not Peter, who was the leader of the early Church after the time of Christ.
What evidence can they provide for this claim?
And what evidence is there against it?
Which James?
“James” was a common name in first century Judea, and there were several men named James who are mentioned in the New Testament.
Unfortunately, precisely how many Jameses there are many is not clear.
They are described different ways, and it is not clear whether a James described in one passage is the same as the James mentioned in another.
The James who assumed a prominent leadership role in the Jerusalem church after the time of Christ is known as “the brother of the Lord.”
This James is sometimes identified with James the son of Alphaeus, who is also identified with James “the Less.”
However, Benedict XVI noted:
Among experts, the question of the identity of these two figures with the same name, James son of Alphaeus and James “the brother of the Lord”, is disputed [General Audience, Jun. 28, 2006].
Regardless of how this issue is to be settled, there is one James in the New Testament who is clearly not the one in question—James the son of Zebedee, because he was martyred quickly (Acts 12:1-2).
Advocates of the “James not Peter” viewpoint have two major texts that they can appeal to, and neither is very good.
“Sometimes we know what we have to do, but we lack the courage to do it. Let us learn from Mary how to make decisions, trusting in the Lord.” @pontifex, 3 June 2013
“Christ leads us to go out from ourselves more and more, to give ourselves and to serve others.”@pontifex, 4 June 2013
“Care of creation is not just something God spoke of at the dawn of history: he entrusts it to each of us as part of his plan.” @pontifex, 5 June 2013
“Consumerism has accustomed us to waste. But throwing food away is like stealing it from the poor and hungry.” @pontifex, 7 June 2013
“With the “culture of waste”, human life is no longer considered the primary value to be respected and protected.” @pontifex, 9 June 2013
In 1992, actor Michael O’Hare was cast as Commander Jeffrey Sinclair, the lead character on the television program Babylon 5.
He remained with the show for its first season and then was suddenly written out.
When the second season began, Sinclair was replaced by Capt. John Sheridan, played by Bruce Boxleitner.
While I very much enjoyed Boxleitner’s performance, I–like all the existing fans–wondered what happened to O’Hare.
The truth is something I never guessed . . .
What People Did Guess
The leading theory in fandom was that the executives at Warner Brothers (or its subsidiary PTEN, which ran Babylon 5) had demanded that O’Hare be fired and replaced.
According to the common account, the show was struggling to get off the ground, and O’Hare’s performance was thought to be a drag on it.
A new, more likable main character needed to be brought in, and so the stoic Sinclair was replaced by the ebullient Sheridan.
It was thought that this was unfair to O’Hare, because he had been intentionally asked to play a character who was wounded.
The Battle of the Line
Sinclair had fought at the Battle of the Line, when the Minbari nearly destroyed Earth.
Something mysterious happened to him during this battle, and his memories of it had been erased.
The result left him one of the walking wounded.
During the first season of the show, cracks began to appear in the wall that had been built in his mind, and his memories began to resurface, bit by bit.
In one episode in particular, a covert group of agents from Earth put him through a kind of psychological torture in an attempt to force his memories to resurface.
Because he was mentally injured by the mysterious thing that happened to his character at the Battle of the Line, O’Hare was asked to initially play the part as solemn and reserved.
The idea was that he would open up as his character arc progressed and as he learned what had happened to him and he dealt with it.
By the end of the first season, he was less stiff and formal than he had been at the beginning. The loosening up was happening.
It seemed unfair that, just as the character was reaching this point in his personal story arc, he was written out by the executives’ demands.
Not the First Time
It wouldn’t have been the first time that this kind of thing happened in a television series–or even a science-fiction series.
In the long-running BBC Doctor Who franchise, the sixth actor to play the Doctor–Colin Baker–had been asked to play a deliberately abrasive Doctor in 1984.
When he was first introduced, he acted arrogant and erratic and physically attacked his uncomprehending companion.
He also declared: “I am the Doctor, whether you like it . . . or not!”
It seemed like a deliberate affront to the fans of the show, who immediately began to complain about the “unlikeable Doctor.”
The idea was that the arrogant, erratic Doctor would eventually be transformed into a likable one over the course of his character arc, but this wasn’t clear to the viewers, many of whom had a strongly negative reaction.
The show suffered as the result of this disastrous creative decision, and Colin Baker was fired in 1986 and the part went to Sylvester McCoy.
O’Hare’s Departure
Had the same thing happened on Babylon 5?
Had J. Michael Straczynski’s (JMS’s) creative decision to introduce Cmdr. Sinclair as an initially stiff, wounded character doomed him, just as he was starting to loosen up on the show?
This is what a lot of fans thought.
Their speculation seemed confirmed when, after O’Hare’s departure was announced, JMS took out an ad in the Hollywood newspaper Variety (if I recall correctly) endorsing Michael O’Hare, seeking to help his career as an actor.
It looked like JMS and O’Hare were on the same side against “the suits.”
Truth Is A Three-Edged Sword
But it turned out that the truth is something far stranger . . . and more tragic.
It can only be told now that O’Hare has passed away.
Michael O’Hare suffered a heart attack in September 2012 and died a few days later.
Just a couple of weeks ago, at a science-fiction convention in late May 2013, JMS revealed the truth that had been hidden all these years.
Between the Darkness and the Light
According to Wikipedia:
During the filming of the first season of Babylon 5, O’Hare began exhibiting symptoms of schizophrenia.
Halfway through filming, his hallucinations worsened and the stress of playing a character who was suffering from a similar mental illness was becoming overwhelming.
Remember that O’Hare was being asked to play the character of Sinclair, who had been psychologically wounded at the Battle of the Line and who now was suffering with breakthrough memories caused, in part, by the attempt of sinister, persecuting government agents to force his missing memories to the surface.
It became increasingly difficult for O’Hare to continue work, his behavior was becoming increasingly erratic and he was often at odds with his colleagues.
O’Hare sought treatment for his mental illness, but feared that, as the main character of Babylon 5, taking an extended medical leave of absence would destroy the show just as it was getting off the ground.
This brings us to the same point that many fans suspected: the future of the show was in question.
Only instead of it being O’Hare’s on-screen performance as judged by executives that was a threat to the show, it was O’Hare’s psychological health, as judged by O’Hare himself that was the threat.
Acts of Sacrifice
So what happened next?
J. Michael Straczynski, the show’s creator and main writer, offered to suspend the show for several months to accommodate O’Hare’s treatment; however O’Hare refused to put so many other people’s jobs at risk.
Straczinski agreed to keep his condition secret to protect O’Hare’s career.
O’Hare agreed to complete the first season but would be subsequently written out of the second season so that he could seek treatment.
The Long, Twilight Struggle
According to Wikipedia:
He reappeared in a cameo appearance early in season two and returned in season three for the double episode War Without End which closed his character’s story arc.
He made no further appearances in Babylon 5.
Although his treatments were somewhat successful, he was never fully cured.
On his return to Babylon 5, Straczinski promised again that he would keep his condition secret to his grave.
O’Hare told him to “keep the secret to MY grave” pointing out that fans deserved to eventually learn the real reason for his departure, and that his experience could raise awareness and understanding for people suffering from mental illness.
On May 25th 2013, Straczynski fulfilled his end of the promise and finally revealed the reasons behind O’Hare’s departure from Babylon 5.
Beyond the Rim
Here’s the video of JMS explaining what happened to Michael O’Hare and the other actors from the series who have passed, including Richard Biggs (Stephen Franklin), Jeff Conaway (Zack Allen), and Andreas Katsulas (G’Kar).
Discussion of Michael O’Hare’s departure begins at 9:40.
Is the Catholic Church the one, true Church? Here are 7 things to know and share with others . . .
In today’s brave new world of ecumenism, the Catholic Church no longer claims to be unique, right?
After all, Vatican II didn’t say that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
It merely said that the Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church.
So that means the Catholic Church no longer views itself as the “one true Church,” right?
Not so fast . . .
1. The Source of the Issue
The source of the issue is found in Vatican II’s dogmatic constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, where we read:
8. This Church [the Church of Christ] constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.
These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.
2. “Subsists In”?
The matter would be much clearer if the Council had used the traditional language of saying that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
Instead, they use the unfamiliar wording “subsists in” (Latin, subsistit in) instead of “is” (Latin, est).
This can make it appear that the Council was backing away from the claim that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, and many people–including Catholic theologians–took it in precisely this way.
Did Pope Francis intentionally poke Protestants in the eye?
Did Pope Francis intentionally poke Protestants in the eye?
In a recent column, Presbyterian Bill Tammeus appeared to accuse Pope Francis of “intentionally offering a poke in the eye to people outside your faith tradition.”
He asks if Pope Francis is “saying that I, as a Presbyterian, cannot follow Jesus outside of Catholicism? That’s what he appears to be claiming, and I think it’s a dicey position to highlight so early in his papacy.”
Did Pope Francis “intentionally“ poke Protestants in the eye? Did he say that Presbyterians cannot follow Jesus?
Ever since the start of the Protestant Reformation nearly 500 years ago, Protestants have been understandably dismissive of the idea that the Roman Catholic church is the only true Christian church.
I hope that Tammeus realizes that this is not what the Catholic Church claims. That’s too simplistic (see below).
And yet the leaders of the Catholic church have made that claim persistently over time in various ways.
Oops. Maybe not. Well, I certainly hope he at least understands that this is not the way the Magisterium articulates the issue.
The [way leaders of the Catholic Church have made that claim] that stirred up the most resentment under Pope John Paul II was contained in Dominus Iesus, issued in August 2000 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI.
The declaration said churches outside the Catholic church “are not Churches in the proper sense.”
Okay.
Mr. Tammeus: It is my great pleasure to inform you that your concerns are to a substantial degree misplaced.
“Dear young people, the Church expects great things of you and your generosity. Don’t be afraid to aim high.” @pontifex, 28 May 2013
“The Church is born from the supreme act of love on the Cross, from Jesus’ open side. The Church is a family where we love and are loved.” @pontifex, 29 May 2013
“The whole of salvation history is the story of God looking for us: he offers us love and welcomes us with tenderness.” @pontifex, 31 May 2013
“In this Year of Faith, we pray to the Lord that the Church may always be a true family that brings God’s love to everyone.” @pontifex, 1 June 2013
“The world tells us to seek success, power and money;
God tells us to seek humility, service and love.” @pontifex, 2 June 2013
An image from the recent worldwide Eucharistic exposition.
This Sunday I went out for breakfast after Mass, which is something I very rarely do.
I almost never eat out, but I decided to do so as a way of celebrating the Lord’s Day.
While I was waiting in the restaurant, I was reading Facebook and discovered that the planned worldwide, Eucharistic exposition was going on right then–a fact I had not previously known.
Here are a few thoughts on the event . . .
1) These are the days of miracle and wonder.
As I sat in the restaurant, I downloaded, for free, The Pope App from News.va (iOS version, Android version) to let me watch the event live and then was able to do so–to join countless people from all over the planet in a simultaneous act of worship.
To quote Paul Simon, “These are the days of miracle and wonder.
