Stromatais

Appianopolis

2012-01-19T19:00:00.003-05:00

If I could do the work of Lycurgus in my own country, not to mimic him, but to reform, I would set about to do it in such a fashion as follows. This is, therefore, how I would have men live, insofar as government is concerned, and in a very rough sense. I begin at the bottom and work to the top, as all things must be constructed in similar fashion.

The first thing I would establish is a state religion, to be the foundation for the morality of our laws. Hereby, all matters of politics, civics, and government would be religious matters, matters of piety, and honor. No higher source of law can be asserted than that of divine inspiration, and no greater expedient can be found to producing a lawful spirit in men than piety.

Rape, murder, child molestation, abortion, treason, sedition, all other forms of felonious capital crimes would unconditionally be met with life imprisonment and hard labor in service of the state.

Lobbying would have only one punishment: Public execution.

Absenteeism from one's office, would be punished with nakedness and public fasting.

Politicians would be forbidden to possess money, accept gifts, or hold private office. If found in violation of this rule they would be punished with a life of imprisonment and hard labor in service of the state.

Personal scandal in the life of a politician would be met with exile.

Political parties and factions would be illegal in all shapes and forms, at all levels, and amongst the people. Any attempt to create a party at any level would be punished with a life of imprisonment and hard labor in service of the state.

All unethical news media activity would be punishable with 20 years imprisonment, hard labour in service of the state.

There would be three senates: local, provincial, and national. A senate would be comprised of thirty individuals.

There would be a national triumvirate, with no consular veto.

At the local level, individuals no younger than fifty would be chosen to serve as senator. A local population would be divided into six districts, each of which would give up a citizen to serve as their representative senator, no district ever offering up or having in seat more or less than five such citizens.

Atop the local senate, there would be a local consul appointed by the provincial senate, from amongst the provincial senate. Together with the senate, the consul and the senate would have all legislative, judicial, and executive powers at the local level. The purpose of the consulship would be to steer, for his part, the local senate towards the mutual good of the province and the localities. He would transmit the will of the provincial senate verbatim in the form of proposals, as received from the provincial senate, and have the power to make a number of proposals, equal if necessary to the whole number of proposals introduced by the local senate.

The citizens alone would have unlimited power at the local level to forbid proposed legislation, and only through popular vote by ballot. They would not, however, have the power to introduce proposed legislation; they would only have the power to allow legislation, concerning local matters.

Provincial senates would be selected by the confluence of local senates. All provinces would be divided into six districts, each of which would give up a local senator to serve as their representative provincial senator, no district ever offering up or having in seat more or less than five such citizens. Thus, the number of all provincial senators would be thirty. These senators would live together in strict austerity, in a senatorial complex. When not busied with politics, they would be given to the compulsory and uniformed academic study of logic, history, civics, and metaphysical philosophy.

Atop the provincial senate would be a provincial consul appointed by the national senate, from amongst the national senate. Together with the senate, the consul and the senate would have all legislative, judicial, and executive powers at the provincial level. The purpose of the consulship would be to steer, for his part, the provincial senate towards the mutual good of the province and the nation. He would transmit the will of the national senate verbatim in the form of proposals, as received from the national senate, and have the power to make a number of proposals, equal if necessary to the whole number of proposals introduced by the provincial senate.

The local senates alone would have unlimited power at the provincial level to forbid proposed legislation, and only through popular vote by ballot. They would not, however, have the power to introduce proposed legislation; they would only have the power to allow legislation, concerning provincial matters.

The national senate would be would be selected by the confluence of provincial senates. The nation would be divided into six districts, each of which would give up a provincial senator to serve as their representative national senator, no district ever offering up or having in seat more or less than five such citizens. Thus, the number of all national senators would be thirty. These senators would live together in strict austerity, in a national senatorial complex. When not busied with politics, they would be given to the compulsory and uniformed academic study of logic, warfare, morals, ethics, economy, and politics.

National senators may only be admitted at the age of 60, if they have served honorably as officers in the military, served faithfully since the age of 50 as a senator, have wives and children, and never been divorced for any other reason than their spouse's sexual immorality. Those who are legally separated from their spouses may not serve at any level as a senator, neither shall any one having illegitimately acquired divorce be admitted. Mandatory retirement for all senators would be the age of 80; earlier retirement may be forced if mental deficiency can be demonstrated or there is sufficient cause for concern.

Atop the national senate would be a triumvirate, chosen from among the national senate, by the national senate. The vacancy of the national senatorial seats would be filled by the appropriate districts, as would be the case for the subsequent consular offices of provincial and local governments. Together with the senate, the triumvirate and the senate would have all legislative, judicial, and executive powers at the national level. The triumvirate would have no veto power, but would have only the power to propound solutions to international matters, and have the power to make a number of domestic proposals, equal if necessary to the whole number of proposals introduced by the national senate.

Members of the triumvirate would be in possession of doctorates applicable to their office, be no younger than 60, no older than 75, and would have tenure for two years. They may be elected up to seven times for tenure. If their tenure ends and they are still eligible for office, they may regain their seat in the senate, at that time, by the popular vote of their native provincial district which installed them at the first.

Provincial senates alone would have unlimited power at the national level to forbid proposed legislation, and only through popular vote by ballot. They would not, however, have the power to introduce proposed legislation; they would only have the power to allow legislation, concerning national matters. All international matters would be decided by the confluence of the triumvirate and the senate, alone.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Against Calvinism

2012-01-16T11:01:00.002-05:00

I have in mind to set out plainly what I often say to those who have been deprived, sometimes robbed of an authentic faith, by the heresy of Calvinism. It is the case that often people will feel overwhelmed by the semantics, the conflations, the prevarications, the assumptions, and the general confusion of Calvinism. Not to mention the perplexity the paradox, the heresy of Calvinism brings to the human mind, because of its cruelty and its mercilessness, its uncompromising absolutism. Many people feel a slave to Calvinism, some are never at rest in their own faith and theology (and they ought not be), others don't know how to refute and therefore defend themselves from the blight of this heresy, still others don't know how to save their loved ones from this insidious error. I intend to lay many of these refutations out in the form of syllogism, as it seems most concise, and most effective. So much then for Calvinism and explanations.

The first place to begin is with God, and it seems reasonable to start at the beginning. The greatest question in regards to Calvin's heterodoxy is God's sovereignty. What does it mean? The onus is on the Calvinist to prove that double predestination is a necessary accident of the qualities of God. Further, the onus in on the Calvinist to prove that by predestination it is meant 'double predestination,' and not something more observable, demonstrable, and reasonable.

In order to talk about God's sovereignty, we must talk about what he can do, what he must do, and if there be anything that he cannot do, we must find that, too. We will, we must, take for granted, as a preliminary, that evil is the lack of some good, virtue, or knowledge. This is the classical form of evil, the working model, the very model used by the scholastics and therefore, by John Calvin himself. Indeed, it has always been the view of evil held by Christianity, and therefore does not need to be explained.

So, let us begin briskly, by getting to the quick of it, and saying that God can do anything good, and that he is the cause of every good. Everything which actually exists, or may actually exist owes itself and it's cause to him. Further, let it be stated that all these are accidents of God, not necessary to God: for God is sovereign and without needs. Indeed, nothing can be added to him or taken away. Everything in nature must exist for the sake of itself, God receiving full glory. So much then for what God can do.

For the question of what he must do, the answer is similar. He must do what is right, which is different than what is just. Otherwise, he would not have the capacity for mercy. Therefore, being a just and merciful God, he must do what is right. Being omniscient and benevolent, he can do no wrong, and is without error. But if he predestines all things, then his will is synonymous with the actions, thoughts, and intentions of man, whom Calvin says is 'totally depraved.'

The Calvinist will reply to that sorry fate of the one predestined to be 'a vessel of wrath,' predestined to damnation, without a choice or a chance, other than that of farce," God is sovereign. Who are you to question his ways. And will the pot question the potter, as to why he made it thus?" Then, to add license to this vulgar argument, they will make it an ad verecundiam, implicating St. Paul as the main progenitor of such vulgarity. All this, when it is clear to see that God is merely saying through his servant," I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy." For it is not always right and good to have mercy, least of all upon the unrepentant, nor in the case of the man who will profit more from punishment.

None of this, however, hides the most saline point that if God predestines all things, because he necessarily must as an omnipotent God (if that be an accurate reckoning of what omnipotent implies and means), then it follows necessarily that he is complicit to all the evil of man. But God cannot do nothing, because he is actual. In him there is no admixture of potentiality, so that he is weaker in one moment and stronger in the next; there is no variation in God, and he cannot be weak. Ergo, God cannot do evil, which is the lack of something. So, that God predestines all things, to include the wickedness of man and evils, such as plagues, famines, droughts, death, and damnation is a necessarily false statement.

It seems good to reiterate what I am often saying, here, in this refutation. That is, it is in order to expound on what Almighty God 'cannot' do. Technically, God can do all things, because he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent: He is 'Almighty.' But because of the weakness of our language, bear with me if I say there are things which God cannot do; in particular certain things which cannot be conceived of. God cannot do true paradoxes, he cannot engage in something necessarily false. For instance, God cannot make men who are women, married bachelors, things that are green all over and red all over at the same time, and square circles. God couldn't make a population that is both greater than and less than a given population of other things, nor could he make a universe where there is an unmovable object and an unstoppable force. God cannot make the proposition of this sentence true," This sentence is false." and neither can he make it false. God cannot do true paradoxes, because they are necessarily false. But because they are false, they do not exist, and because they do not exist, they cannot be done or occur. Ergo, by not being able to bring them about, God's sovereignty and omnipotence are not diminished or delimited.

So, it doesn't follow that God predestines all things; and the fact that he doesn't, does not delimit his sovereignty. In fact, the opposite is necessary for God to be God. Let me not delay then, in being more practical and straight to the point:

.1.) Depravity is evil.
:2.) Evil is the lack of something, viz. a 'good.'
.:3.) Existence is something, and therefore a 'good.'
/.:4.) Therefore, to be 'totally depraved' is to be non-existent.

Again...

.1.) Depravity is evil.
:2.) Evil is the lack of something.
.:3.) The total lack of something is nothing.
/.:4.) Therefore, for man to be totally depraved is for man not to exist, at all.
.5) Man exists.
/.:6.) Therefore, man is not totally depraved.

Also, it may be said, according to Catholic orthodoxy, and in opposition to Calvin's heresy...

.1.) Man is not perfectly man, because he is fallen.
/:2.) Therefore, man is depraved.
.:3.) Man cannot be totally depraved, because of the aforesaid syllogisms.
/.:4.) Therefore, it is rightly said that man is depraved in all of his parts; because the body is not man, but the body of a man. Likewise, the soul is not man, but the soul of a man. Hence, he is only totally depraved in relation to the idea that each of his parts is depraved, in particular.
//.:5.) Ergo, no part of man is completely depraved, or that part would not exist. Without each of his parts, man does not exist. Therefore, no man is totally depraved, not even in one of his parts. We've no reason to despair of anyone's salvation, and the whole man may hope in Christ.

Further...

.1.) God is good.
:2.) God is the source of every good.
.:3.) God is not evil.
::4.) God is not the author of evil.
.::5.) Depravity is evil.
/:::6.) Depravity is not of God's authorship.

Also...

.1.) God is the author of predestination.
:2.) God is not the author of depravity.
/.:3.) God does not predestine anyone to depravity.

And, to borrow from a previous writing of mine...

1.) Damnation is justified (right)= Damnation is willed by God.
2.) What God wills is right. (substantive & synthetic)
3.) What God wills is willed by God. (trivial & analytic)
4.) Proposition 3 is identical to proposition 2.
5.) Proposition 2 is both analytic & not analytic (i.e. synthetic). *contradiction, i.e. an untrue statement..)
6.) Damnation is right =/= Damnation is willed by God.

Something which is analytic cannot be synthetic, because an analytic statement is necessarily true all the time and in all possible "worlds," whereas a synthetic statement merely tells us about something that is dependent. So for instance: All bachelors are unmarried males, is an analytical statement. Whereas, to say Scott is a bachelor, is synthetic, because bachelorhood isn't necessary to Scott's existence; it isn't necessarily true. Otherwise, if Scott got married, he would die! He would cease to exist and become a non-person, yeah? So, the Calvinist proposition cannot be true, because it says that," What God wills is right." is both analytic and synthetic, which is contradictory and therefore the conclusion of the premises is false. It can be analytic or it can be synthetic, but it cannot be both.

So, the Calvinist, faced down with all these contradictions and paradoxes, which are necessarily false, may not make himself out to be a martyr of faith, at the murderous hands of reason. It has been demonstrated, and is the case, that God is not lawless, but that because of his own qualities certain ends and causes follow naturally and logically from his person. And the Calvinist may not now despise reason, which they previously attempted to use in their own cause. Calvinism, like all heresies, is devoid of reason. True paradox is the mark of all heresy. If then, faith is all that is left, guilt of another heresy is present, that of fideism. Faith and reason constitute orthodoxy, not one or the other. If we have reason only, we are nothing. And if we have faith only, then we are like the other heresies of Mormonism, Fundamentalist Islam, and Fundamentalism Protestantism.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Enlightenment

2011-08-27T22:10:00.003-04:00

There is a great continuity throughout excellent things, that is easily noticed to the mind that desires to see, to the mind that can see. Enlightenment is a wonderful term, though it has taken on a dubious and inconstant meaning. For the common person the term enlightenment might bring with it notions of the Eastern religions of Hinduism, or Buddhism in all its forms. For a more eurocentric mind the term enlightenment might bring to mind 'The Enlightenment,' or positivism and Darwinism. However, these things do not possess or predicate enlightenment. Enlightenment was not birthed from loins of the religious, nor of intellectuals. It is not an accident of their beliefs, their thoughts and ideas. Enlightenment is something that happens; to be enlightened is to be illuminated with the truth.

So, we must naturally wonder what the purpose of enlightenment is. Why does it happen, and what if it does not happen? What are we to do once we have been enlightened? The light itself is pure, but it comes to us in variation. Whoever sees the light sees the same thing. Let me show however, if I may, a reason for the vicissitude and variability of enlightenment. For, not all who are enlightened are enlightened in the same way or to the same extent, neither do they agree on all things. Imagine that you, being turned away from the sun look into a pane of glass and seeing the sun. Is it truly the sun you see? Are you not rather looking and seeing the sun's reflection? Or imagine those who fixate on sun dogs. If they don't know what they are looking at, is it not possible that they might be confused? Further, if we look upon the sun itself at it's zenith, do we truly see the sun? Or is it not more correct to say that we see the sun's rays? And those who look upon the sun at dawn are likely to see a different sight than those who look upon the sun at noonday or dusk. All the while, the great light itself, the sun, remains unchanged and constant. And while it seems to changes place through the sky throughout the day and the seasons, it never leaves it's perfect place at the center.

Is it any wonder then, that if we should be so prudent as to liken the Truth to the sun, and understand the variance we seem to see in the sky, that we quickly and innately begin to understand why the enlightened do not always agree, and that they are not all enlightened to the same extent? Therefore, let us continue to use this picture for a while. Now, knowing that they all look upon the sun, someone imprudent might say," They are all just different views of the same thing!" In a way they are right, but they leave off the greater portion of knowledge when they make that declaration. Will we not all agree that the one who has seen the sun best is the one who has seen it on the clearest day at a perfect zenith in the center of the sky, when it is at its highest point in the year? Of course we will all agree very quickly. We will say so, even in spite of the man who has seen the sun many times larger as it rises over the ocean or the desert, because we acknowledge that its light is diminished, and for that he sees the sun larger, but because he sees through far more atmosphere which has dimmed and magnified it.

So, who is that man? Who is the man who has seen the sun at it's zenith on the longest day? That man is the one we can trust above all others. We are certain to find him in agreement with the others, because what they know in part, he knows in it's entirety; and because they only know in part, they cannot agree with him entirely. These other men, they might have the knowledge that the sun is round, and bright, but some of them who have seen it on the shortest day are likely to say that it is not overly hot, and at that point they would be incorrect. So, it's very important not to say," They are all just different views of the same thing!" and leave it there. Not if we are to be in perfect possession of the truth. It is paramount that we find that man.

How can we know who is most enlightened? Is it possible to know, while we are yet in darkness? I say it is, and that the way to know is reason. But it all must begin with the sure faith that the enlightening object exists. "Faith seeking understanding." Now, reason is not reasonable if it is not altruistic. To understand that, we must first understand what it really means to be altruistic, by getting a good, fundamental understanding of virtue. Understanding justice would be the beginning of that. By understanding justice, much of the harshness that one sees as gratuitous and cruel in nature, is revealed in fact to be justice. The understanding of the other virtues leads one to see how justice is kept on their side. Finally, there is a revelation of contingent mercy, the greatest altruism.

By focusing on these things carefully and frequently, and letting them flower in the mind, the human intellect builds a framework of conscience, a schematic for what 'the good,' the enlightening factor, might look like. The mind and the heart will, or ought to, recognize the most enlightened religion, the most enlightened philosophy at its first appearance. Such a person will not recoil from them once they've found them due to the presence of mystery, and not because he is imprudent and over happy. Rather, he will be reassured by the mystery that he availed himself properly to those whom he ought. Look at it like this, if we can once more use the sun as a type of 'God.' The man who sees the sun best looks at an orb, but sees a disk; what he sees is not circular, but spherical. Similarly, the enlightened one looks upon one God, but it is a Trinity of persons. This is not only a great mystery, it is the greatest mystery! The man who has truly found it, will be assured by this greatest of mysteries, because he will know that if he can comprehend it, then it is not God. Just as the man who has seen the sun the clearest knows that if you can gaze upon it indefinitely, then you have not seen it clearly.

As soon as that one is enlightened, he will remember those who are still in darkness. He will be driven by the desire to enlighten them. They are likely to hate him for it, just as a person in the dark immediately exposed to brilliant light will hate the person who threw open the door or pulled off their hoods. And if that man gets into the habit of running around yanking the hoods off of the many, they will catch him and punish him for enlightening them. They have always been this way, the both of them, because the good and enlightened man would rather suffer any torture and even death than to let his kin and countrymen stumble around in the darkness trapped in a miserable existence, comforted and crippled at once by the pleasures of the senses. And they would rather kill him, than let him bring them all to suffering, all at once. That is why they killed Christ and Socrates, and all the martyrs since the beginning.

Whoever becomes enlightened and does this work that his mind and his heart and his goodness which he has gained from God implores him to do is a Prometheus, a better friend to mankind than Prometheus. But we can learn from Prometheus, if we notice that he started out with a little flame. St. Francis of Assisi said," It is better to make a little light, than to curse the darkness." How true! If we can but show them a little light, a flame, we might find them willing to share fire. And if we are patient and pass the night with them, they may even consent to the dawn. That's the gracious way, the patient way, the way for most who are enlightened to share the light. By showing them the light, you show them the whole world, and they can discover wonderful things, wonderful things to do in the light, things that were not possible in darkness, things they did not, could not have imagined. The enlightenment and salvation of the human race is the task of the Church given to it by the Father of Lights through the 'Light of the World,' who is Christ, in the Spirit of Truth. "In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it... the true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world." (John 1:4-5,9) And it has come to pass, and you know that, that Light is the life of men. So, you also ought to know that He came not to condemn, but so that mankind might have life and life more abundantly. You must go to make sure that they have it, working in whichever ways are best.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

A Scathing Letter to Myself

2011-08-24T23:33:00.000-04:00

I am never far from you, and I do not think that it is for no good reason that this is the case. So, I think it's right to talk to you, and not only, but that I should be very straight with you in my talking. There are some troubling things which need to be discussed, things you need to hear. I do this not only for your sake, and not only because I'm very capable of doing so with some great clarity, but also for my sake, because you are leading us into ruination through your bad habits. It isn't right of me to let you take us headlong into destruction, especially when all I have to do is say what must be said, and I'm sure you will have to listen, regardless of whether or not you will take what I say to heart.

I have noticed that you are very impetuous. You always set out to do great things that will make you great, but for no other reason than your own comfort, but more frequently because of your easily distracted mind, you fail to do them. For instance, you will devote yourself to reading philosophy, the saints, or scripture, and instead you sleep in like a bum losing valuable time. You know very well that the best time to do such reading, or your prayers is in the morning, so that having set your mind upon these things your day might be conducted and contemplated in the light of whatever your studies contained. Also, you know that it is very profitable to read again at night so that you might make an apt appraisal of how your day has gone, and so that you might take account of how you have conducted yourself. Far too frequently you have been absent from your good commitments. You are to be commended for having a constitution that prompted you to make such a schedule for yourself, but you are to be scolded and chastised for being lazy and not fulfilling it!

Now, at some point you must come to it and reckon what sort of man you are! Are you not man enough to meet these commitments? The frequency of your dereliction bears out that you aren't man enough, that you are indeed impetuous, and that you think more of yourself and your abilities than you ought to. On the other hand, if you are sober in the appraisal of yourself and your abilities, then you need to put your hand to it! You are either cheating yourself, or you are fooling yourself, and neither of those is a good arrangement.

You also do this with your physical regimens. You determine to exercise a certain way, and what do you do? Immediately before you do, you go and sit down at the forum and wait for someone to say something impertinent or fallacious. Why? Are you hoping to find some substitute for excellence in refuting them? Here you have made for yourself a regimen that will produce excellence through vigor and fortitude, that will produce for you the priceless gift of health, and you trade it for the hatred of strangers! Do you really think that anyone appreciates the things you say when you outsmart them, or that they are thankful to you when you expose their error and correct them. Yes, you correct them, indeed, but to what profit? What use is it to you to gawk at the ignorance of others, and for you to hackney the same lessons over and over for the same audience? What use is it to them? You know what John Locke said," It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, but quite another to put him in possession of the truth." And that is precisely what you are doing, everyday, wasting your life. You lose the health exercise will produce in you, and the priceless work ethic that your unwavering devotion to the regimen will produce in you, by exchanging the regimen for the futile and self-glorifying labor of the forum. What? Do you think that you will win excellence there of equal calibur? Don't lie to yourself! It isn't another path to excellence, it is a substitute that you choose out of your own weakness and taste for soft living. Aside from this, it is a completely different species of excellence: one is intellectual and the other is physical. And to be quite frank, you sir, have exhausted the treasury of the forum, and I'm not certain there is even anything for you to gain there, anyway. You're just wasting time and you know it. It's pathetic.

Let us talk, though, about intellectual excellence. If you spent one fraction of the time you do in forums innovating methodology and calling to remembrance the many great lessons you've accumulated for the tutelage of your children, they would outshine their peers unquestionably. Not that we care about to what extent other children shine in relation to our own, as they are not the standard of comparison by any means, but that their early enlightenment and intellectual fluency should be amongst the most sacred of objects in the vocation of fatherhood and family life. If you spent an eighth of the time figuring out the best way to teach as you do on leisure, your children would profit exponentially. And you should not so easily forget that you are blessed enough, or I should say that your children are blessed enough to have demonstrated rare precociousness and aptitude in reasoning and language. What are you doing to cultivate this? Common methods for common children, but yours are not common. What method, then, is commensurate with their ability? "How well are you stewarding this talent?", is what I mean to say. Also, we know well that this means a physical education, what are you doing there? You are limited in what you can expect from them, because they are limited in what they can do. However, you must do something. Ideally, it will have some relation to their intellectual instruction. You need to give far more time and careful thought and administration to these things. You are derelict, and you have been dishonoring yourself as a father.

Onto other forms of leisure and pleasure. You have a couple of habits that must be discussed, the first being smoking. You smoke everyday, one or more cigarettes, usually two or three. Here again, we see your morbid propensity for self-defeating behavior. You don't want to, it is a matter of habit. So, here again, we see your mediocrity and weakness. Why do you workout the way you do, with such intensity, only to countermand the health gotten by it, by smoking those three cigarettes you don't want to smoke? The answer is simple: you are weak willed. That's probably why you have such a strong will in the face of external challenges and trials: you are utterly lacking in will-power over yourself. So, there you go again with your pathetic substitutes. Why don't you be a man, and stop? Why don't you stop acting like an animal, and have some dignity? And you know very well that I am absolutely right, because it's not just the smoking and the forum; you drink too much and are oversexed, too. You sit there all day, fine tuning your wit so that you can play the same old tunes over and over, ever more piercingly, instead of learning something worth while and fresh. And while you sit, you atrophy mentally and physically, and smoke and drink and boil in lust. No, I will not spare you. My words aren't shaming you, your actions are. Blame yourself! It's not like you have any right to be indignant, anyway, as if I've robbed you of something. I've not stripped you of any dignity that you have not already been long without.

If you want to regain that dignity, then you need to learn to use your intellect and your strength to subdue your baser urges. You're very apt in employing yourself on your environment, whatever it may be. But if you can't master yourself, that means nothing. You should have gotten this right first, while practicing the other things. A healthy mind in a healthy body: that is what this is all about. You think you have a clear vision of others, and you do, or at least clearer than most, but that profits nothing at all if you're deluded about yourself. And its no profit if the soul is tyrannized over by the body. It's not supposed to work that way. You need to get a clearer vision of what is going on within you, so that what is within you can govern what is without. Very simple principle, there.

Now, finally, we come to prayer. You've been absent from it. You have for your whole life been give to ejaculatory and personal prayer. Only recently have you been given to the prayers of the Church, novenas and such. You have seen their power, as well. Not infrequently, either, I might add. And yet, you have been virtually absent from all forms of prayer. This is unacceptable. You are to be praying without ceasing. It's not as if you've run out of things to pray for. You need to be praying all the time, especially for purity in all things, because purity comes before all things. To this end, you need to devote yourself to the Rosary, and to Divine Mercy chaplets with greater frequency. Your personal prayers have no reason to languish. There is really nothing to say beyond all this except that you have been derelict.

Now, all these things being said, keep them in mind and act upon them. Never mind other people and their abilities. They are of no consequence when you appraise yourself. God alone is the measure for you and all people. So, it makes no scrap of difference that you are smarter and stronger than most people, especially when it brings no profit for you or them. You are benefactor to humanity through your strength, and your intellect, and your prayers, and all of those things belong to God. You are in possession of those things to help and enlighten people, starting with your family, which includes the Church and then the rest of humanity. But none of that can happen if you don't take care of yourself first. The world is sick to death of people who have run out to save the world and internally are despotic wrecks. Just think of all these religious people who turn out to be sex-crazed drug addicts and perverts. True enough, you aren't a secret whoremonger or a drug addict, but don't think for a second that many of them didn't start out where you are, right now. The only difference between you and them is that you are clever enough to be honest with yourself right now, and you've always been smart enough to keep a short account, but they waited until it was too late. The world also hates high-minded intellectuals, especially ones that are right and convincing. They'll kill you if they get the chance. The only thing that can bring you peace and happiness is being truly and positively virtuous in all things. Learn to love what you must do and doing it well. There's not really much point in saying anything else, so, tighten up and do the right thing.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Platonic Principles

2011-08-17T21:40:00.000-04:00

Principle of Commonality- Whatever several things are F, this is because they participate in or initiate a single idea (form) of F.

Principle of Separation- The idea (form) of F is distinct from all things that are F.

The principle of Self-Predication- the idea (form) of F is itself F.

The Principle of Purity- The idea (form) of F is nothing but F.

Principle of Uniqueness- Nothing but the idea (form) of F is really, truly altogether F.

Principle of Sublimity- Ideas (forms) are everlasting, they have no parts and undergo no change, and they are not perceptible to the senses.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

A Quintessential Solution for the Nation (Satire)

2011-08-16T10:53:00.001-04:00

I have devised a way by which the United States may remedy it's current crisis.
If I do not miss my guess and it is employed, America might serve as a sort of
metronome for other countries which have started down this lamentable path
of irreconcilable bankruptcy and impending anarchy. All reasonable minds are
sure to agree that this remedy is most expedient, and so I will not blush to be
candorous in propounding my scheme to you. This plan might seem like a one
man game, but given the chance in some sort of confederacy of nations, it
could work as favorably as it surely will for one.

It seems that the problem is many and one, and I do not wish to lose anyone with
Socratic twist. So, I shall simply solve the issues as I address them. First, of
all we must solve the 'Baby-Boomer' question. It is a matter of record that
these people and their parents will draw more than they paid in from our social
security program, and that they will do so for many more years than was
originally intended due to advances in modern medicine. Further, they refuse
to make way for their own progeny in the trades and professional arts, clinging
endlessly to their jobs, and suppressing all those who are their inferiors in years.
Finally, they are a burden to the democratic process, for that they only ever
vote according to shortsighted self interest. They are also guilty of having led
us into this present crisis almost singlehandedly, and as a matter of record are
largely responsible for the enactment of the most inane and puerile laws ever
to burden our republic. They have also contributed more than all others to the
radical disintegration of our great culture, and for this they are to be held
accountable. Therefore, they cannot be seen as contributing to society in
civics, politics, monies, morals, or culture. And should anyone repine at the
notion, let them only think on the singular cultural achievement of the 'boomers,'
which is the Disco.

Having these things in mind, I suggest that we develop a trade program with
underdeveloped countries. Yes, send them to the very places they have been
sending American jobs. Now, at first it may not make sense, but I'm sure you
will agree. We have but to make an arrangement, whereby we send under-
developed nations these professional people, these experts, so called, and
receive back to us from them their graduated and work oriented individuals
ranging from ages 21 to 35. By this contract of trade, we will not only help
these backward nations in becoming self-sufficient, but still receive full tax
from those we send abroad. As consequence, the social security monies
will go further in these remote places since their money is considerably less
valuable than the American dollar. Further, as follows necessarily, in the
equatorial environments the older Americans sent abroad will be sure to
scarcely enjoy the same level of health they would have done in their own
country, and through the agents of exhaustion and disease expire all the
more quickly, thus alleviating the tax burden on the rest of the population.

Our work force will be bolstered with a most diverse and highly educated
body of individuals capable of invigorating our capitalistic system. Not only,
but they will also be very apt to do so, being endowed by the hardships of
daily life in their native countries with a work ethic that is not indigenous to the
American population. To remain competitive, and with the lay of the land
before them, the remaining American populations will have to become more
career minded and specialty oriented in order to thrive in the domestic
economy. This of course necessitates higher education, meaning that we
shall once more be capable of exporting our labor force as a commodity.
Thereby, we shall gain the upper hand also in international fields of commerce.
All those Americans unable or unwilling to become competitive agents in
this new economy are and of a right ought to be regarded as surplus.
The surplus should be exported, with the aging burden.

All that to say, export our imposters and import their experts! Particular agents
have particular affects. Just as wine inebriates, air refreshes, and food nourishes,
people according to their stripe have a specific effect on society. Those who
have steered us aground will certainly steer others aground given the opportunity,
and likewise those who have steered their countries into good markets are likely
to do the same here in our own country. The end result being the immediate
alleviation of foreign troubles, with a certain ceiling of success, due to the sub-
par refining quality 'boomers' will have, leaving us free to out strip them in all
venues. We shall also be in a position to do so easily, having bankrupted foreign
countries of their intellectuals, stymieing further development amongst our
competitors.

Mary for Evangelicals

2011-08-15T02:12:00.000-04:00

It is tedious to even point out that the veneration of Mary by Catholics and Orthodox is condemned by American Evangelicals. However, because the evangelicals think that Marian veneration and devotion is a matter of idolatry, I'm writing this in the hope that it will provoke an attitude of reason in them. So, I am not here to convince anyone that Mary was sinless, or that she is a virgin. The point of this blog entry is to perhaps reveal to the evangelical Mary's role in the order of grace, so that having laid aside their bigotry against Marian devotion and momentarily adopting a critical and unbiased approach they may arrive through their own reason at a new appreciation for Mary. Hopefully, having a new found appreciation for her, they might be more fair handed when reasoning about Catholics, and what it means to be a Christian.

I used to attend a college house church in California when I was a Protestant Evangelical. One night there were about 20 of us gathered in the living room talking about 'what if's.' One girl said," What if a Christian found the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life? Could they enter and eat?" And naturally, I shouldn't wonder, I said," No, the angels wouldn't let you pass." So she said," But what if you told them that you had the authority to, because of Christ?" At that I said," Then, you would be acting in opposition to the will of God. We all have Original Sin, and sin is death. To eat would be to eat unto eternal death. That is why God banished man from the garden, because in his mercy he was saving man from living eternally in that fallen state and everything that entails." They all agreed

In the Gospel, we hear the angel Gabriel's salutation to Mary," Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." (KJV Luke 1:42) The 'Hail Mary,' much denounced, mocked and condemned by Evangelicals is in fact mostly Gabriel's own salutation, the message given to him by God," Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus..." Now, naturally when looking at the bible we take certain ancient things to be signs of new things. Moses says," The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken." (KJV Deuteronomy 18:15) and we naturally take that to mean the Christ.

In Numbers chapter 35 we read about how the death of the high priest absolves all man-slayers in the land and the land itself of bloodshed,"And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil." This we naturally take as a sign, not only for the redemptive work of the Cross (death of the High Priest), but the work of the Church (refuge cities of the priesthood), which is also the work of the Cross.

In the words of St. Augustine of Hippo," The New testament is hidden in the Old." How many times does Christ himself confound the Pharisees and Sadducees by showing how he is the fulfillment of prophecy with the scriptures? How many times does he appeal to Isaiah alone? It is undeniable, that the old was a sign of something else.

When evangelicals think of Mary, they usually just imagine that she was selected by God as arbitrarily as possible for no other reason than that she was capable and willing to participate in God's plan, and that she possessed the genealogical prerequisites necessary to fill the slot. And for this she is to rightly and heartily receive a kindly pat on the head, before she is buried under Pauline epistles and the bulk of the New Testament. She was the envelope that God sent his Word in, and can be disposed of. They give more honor to St. Paul, a reformed murderer than they do to Mary! St. Paul gave us words, but Mary gave us 'THE WORD.' And so some sort of account has to be given for the disregard Evangelicals have for Mary, and their aversion to giving her, her appropriate place in theology.

At this point, any Evangelical or Protestant might be already sliding back into the mire of objections. Again, we aren't here to discuss doctrines that defend Mary's sinlessness or her perpetual virginity; but we are here to discuss Mary's queenship. This, too, has been misrepresented tremendously by fundamentalist 'bible Christians,' as they like to call themselves. They attempt to conflate Mary's natural queenship with the Canaanite 'Queen of Heaven' so they can tell people that Catholics worship demons. And many of you have been hearing that pathetically shabby argument for years now. So, I ask you to simply for a moment repress your prejudices, do not allow your reason to be clouded by passion, and maintain a rigid unbiased attitude. Then, judge for yourselves what the argument bears out. But until then, please don't let what you are reading be drowned out by ready made fundamentalist objections. "It is the mark of an educated mind to examine an idea without believing in it." Plato said that, and I think he has a point.

So, let us look at scripture a little further. "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (KJV Luke 1:3-4) Also, please notice that I have taken the trouble to only use the King James Version, and not the real bible of Nicaea used by the Catholic Church. In this passage, we see the evangelist Luke addressing a certain Theophilus. Now, as many people are aware, the name 'Theophilus' is a Greek name meaning 'friend of God.' This particular Theophilus is also a type of all 'Theophili'... all the friends of God. We can read the opening passage of the gospel as if it were addressed not only to a particular man, not only to a particular kind of man (Christians), but to ourselves, and we can do so without any kind of hesitation. In fact, to do so is only intuitive.

When Christ talks to his disciples, he is also talking to us; that's why the bible is relevant to our lives. Now, I wouldn't try to conflate anything intentionally, so I won't do so here. There is a universal meaning of scripture, and then there is what many Evangelical Protestants are so fond of calling 'Rhema,' that is, a private revelation. In other words, the bible means one thing and one thing only for all Christians, but it might and does have a special meaning for individuals in how it relates to their lives. One corresponds to the communal revelation of Christ in and through the Church, and the other corresponds to the personal relationship one has with God. I would be remiss if I didn't point it out, because in just a moment you will need to have this very thing in mind.

At the foot of the cross the beloved apostle John stood with Mary the mother of Our Lord, and the scripture reads," When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." (KJV John 19:26-27) What is meant here? Obviously, from a historical and empirical view point, it means that Jesus wanted his best friend to take care of his mother, and not just but he said that Mary was his mother and that John was her son.

Do you think that Christ's words were only meant to suffice some Jewish legal minutia, having to do with ownership, like a improvised last will? Do you think that the Apostle John wrote this down because he thought it would be important for the whole world to know that he looked out for his own mother, as if we wouldn't have naturally concluded, even without this scripture, that someone as holy as Christ wasn't derelict in his duty to family? No, that would be superfluous, and the apostle wasn't trying to boor people with irrelevant facts. It has a deeper significance.

What is Christ's possession on earth? It's the Church; and who did Christ put in charge of the the Church? The Apostles. Mary, like Theophilus, isn't merely a particular person in this passage, she is an amalgamation of the Church at large, the society of all Christians; and likewise the Beloved isn't merely John in particular, the Beloved is an amalgamation of all those who are beloved, Christian individuals. It's also interesting to note that Christ gives his mother to the beloved before he gives his Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and thereby gives them also his Father as their Father. He gives us not only his Father, but his mother, too. Therefore, Mary is the mother of every Christian, in the order of grace.

Christ initiated us into his family first through his humanity, which he received from Mary, by giving us to Mary; and then he initiated us into his divinity, by giving to us his Holy Spirit. Christ's apostles are troubled and ask him at the Last Supper where he is going and he says,"And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know." (KJV John 14:4) Well, what is the way? The way is,"...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (KJV 1 Timothy 3:15) Because Christ says to them two verses later in John 14:6," I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." And the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is the head; they are one and the same. He is the groom, the Church is the Bride, and they are become one in the Holy Spirit. We go to Christ the same way he came to us, by the Holy Spirit, through Mary who is the sign of the Church. As long as we abide in the Body we have life. Because he says again," I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." (KJV John 15:5) Abide in Christ's Body, abide in Holy Mother the Church, in Mary's example... the perfect 'yes' to God's will.

That kind of brings us back to the beginning, when I was talking about my experience in California at that house Church. Who then can be called the Tree of Life; who is that tree a sign of? It's Mary! She is the Church, and the fruit of her womb is Christ, he is the fruit that grants eternal life, and yet Christ is also the tree because the Church is him, his very body. This isn't the first time we see him doubling responsibilities either! He was the lamb of sacrifice, and yet also the priest who offered himself for us. This is a great mystery! In the mystery of Mary's ontological role we see how truly and irrevocably intertwined our humanity has become with Christ's divinity, through his incarnation, death, and resurrection, and the gift of adoption by the Father through his Holy Spirit. We are all fruit on that Tree, as he is, if we are obedient, because the apostle Paul says," For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." (KJV Romans 8:29) Therefore, Mary is our mother in the order of grace. It is an active role, and because she is our mother in the order of grace, she is also the figurehead of the Bride of Christ, the image of the glory which God has planned for us, the Queen of Heaven.

But one last bit of argument, for now. The apostle Paul calls Christ 'The Second Adam.' The first Adam fell into a deep sleep and God fashioned for him a bride from his side. The scripture reads," And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV Genesis 2:23-24) Christ's bride was also taken from his side," But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." (KJV John 19:34) The water being baptism, and the blood being the sacraments, which together are the Church and all those who participate in them. The Second Adam's bride was also taken from his side. And she is called after him "Christian," just like woman is called after the man. But who then is the 'Second Eve?' Is it not Mary, as we have shown, flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone? Are we not all her children according to grace, just as we are all natural children of Eve?

Perhaps, given the time to ruminate these ideas, you will finally find yourself fulfilling your own part in Mary's prophecy in Luke 1:48," ...henceforth all generations shall call me blessed!" Perhaps, you will know that Christ has also given you a mother, and that she is the paradigm of obedience to Christ and what we ought to be. And perhaps, finally, you will not be so hostile to those Christians who do venerate her as a mother, and even as the Queen which it pleased the Holy Trinity to make her, so that we would hope more strongly in his promises.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Apology For Impartiality

2011-08-03T21:52:00.000-04:00

Lately it seems that I have stepped on a few toes by being impartial. I constantly find myself a gadfly, when I am merely looking for someone to commiserate this charged climate with. However, to my surprise, I find that impartiality, truthful critique, and satire are all quite unwelcome wherever it goes. Further, it seems that the truth has a rather inflammatory effect, and I can only conclude that this is because some see the truth as defamatory, or because they conflate the particular and the general. They heap symbolism on particular cases, and if you tell the truth about the particulars, then they are at your throat as if you attacked the sacred general, and to be honest, I am not like Voltaire. Voltaire prayed for his enemies to seem ridiculous, and that is far from me. Envisioning anyone as my enemy seems contrived, especially these people who are my own kindred in sacrament and blood. But it seems that I've disturbed them, and for that I must give account, which is precisely what I mean to do.

Socrates, the dear man, played with people, and naturally they thought ill of him. Socrates had done more good for the lot of them than any other and helped secure their place in history. The man pulled back the great eyelid of Greece and let the sun shine deep into the recesses of the eye, and the people liked it none too much. Half scarcely thanked him, and the other half wanted to murder him. Socrates never took the time over the years to make an apology occasionally, for his behavior and his ideas. A defense that is. Socrates was the most benevolent of his countrymen and one of uprightness and probity. He was most altruistic with the application of his intellect and his reason, and munificent and beneficent with the goods of his genius, though he was a pauper. It is a shame that the man was so ill thought of, but that is the way of things. At any rate, he might have done better to, from time to time, graciously defend himself in the form of an apology, but he only did so at the end, and to no immediate avail.

Well, I'm no Socrates, and it is unlikely that any of you will benefit so greatly from me as Athens or the world did from him, neither will I secure your place in history. Yet, taking his life as a lesson, it seems like a good thing to take the time to defend my demeanor, and my proclivity to be candid and impartial. Especially, since it is not strangers to whom I will make the apology, but my own friends, who I perhaps naively assumed understand me at all times.

To be fair, I have a habit, and perhaps it is an annoying one, of treating everything the same. I will, without inhibition expose everything without grace and go to reasoning about it. It seems natural that anyone might be offended by such treatment, especially when both our trivial and monumental beliefs are treated as equals. I will talk about politics in the same manner as I talk about religion, and philosophy the same way as I talk about theology. This is because I consider them linked. Likewise, I tend to treat the particular and the general in the same fashion, not that I conflate the two, but that I examine them under the same set of principles. It happens in life that we hasten along, acquiring beliefs and ideas as expedience would require, and we find ourselves allied with certain folks out of necessity. Finding sufficient utility and harmony therein, we take the truth, fecundity, and of these acquisitions for granted and becoming very comfortable with them. We begin to rely upon them and derive our identity from them, and perhaps rightly so, but perhaps not rightly in every case. So, when a pest like me comes along and begins questioning these things without the approbation of those who believe in them, those very people who feel one and the same with these ideas and belief they feel attacked. Further, they are twice indignant, because they sense that it is their own friend attacking them. To them it's as boorish of me as if I were to accost them argue about the color of the sky, and as rude as if I were to tear their clothes off and begin judging their anatomy.

We all are very want to have reasons for what we believe, and perhaps it is my burden to have an inquisitive nature beyond the norm. Perhaps, I am more offended than most when I am compelled to believe something without reasons. It might be the case that for the sake of their comfort alone that those around me would seek to abridge by peering into all manner of things. This is certainly a possibility. Or, also, maybe it is that some don't want me starting down paths they don't have the time, desire or ability to go down. All these might be the case, but it's not vain. I believe that nothing is in vain for those who love God, because," All things work to the good of those who love God." Still, it seems that somehow others have reaped shame and resentment from my inquiries, which is not my intention at all, and I seek to put an end to it, if possible, with this apology.

I am not favorably inclined to being in any one 'box.' I am a Catholic because I think it corresponds to reality, and one cannot escape reality. For me to not be Catholic would be like giving up my humanity. Someone might say I am certainly in the 'Catholic Box,' but to my mind that would be like saying that I am in the 'Human Box,' because they both correspond to the reality of the material and immaterial. So, such a saying is puerile. What I mean by that I have an aversion to boxes is not that I love being unique, or crave being the 'Devil's Advocate,' or that I am so pathetic as to need to be the center of attention and have recourse to being petulantly contrary; rather what I mean to say is, I heartily attempt to avoid being devoted to or defined by the concepts of others. At least insofar as the finer things are concerned. Though, I am certainly not opposed to giving credit where credit is due and agreeing with them on certain things, even many things. I am politically homeless, I don't care much for novelties, I have no devotion fashion, and I find all the divisions made by humans concerning the natural to be tiresome. I am no partisan, and people seem to know that about me. However, when they realize that includes their partisans, they think," What a mentality!" and attack me or try to justify themselves.

I strive at all times to judge no one, and judge everything. As it is written," Judge not..." and also," He who is spiritual judges all things." Things, you see. I dare to say that I have the endorsement of St. Paul, in the matter, and that I am at least trying to do what is right. However, there come times when we encounter certain things that are so concomitant to individuals, and due to the limitations of our vocabulary to convey ideas, it can happen that it is necessary to make statements regarding individuals. For instance, we might observe someone behaving hypocritically and another being honest, and we might say," If put to it I would choose the honest man over the hypocrite." People might scold, and say that you just judged the two men, but do they do so for the righteous man or the hypocrite? Certainly, for the hypocrite! Who knows why, too. Perhaps, because it is expedient for their own hypocrisies. And do they scold you rightly? No, they do not. You were merely making a statement concerning the pattern of behavior explicit in one, you were not damning him, or indicting everyone from his country, family, or religion. Neither were you suggesting that such a disposition is implicit in the later three. It is perception confined to the particular, not shared by the general.

As stated earlier, however, people who feel quite invested in certain groups are frequently inclined to conflating the general with the particular. They take statements pertaining to the particular to be indictments of the general, and throw down the gauntlet with a sense of righteous indignation. They would be very right to, if the two were conflated in such statements, but it is they who are doing the conflating. They would be right because it would be unjust, for obvious reasons. In either case, they might try to correct you or try to silence you, and if you don't fall silent or don't seem so easily persuaded, they might even attack you or abandon you. Then, only after a great labor of pointing out how you are misunderstood and misrepresented by them, will they grudgingly turn away, as if you shamed them or are a troublemaker, when in truth an apology is due you. They who imagined themselves to be misrepresented, who so vigorously demanded a retraction, make no retraction of their own in the end, though it was they alone who did the misrepresenting. That's not very fair at all, but something I've become accustomed to. It seems there is little in this world quite so as rare as an apology. As St. John Chrysostom said," No one has disturbed thee. You have disturbed thee." I find that proven daily by all.

Impartiality is necessary for contemplation. If you would see what really exists, and if you would know what you really know, you must be impartial. Still, expedition is necessary in human thought. We need not set about reproving ever single thing that supports a specific thing. For instance, we needn't reestablish that God is One, whenever we talk about God. We reason it to be so. However, we must be and should be ready with a defense of the same should one doubt, or should the need arise. We should strive to arrive at the truth by reason, even if we arrived there by other means. That is, if you arrived at a true faith because of sheer hope and a leap of faith, shouldn't you later reason about it and have reasons why it is true? Outside of your emotions and personal experiences, that is. Won't it help you? Certainly. And to do this you must be impartial.

I find it disconcerting when people take impartiality as a sign of disloyalty in friendship. Am I supposed to be loyal to them and not the truth? What do they make themselves out to be? Are they greater than the truth? No, and they wouldn't come out and say so either, but because of insecurity and impatience this is precisely what they do say by distrusting or chastising those who think, speak, or act impartially. Impartiality coupled with reason will arrive at the truth, and if they do not stand in that same spot in their opinions and their actions, then they should be obliged to move themselves to wherever the truth may be. And if there is any doubt about what the inquiry bears out, then they should try again, and again if necessary. Further, it is a very sorry and rotten thing, too, if they should begrudge the person who compelled them to inquiry, or compelled them to move by pointing to whatever a true inquiry bears out.

Finally, most absurd to me is sophistry. I am refreshed to have never seen anyone of my friends engage in it, at least that I can remember. Often a person will chime in on a discussion, as though they know something about the subject, and so you question them on what they know, and they turn out not to have the very knowledge they claimed to be in possession of. And being overly embarrassed by themselves, and often feeling stupid, they hate you for asking for the proof, or the knowledge, as though you were a troublemaker! Sometimes, they are so precipitous as to assume that because you were asking them questions, you yourself knew the answer all along and abusively toyed with them for your own amusement, or worse, for the amusement of an audience. They should be angry with themselves! for soliciting that which they did not have. Again, I can say with some confidence that none of my friends have ever been so reckless as to behave this way; at least with me. If they did, I would be sure to see if they had what they claimed to have, and if not I would reveal their ignorance to them. Why? Because that is true friendship. Friendship pertains to the soul, and there is no friendship in darkening the intellect, or allowing a friend's soul to remain shackled by ignorance in the dark, only in enlightenment and maintenance of the same.

Impartiality, sobriety, moderation, inquisition, and unconditional positive regard... these are justifiable and lead to good things. Every friend owes them to one another, as much as one owes them to himself, because," True friendship is one soul in two bodies." And so I am devoted to these things, because they are prudent, kind and owed. Anyway, it's not my desire be a menace; I only hope that we might correct our mistakes, sober up, and gain the grace of true self-knowledge, and see more accurately how far we have to go. And that's the truth of it.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Transubstantiation vs. Constubstantiation

2011-07-09T21:27:00.001-04:00

In the hope that I may help at least one of you to adore God more perfectly and warn you of a certain grievous error, I'm writing on the heresy of consubstantiation. It can happen that such a notion lingers, cloaked amongst many abstract thoughts, and subverts your faith, loyalty and fidelity to the holy flesh and precious blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ, which is present in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist. The subject does not demand long words, and so, very concisely, I hope to give you good reason against this error which has distracted, however implicitly, a great many of the people from a truer and purer adoration.

Consubstantiation is a heresy, because it is a contradiction. It states that bread and wine occupy the same space as the body and blood of Jesus Christ. But we all know that no two things can occupy the same space, in the same way, at the same time. This cannot be, for the same reason that there are no men who are women, bachelors who are married, square circles, things which are green all over and red all over, or universes in which it is possible for there to be an immovable object and an unstoppable force. God cannot make a contradiction. It has been said famously by G.K. Chesterton that," Orthodoxy abides in paradoxy." Paradox in the sense that there is a seeming contradiction, but not one in fact, as that would constitute a true and philosophical paradox, a fallacy, a lie. Consubstantiation is a contradiction, and therefore a lie, and is necessarily a heresy, because lying belongs to Satan.

Therefore, to the sole end that you may be evermore resolved in giving assent in faith to the most holy sacrament, and understanding more perfectly the object of your adoration, know that after the consecration of the bread and the wine, they exist no more, but that only the true body and true blood of the Lord Jesus Christ endure. The work of human hands, which is bread and wine, no longer remains, but only the work of the Holy Spirit, which is the Eucharist. The doctrine of transubstantiation does not err by saying that two things occupy the same space at the same time; it does not say that the sacrament is as truly wine and bread as it is the body and blood. Rather, this most holy and sacred doctrine, handed down from Christ in the upper chamber at the Last Supper to the present through his holy apostles and their successors the bishops, gives unwavering assent to the words of Christ," This IS my body...," and again," This IS my blood..." Hereby, the Churches of the Apostles, headed by the successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff, propound without guile to all the faithful the mystery of faith. Namely, that God is with us in fact, that the old has passed away, and that he is offered up for our sins and for our salvation.

When you adore Christ, and when you receive him in the sacrament, do not regard mere appearances, but instead, having selected the path of faith in the words of Christ and his apostles, reason with what your faith has given assent to as a fact and know that you are adoring and receiving the ineffable gift of God's only begotten Son. For, if you say," Amen." when the priest says," The body of Christ!" and only believe your eyes, but also allow that it is by some mystically vague and abstract means that the priest tells the truth, then you have not said," Amen." in spirit and in truth. And the time has come upon us which Christ spoke of to the Samaritan woman, that all who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth. Do not eat and drink unto condemnation.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Reason for Faith In Christ

2011-06-30T13:00:00.001-04:00

One thing that deeply disturbs me about the average Christian I run into is why they believe and what they believe about Christ's sacrifice. There seems to be two dominating motivators in their faith concerning the cross. Of course I'm speaking very vaguely and generally. One is the the age old concept," Fifty million screaming fans can't be wrong!" They derive the correctness and truthfulness of what they are going to have faith in from the flock's flagrant certitude. They want to belong to the flock, they want the things promised by Christ, eternal life and all that, and they know that all of that is contingent on their belief in the cross. So they believe, or very frequently say they do, and convince themselves that they do. But if I were to ask them how and why the cross works, they would say," It just does. That's what God wanted, and Christ took your place. The end." To be perfectly frank, that is possibly one of the stupidest answers that can be given and still be correct.

They want to be part of the flock. There is a difference in being analogous to sheep in that we have shepherds, and then behaving without reason, doing things simply because the rest of the flock does them... being 'sheople' if you will. That we are sheep does not mean that we are idiots; it does not mean that we act without reason, or that we have no reasons for our faith. It's this fundamental disconnect that is the reason why the faith of millions is so utterly shallow, and why millions are falling away. They have no reasons for their faith. Pure faith is for things beyond human understanding, for instance," Where did God come from?" Well, we take it on faith that He is from all eternity, but even still the philosophers and the Holy Catholic Church have explained why God cannot be temporospatially conditioned, and why he must come from all eternity. It's the "how" that requires the faith, because we have reasons for the 'why.' We know why! Now, what if you just put the 'why' in the faith box? You aren't taking responsibility for your faith; indeed, you have no real cause for faith! I'm not suggesting that such a person has no faith, only that they are alloying it with ignorance and juvenility.

I had said that there seemed to be two different motivating factors; the second one is guilt. Somewhere, someone told them that Jesus died for their sins." Well, that's nice! I can go on sinning, then!" And then they say," No, no, no. He died BECAUSE of your sins." which doesn't make the person feel very good. At that point the person who is telling the guy about Jesus takes the moral high ground and guilts a person into living a moral life and buying into this story called the bible. Then, the 'convert,' if you can even call them that, is indefinitely miserable and struggles to conform to this ideology for which he has no real reasons to believe in, and a shoddy faith. But it's ok! It will all work itself out in the end! He gave his heart to Jesus! Or did he?

The problem here with both of these is that they are born from fear. Anyone's faith may be partially derived from certain fears, the knowledge of necessities if you will, and what will happen if they aren't met. But they are also derived, primarily derived from love. Love has to be there at the beginning when something real and good is created, because love is the creative element. Pope Benedict XVI recently said," In the beginning, there was the creative word. In the beginning, the creative word --- this word that created everything and created this intelligent project called the cosmos --- is also love." That is why a man and a woman come together in love and marriage, which is the unity of love, to create; that is why children should be conceived and born in wedlock. That's why sex is reserved for married couples. True love is supposed to be there, and love does not take, and love is patient; love is most of all prudent. When we take up a faith in the cross we become a new creature, recreated.

Pope Paul VI said in April 1974's Good Friday Address," The mystery of innocent suffering is one of the most obscure points on the entire horizon of human wisdom; and here (Christ with Pilate before the Jews) it is affirmed in the most flagrant way. But before we uncover something of this problem, there already grows up in us an unrestrained affection for the innocent one who suffers, for Jesus, and for all innocent people -whether they be young or old-who are also suffering, and whose pain we cannot explain. The way of the cross leads us to meet the first person in a sorrowful procession of innocent people who suffer. And this first blameless and suffering person uncovers for us in the end the secret of his passion. It is a sacrifice."

The holy father, Pope Paul VI, was addressing what is called theodicy, the problem of evil. Someone asked the philosopher Diogenes 2,300 years ago whether or not God existed, and Diogenes replied," Oh, I don't know if he exists... but he should." Think about that for a moment," I don't know if he exists... but he should." Why does he say that? Why would he say that? A pagan philosopher, a man who lived like a dog? Because, he saw the suffering of the innocent in the world, he the saw suffering that cannot be explained. He saw evil. He saw the wicked prosper, and escape justice. Diogenes saw what we all see, and said aloud what is whispered perpetually in every human heart, begging us to have faith," I don't know if God exists... but he should."

Christ establishes and exemplifies our notion of innocent suffering, that is, wrong suffering. When we become aware of innocent suffering we become aware of guilty suffering. We weigh ourselves against him and see what we deserve. We don't imagine hell, we don't imagine butchery is what we deserve. The first thing we imagine that we deserve is the abstract bitterness of this life. We see why things are the way they are, why we suffer; we see the cycle of our own actions. With this comes repentance for our sins. But we also see a glint of hope that our innocent suffering does not go unnoticed, and that it means something, specifically in Christ... that our individual suffering means something special to God and humanity. Then, we think of the soul and we imagine that if these things be the case with the body, they must be the case for the soul. It is then that we understand heaven and hell. It's then that we make the choice with the whole man, the whole self, body and soul, to live for Christ. It's right then that we realize the generosity, the benevolence, the munificence and beneficence of God, as St. John Chrysostom (the Golden Tongue) was fond of saying.

Those are all very fine notions and words, but how does Christ's sacrifice pay the debt? If a man could take another person's place in punishment, then it would be 'man for man.' For instance if one man was to be put to death for murder, and another took his place, would all murderers go free, thereafter? No, only the one whose place was taken. So, how then can Christ, one man, pay for the entire human race? Does that make any kind of sense at face value? No, it doesn't, and that is why the majority of Christians just pretend there is no inconsistency here, and ignore this paradox as if it didn't even exist. They ignore this glaring, most obvious problem, and because of their ignorance and laziness have no real reason for their faith. Again, I do not say that they do not have faith, only that it is alloyed with ignorance and laziness.

So, how does this paradox vindicate itself? Could they tell me? Some could, for certain; can you? Stop, and think about it, do you know 'why' it works? Do you have reasons for your faith that Christ, one man, has the ability to die for all men? Think good and long on it; you just may find what a superstitious creature you are. We must put superstitions away from ourselves. We aren't simpletons! The paradox vindicates itself in this way: Christ is the God-man. His divinity is united with our humanity and our humanity is united with his divinity. His humanity takes on the same traits of his divinity (because they are one), particularly that it is not confined to space or time; it is omnipresent and omnipotent. It is eternal. His humanity has the ability to suffer infinitely for (that is, on behalf of) a finite amount of human suffering, which is the whole sum of all human misery from the first man to the last. He has the ability to pay an infinite amount of debt. Every moment of his life, exists now and everywhere. So, Christ can and did die once and for all, for all mankind. That is how the argument vindicates itself.

We know 'why' and have reasons, but do we know 'how?' No, that is the mystery of faith which the apostles spoke of so often, that we know why but not how. It is the how that requires faith. It takes no faith to say," 1+1=2" The reasons for our faith are deductive. They are in perfect accord with each other. It takes no faith to say," This is why." That requires reason, the very thing which makes us human. That there is a 'how,' and that it is accomplished and done... this takes faith, and is divine. Sola Fide, faith alone, is a heresy. WE need faith and reason together.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

This Generation

2011-06-20T22:10:00.001-04:00

When Wojtyla became John Paul II, the communists who had tried to catch him in a lie realized that they had been spying on a man who really believed, a man in whom there was no guile. And do you know why this heartens us? Because of all the men, women, children and priests who weren't vindicated, who were murdered because of the same suspicion. Those who persecuted Wojtyla, were a type and foreshadowing of what will come upon the earth, and John Paul II was a type of our vindication, which Christ promises to his faithful servants.

If I could speak like Christ and not offend you, what would I say? What parable could I use to tell you about this generation? I suppose I would speak like this to you," What is this generation like? And what shall I liken it to? It is like a starving man who falls upon a trough of apples, eating them indiscriminately, and afterwards he vomits up the good and the rotten together." In this generation the world is full of teachers who profess to have all the answers. The world is full of politicians, rhetoricians, pastors, cleric, and priests, full of parties and ideologies, philosophies and conspiracies. Each person goes out and consumes them all, heaping up teachers for themselves because of their itching ears, and if they find inconsistency in one, they find inconsistency in them all. They imagine that the world is a great feast of ideas, but if they, through their own negligence, foolishness, or naivety partake of something that makes them vomit they are wary of everything in the hall. So, they leave the feast worse than they came in, because they came in with their stomachs empty, but even that which they had, they have thrown up. They become cynical and cold, through their own wantonness, and refuse to let the good news enter into them.

What else could I give in parables, if you graciously permitted me, and were not offended? I would say," This generation is like a man who climbs and ladder, faints, and falls to his death." Take the Soviet Union as an example of this. The Party made compulsory the good deeds that must come from the heart: altruism, gaiety, unity, charity, selflessness, brotherhood, and patriotism. Did the good deeds they legislated produce the good ends? No. They climbed every rung and fainted. We climb; we send aid to Africa, grow weary, and then send them condoms. We learn, and learn, we make a great plan, set out to accomplish it, grow weary, and decide to practice Socialism, instead. We are faced with injustice, set out to reform, grow weary, and instead take the foundation out from beneath our laws. We go to war, set out to subjugate our enemies, grow weary, and retreat in disarray. We strive to be good, grow weary, and say," Good is only a point of view."

But what if I could say something still further, in a parable, if you permitted it. What could I say? "This generation is like a man who sees a famine coming in the land and digs a well. Or like a man who seeing a drought coming in the land, goes out and uses all of his grain to plant his field." The whole world is descending into poverty, and do you see them working harder or playing? Societies are crumbling and hollowing out, and do you see him giving a thought to his neighbor? Immorality has given way to amorality, and do you see him strengthening his conscience? Everyone's own house (country) is in disorder, and they are meddling in each others houses.

All this is happening, but it is not the end. Until now, this government and that government has said," This new plan is better and therefore great." and it fails. Until now, this person and that person has said," This new idea is better and therefore great." and it fails. Now, their failing apart is complete and they have only to fail together. Don't you see the world all around you becoming one? Don't you see them coming together in desperation? They will come together and say," This new plan, this new idea is great, and therefore better." Notice the difference between 'better and therefore great' and 'great and therefore better.' This is not something which has been seen much in the history of the world. Understand. You've heard the axiom before," Too big to fail." Everything which has ever boasted this in the history of man is now a mockery, but as one, I assure you, mankind will fling itself upon this futile hope. You will see it in your own lifetime, and have seen it. They imagine that they will not fail if they come together. They are but many failures coming together to make a plan, and their failure and error will be the gravest and greatest of failures and errors.

You have only to keep your gaze heavenward, nurture the good news in your hearts; you've only to be good and do good. Do these and you will survive. We know that we have the truth. And how do we know it? What if I was to speak to you as a philosopher? "All the things that our senses are aware of are contingent things. They are things which only have the possibility of existing. But God is the only thing which exists necessarily. We should therefore trust in God more than the ground upon which we and all of our fathers have always stood upon, build their homes, planted their crops, and traveled, because none of these exist as surely as God does. And we have his promise."

What if I appealed to your reason, one more time, and you patiently heard me? "The value of a thing is due to it's necessity. And a thing's necessity is proportionate to its abundance. Air is the most abundant of things, and who can hold their breath longer than ten minutes? Water is second most abundant, and who can go four days without any water? Earth is third most abundant, from which we derive food, and how many weeks can a man go without food before he dies? The world has gone mad for gold, and told you to do the same, but how long can you survive without it? But before all other things what is most necessary to the life of man? Is it not the soul? Can anyone live once they have "given up the ghost?" Does this very phrase not mean to die?! And what is everywhere, what is most abundant? Is it not the omnipotent God, who is Spirit, that which man needs most to live? And so now you see that I was telling you the truth when I said that the value of a thing is due to it's necessity, and a thing's necessity is proportionate to its abundance. Don't worry about the world and what it is doing." You have only to keep your gaze heavenward, nurture the good news in your hearts; you've only to be good and do good. Do these and you will survive.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Charismatic Renewal- What's Wrong?!

2011-06-12T21:21:00.000-04:00

Today was the holy feast of Pentecost, and I noticed that people weren't too excited about that. That is in large part due to the arrogance of many Catholics, who seem to make the Holy Spirit the third wheel. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal (CCR), however, is also to blame. In the United States of America if someone starts talking about the Holy Spirit working, all the sudden Catholics clam up and shut down; it's an instantaneous effect. They are ready to be mocked for the namesake of Jesus Christ, for His Eucharist, they are ready to profess that God is their Father. But the Holy Spirit is a danger zone, a vague amalgamation of everything mystical, unbelievable and gooey about the Christian religion... and is to be treated as quickly as possible and never more than as necessity would demand.

This is not primarily the fault of the CCR, but I will show what I mean. When people hear "Holy Spirit," most of them think," Power of God." as opposed to," God." Their concept of the Holy Spirit is contaminated by the bombastic and heretical displays of "the Holy Spirit" in Protestant communities. When a Charismatic Catholic says something like, "We want the Holy Spirit to show up!" Everyone goes," Oh, Jesus Christ! REALLY?" That's because they suddenly think of a Protestant televangelist crying profusely into a microphone, or babbling in "tongues" between points during his sweaty, loud, sales-pitch of a sermon. Or people get a mental image of someone "laying hands" on people and them being "slain in the Spirit." Or they remember some obnoxious Protestant friend, acquaintance, or family member telling them that they don't have the Holy Spirit and need to get a "real, deep, personal relationship" with Jesus Christ, and then they will be baptized in the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. Finally, perhaps, they remember some deranged Protestant, or charismatic Catholic accosting them to tell them that the Holy Spirit has a message for them, or a prophecy.

Catholics don't like to talk about the Holy Spirit for the exact same reason that Catholics don't like to have the scripture quoted to them. Protestants have hijacked the scriptures in their mind, and now the scripture, especially the Old Testament, belongs to "the heretics." Again, Catholics aren't comfortable with these things for the same reason many people aren't comfortable with sex. They make absolutely wrong associations with sex and it becomes something that will always be a little bit dirty.

In the average Catholic mind, but especially in the average traditionalist's mind, very one is doing fine and being Catholic until the Charismatics show up. And to be perfectly frank, that's because the Charismatic crowd is aging, which makes it easy to write off their strangeness as senility and naivety, but also because they are weird! That's right. I said it! Many members of the CCR are weirdos; many don't pass for normal, not by anyone's standards. So, being a Catholic and having the CCR around is kind of like going shopping at the mall... with your mom. You're there, trying as hard as you can to look surly and jaded so that everyone thinks you're cool. Then, all of the sudden, a piercing voice cries out from across the store," Hey! Is this 'COOL???!" You look up to see your mom holding the most uncool article of clothing in the whole store, and all the blood drains out of your face, as your worst nightmare comes true... everyone knows that you're related.

But here is the thing. There are two reasons why this has happened. There are two reasons why the CCR is dying out and why it is treated in this way by the laity and the priesthood, alike. The first reason is the most natural reason, which is wantonness. Many members of the CCR want to seem special by being able to have direct experience with the divine that they can lord over each other, and their fellow Catholics. That is precisely why the CCR is viewed like a mole on the Body of Christ by most Catholics. It's because the CCR has made itself into an auxiliary to the Church, instead of making the Church charismatic. They are constantly in need of convincing parishes that they need charismatic groups. That's a hard ticket to sell, and when it comes down to it, very often the people who want those groups either don't get them, or they have to resort to pointing out the fact that it is their right, and that they have the support of the bishop. That's terribly, terribly sad.

The reason that happens is because the CCR people come together to do "charismatic stuff" and talk about "charismatic things," but they aren't giving their charisms away. Here is exactly what I mean by that: It's as if they are set on fire, and they keep coming back together so that they can have a hotter fire; that's the wantonness I was talking about. By hotter, I mean that they keep coming together primarily to have a more intense experience with the divine. However, this means that the fuel get's burnt up; the CCR movement dies and goes away, because of wantonness.

As Catholics, we know that the sacrament of marriage points to the relationship of mankind with God. It is intended to exemplify for us that blessed union we have with God, through His Holy Spirit, by the will of the Father, and the sacrifice of His Son. One of the strongest elements of marriage is sex. We engage in sex, or we should engage in sex because we love our spouse, not because we love sex. If we engage in sex with our partners because we love sex, don't we reduce them to an object? Don't we do violence to their dignity and their humanity? And if we do harm, don't we know that whoever harms is more harmed than the one who was harmed? Absolutely we know that! We know it from the scripture, from the Church, and from the philosophers. Now, if we have an immature and selfish sexuality, and love sex instead of having sex be a means of love, will we not start doing anything to obtain that gratification? Will the person no resort to masturbation or pornography, eventually?

Well, that's what is going on with the CCR. When they only come together for the "experience" of the Holy Spirit, and not because they love the mission or because they love the Holy Spirit, they are doing violence to the Holy Spirit of God. Further, they are creating deep wounds within themselves that are not easily healed. What if they obtain a few of these experiences, but then later are faced with the reality that they cannot make God act? Won't they feel rejected, and won't their faith suffer? Won't they do what all addicts do, and try to find a way to make it happen? Won't they resort to formulas to make the Holy Spirit "show up?" And won't they keep coming back to the same place to get their fix? Yeah. And who's to blame? Not the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately, many members of the CCR and many CCR groups are perpetually trapped in this cycle. They are engaged in a form of masturbation, and just as a sense of shame accompanies the one type, it also accompanies this type. This is another reason that CCR members often turn away from the community, and into their own created community. If they were not ashamed, they would not be turning inward, as if to take blows on their backs. This is how the CCR becomes and remains an auxiliary, instead of going out and sharing the gifts, soberly.

The second reason that the CCR gets treated so badly is that they have suffered greatly at the hands of the progressive movement. This is twofold. On the one hand, in the eyes of the Progressive agenda, the CCR is a legal catalyst for change, to bring about their own warped agenda. To their perverted outlook, the CCR is a godsend that is meant to level the playing field and make the priesthood and laity indiscernible from each other. This is a sort of "ecclesiastical Marxism." It's as if they wish to say," We can wield the Holy Spirit as good and better than the priesthood." The problem with that, of course, is that one does not 'wield' the Holy Spirit. We are wielded by Him. Another permutation of this error is that some in the CCR can tend to look at the priest a power source, a covering for their mission. The problem with this is that they are, and must be, participating in the mission of the priest. A priest does not, for instance, participate in the mission of a parish staff; rather, the parish staff exists solely to assist and facilitate the mission and vocation of the priest. The priest isn't a "spiritual battery" on loan from the diocese.

So, these things are a problem, but not nearly as bad as the one I'm about to mention. I had said that the final reason was twofold. Well, the other half of it is that false ecumenism has infiltrated the CCR. There has been a woefully lamentable copycat culture in so much of the CCR on the individual and community level, and the people they're copying are the Protestant Evangelicals. There is nothing that the Roman Church despises more than a novelty, and that is what the CCR has largely reduced itself to: a hackneyed novelty, borrowed from those outside of the One True Church. Protestant praise and worship music is found there, raising of hands, "words of knowledge," prophesying, a disorganized and Protestant species of prayer (seeking to manipulate God into action), etc. Further, as in similar Protestant prayer groups, the leadership is top heavy with laity, and that isn't necessarily the fault of the lay persons involved. It's a problem created by the reality of the CCR's image; for a priest to get deep into the CCR, and in some cases to have anything to do with it at all, is vocational suicide. If you're priest that holds "healing Masses" or hangs out with the CCR, you're branded a freak by your confreres, they'll turn their backs on you... and so will their parishes. So, their backs are put against the wall and are forced to opt for either extremely limited 'obligatory' involvement or none at all.

There is a lurking notion amongst many charismatics that the Holy Spirit cannot work without chaos. That is a purely Protestant notion, and it's based on the idea that chaos leaves open room for the Holy Spirit to do whatever it wants to. The best way to describe this phenomenon is to call it a paradoxical formula for making the Holy Spirit "show up." That's no good, and it's un-Catholic. Our greatest revelation of the Holy Spirit is in the Mass, a very organized entity to be sure.

This copycat culture arose because they were jealous of what they thought the Protestants had, as if the Protestants have something which the Catholics don't. They have forgotten themselves, that we are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in whom the fullness of the truth abides. That wantonness pops it's ugly head up again. There is a big, big difference between spiritual wantonness and spiritual hunger. One thing many in the CCR don't realize is that first of all, and I can speak from extensive experience, is that Protestants tend to embellish and fantasize about the activity of the Holy Spirit in their own community. If a person get's sick, Satan is attacking them! It's not because "brother so and so" ate bacon for the last 20 years and is dying, now. And if brother so and so stops eating ten pounds of bacon a month, begins exercising, and gets a new lease on life... THE HOLY SPIRIT DID IT! If their church faces closing down, it's because Satan is fighting against their community. It's not because their pastor was a dope and told everyone that their church was 501C3 status for the past five years when it wasn't, giving out tax write-off forms and the government wants its money, now.

In many ways, the CCR is envious of nothing other than the assertions of a juvenile faith, and a juvenile interpretation of phenomenon. However, to go a little further, the Holy Spirit works in an extra-ordinary fashion amongst Protestants, for the very reason that they don't have what we have. They don't have a sacramental faith like the Churches of the Apostles do. The Protestants "need" what we might call substitutes in place of the sacraments, because without them they cannot justify their faith, because there is no substance to it. That's the big disconnect. Many CCR don't realize what they are jealous for.

The CCR is rejected by most Catholics for the same reason that Catholicism is rejected by most people. Most people have a faulty understanding of Catholicism because a Catholic with a faulty view of Catholicism gave them that view, or an immature Catholic didn't know how to present reasons for their faith. Sadly, most Catholics don't seem to know what the Catholic faith is. Similarly, most people in the CCR don't seem to really know or understand what the CCR is. If the CCR has no sense of itself, it will go away, because,"... the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion."

Many in the CCR lust for the mystical and miraculous experience of the divine. But just to highlight why that is wrong, St. John of the Cross,"... considers any desire for private revelations and visions to be both unnecessary and an insult to God's providence." (http://carmelitesofeldridge.org/juan16.html) The greatest thing that the CCR can set before its eyes is the fact that they are meant to be a "renewal." They are a harkening back to times past, in the early Church when the Spirit was strong and to be seen everywhere in actions. They've only to remember how Catholicism became great.

The whole purpose of the CCR is not to create little enclaves of extraordinary involvement with the Holy Spirit, but to ignite a movement within the whole body of Christ, the society of all Christians that will heighten the level of involvement with the Holy Spirit and draw back to the true faith the lost sheep of the House of Israel, the Church, and to strengthen those who are already strong. The purpose is to not only have greater hope, but to be a visible sign of and reason for it.

Does anyone in the CCR imagine that their purpose in existing is to making it so that everyone in the Catholic Church raises their hands during worship, prophesy, speak in tongues, etc? No! That is not the purpose. Earlier, at the beginning I said that it was like the CCR was a bunch of people who were on fire, and that they preferred to burn together; that they were selfish, without meaning to be. They exist to facilitate the ministry of Christ. Recall the scripture and the words of Christ," I have come to set a fire in the earth, and how I wish that it were already blazing!" The CCR is not doing this. Sure, they wish that the world was blazing, but what are they doing about it? Praying? Worshiping? And in what manner? Is it a Catholic manner? And is this really what they are supposed to be doing?

Don't we know that it is through works that we must advance the kingdom, too, if not more so? Does the CCR avail itself to the Spirit of Charity through good works, or primarily through enthusiasm and prayer. Perhaps, it is best to hear St. Anthony of Padua on the matter, he says plainly what I hint to, namely that the CCR should be manifesting a more intimate relationship with the Holy Spirit, manifesting the Renewal more through works. I am no one, but at least hear him, because he was a great miracle worker and the very kind of man that the CCR member wants to be," The man who is filled with the Holy Spirit speaks in different languages. These different languages are different ways of witnessing to Christ, such as humility, poverty, patience and obedience; we speak in those languages when we reveal in ourselves these virtues to others. ACTIONS speak louder than words; let your words teach and your actions speak. We are full of words but empty of actions, and therefore are cursed by the Lord, since he himself cursed the fig tree when he found not fruit but only leaves."

He continues," We should speak, then, as the Holy Spirit gives us the gift of speech. our humble and sincere request to the Spirit for ourselves should be that we may bring the day of Pentecost to fulfillment, insofar as he infuses us with his grace, by using our bodily senses in a perfect manner and by keeping the commandments. Likewise we should request that we may be filled with a keen sense of sorrow and with fiery tongues for confessing the faith, so that our deserved reward may be to stand in the blazing splendor of the saints and to look upon the triune God."

The CCR must not be a movement of lip service, seeking only to be warmed by the light, but not seeking to warm. The CCR must not be wanton; it must not forget itself and its Beloved. The CCR must not be a light that shines inward, or it is darkness; it must shine outward. The heart and purpose of the CCR is of divine origin. It must be stewarded, it must be faithful, or it will be punished. It will suffer the way the Church has with the Great Schism and the Reformation. It will suffer death. The CCR can and should look to precedent in the early Church for itself, and it should rid itself immediately of all adulterations, and copycating of what is happening amongst those deceived by heresy. These are hard words, but it is the hard truth of it, and I don't think I'm deceived in saying so, nor that I deceive anyone by saying so.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Satan's Argument

2011-06-08T20:35:00.000-04:00

I firmly believe that Satan's expulsion and that of 'his' angels was the direct result of an argument. By that I mean that Satan is a wayward logician, an irrational philosopher. I have often wondered what was said. Lately, I've been thinking on the question again, and I think I just might have it. Of course, this is complete assumption, but I imagine that you might agree.

I believe that Satan was in heaven the opposite of what Socrates was on earth. Socrates went about perpetually asking," What [IS] virtue?" When no one could answer, a lot of people assumed that he knew the answer to his own question, since he was so skilled at asking the question. Others hated him, because they pretended to knowledge they did not have and Socrates possessed a profound ability to reveal just how empty headed sophists are by doing nothing other than asking the right questions. Socrates did a great service to the world by his pursuit of philosophy, and made other humans better.

Satan, I think went around in similar fashion, asking," What is evil?" The answer being," Evil is nothing, but rather the lack of something." To which he would say," If evil is nothing, then nothing is evil! I can do no evil because I do not know what it is, because I cannot know nothing." Or something such to that effect. Just rough ideas. So, he may have fashioned himself into a proliferator of false enlightenment, a fake abolitionist from the chains of "what may and may not be done." He pretended to give a greater freedom than the Creator gave when He bestowed freewill. He pretended to reveal something more dazzling than the truth itself. And who knows, perhaps Satan believed his own philosophy if only for a moment. We can be certain though that he knows his error, now, having been ejected from heaven's height. He lost the argument.

When Satan lost the argument, it's because he controverted the incontrovertible God. Christian theology agrees with Jewish theology that the angels were created on the first day, when light was created. And this belief is very interesting in itself and would take a long time to talk about, but I'm going to assume that everyone understands intuitively why this belief is held... intellect and light are predicated of each other, "angel of light"... so on. Man was finally made and when he was created God said," Let us make man in Our own image and likeness." When God did that, Satan is not far off.

Suddenly, Satan had the opportunity to take vengeance on the image of God. Satan, out of his bitterness for losing that argument, attacks mankind, on God's account. Look also at what the Serpent said to Eve," Eat, and your eyes shall be opened and you will be as God." She ate from the Tree of the "Knowledge of Good and Evil." There is something to this concept of 'knowledge of evil.' It's almost as if Satan venomously states to God in all of this," Oh I know what evil is, huh? Well, fine, so... do... they!" Satan consigns man to his same fate, through deception, calculating against man's freewill.

Anyway, obviously, we could go on forever on this subject, but I'm interested to hear what you think about these ideas. These ideas, give way to many other ideas, and well... that's exiting.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Protestants, Rabbinical Judaism, and Samaritans

2011-05-30T23:13:00.003-04:00

The other day I was talking to an old friend, a Protestant. He had called me with a question that really had him confused," How can Jews reject the Gospel and Jesus Christ when you can show them point by point the cause and effect, the prophecies, and the parallels of Judaism and Christianity? It just seems like bold denial!" I started by pointing out that it's easy to look at it from where you are, but the other side is doing the same thing. When we read Isaiah 53 we see Christ, when Jews read Isaiah 53 they see all kinds of things.

I started talking to him about Church history, and said," As a Christian, it is important for you to not separate the history of the Jews and the Christians. It is one Church history. When you look at the Old Testament you are reading Church history." When the Law was given to Moses the people of God became two classes, the priesthood and the laity. The Levitical priesthood had a specific role to play that no one else could perform, in the way the Hebrews approached God. Of course, anyone could approach God in simply prayer, but the Law was the context of Israel's relationship with God, and it could not be realized without a priesthood.

Early in Israel's history, after they took possession of the 'Promised Land' we see the Judges, we see prophets, we see king David and many other kings, as well. Finally, Israel found itself being chastised by God and was exiled to Babylon. It was during this time without a temple that Rabbinical Judaism was created. Without a temple, the priesthood could do nothing; Israel was left naked with nothing more than its scriptures. The Jews began to look towards their scriptures as the source of life and they became a scripture culture. Private, yet institutionalized interpretation of scripture became the new center of faith. It wasn't the sacrificing in the temple, as before. They couldn't even begin to fulfill the Law, because of their limitations.

I was once at an interfaith dialogue meeting and it was supposed to be civil, but things got a little wild. There were Christians of every denomination there as well as Catholics and Jews. It was hosted by the Beth Israel synagogue in my city, and a few of their congregation were in attendance who seemed bent on quarreling; they were dyspeptic to say the least. They began blasting the speaker, who was a Catholic priest. I think they took the venue to be an apologetics forum, which was not what it was supposed to be at all. They began vehemently attacking the notion that Christ had fulfilled all the commands of the Law, which wasn't even one of the points the speaker was making. In an attempt to simply silence them so that we could get back on track, I said to them," And how do you do it? Do you really think you fulfill the Law by reading your Torah and attending the synagogue?" And the most argumentative one said," But there are in the Midrash interpretations and in the Talmud statutes. If you throw in a 32nd of the challah into the oven on Shabbat this fulfills the sacrifices which the Law demands." or something very similar to it. My quick retort was," Your oven is not the temple, you are not a priest, and that is not in the Law." It became very silent.

But this is a perfect example of the popular Jewish view of their own religion. Their Midrash and their Talmud are equal to the Torah, though they would never admit it, because the Talmud and the Midrash have interpretive powers over the Torah. These two are direct products of Rabbinical Judaism. They are the commentary on and interpretation of the Torah by rabbis going back hundreds and hundreds of years, but they are not the Law. What should come to mind is Christ rebuking the Pharisees," Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Christ did not come condemning the Law or those who follow it. At every point where Christ came into conflict with the Pharisees and the Sadducees it was over the imposition of rabbinical pretexts onto the Law and onto the people of Israel," You lay heavy burdens on men's shoulders and don't lift a finger to help them." But it is important to note that Christ did not condemn all the innovations of the Pharisees, he even said that some of their traditions were beneficial to keeping the Law. It was when the rabbis replaced the Law with their own statutes that Christ came into conflict with them.

Rabbinical Judaism may be seen, I will be so bold as to say that it should be seen, as a fulfillment of God's promise to blind Israel so that it will not see. The fog of merely human interpretation, uninspired interpretation of scripture led to the conflict between Israel and its Messiah. Rabbinical Judaism is perhaps wholly responsible for the inconsistency between what they imagined the Messiah would be and the reality of what the Messiah was, for Israel's inability to recognize it's Savior. It is very hard to imagine that Christ would have suffered a similar fate had he appeared during the time of King David, or during the time of Joshua or any of the Judges. There is a theological disconnect, a philosophical disconnect and a historical disconnect between the Judaism of the Old Testament and the Judaism we see at the time of Christ in the 1st century, just as there are huge disconnects between 1st century Judaism and the Hasidic Judaism of Germany in the 18th century.

Remember that Judaism up until the time of Christ must be viewed teleologically as Church history. Christianity begins the exact same way as Judaism did; there are two visible classes: the priesthood and the laity. Christianity was an apostolic entity from its first inception and remained to be so, exclusively, until 1517. In 1517 Martin Luther began the 'reformation,' so called. You'll remember that the shift from old Judaism to Rabbinical Judaism was the shift from a sacrifice centered form of worship in the temple to a scripture centered form of worship in the synagogue. Originally, they had the scripture so that they could practice the Law, that is to say that scripture was only a means to an end, but they started practicing the Law to appease and accord with the scripture as if it were the end itself. History repeats itself in Christian history at the moment of the reformation. In Martin Luther's own words," Worship used to be addressed to God as a homage. Henceforth, it will be addressed to man to console and enlighten him. The sacrifice (Jesus Christ/ the Eucharist) used to have pride of place but the sermon (biblical interpretation) will supplant it."

For the Protestants, Christianity became something it had never been before. The Church was no longer "the pillar and foundation of the truth" as we read in 1 Timothy 3:15, but the scripture became "the pillar and foundation of truth." Before, Christ,' the True Vine,' had been the source of righteousness in the form of His body and blood in the communion, but now it had changed and the bible was the source of righteousness. A great and terrible confusion occurred in the Protestant mind and the words of God (the bible) and the Word of God (Jesus Christ) became synonymous, and their adoration was misplaced. Before, one apostolic institution, founded by Jesus Christ, had through divine inspiration expounded truth and innovated holy tradition; that institution was the Catholic Church. Now, everyone would interpret for themselves and innovate by themselves. Sola Scriptura was born and with it Protestantism, a "Rabbinical Christianity" if you will.

The Churches of the Apostles are to Christianity what Judaism was during the days of king David, and Protestantism is to Christianity what Judaism was during the time of Christ, and in many ways it is worse off. At least the Jews had sacramentality during the time of Christ; most Protestants, on the other hand, have 'rid' themselves of the priesthood and have reduced the communion to a mere ordinance and a sign, it is no longer reckoned to actually be 'the Sacrifice.' They have no sacramentality, beyond baptism, by their own admittance.

This division is almost certainly a punishment to the Catholic Church as was the 'Great Schism.' But leaving this aside. There is another way to show the difference between the Catholics and Protestants with Scripture, namely with the Samaritans. The Samaritans broke away from Israel and chose to worship the true God in a way that was not permitted by the Law; they chose to worship in the North at their mountain and were cut-off from Israel for their stubbornness.

Often Catholics are confounded and put to shame by the zeal, good works, and piety of Protestants, the very people they esteem to be ignorant of and vicious towards the Churches of the Apostles. They can't figure how they can be so Christlike while so many, if not most Catholics are stagnant, self-centered, and secular. Of course the Protestant is very desirous to answer that question and would say," It's because we are right!" But that is not the case; rather, the Protestant is a sign to the Catholic, just like the 'Good Samaritan' was a sign to all of the Pharisees and Sadducees who listened to Christ tell the parable. The Samaritan put every caste of Israel to shame by his charity, but the value of the parable comes from the irony of the fact that the Samaritan who was wayward, unclean, and cut-off from Israel was a better person than they who were part of the chosen people and yet refused to love their neighbor. Christ uses the Samaritans on more than one occasion to shame the Jews; however, it should be enlightening for us. It was never intended to make Jews want to be Samaritans, rather it was meant to remind Jews of what they were supposed to be.

Christ in his ministry tells his disciples at first to avoid the Samaritan towns. He first sends his disciples to the Jews, because salvation is of the Jews. This happens today with the Catholics and the Protestants, Catholics start doing something, then the Protestants either catch on or get it after the fact. Case in point, the Charismatic movement. The Holy Spirit first gives revelation to the Holy Catholic Church, because salvation flows from the Church and its sacraments which Christ instituted, and then the separated brethren get their graces in an extraordinary way.

The big difference between the Protestants and the Catholics can be demonstrated through the conversation of Christ with the Samaritan woman at the well. She said to him," Sir, I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." to which Christ answered," Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews." The Church is and must be the Church of the Apostles, the same Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ. Salvation is not found outside of the Church. Christ does not have several brides, but one Bride.

Notice that Christ is not telling the woman that she is damned, or that she does not obtain salvation, he is only telling her as a matter of fact that she is ignorant of the whole truth, because she is separated from Israel. He does not accuse her of idolatry, neither does he withhold his miraculous ministry from her or her village, but stays on with them teaching and doing miracles for several days. He does not give the Samaritans the same hard time that he gave to the Syro-Phoenician woman who plead and plead for her child, but recognizes them as separated brethren of Israel. Martin Luther said," We are compelled to concede to the Papists that we have no knowledge of the scriptures apart from them." and because they have no revelation of salvation apart from the scriptures, salvation is from the Church. This puts Protestants squarely in the same position of the Samaritans in relation to the Catholic Church who would be analogous to the Jews.

When I talk about how great the Catholic Church is with Protestants and how happy I am to be a Catholic, I never do so cloaked, I speak freely and candidly. I'm never sly, and I am completely open, congenial and free with them. Because of this they feel more free to object, and for that I'm glad, so that I can talk with them freely and with confidence just as Christ did at the well with the Samaritan woman. When all is said and done, the one question in the end is often," Well, why be a Catholic? What is the benefit? I don't see it. If we are both one in the same Christ, if we both have salvation, and if we both believe in the bible why do I need to be a Catholic?" The answer to that question is simple: they need to be Catholic for the same reason that it would have been better for the Samaritan woman to be a Jew. To be a Catholic Christian is as superior to being a Protestant Christian as being a Jew is to being a Samaritan. Surely, no one would argue that it was better to be a Samaritan than a Jew! Were there any Samaritan apostles? Did Christ reveal himself through the Samaritans? No. Salvation is of the Jews. Salvation is found in Christ's Church.

Truly, Protestants, if their faith is true, are saved. Truly, they are incorporated into the body of Christ in the resurrection. Truly, the Holy Spirit works powerfully through them, even now and in such ways that put many Catholics to shame. And certainly, that Samaritan woman who had faith was superior to the Pharisees who hated and doubted Christ, but does anyone think that she was the equal of any Jewish woman of similar faith? You know that isn't the case. We work for the same wages, but when put to it who would you rather be? A son or a hireling? Who would you rather be? The Prodigal son, or the son who was always loyal to his father? Don't think that the Prodigal son was a better man than his older brother; his older brother only had a bad attitude! To be the loyal son is far superior, than to be prodigal out of ignorance and only then return.

The Protestants are the one sheep, and we are the ninety and nine. That is why we must strive to bring them in again, where they are safe, where they have the life giving sacraments, and the perfect doctrine of truth, because we already know how happy it makes the Father to get back that one sheep. Because we know they need the Eucharist. There is no use and no point in hating or being at useless enmity with the Protestants. Pray for conversions amongst our separated brethren. And if you are a Protestant reading this, and if today you hear the voice of the Lord, harden not your heart. God be with you.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Greatest Revelation of God to Humanity is Humanity

2011-05-29T21:56:00.000-04:00

To love God more I learned theology. I refuted countless heretics and put them to shame, but I did not learn how to love God there. I merely learned to love winning. I did not propagate the love of truth, only indignation against lies. No one loved me more, and neither did I love more, though many men hated me more. I was not comforted, and my longing worsened. My love of winning had swollen my pride. I learned more and became more fluent in theology than most people ever dream to be, but I did not earn by pursuit of it that which I wished to obtain. I had been certain that if only I understood God I would not offend him, that if I observed His beauty I would love him and not betray Him. Imagine my horror when I had exhausted the intellectual and theological offerings of our fathers, and was still a wretch.

I reasoned, then, that I had understood what was acting, but I had not understood what was being acted on. I hadn't understood the relationship. So, I became a philosopher. I learned the truth about what the difference is between what I think I know, and what I do know. I learned even more intimately about God, which made me happy. All human activities and the ways of angels, and the cosmos were exposed to me and nothing was beyond the apprehension of my reasoning. I knew what men meant to say when they did not know how to say it, what they meant to do when they failed to do it. I knew better what they were loving than they themselves did. But though I knew better that which they loved, for all my knowledge and understanding, it did not produce love greater than theirs. These who were ignorant of what the good really is, of who God really is, why He is, and themselves loved in a way that made me pine to be like them. Just as we all seek to love as children do and to be pure as they are, so was I seeking. There were simple answers for everything, and yet I was not simple. Beloved philosophy did not make me love, but she showed why everything I learned in theology was. She gave me a reason for all the foolishness of the Gospel.

Before I did not lust, because God said not to, not because I understood why it was evil. I did not curse because the scripture said not to, and not because I understood cursing to be evil. I forgave because it was obligatory, or because I wanted to be forgiven, and not because I understood that the welfare of my neighbor affects my welfare, not because I understood that they suffered more greatly for doing evil than I did suffer for having it done to me. Before, I thought that man was ignorant because he was evil; I did not understand that he is evil because he is ignorant. In all this blind, juvenile obedience I had no thought for myself, for my emotions, for my needs, my wants, or my desires. As selfless as I was, I had no love and it profited me nothing. Theology had taught me to do what was right, but it was She who taught me why I ought to do it. And so, like the ancient philosophers, philosophy gave me this much, if it did not make me love: I learned to do without the law and with no one to make me, that which other men do only out of fear of the law or because they are forced to do so.

I understood, then, that if I was to love God, to truly love God, and to have a pure life I must love. I must love through actions. In order to love 'Love,' who is God, I must become that which I aimed to love. Theosis, I understood, was my aim. As He is an all consuming flame, I too must be set on fire, not in order to be destroyed, but to become flame. To love in the act. To love all that I see, by having a pure look. I knew that if I did not make myself into love, then the Love of God would destroy me in it's inferno. For the eternal embrace of God is to the righteous person perfect homeostasis and peace, because the two flames become one through Christ in the Holy spirit, and to the evil person that same embrace is an unrelenting torment.

I had sought God, I had sought His face, because I believed that if I just saw Him I would be cured. Blessed be, I was not self-deceived in thinking this. Only I only saw dimly, in theology, and in philosophy. At last I saw, and knew in truth that my clearest revelation of God was my human neighbor. I knew that if I saw God it would be love at first sight, all-curing love. And so, I knew that I must love my neighbor, because my best revelation of God is His image, mankind. God is best loved when we love mankind.

God was too terrible a thing to gaze upon for me; a worm like myself would shrivel and burn at His appearance. But like Perseus, I gazed into a reflection and was able to look upon a lethal sight, he a hideous gorgon, but me Beauty itself, who is God. Man was that reflection I gazed at, and if I looked into that mirror and detested all that I saw, then in truth I hated God. Purity comes from love of neighbor, as does prudence, as does wisdom, as does all virtue and happiness.

Now, the great adventure is to learn how to love. That is to say, to learn who to love and in what way, and at what time and to which extent. Who should I strike out of love, and who should I embrace. Who should I confront and who should I defend. Who should I give to and to whom should I turn my back. And many other similar questions there are. A life figuring them and acting them all out is not wasted. Truly, without love, you are nothing.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Twenty Six Things I've Learned in Twenty Six Years

2011-05-15T12:38:00.002-04:00

1.) Always forgive. Never hold onto anything.
2.) It is better to be what we wish to seem.
3.) Games are best left to children.
4.) Never withhold a compliment.
5.) Be healthy, but do not be vain.
6.) Be strong, but for the sake of the weak.
7.) Be zealous, but do not be impertinent.
8.) Be objective, but do not be callous.
9.) Be pious, but do not be self-righteous.
10.) Be positive, but do not be naive.
11.) Be prudent, but do not be negative.
12.) Be hard on yourself and easy on others.
13.) Be noble, but do not be foolish.
14.) Be smart, but do not be insolent.
15.) Be intelligent, but do not be crafty.
16.) Save wit for your friends.
17.) Never be the last person to offer help.
18.) It is better to know the value of things than their price.
19.) Know the difference between objects and people.
20.) There is always an excuse for failure, but not always a reason.
21.) Most people don't know what they think or why they think it.
22.) Give generously, to to all who need, the species of succor that they need.
23.) Most people are not very smart, have weak morals, weak wills, weak constitutions and are easily led about. So, we shouldn't get mad at them when they are constrained by their deficiencies, at least not anymore than we do with a child.
24.) Without pain there is no excellence. Pain is all we really have that we can offer God.
25.) Take pride in everything that you do. Strive for excellence in all that you do. Whether, it be thinking, cutting a tomato, running, building, or writing, never take a break from your best.
26.) Life is work, hopefully punctuated with moments of rest.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

St. Augustine-On Time

2011-05-06T16:50:00.003-04:00

In discussing the creation of everything physical, Augustine asks,” What is time?” Answer this question as would Augustine.”

Augustine would say that time is a logical construct that conditions and expresses the perceptions of created things. That is to say, as Augustine did, that man is temporally conditioned, but God is not. He grapples right away with the substance, if I may say substance, of time,” What is it?”

In order to answer this he has to figure out where it begins and where it ends, and so he looks quite naturally to the creation itself, because God alone is uncreated and time is not God. So, Augustine knows that he will find the answer in those things which are created. He asks of God,” How did you create heaven and earth?” He, in his meditative style, takes a hard right and says that if God were to grant him the boon of being able to speak to the prophet Moses, surely Moses could tell him!

Yet, here he make’s a hard left as if to say,” No, only you can teach me God!” He makes this hard left by pointing out that only God can educate him by use of the language ‘mentalese’ necessary to understanding the answer. He says that if Moses did know the answer and could tell him it wouldn’t profit him at all, because the answer would be in another language (Hebrew, perhaps) and to Augustine would be nonsense syllables.

Here he makes the differentiation between the ‘outer’ physical ear and the ‘inner’ spiritual, soulish, or mental ear. That is, the mind may become aware of something in the tangible realm through external sensation, but sensation does not mean ‘understanding’ in the mind. After external sensation, the interior sense affecting (acting upon) the sensation, translates the knowledge into ‘mentalese.' Finally, God speaks to us or we use our reason and thereby give assent to certain things and reject others. So, what happens, according to Augustine, is that a thing is sensed, Moses’ voice in this case, by the outer ear. Then, the interior ear can make nothing of it; id est, it cannot be translated into mentalese. Ergo, there being no way for Augustine to make sense of what Moses would tell him about the creation and/or creation itself, he cannot apply his reason to it in order to give assent. But even if Moses was speaking the same language as Augustine (Latin) so that the sensation of Latin could be translated into ‘mentalese,’ then as may be discerned from the above, God would still have to teach Augustine’s soul in ‘mentalese’ in order that he could give assent to Moses’ words which would have been translated by the inner ear.

Therefore, Augustine comes to it again and declares that only God can teach him the answer; all this only in the hopes that if he understood “how” God created everything, he might then use his reason to understand “what time is.” In doing all this, Augustine is making the assertion that God is the only being that teaches us from within. He’s in part declaring this, because he needs an answer that gets beyond creation.

It’s this ‘getting beyond creation’ that Augustine comes to next in his thoughts. He addresses the issue of ‘framework.’ By framework I mean {s-t}space and time, the ‘stuff’ of creation. He notices that questions addressed ‘towards’ things of {s-t} which would make sense, become nonsense when addressed ‘about’ {s-t}. This brings us back to what he noticed at the beginning: that he, Augustine, along with all other men, is temporally conditioned. He realized that things made sense for temporally conditioned beings inside the frame work of {s-t}, but that outside of the framework of {s-t} things made no sense. For instance, to ask about the beginning of things ‘in’ time makes perfect sense, but to ask about the beginning of time makes no sense, because it predicates a time before time… which is nonsense. This is why he believed that God, who is not temporally conditioned, who ‘teaches from within,’ would have to bypass his temporal conditioning, so that Augustine could project his assent onto that which God (Holy Spirit) had revealed upon temporally conditioned things, i.e. creation.

From this he constructed a schematic, or rather elaborated on Christian ‘truth,’ by stating that there was a temporal realm and an eternal realm. He had to figure out how things “were” in both of these realms. He postulated, or rather asserted, that the only things which really exist are in the ‘now.’ They’re really real, really happening, really being. The ‘now’ was or seemed to be predicated by the past, and the future was anticipated by the now. Further, the past was collapsible into the present, or ‘now,’ through memory, and the future was collapsible into the present through anticipation. That they could be collapsed meant that they ‘were.’ He explains this by stating that everything that is, was, and will be a ‘now’ is a static point in God’s view in the eternal realm. In this way, God is in all time, and yet timeless.

The things which follow necessarily from Augustine’s conclusions that the only things which really exist are in the ‘now’ and that all ‘now’s’ are static points in the eternal realm is that time is a mental construct designed to measure the non-existent portions of time. Time is a proverbial ‘zero’ designed to give us a set of reference points between events. You can’t measure what doesn’t exist, yet that is precisely what we do with time, if all that really exists is in the ‘now.’

Each ‘now’ is self-destructive and pregnant with the future. I would attempt to improve upon that merely by stating that each now is the “self-destructive child of the past that is pregnant with the future.” But it is self-evident that even this is temporally conditioned, because in the eternal realm, according to Augustine, each “now” is an independent static point.

If we participate with the constructs of the eternal and temporal realms that Augustine lays down, we see that it is inevitable that time really is only a mental construct. This is because if the past ‘is not’ and the future ‘is not,’ then the present is not temporally conditioned, but only a static point. This theory satisfies that God is always creating and never in flux of any kind; He is always creating ‘now.’ And if now is all that exists, then time which includes more than ‘now’ must be a logical construct… like ‘zero.’

William of Ockham

2011-05-06T15:19:00.001-04:00

How does William of Ockham develop his Conceptual Nominalism?

First it is important to be sure of what conceptual nominalism is before I set about to show how it is developed. Conceptual nominalism states that there are no universals in the sense that the term ‘universal’ is usually meant; there are only particulars. Universals, according to conceptual nominalism, do exist, but only insofar as they are concepts. Applied, this means that all single malt scotch does not share the same light [amber colour], rather that all their colouring meets the concept of light [amber].

It seems that Plato started with forms to explain the same observed things that Aristotle explained with universals. With William of Ockham, I cannot tell, if he is making an attempt to rescue the theory of universals, or do away with it. William seems to be doing to Aristotle in his works, what Aristotle did to Plato in his works. In his mind, I think that William was at the very least trying to save Aristotle from the Scholasticists. At any rate, William changes the popular meaning of ‘universal’ that means a ‘shared and separate substance that is reality,’ to ‘concept’ which means a ‘shared name and idea signifying reality across particulars.’

All this being said, I’ll now make an attempt to show how exactly William of Ockham developed his conceptual nominalism. William, as necessity would have it, distinguishes between natural signs and conventional signs. Conventional signs are words and natural signs are concepts. To further individuate these and give them greater context, William introduces terms. For William of Ockham, there are two kinds of terms; the terms which point at things are called by him terms of first intention, and the terms which point to other terms are called by him terms of second intention. The reason these terms are so termed is that terms of first intention predicate terms of second intention. Beyond these, there are six metaphysical terms that signify things that are signified by words of the first and second intention.

The six metaphysical terms bring us to the ‘one over the many’ argument implicit in William’s work. These terms are: one, good, something, true, being, thing. They are peculiar in that they are predicated of each other. This corresponds to the ‘one over the many’ argument in the following way. Duns Scotus and his predecessors stated that the universals were concomitant and necessary to the particular things which possessed them. This created a serious problem, because if God were to theoretically destroy a single universal then all the particulars which possessed them would radically cease to exist. Duns Scotus attempted to remedy this glaring fault in the theory of universals by propounding haecceity as the remedy. Haecceity was, according to Duns Scotus, the property in each individual thing that makes it particular and individual. William of Ockham, however, answered back with the already age old ‘law of economy’ which we now in his honor call ‘Ockham’s razor,’ which in it’s essence states,” Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.” William was accusing the ‘Subtle Doctor’ of breaking this very law by innovating haecceity. That is to say, William was asserting that haecceity doesn’t exist and is unnecessary, because universals do not exist, at least in such a way as that which would predicate or necessitate haecceity.

William offered another solution to the problem of particulars and universals by positing that Duns Scotus was quite simply incorrect about what a universal is. If universals are only mental constructs, that is, if they are only concepts, then, you could destroy the concept in any given number of minds, you could destroy universals in their entirety and the things which they signify would still exist. The reason for this, to explicate the obvious, is that understanding is of things, not of concepts created by the mind. The terms are not what is understood, it is what they signify that is understood. Things are understood by terms. So, to William of Ockham, a universal was merely a sign of many things, a concept with a name.

It is finally necessary to truly explicate William against universals. He points out in his Summa Logicae Part 1 what should, perhaps, be evident to all of us, namely that particulars are of two kinds: those which are one and yet signify the many, and those which are one and signify nothing beyond themselves. Conversely, universals are not only capable of signifying the many, but also of being predicated themselves of the many. And so it is reasonable to conclude that there are, therefore, no universals. Ergo, there could be no universals, because there could be no particulars. Universals exist because things that possess them exist. The universal [white] exists because things, that is to say ‘particulars,’ which are white exist. However, if particulars merely be the sum of universals, then, of necessity, particulars do not exist. For as he points out in the first part of his work, that while a population constitutes a single universal, it does not constitute a particular. Therefore, a population of universals does not constitute a particular.

So, in the main, William of Ockham, the Franciscan Schoolman, very excellently wades through the scholasticism of the period and with great clarity declares that universals do not exist outside of the mind. He stands out as a conceptual nominalist. And for all the pillow biting and fist pounding of the scholastics, they cannot seem to refute him. Indeed, from my examination, I find no great scholasticists after him. He brings a great era of philosophy to an end, and we might say even paves the way for scientific and inductive reasoning, as opposed to theological and deductive reasoning.

Osama Bin Laden

2011-05-02T13:57:00.002-04:00

It is a good thing that Osama is dead, now. It took long enough, didn't it? However, I see something gravely disturbing in the American response to this event. People are beside themselves with glee that he was killed. I'm reminded a bit of the movie 'Inglorious Bastards.' In that film it was demonstrated that the evil of others is license for our own. I'm not certain if everyone reading this has seen the film, but things that should be done to no human being were done to the Nazis by an imaginary special ops unit of Jews. People carving flesh, stabbing people in their faces, smashing skulls with baseball bats, gratuitous strangulation, shooting people in their genitals, and it was all o.k., good fun and completely acceptable, because they were Nazis.

It is one thing to do what we must in the face of evil, to eliminate eminent danger and protect the innocent. The great difference between good men and evil men is that good people are more human than evil people. If we destroy our own humanity in the process of carrying out the sacred duty to defend justice and human life, then we become like the very thing we are duty bound to eliminate. If given the chance, I believe that many people, maybe even most people would have tortured Osama to death, instead of simply executing him.

Now, some may contest that you couldn't do evil to Osama, because he deserved whatever he received. That may be true, that may be very true. However, this does not mean that you cannot do evil to yourself by doing the same. Perhaps, someone might think that I and people like me are being sensitive, pedantic, and holier than thou. But imagine if Osama were raped to death. Do you doubt that the people who raped him to death would be guilty? There is a reason that law states punishment is to be swift and not cruel or unusual. A humane and dispassionate approach to execution is intrinsic for humans to carry out this duty in a blameless manner.

I don't know how Osama died, though I have seen the pictures. It seems that his eyes were missing from his head and he had a death grimace, as if he died in extreme pain. We don't seem to have an image of the rest of his body. There is no telling what that looked like. I don't know if this is my own faulty perception, if someone gouged out his eyes, or if an explosion threw shrapnel into his eyes. I'm not suggesting that Osama should have been given a lethal injection, so that he could peacefully fall asleep. However, if it came down to a bullet in the head or gouging out his eyes and stabbing him to death, castration, etc... the right thing to do would have been a bullet in the head. Not for his sake, but for our sake.

Further, there seems to be a great inconsistency here in what people find more 'evil.' Sometime ago, an American Lutheran abortionist who had killed 60,000 babies with his own hands died with his family in a plane crash. Lots of pro-life advocates rejoiced over this, in the same manner that people are rejoicing over Osama's death. One must ask themselves, who is the worse man? How many people did Osama kill by his own hand? How many people's death's is he directly responsible for, what is he famous for? 3,000 killed by a plan of his on September 11, 2001. The abortionist who was recently incarcerated for his murder of infants outside of the womb had murdered 17,000 by his own hand.

Our society loves to watch Nazis get killed in movies because they killed 6,000,000 Jews and 6,000,000 non-Jews in their camps. One only needs to wave these statistics in the air to enjoy watching them be butchered guilt free. The Nazis also killed 20,000,000 Russians in war: 13 million soldiers, 7 million civilians. Even worse then! But how many babies have been murdered in the United States under the full protection of the law? Over 50,000,000 babies murdered. And are we so ignorant as a nation to think that genocide comes without a price? And how many times more innocent the ones we murder than the ones the Nazis and Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists kill?

Osama is dead, but how many in our own country, in our own cities are more worthy of death? And yet, how would you treat them? Would you torture them to death? Would you skin them alive? Make them drink battery acid? What gain? If you would not do these things even to these, then why rejoice? Why all the gaiety? Your joy, your cursing, your hate changes nothing. We all have a clear duty, when faced with men like Osama. There is a difference, between killing and murder, no rational mind can doubt that fact. But beyond this, our duty is to restore and protect what they've destroyed, and we cannot do this without love. If we hate, if we curse, if we become like them in destroying them, their evil work continues beyond the grave and will manifest in us.

I'll leave off with a few quotes," Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live." [Ezekiel 18:23,32]

‎"Blessed be the Lord who made heaven and earth, who hath directed thee to the cutting off the head of the prince of our enemies." Judith 13:24 (Quick execution).

"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles" Prov 24:17

"Osama Bin Laden - as everyone knows - has had the gravest responsibility for spreading hatred and division among people, causing the deaths of countless people, and exploiting religion for this purpose. Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of everyone before God and man, and hopes and pledges that every event is not an opportunity for a further growth of hatred, but of peace.” -Vatican's response to Osama's death.-

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

St. Thomas' Five Ways To Prove The Existence of God

2011-04-17T20:26:00.003-04:00

The nice thing about organized religion as opposed to disorganized religion is that the former at least tries to be objective and rational, whereas the latter is unashamedly biased and uninterested in rational and empirical proofs. Indeed, they prefer emotional proofs; a crude mysticism appeals to what we might call the ‘disordered religious mind.’

St. Thomas comes to the front during the High Middle Ages, doing much to eradicate excessive forms of mysticism and rationalism, via Aristotle’s logic, but also his empiricism. It was a huge task; it was upon him to synthesize the entire Christian religion through the Aristotelian philosophy. Prior to St. Thomas of Aquino, no one had really fielded a sound theological theory based on Aristotle. The Church was still meddling with various forms of Platonism and Augustinian philosophy.

St. Thomas, wasn’t so much innovating anything new, rather he was taking very old concepts from the Greeks and hackneying them out for Parisian scholasticists, on the field of Catholic theology. The concept of a necessary being goes back to the pre- Socratics. However, this old game gets a second wind with St. Thomas.

Using the Aristotle’s organon and his philosophy of causes, St. Thomas crafts an argument which is popularly called ‘The Five Ways.’ It seems to be a single argument, one of causation; however, it’s five ways to prove that God exists, i.e. that God is a necessary being. Again, it proves ‘that God is’ not ‘what God is;’ these arguments do nothing to prove the existence of the Christian God, beyond that God is a single being as opposed to multiple gods, which Christianity professes to be the case.

The ‘first way’ to prove the necessary existence of God is the argument from motion. We know empirically that some things are in motion, and according to Aristotle things move when ‘potentiality’ of movement becomes ‘actuality.’ That is to say, wherever [X] causes [Y] to be f, it is because [X] is actually f and [Y] has the potentiality to be f. So, as the scholasticists would say, only something which is motion in the ‘act’ can cause something potentially in motion to be actually in motion. Further, nothing can be both in potentiality and actuality in the same instant, in the same way, and because of this nothing can move itself. Therefore, anything that is in motion was put into motion, or moved, by something else. That pattern of moving, or more specifically the pattern of ‘being caused to move’ can’t go on infinitely; that is an impossibility for obvious reasons. These premises, if true, necessitate an ‘unmoved mover,’ as I believe Aristotle termed it, a being that was not put into motion by anything and yet causes all things to be in motion. This necessary being St. Thomas asserts is understood by everyone to be God.

The ‘second way’ is constructed in a nearly identical fashion to that of the ‘first way’ and deals with efficient causes. However, because of the similitude of the arguments it is superfluous to demonstrate the argument. So, I will simply proceed to the Dumb Ox’s (St. Thomas) ‘third way.’

The ‘third way’ to prove that God is a ‘necessary being’ is said to be a reductio argument. The argument begins by pointing out that ‘contingent beings’ are evident in nature, i.e. such beings as do not necessarily exist. In point of fact, this would include all beings that we are empirically aware of, and St. Thomas asserts this fact. Now, for each contingent being that exists, there is a time in which it does not exist (which is better to say than a time in which it did not exist). So, it is impossible for these contingent beings to always exist. For instance, we can look at the extinction and destruction of individual and particular contingent things, and discern the possibility of the same for all contingent things. Therefore, it is plausible that there was a time when no contingent things existed. Hence, there would have been nothing to bring contingent things into existence and if that were the case, then nothing would exist. However, this is absurd and a contradiction, the argument has been reduced to its most absurd point. So, it cannot be that every being is a contingent being, because it leads to a contradiction. In this we see, and St. Thomas would say that we know, that there is such a being that exists which is necessary, that is not caused to be by anything, but causes all things to be. This necessary being, St. Thomas asserts is God.

The ‘fourth way’ to prove the necessary existence of God is an argument of gradation. It is perhaps the simplest of the arguments which might be called ‘convincing,’ and it starts off by simply pointing out that some things are better and worse than others. In order to denote degrees of ‘better’ and ‘worse’ when talking about beings, with any validity, it is necessary to have a concept of the most extreme example. The most extreme case is the teleological cause of things which are the same. Apply this principle to ‘perfection’ and ‘being,’ and it follows necessarily that there is a primary cause of all things perfect, and all things that have being. This necessary being, St. Thomas’ asserts, is called God.

The ‘fifth’ way is the least convincing argument and most subjective, or at least I find it to be so, and it does not interest me in the slightest. So, I will not hazard an explanation of the fifth argument, other than that it is an argument from design.

On Atheism

2011-04-09T22:18:00.001-04:00

I rather admire a certain kind of atheism. The atheism I admire is dissimilar to this 'fad-atheism' you see so many people claiming nowadays. The fad atheist is usually a stupid person, to be sure; they become atheists simply because they are impudent by nature and don't like being told what to do by anyone or anything. Or they become atheists because it is a way to rebel, or they think it will convince everyone that they are smart. This sort of person is lead about by their mediocrity, and seize upon with dull minds the genuine thoughts and sound questions philosophized by people of greater intellect. They have a terrible flaw, that most people would argue afflicts all people; they very willing and are even wont to accept and state as fact that which is not proven, or that which proves nothing, and even in some case willing to do the same for things which are quite simply false.

The famous logician Bertrand Russell, who was one of the greatest minds of the 20th century even had this flaw. In his history of western philosophy he stated that the Ephesians transformed 'Diana of the Ephesians' into the Virgin Mary, citing that Ephesus was the very place in which the title "Mother of God" was ratified by the Church. This a man who transformed philosophy and logic, a brilliant mathematician, and a historian, no less. Yet here he makes the most flippant and obvious of mistakes. Had he stated that Mary replaced Diana he would have been correct, in point of fact. The goddess Diana was completely done away with and another female took her place in the attention of the Ephesians, one who was not divine, one who did not require or demand worship, indeed one who was not to be adored. So dissimilar are the two cults and their objects and functions that there can be no confusion on the matter. The one was a cult of adoration addressed to a nature goddess, and the other was a cult of imitation, that of perfect obedience to God, whose object was a mortal woman.

Even further, what were the Ephesians doing? Were they indeed transforming Diana? Or were they not doing what they expressly stated they were doing and intended to do? Namely, to eradicate Diana, and divert their attention to a real and different object, a more pious example? Even if the Christian religion is as much myth as the Greek religion, we certainly know the latter to be the case; and the former is patently false, even defamatory. Aside from all this, it is no small thing to note that it was in Ephesus that Mary lived for a time, and the place can still be visited today. Yet, in spite of all this, and in spite of the considerable powers of intellect which were Bertrand's and his proficiencies in history, he makes a comment with such 'matter of fact' certitude that one must conclude he prefers what he desires to be true so strongly that he abandons fact. Even the atheist can see that what he says is not the case; and yet while I strain to think of another man in our own time was or is as brilliant as Bertrand was, here he is with his back turned on truth.

And there are other such cases, especially when atheists try to debunk various pious stories. For instance, I saw one man try to replicate the miracle of St. Anthony where he went from reading scripture at the lectern and then instantly was in the choir loft singing. This man tried over and over to say that St. Anthony ran so fast that no one saw him and jumped to his station in the choir loft, and then proceeded to try himself repeatedly. Complete stupidity, that man's idea and his actions. Either what was is said to have happened actually happened or it didn't happen at all. Both the atheist and the theist alike can point and laugh at these sort of fellows.

This flaw I was speaking of is all too common amongst fad atheists, and even sincere one's are susceptible to it. Perhaps, though, more ridiculous is the common insistence of fad atheists that you cannot disprove a negative. These atheist cocktail party philosophers readily offer this when asked to prove that God doesn't exist. Further, they state that the burden of proof is on the theist to show a God. But this is a stupid argument, because if that were the case then the atheist is stating that the fiduciary void of space cannot be proved. Further, the burden would certainly be upon them to prove that the void cannot be proved under the same set of rules if anyone asked them. That's a ridiculous proposition. And sincere informed atheists do nothing to correct their counterparts, their disciples if you will, when they employ this argument, because they don't mind if the waters are muddied, for the very reason that the confusion might hide any inadequacies in their own, more genuine beliefs.

Also, there is that atheists demand a species of empirical proofs concerning God's existence which do not follow from the description of God. They want something measurable, in a word. But the definition of God is that he is infinite and therefore immeasurable. To demand a quantifiable proof for the existence of God is like demanding to be shown deer toes or chicken lips, otherwise you won't believe in chickens and deer. On this point, I too am an atheist. I am an atheist in so far as I do not believe that there is any quantifiable evidence for the existence of God that comes from his substance, nor for the existence of non-gods. You cannot say," Here is a measurable energy that is God. Here a finger of God. etc..." I do not believe in the existence of a God who is a sum of parts.

And this is the sort of atheism I fancy, namely that I am an atheist insofar that I do not believe in gods that are not God. Similarly, I do not believe in anything 'y' that is not 'y.' The Greeks had these sorts of atheists, if you can call them atheist. Modern atheists like to put their unjust hands all over certain historical figures and claim them for their own camp. A prime example being Epicurus and his Epicureans, the later cult. Only Epicurus wasn't an atheist. In fact, the existence of gods was very instrumental in conveying his concepts of 'hedonai' (pleasure) and 'ataraxia' (tranquility). Epicurus simply believed that if gods did exist, they didn't have anything to do with us, because they lived in a perfect state beyond anything that can detract from perfect hedonai, one which we can strive to achieve through a pious sort of hedonism. His hedonism focused on higher forms of pleasure such as virtue, sobriety, health, wisdom, etc. By no means did Epicurus devise a philosophy that stated," There are no gods, therefore all morals are subjective. The highest good is whatever makes you feel good." Epicurus wasn't encouraging anyone to slake their thirst for pleasure with sex, gluttony, power, and wine. In fact, Epicurus was a vegetarian who was most amicable and mild in disposition who believed that prudence was the source of all virtue, and therefore lived by a strict rule of moderation, abstinence from bodily pleasures, and deep friendship. This prompted him to devise his 'hedonistic calculus' which is similar to the 'approach-avoidance' conflict we see used in psychology today. I won't tarry too long on Epicurus, for the reason that this letter isn't about Epicurus.

However, Epicurus' philosophy was so similar to Christianity, that all the Epicureans converted to Christianity. They were very good ones, too. In fact, they played a role, I am told by an atheist analytic philosopher, in the establishment and popularity of monasticism, employing their commune style of life in their obedience to the Gospel. Not much survives of Epicurus' works, but even a cursory reading of his works will reveal to the inquirer numerous and undeniable parallels to Christianity. Epicurus and many of his fellow countrymen took up this form of atheism; we shall call it atheism since the atheists are so keen to call them atheists. They denied the Greek gods because there was nothing divine in them beyond their immortality, strengths and skills. They were bereft of any unwavering sort of virtue and displayed a horrendous vicissitude in character. It was obvious to any self respecting and educated Greek that these myths were myths in fact. And so, many of them devoted themselves to philosophy and the sciences, which at the time were mostly one and the same. It was an easy thing to do with Aristotle available to those who valued more highly the empirical proofs, if they could not be bothered with deities at all. And for those who simply could not be bothered with myths and valued reason, yet retained their piety, Plato was available to them as well. And there were many others as well, to whom the Greek could resort to in lieu of patronizing these inadequate Greek gods, so-called.

As time went on, a highly defined concept of what 'the good' must be was formed by the Greeks, atheists and theists alike. They determined what God must look like, if he does exist, what characteristics would be necessary. Greek philosophers articulated vast and concise works on virtue and ethics, metaphysics and the like. Hereby, the Greeks made themselves ready to recognize God at his first appearance, should he appear. So, these toga clad philosophers and their rich boy patrons went on honing their powers of perception. As a rule, these men knew they were worshiping something other than the thing which was named, and were content to observe holidays and various feast and other pieties.

It's not that they gave up on the notion of God, rather they gave up on the notion of gods which are necessarily false... or tried to in one fashion or another. Then, from the east came the Christ cult and the Hebrew God, who fit their ideas almost perfectly, like carts to horses. And these atheists were suddenly atheists no more. How could they deny this God who so resembled what they had through science, logic, and philosophy become aware of, when they had unto death defended their ideas concerning the same? The old gods could no more remain than darkness can remain when light is cast.

That's the big disconnect between the men atheists call their fathers and the atheists themselves. Generation after generation of Greek philosophers and intellectuals held fast to philosophies propounded by the greatest amongst them: Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and many others. They had every reason to reject the superstitions of their countrymen, but none to reject God himself. In a strange species of silence, they held their peace for a long time waiting for 'The Perfect' to appear. Yet, modern atheists, especially fad atheists, reject all notions of God. However, because of the philosophical nature of Christianity, it is known as the most logical of all religions. This perhaps is why atheists spend such great amount of time refuting Christianity as opposed to other forms of religious belief. And to be perfectly frank, it is why atheists bait and debate Protestant fearmongers who are afraid of philosophy and science... instead of debating Catholics and Orthodox who are well armed with philosophy. A very childish and cheap tactic.

In fact, Christianity itself is the sole continuance of philosophy, or at least western philosophy. The point of all this is that there is an impudent and juvenile form of atheism, and there is a truly preparatory and enlightened version of atheism; one that makes the soul ready. On cannot divorce theology from philosophy. It is something that remains till this day. There exists therefore a sort of rational atheism, short lived, which is ever ready to embrace God. However, these 'pure empiricists' as they call themselves are completely irrational, and wouldn't countenance a proof for the number two if you asked them to, if they really knew the implications of their professed beliefs. Anyway, I'm buzzing and so I'm out.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

St. Anselm's Ontological Argument

2011-04-06T14:26:00.003-04:00

The buzz on the interwebs these days amongst lay people in religion forums where theists and atheists clash is what many people are calling "The Ontological Argument" which is in fact 'The Cosmological Argument.' It states that creation exists and therefore something caused it to exist, that 'cause' would be reasonably defined as God, i.e. an uncreated creator who is not temporally or spatially conditioned, and who is all powerful over creation (omnipotent and omnipresent). They are right to call this an ontological argument because, it deals with the existence of creation and God; and ontology is the study of being.

The great irony here is that the theist is taking up the side of rationalism and the atheist is taking up the side of empiricism. That's ironic, of course, because the claim leveled against theists by atheists is that they are irrational. The atheist is denying the existence of 'The Cause' because there is no empirical evidence of that 'Cause,' whereas the theist approaches the issue rationally like an algebraic equation where P= 1. The atheist's view states that all knowledge must come from experiencing what is, and the theist's view is quite the opposite and states that it isn't necessary to import any information about the universe in order to know something. For instance, if we say that 1=1 we know it to be true, and if we say 1<1 we know it to be false because it must be itself. But if we say 1<?, then we know that the latter two propositions cannot be the case and we know that any number less that 1 cannot be the case, and so by making an assumption, proving a contradiction, and ejecting it we know that there is such a number that is at least greater than one: 1<2. This is how we know that there are an infinite amount of numbers without having counted them all, because we can assume, show a contradiction and eject using the rational approach which doesn't import any premise found in the empirical universe. And further proof of that is, we can conceive of a number that is larger than any amount of anything in the universe, which exceeds tangible proofs.

However, the ontological argument that stands out in philosophical circles is St. Anselm's Ontological Argument for the existence of God, or 'The Perfect.' Instead of using something which may be reasonably perceived as caused (creation itself) as a proof for God's existence, it offers a rational proof for the existence of God after the same manner of mathematics, and it goes like this (df means same as):

1.) The Perfect = df Something other than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2.) The Perfect = The Perfect = df (X=X)
/.: 3.) The Perfect cannot be conceived not to be.

Now, the average person will say," That is a load of crap. I could replace God or 'The Perfect' with a Unicorn and prove the existence of unicorns, square circles, a number which is both greater and less than one, and I can prove the existence of men who are women." Not so. This is because 'The Perfect' necessarily exists according to the definition of 'The Perfect' and is therefore a necessary being, whereas unicorns and the other things are contingent. I'll show you what I mean.

The above argument, the three premises, are predicated by the description of 'The Perfect' in St. Anselm's 'Proslogion II." It states that:

1.) 'The Perfect' has all positive properties. (This is because evil is a lack of something and not the presence of anything. Therefore, to have negative qualities would delimit anything perfect, even in a mathematical sense, but to be sure, also in an ethical, moral, and substantial sense. Thus, 'The Perfect' would not be perfect if it had negative qualities. So it's necessary for 'The Perfect' to have all positive qualities.)
2.) Existence is one such property.
/.: 3.) 'The Perfect' exists.

We cannot conceive of a thing such as 'The Perfect' that does not exist, because existence itself is necessary to formulating the concept of 'The Perfect.' Such a necessary being might represent X. Now, if we conceive of the selfsame being that is contingent, and say it is also X, then we have a contradiction, and the conception is necessarily false, because a thing cannot exist as a necessary being and a contingent being at once. This is because a contingent being can fail to exist, but a necessary being cannot fail to exist. It must be one or the other.

So, we can certainly conceive of such a unicorn that exists and we can conceive one that does not exist, because it is not necessary that unicorns exist for us to conceive of them accurately. But in order to accurately conceive of 'The Perfect' it is necessary to conceive of it existing, otherwise it is not itself. This is because 'The Perfect' is something other than which none greater can be conceived, and that being the case if we conceived of something other than which none greater can be conceived that did not exist, it would be less than something other than which none greater can be conceived that does exist. So, it is impossible to conceive of God not existing and have an accurate conception of Him because (X =X). That is not the case with unicorns, men who are women, square circles or the like.

Human beings are rational creatures, and one of the things that predicates reason in a being is its ability to distinguish between true statements and contradictions. Every person knows that (p=/=p) is a contradiction precisely because they have reason. However, the atheist thinks that he can conceive of 'The Perfect' not existing, which is a contradiction and necessarily false; it's unintelligible to even say. It only becomes intelligible if his conception is not identical to 'The Perfect,' in which case he still hasn't dismissed God but a non-God, and therefore the assertion is still nonsense and unintelligible. Again, this is because a being that must exist is greater than a being that can exist and not exist.

The most immediate and common atheistic reply to this argument comes from 'Positivism' which is basically empiricism. The atheist would reply," Very clever, but it's an empty concept. You have no empirical evidence of such a being and even if you could make contact with such a being you would have no way to prove it to be what it is because it is infinite, and likewise we atheists would have no way of disproving it because it is immeasurable."

However, this approach is problematic, because of two little words: good and bad. If you take this approach that states 'only that which is empirical has meaning', it follows necessarily that good and bad are also rejected, or at least diminished to a merely emotional value.

At that point the whole subject of ethics disappears. Saying that rape, murder, or genocide are bad, or that philanthropy, volunteering, and nurture are good becomes a mere expression of emotions, with absolutely no substance. Subjects aren't good or bad, they don't have positive or negative properties, you are merely projecting your emotions (which mean nothing) onto things which themselves have no intrinsic value (everything is worthless). So, ethics and morals become meaningless subjective nonsense under the lens of 'Positivism,' because 'Positivism' is empirical and excludes reason; and a 'do what thou whilt' attitude sets in. Rationalism is diametrically opposed to 'Positivism' because, rationalism states that sentient beings do have intrinsic value, and that because of this there are concrete morals and ethics, and an attitude of 'lawfulness' takes root.

So, the atheist empiricist comes off rather badly from this argument, because he is a fool for thinking he can conceive of what cannot be conceived and insists on a contradiction that is necessarily false, while admitting that he does not believe in morals or ethics, and that he believes nothing has any meaning and everything is worthless. On the other hand, the theist rationalist comes off rather well. He asserts what is necessarily so, gives assent to ethics and morals, and states that sentient beings do have intrinsic value.

This argument really pulls the atheist's pants down, and shows him to be in fact the opposite of what he wants to seem. He desires to seem a courageous, hyper-rational stoic who is brave enough to face the nothing that the theist is so afraid of he goes and makes 'an imaginary friend in the sky'. Because of this he would have people think that he is the moral and intellectual superior of the theist, because he makes himself seem braver and more rational. When in fact the atheist doesn't believe in any kind of real courage, because he doesn't believe in virtues, ethics or morals; and beyond this, he isn't the intellectual superior in any case because he gives assent to that which cannot be logically admitted... which of course makes him seem rather stupid.

Anyway, that's St. Anselm's Ontological Argument.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Augustine vs. Messianics

2011-04-03T19:05:00.000-04:00

"The trouble was that I knew nothing else; I did not recognize the other, true reality. I was being subtly maneuvered into accepting the views of those stupid deceivers by the questions they constantly asked me about the origins of evil, and whether God was confined to material form with hair and nails, and whether people who practiced polygamy. killed human beings, and offered animal sacrifices could be counted as righteous. Being ignorant of these matters I was very disturbed by the questions, and supposed that I was approaching the truth when in fact I was moving away from it. I did not know that evil is the diminishment of good to the point where nothing at all is left. How could I see that, I whose power of sight was restricted to seeing material shapes with my eyes and imaginary forms with my mind?...." (This is exactly what Messianic are do through their proselytization, except in reverse, because they call into question Christian liberty through the application of the Law of Moses.)

"... I did not know either that true inward righteousness takes as its criterion not customs but the most righteous law of God, by which the morality of countries and times was formed as appropriate to those countries and times, while God's law itself has remained unchanged everywhere and always, not one thing in one place and something different elsewhere. By this norm Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and all those of whom God spoke approvingly were indeed righteous; they are accounted guilt only by persons of limited experience who judge by some day of human reckoning and measure the conduct of the human race at large by the standard that befits their own. They are like someone who knows nothing about armor, or which piece belongs where, and tries to cover his head with the greaves and his feet with the helmet, and then grumbles because they do not fit properly. Or again, they are like a man who on a certain day which is appointed a public holiday from noon onward is indignant because he is not allowed to set out his goods for sale in the afternoon, although this was allowed in the morning; or like a person who in one and the same house sees something being handled by one servant which another one, who serves drinks, is not allowed to touch, or something being done behind the stables which is not properly done at table, and gets angry about this, complaining because, while there is one house and one staff of servants, the same actions are not permitted to everybody in all places." (This is the great disconnect between Messianics and the rest of Christendom. They struggle with reconciling the vicissitude (changing) of laws, rules, and statutes throughout the ages with the constancy of God's nature. They are missing the philosophical and theological links)

"Equally foolish are people who grow indignant on hearing that some practice was allowed to righteous people in earlier ages which is forbidden to the righteous of our own day, and that God laid down one rule for the former and a different one for the latter, as the difference between the two periods of time demands; whereas in fact both sets of people have been subject to the same norm of righteousness. This attitude is just as stupid as being upset because, with regard to a single man or a single day or a single house, one perceives different pieces of armour to be designed for different limbs, and an activity to be lawful to a certain hour but not afterward, and something to be permitted or even ordered in a corner but forbidden and punished elsewhere. Does this mean that justice is fickle and changeable? No, but the epochs over which she rules do not all unfold in the same way, precisely because times change. Human beings live on earth for a brief span only, and they lack the discernment to bring the conditions of earlier ages, of which they have no experience, into the same frame of reference with those they know well; but they can easily perceive in one body or one day or one house what is appropriate for each limb, each time, and all persons and places. Thus while they may be scandalized by the one, they readily submit to the other." (This is exactly what the Messianics are doing, only in reverse, because they are trying to live in the past.)

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

On Prudence

2011-03-28T23:06:00.004-04:00

O Lord, make me understand. Teach me from the inside so that I might glorify you. Make me to know the way I should go. In a word, let me be prudent. I've heard it said, O Lord, that prudence is the chiefest of virtues. It was the hedonist Epicurus who said this. Having understood, I think that this is true and excellent. For to be prudent is to do what one ought, and one ought only to do that which is right.

Therefore, my God, I said to you that it seems true to me that prudence is the chiefest of all virtues. If anyone does what is right they are prudent, and to do right is to observe your holy law in all things. But who has been prudent since Adam, Lord? Where is the proof of what I am giving assent to? Can I give assent to that which does not exist? As the psalmist says, O Lord," There is none who does good; no not one. They have all gone astray." Yet I do give assent, emphatically, that such a one as who is perfectly prudent pleases you, because you are pleased with prudence itself, and prudence is the very thing you require.

But how can I give assent with no evidences? Truly, there is one who is, was, and will be prudent, even Christ. Him I can point to, as my evidence. But am I the only one, along with those born after Him, who can say that He is my evidence? This cannot be so, because we are equals in that we are in the present, whenever we are. For we, Lord, are temporally conditioned, though you are not, for you are eternal.

Again, Lord, teach me as only you can, from the inside. Educate my reason, and enlighten my soul; do not let me err with vain thoughts. I give assent, Lord, that all that really is, is now. No man can create the future, he cannot through his own strength create a moment. He cannot travel into the past, either, but now is all that really is. Yet, for you, O Lord, who are timeless, all these moments are static before you in your eternal realm. You are experiencing them, and completely aware. You are in all time, yet you are not temporally conditioned; neither can it be said that you are "here" or "there."

It cannot be that I am the only one, along with the children born after your Son's time on earth, who can produce an evidence that you are please with the prudent man. For, in truth we produce nothing, because that time is past and 'now' is what is. Inform my faith; teach my faith understanding, my God. Those who are at rest in the countries of the dead and were so before the coming of your messiah, were they without reason to anticipate the prudent man? Surely not, because they could conceive of something more prudent than themselves in their minds, though they and their children had not seen what they had conceived. Therefore, it must have been through anticipation that they were able to know a perfectly prudent man is perfectly pleasing to you.

For us it is the same, then, because having not seen, we yet believe. However, not through anticipation do we do this, but through memory or what has been told to us about the Son. Further, Lord, we are also aware of your pleasure, because of the accidents of this prudent man. We have many evidences of your satisfaction around us in all that has been established through your prudent Son. These I must point to, these are my evidence, then which inform my intellect, the very things my reason givens assent to.

To do good and to be good, O Lord, these are to be prudent. Yet, your prudent one says," Why call ye me good? There is none good save one, the Father in heaven." Where then are your suppliants? We must know, then, that you alone are truly prudent, for you are Good, Almighty Father. To be prudent, then is to be like you and to be like you is to be good and do good. Prudence, then, seems to me Lord the source of all other virtues which are pleasing to you, so far as it pertains to us men. Therefore, you have charged us to imitate your Son, as reason would tell it. So small a saying," Be prudent." yet so heavy.

This is a hard saying, heavy to bear, O Lord. When I think on it I am crushed, for I know that I am not prudent, nor can I become prudent through any strength of my own. Even now, if I were to turn from every evil forever and sin no more, the past is behind me, ever real, in which I have already sinned. No one could say of me," He was a prudent man." Only they could perhaps then say of me," He became a prudent man." But if I became prudent then it is evident that there was a time when I was not. Here again, the words of your prudent one are true, that there is none who is prudent except for you, O God.

It is a heavy burden to think that, that which you desire is prudence. But men think arrogantly, they attempt to look at life the way you do and forget their place. They look at all the burdens at once, as if they were you, observing moments in the past, well aware of present burdens, and anticipating a host of other burdens. The wise man listens to your prudent one who said," Do not worry about tomorrow. Tomorrow will worry for itself. Today has enough trouble of its own." Therefore, I will try here to be prudent and listen to your prudent one. If I look at each 'now' I may know, with your help, what is prudent for each situation. If I stop anticipating things I cannot know by releasing myself from the anticipations produced by past experiences, I will find rest in you, O Lord, and find the strength to be prudent. Therefore, Lord, take away my guilt and the condemnation of sin. This is necessary if I am to be at peace with you, if I am to enter into your rest, and tend to present things which make up the past, and which were once the future.

If I understand this, Lord, your burden becomes light. If I obey the words of your prudent one, then I have an easy yoke. Yes, here again, your words are true. But if this is true, then it is also true that you make us anew. For if each moment is all that is, then now, Lord, in You, means that I am a new man. You make your people replete with opportunities to be prudent. In this we become 'like' you.

But only teach me a little further, Lord and I will strive to follow. If this be the case, then it might be truly said of your new creations, they are prudent, because they cease from sin, and gave to you what you require. And only, I see here again that your words are in accord with each other, because it is written," But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.(Romans 5:20)" Because even if we are not prudent, and remain faithful, yet we are still prudent. For it is a prudent thing, to have faith, to seek forgiveness and lay hold of your Christ, for whom it is written,"... he remitted our transgressions." so that we might become prudent indeed.

Yes, Lord, I give assent that to be good and do good is to be prudent, and that to be prudent is to do what one ought. Therefore, let your Holy Spirit speak clearly to me and teach me what I ought to do; place in me a new heart, yes, perfect my conscience, O Lord. Write your laws, your statutes, and your edicts upon my heart. And strengthen me to be prudent in every 'now' through doing, in abstaining, and thinking. Yes, Lord make me prudent in word and deed, so that I may be a true imitator of your prudent one.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

'The True Adornment of Woman' -St. John Chrysostom-

2011-03-04T22:06:00.000-05:00

Here is a timeless homily of St. John Chrysostom's (circa 390 A.D.) to consider in contrast with the highly sexual modern fashions of today:

"Do you wish to adorn your face? Do not do so with gems but with piety and modesty; thus adorned, a man will find your appearance more pleasing to behold. For that other kind of adornment generally arouses suspicions which give rise to jealousy, enmity, strife, and quarrels. For there is nothing more disgusting than a suspiciously beautiful face.

But the adornment which comes from almsgiving and modesty drives out all wicked suspicion and draws your husband to you with greater strength than any chain. For natural beauty does not make a face become beautiful as much as does the disposition of him who beholds it, and nothing is more likely to produce this disposition than modesty and piety. Hence even if a woman be beautiful but her husband hates her, she will appear to him as the ugliest of women; if a woman does not happen to be comely but she pleases her husband, he will find her the fairest of women. Judgments are made not in the light of the nature of what is seen but in the light of the disposition of those who see it.

Adorn your face, therefore, with modesty, piety, almsgiving, benevolence, love, kindliness towards your husband, reasonableness, mildness, and forbearance. These are the pigments of virtue; by there you draw not men but angels as your lovers; for these you have God Himself to praise you. When God shall approve of you, He will win over your husband to you in every way; for if wisdom illumines the face of a man, much more does virtue make the face of a woman shine forth.

If you consider that virtue is a great adornment to your beauty, tell me, what benefit will come to you from pearls on that day? But what need is there to speak of that day, when it is possible to prove all these to speak of that day, when it is possible to prove all thee points with arguments from the present life? Surely, when those who are held to have insulted the emperor are dragged into court and are in danger of their lives, then their mothers and wives put off their necklaces, their gold and pearls, all their adornment and gold-embroidered robes; they put on a simple, inexpensive garment, sprinkle themselves with ashes, roll in the dust before the doors of the courtroom, and in this way try to move their judges.

But if golden ornaments, pearls, and embroidered robes could treacherously betray you in the courts of this world, whereas mildness, gentleness, ashes, tears, cheap garments are more calculated to win the judge over to your side, this would be all the more true in that dread judgment where there can be no bribing. For what word of defense will you be able to speak when the Master shall accuse you in the matter of these pearls, and when He shall lead forward the poor who have perished from hunger? This is why Paul said: not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothing. For these could be a trap.

But even if we should enjoy these things day in and day out, we shall be separated from them utterly by death. Virtue, however, does not change or alter; it is completely secure, and it both makes us more secure in this world and goes along with us to the next. Do you wish to possess pearls and never lay aside this wealth? Then strip off your adornment and put it into Christ's hands through the hands of His poor. He will guard all your riches for you against the day when He will raise up your body with great glory. Then He will put on you a better wealth and richer adornment, since your present wealth and adornment are really paltry and ridiculous.

Think, then, who they are whom you wish to please and on whose account you wear this adornment . Is it that the ropemaker and the coppersmith and the man in the market may look at you and marvel (lust)? Are you not ashamed and do you not blush to be showing yourself off to these people and to be doing all this for men whom you do not consider worthy of greeting?"

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Aristotle's Ontology

2011-02-27T01:33:00.003-05:00

Question: How does Aristotle answer the fundamental ontological question,” What are the basic realities (ousia/ substance)? How does his answer differ from Plato’s?

Aristotle’s explanation was that there are two basic kinds of ousia: primary substance and secondary substance. Then, there are other kinds of things that pertain to these. Primary substances, according to Aristotle, are those things which are neither said of (asserted of), nor present in, a subject. That is, individual things, e.g. this man, this ox, this snake, this tree… etc. These ‘individual’ things require sentience; they need both a nutritive and a reproductive soul. Due to the presence of a reproductive soul, they must also be able to reproduce their own kind. Further, they must be of natural kinds, id est things given by nature. They must be identifiable (separate) and re-identifiable (capable of taking on contraries). Here, Aristotle is stating, contrary to Plato, that these primary substances ARE the things themselves, whereas Plato asserted that these things were composites of forms beyond themselves. So, according to Aristotle, the form ‘ox’ isn’t present in ‘this ox,’ neither is the ox participating in the form ‘ox,’ but the ox is an ox, and therefore the universal ‘ox’ exists. ‘This ox’ isn’t said of the universal ‘ox,’ however, because it isn’t all ‘ox.’

Primary substances are those things of which everything is predicated, but which are not predicated of anything. In other words, the 'universal' [man] is predicated by the existence of things like Socrates, but the universal [man] does not necessitate the existence of the man Socrates. This brings us to the secondary substances.

The secondary substances, according to Aristotle, are ‘said of’ a subject, but not ‘present in’ a subject. For example, take the sentence,” Socrates is a [man].” Socrates is obviously the primary substance (this man) and so [man] is the secondary substance. Socrates is a man; [man] is said of Socrates. But, ‘Socrates’ isn’t said of [man]… otherwise, we would all be Socrates! So, Socrates is being (ontologically) a man. He is a man, but [man] is not Socrates.

I had said that there were other kinds of things which pertain to primary and secondary substances. Aristotle said that one of these other kinds of things, were 'in' individuals in categories other than substance. Of these he said that they are ‘in a subject,’ but not said of any subject. The example Aristotle gives is ‘knowledge of grammar’ and it is easy to see what he means here. The knowledge of grammar is ‘in’ Socrates, but no one would say that Socrates ‘is’ the knowledge of grammar. So, these things are an entirely different substance than ‘ox’ or ‘this ox.’

The other kind of things that pertain to primary and secondary substances are those things which are both ‘in’ and ‘said of’ subjects. This idea has recourse to Aristotle’s belief that things are the primary basis. What I mean is, or rather what Aristotle means, is that the primary things are necessary to these things. An easy example is that I am blond. ‘I’ predicate ‘blondness,’ but blondness does not predicate me. [Blond] exists because individual things that are blond exist. Blond is both said of me and in me.

All of these ousia above listed form categories of themselves and develop a taxonomy of quantities, qualities, relations, and places. So, for example, if you have the primary substance (individual) of Socrates, the next thing is up the teleology is the species [man]. Then, above that is the genus [animal]. And above that would probably be [being] and it wouldn't go any higher, because being is being; it's not a composite of universals like Socrates, man, and animal are.

Aristotle also classifies these substances according to their causes, of which there are four. These causes are teleological explanations and therefore pertain to teleology and the nature of the substances. The first cause is ‘that out of which a thing is made and which remains after the change;’ this is the 'material cause,' e.g. the metal out of which a hammer is made. The second cause is ‘that into which a thing is made;’ this is the 'formal cause,' e.g. the hammer itself. The third cause is ‘that by which a thing is made;’ this is the 'efficient cause,' e.g. the blacksmith who made the hammer. The fourth cause is ‘that for the sake of which a thing is made;’ this is the 'final cause,' e.g. the hammer was made for pulling nails and pounding them in. So, according to Aristotle, there is a teleological explanation for everything.

Now, Plato’s ideas differ from Aristotle’s. Aristotle does a good job of explaining the difference in the sixth chapter of the Metaphysics. He points out that Socrates was in pursuit of what Aristotle termed ‘universals of ethics’ instead of the things themselves, i.e. ethical things. Socrates was looking for [virtue] and not virtuous things. Plato took this pattern of pursuit and applied it to all the things themselves. For Aristotle, universals were bi-products of individual things. For Plato, individual things were the bi-products of universals, and the individual things weren’t really individuals, rather, they were composites of what Plato called 'forms.'

So, for a working example: Aristotle would say that heroism exists because individual things are heroic, and white exists because there are white things, and that the individual man is the predication of these things. Plato, however, would say that the body is merely organon (a tool or a vessel) which participates in the ‘form’ of heroism, and the ‘form’ of whiteness ‘itself.’ Further, because of this difference, they disagreed on the concept of 'flux' which originated with the Heracleiteans. For Aristotle, primary and secondary substances were always in a state of flux because they were taking on contraries at varying rates. For Plato, the organon of matter was simply participating in forms one instant and other forms the next.

So, very basically, Aristotle was a materialist; things were and are, in and of themselves, their own explanation. Plato, on the other hand said that a whole host of other things in and from the 'intelligible realm' were necessary to the existence of sensible things. For Aristotle, the rock is a rock, because it is a rock, and from the individual 'rock' comes the universal [rock] and [gray] and so forth. For Plato, the matter of the rock was participating in the form ‘rock,’ and the form ‘one,’ and the form ‘gray,’ and the form ‘hard.’ Plato’s philosophy multiplied problems by saying that the answers were elsewhere in the intelligible realm, doubling the subjects. Aristotle’s philosophy took the answers out of the intelligible realm and put them back into the sensible and said,” The answer is right here, and there’s no need to multiply the problem.”

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Arm Chair Theologian and Sophistry

2011-02-21T23:30:00.003-05:00

This is what I have to say about the issue of Lila Rose 'lying' about her identity in order to expose Planned Parenthood for what it is. There are a lot of meddling arm-chair theologians who think they can dive right into moral scholasticism and pretend to knowledge about moral philosophy and theology... because that is where these moral arguments are articulated, very often, in scholasticism. They take a sliver and proceed to condemn anything they don't like, pretexting with Church documents just like Evangelicals do with the KJV bible.

The problem with that is, scholasticism reads like Aristotle. The text presumes that the reader is aware of the issue, the terms, their specialized meanings, the counter arguments, the premises, and the form of argumentation. But these lay-theologian types get a whiff in their nostrils and all of the sudden think they know everything about a given subject, bifurcating arguments. If they smelled you in a dark room, they'd try to tell you what color your eyes are. Just for anyone who may be unaware, a bifurcation is a logical fallacy. For instance:" If you say that you don't want milk and cookies, you MUST hate milk and cookies." Does that follow necessarily? No.

What this all comes down to is the blindness of absolutism, and the evil of scrupulosity, pathological guilt about moral or religious issues. For instance, having so much integrity that it leads you to be merciless. Integrity points to justice and justice points to good. Mercy, justice, and integrity are in themselves 'goods'... BUT... in their place. Sex with your spouse is 'good,' but not in your front yard so all the neighbors to see.

The moral objections presented here against Lila Rose are based off of semantical arguments and pedantry. If I showed these people this sentence:" This sentence is false." They'd pull their hair out over it! Because on the one hand if the sentence is false, then the sentence is true. But if the sentence is true, then the sentence is still true, and therefore can't be true. They would be reduced to scruples over this sentence, instead of admitting that it is a paradox... not even a mystery.

But if we were to class it as a mystery, they are twice as wrong. John Henry Newman said correctly," The denial of mystery is the beginning of all heresy." And that is precisely what we have here, the inklings of a pale heterodoxy. These people are making the error of Rene Descartes: understanding (logic) seeking faith. They have lost their way and erred into grave sin. The right way is faith seeking understanding, like Sts. Augustine and Aquinas said, which the Church gives formal assent to.

Perfect example here: God wills for man to have an 'undelimited' freedom. This is why He gives man free will. God also wants man to govern that freedom, because He doesn't want man to do certain things. God is willing a restriction on what He does not want restricted. Is there a problem here? NO! God simply knows that perfect people don't need laws. The good government of boundless freedom is not a restriction on man, but an accident of his natural limitations when he is in perfect homeostasis. The inability of man to do evil while he is being perfect is self-evident. It is an accident of his being perfect. To suggest that this delimits man's freedom is an empty headed and stupid notion. It's like saying that because man can't breath underwater, or run 100 miles per hour, or bath in lava his freedom is delimited.

People are acting like there is a dilemma here. What Lila did is superior, achieves more good, and is more right than inaction. What she did is superior, achieves more good, and is more right than if she had revealed her identity to the detriment of her work. At the bottom of every single blog I write is a quote, very fittingly here, from the 'Ethics' which reads, "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." The good is perfection, righteousness, the truth, life; in a word it is 'GOD.' What Lila did attains that good more efficiently than legalism or inaction. Point blank.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Necessities

2011-02-13T23:07:00.003-05:00

I am appalled at the attitude of so many people who think they are shining examples of Catholics. I'm really sick of the people who live, think, believe, do and think they have the right to do all kinds of thing against the teachings of the Church and then hold up the 'Roman Catholic' card.

There are some non-negotiables if you are going to be a Catholic, necessities if you will. They are necessities, because if you reject them, or if you verbally attack those who do agree with them and defend them, you are wrong. It is one thing for you to silently disagree and work it out, accepting that you are wrong even if you don't understand why, nobly sorting out your own error. But it is quite another to puff up your chest at your fellow Catholics and verbally attack them for standing by the teachings of the Church, to act like they need to "join the modern world," to call them idiots, and to call them bigots.

So, without these 'necessities' you don't get to pull the Roman Catholic card. The fact that you are a Roman Catholic is immaterial to whether or not your personal opinions are correct. If you believe in in vetro and a fellow Catholic calls you on you heretical point of view, don't you dare pull the Roman Catholic card as if to say the Roman Catholic Church makes provision for your opinion, as if to say you are the same as the person correcting you. You ARE NOT the same as the person correcting you, because you are wrong and the Church does not make provision for your heretical opinion because it is not orthodoxy, it is heterodoxy.

So, here are some non-negotiables:

Abortion is NEVER o.k. If you tell someone that it is o.k., and they get an abortion you are excommunicated. If you help them procure an abortion in any fashion, with knowledge, you are excommunicated. If you advise abortion, you are excommunicated. If you publicly defend and endorse abortion, you are excommunicated. If you do any of these you are hell bound and damned, unless you repent with true contrition and immediately seek out the sacrament of reconciliation.

If your opinion on abortion does not meet with the teaching of the Church, you are not to receive the Holy Eucharist, because you are anathema.

In vitro fertilization is NOT o.k. You may not do it, you may not endorse it, you may not counsel persons in such a manner that brings it about.

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material." This falls under murder and abortion. It is a mortal sin that immediately cuts you off from the saving grace of Christ. If you do it you are hell bound and damned, unless you repent with true contrition and immediately seek out the sacrament of reconciliation.

If you get married in the Church, and you divorce, you can never marry again. If you do get married anyway, you have committed the sin of adultery, a mortal sin which damns your soul eternally unless you repent with true contrition and immediately seek out the sacrament of reconciliation.

Homosexual acts are forbidden. Homosexuals are called to live celibate and chaste. There are absolutely no exceptions.

Contraception is forbidden. This includes the 'pulling out method.' It is a grave sin. Condoms, the pill, and all other forms of contraception are forbidden. Sterilization is forbidden. Women will not intentionally make themselves infertile for the purpose of preventing pregnancy. The morning after pill would be classed under murder, in the category of abortion... a mortal and damning sin.

There will never be female priestesses in the Catholic Church.

Fornication of all kinds is mortal sin. All adultery is mortal sin.

Homosexual marriage is forbidden.

Those are non-negotiable. Are they judgmental? You bet! We agree with Christ and His Holy Catholic Church who have judged. Don't even try to pretend that individual Catholics are being "un-Christlike," we're being very Christlike because it is Christ who has condemned what you allow. If you are a Catholic and you disagree don't get mad at Catholics, get mad at the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Get mad at Jesus Christ.

There is no room for charity when it comes to mortal sin. The Catholic Church has laid it on the line concerning mortal sin... you do it you are excommunicated and you go to hell. Don't expect Catholics to hold your hand and coddle you while you are damning yourself. There is only one thing to tell you in all the above cases: you are wrong, you are not in line with the Catholic Church, and it isn't ok. There is no wiggle room. It is not a matter of conscience. It isn't a grey area, there isn't room for a debate. You are wrong. That is all.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Deliver Me, O Jesus "Blessed Mother Teresa"

2011-02-10T22:25:00.000-05:00

Deliver me, O Jesus,
From the desire of being loved,
From the desire of being extolled,
From the desire to being honored,
From the desire of being praised,
From the desire of being preferred,
From the desire of being consulted,
From the desire of being approved,
From the desire of being popular,
From the fear of being humiliated,
From the fear of being despised,
From the fear of suffering rebukes,
From the fear of being calumniated,
From the fear of being forgotten,
From the fear of being wronged,
From the fear of being ridiculed,
From the fear of being suspected.
Amen.
~ Blessed Teresa of Calcutta~

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Protestant Evangelical Attack On Christian Religion

2011-02-05T22:50:00.002-05:00

This issue really gets me. APEs (American Protestant Evangelicals) constantly shove this "personal relationship" with Jesus down everyone's throat, yet never cease their attack on religion. Why is that? I'll tell you. They've unilaterally redefined what the term religion means in order to attack religion in general.

They say that by religion they mean dead man-made traditions. But they don't get to redefine what the word religion actually means. Religion means exactly what the dictionary would tell you: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity (Merriam-Websters). Religion is a way of life centered on the reality of God, extending to all venues.

The attack on religion really highlights the fact that Protestantism is a heresy, just like the Church has always said it is. The message Protestantism sends is one of," Live for God, but don't do it with any sense of order or regularity. Organize your life around God, but without any organization thereof. Order your life around Christ, but don't do it with any kind of order. Sanctify your life, but without sanctifying anything. Create a Christian culture, but without any traditions or culture. Have a relationship with Christ, but not through the Church. Seek the Truth, but once you've found it don't write it down authoritatively in order to help subsequent generations grasp the Truth; we want to keep reinventing the wheel in every generation. Bring something to the table of Christianity, but once you're gone, so is everything you brought."

Let me just cut to the chase: "The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion." Christ did not intend for each generation of Christians to build so that the next generation could knock it down and discredit it. The Holy Spirit does not reveal the Truth to Christians so that they will forget it. The Holy Spirit does not reveal the Truth to the society of all Christians so that it's forgotten over and over and over again, only to be painfully relearned in every generation. That's like having to learn that fire is hot, every single day. The Truth is revealed in an accumulative fashion so that each generation builds, until the fullness of the Truth, once delivered by Christ, is revealed in full. This is the perfection of the Bride of Christ.

This "personal relationship" nonsense that Protestants push is designed by Satan to do one thing and one thing only: to cut Christians off from the brethren. It's designed to cut Christians off from the Body of Christ, the society of all Christians. It's designed only to blind people from the communal revelation of Christ, and the revelations that the Holy Spirit gives to the Body as a whole throughout the ages. And if you think those revelations are superfluous, look at some communal revelations: the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Real Presence. You won't find the word trinity in the bible, or consubstantiality, or hypostasis, or transubstantiation for that matter. Those are communal revelations about the truth once delivered by Christ. Those are pretty substantial revelations.

The proposition of Protestantism which says," Forget religion! A deep personal relationship is all you need!" is counter intuitive and that's why they love it, it's a gimmick. It's the same as saying," Hey, eye ball, you don't need the head. Hey, finger, you don't need the hand." Go tie off your index finger good and tight, and tell me how long it takes before it turns green and starts to stink. The relationship of the Christian individual to the Church is more than going to listen to a sermon. It is a serious, life or death component to Christian life. The individual Christian needs the Body of Christ just like any body part needs the rest of the body.

The body shares a nervous system made out of the same substances as all it's parts; that is analogous to religion and tradition. The electrical impulses that move through the nervous system are analogous to the Holy Spirit. APEs are basically saying," You don't need a nervous system. Let me paralyze you." It's spiritual suicide. It's a bullet aimed at the head of Christ, His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

This heresy is a darkening of the intellect, which is why Evangelical Protestantism is world renowned for its sophistry, its fear-mongering, its anti-intellectual nature, its hatred of logic and reason, and its enmity with scientific and historical facts. This specific heresy of only needing a "personal relationship" is illogical and evil; it's designed to stunt human souls through ignorance. In fact, it was St. Augustine who famously said," Sin darkens the intellect." and as an Orthodox friend of mine aptly translated," Sin makes you dumb." Beware of this heresy! This IS NOT kosher, this IS NOT Christian, and most of all it IS NOT true. You need the Church, humanity needs the Church. The path to Christ is the Church and all of its sacraments. The Church is not merely some vague concept of you and me and everyone who calls on the name of Jesus. The Church is a way of life, it is religion, it is the sacraments. And don't forget it.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Why Circumcision?

2011-02-02T21:39:00.001-05:00

This practice has always been strange to us, even those who bear the mark of circumcision. It seemingly is the last thing a man should want to do, yet interestingly it is a symbol of the very thing he wants to do.

Abram was a man called out of his fathers house from the city of Ur of the Chaldeans and led into the land which the Lord had prepared for all his descendants. Abram was accompanied by his relatives and their slaves and their children, free and slave and all who had joined themselves to Abram.

Insomuch as we may derive from this knowledge that they had a common understanding having been from one nation and even further one city. According to the nature of God, we must presume that the covenant which He would construct with Abram was one that would have symbolic meaning and peculiar depth. So, let's look at how the Chaldean would perhaps perceive the practice of circumcision.

The head of the penis, as is commonly accepted, is a mystical symbol of the head itself. However, just as today one might presume, so too then was the head synonymous with the heart. So, circumcision is the removal of the crown which crowns the head. This would lead us to assume it is symbolic of recognition of a superior crown or even a foreshadowing of that saying that we will cast our crowns before the Lord, even as Zipporah cast the foreskin of Gershom at the feet of Moses her husband who was confronted by the Lord; therefore casting that fleshy crown before the Lord as an appeasement.

Then, as well, we must assume that it could be percieved simultaneously as a hood or a sack which had shrouded the head and heart of the man. That same shroud of sin which man did don originally in the garden. God was calling them, perhaps, to display the removal of depravity and ignorance. Circumcision was almost certainly a symbol of enlightenment, seeing that the head was no longer covered and could now see the truth and the heart could feel all things as they truly are.

There is, now, another reason for circumcision which is perhaps just as blessed as the others. The Semitic people known as the Habiru (Hebrew), which is a Semitic term that embodies simultaneously vagabond, nomad, gypsy, and stranger, grew very quickly as a nation. Anyone who was a run away, a freed slave, a man-slayer, a merchant, any refugees could join themselves to the Habiru. They were in fact a frightening force, looked at as locusts in the countries in which they wandered into. However, the kings of varying cities sought to make use of them by making buying them as military allies, which is demonstrated in the Book of Genesis.

However, to create a uniformity in the society and to preserve their culture, circumcision would have been an effective deterrent against all those who were not worthy of character to dwell with the Habiru. The lack of courage to under go the surgery would have presumably been a disqualifying factor. It was a means of preservation, I think, that God wisely instated. Further, it is evident that circumcision is the healthier of choices in that it prevents the spreading of disease. Men who are circumcised are less likely to instigate cervical cancer in their partners. It was a symbol that these people were conceived in truth and understanding, where as the rest of the world was conceived in darkness and ignorance.

Also, we see the males only receiving the circumcision, though female circumcision did exist, but not among the Habiru. This is most probably because God stated the males, but secondly and less importantly, many primitive societies believed that the man made people and planted them in the woman (the homunculus). However, I can not speak certainly concerning the Habiru on this particular view, but it does to appear to have been the common consensus. This would reinforce the idea that the offspring would be conceived in knowledge of God, owing their generation to the male in the primitive mind. Anyway, just something to think about... ponderings, you might say.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Lionheart

2011-02-01T21:22:00.001-05:00

Alexander the Great is renowned for having famously said," I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep. I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion." Pope Pius IX said," Give me an army saying the rosary, and I will conquer the world!" The laity are the sheep of the Church in a particular way. We are all the flock of Christ, priest and laity, one. But the priesthood shares in the Godhead, while we share in the Body. They are the image of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

These lions, the priests, led an army of sheep, the laity. Unfortunately, in the last century and even into this present one we see priests who act like sheep and provoke the faithful to be lions, incurring righteous indignation. A cry has gone up to heaven from the faithful for holy priests to be given, and it isn't the bleating of sheep, but the roar of lions. God has heard our cries and those of our fathers. He's jealous for His bride, and the Good Shepherd has answered us.

I'm not writing to you today about priests or a priest; I'm not speaking to you about one of those lions. I'm talking to you about one who is lionhearted, a young lion. I'm presenting to you a very special seminarian, Philip Gerard Johnson. He just completed almost two years of seminary at St. Charles Borromeo while fighting an inoperable brain tumor.

When I first met Phil in person, it was at Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church in Dunn, North Carolina. We were meeting to have breakfast at this country restaurant that is the object of many jokes in the area for it's 'fundamentalist Protestant' nature. For miles around, you see signs for this place," Waffle King! Jesus is Lord!" So, as a couple of Catholics, you might say ironically that we were about to enter into the heart of the lion's den.

After waiting for him in the church parking lot for half an hour, he finally showed up. He waved to me behind his window; this was my first time seeing him. He's a fair skinned guy with permanently blushing cheeks and he looks like a kid when he smiles. Phil got out and as he came closer I realized that he was a whole head taller than me. I soon found out that he has an intellect and humor that could reduce a man to tears. Beneath his facade of silly arrogance and joking condescension, he's actually a very pious and humble guy.

During that brunch which lasted nearly two hours, we just talked about the diocese and got to know each other. He had returned to full communion with the Church of Rome from an SSPX background some years before. He knew his stuff in and out about the Church and had a stunning clarity of mind. Having been an SSPXer he was refreshingly orthodox, and he felt compelled to be that change that would bring other SSPX back into full communion with the Church, and undo the damage done to the people in the pews. That healing has to start with an orthodox priesthood that is serious about their vocation, serious about the mass, and serious about the sacraments.

He's seen the damage that liturgical abuses and the progressive menace have caused in the Catholic Church, and he entered seminary answering the call for vocations to turn the tide against all that. He knows the fight ahead that most men are afraid to fight, the price of orthodoxy, the cost of unflinching devotion to the Holy Mother Church. That fight being hard enough, he also has to fight the physical battle against a brain tumor.

This young seminarian is the exact sort of priest you have all been praying for: one who isn't afraid to talk about abortion, to call out a heresy, to hammer contraception, and who isn't afraid to condemn pro-abortion politics. This is a seminarian who loves the Tridentine Latin Mass. This is a seminarian who will stand for what Catholicism 'IS.' He is exactly the sort of priest you've all been praying for. He's part of a whole generation of seminarians entering into the priesthood, of the exact sort that you've all been praying for.

Please pray for Philip Gerard Johnson. Pray for his vocation, pray for his very life. His tumor hasn't gotten any better and seems to be growing. He's been on various chemotherapy treatments and there is nothing left to do, but pray. So, please pray for this man, pray for his recovery, pray for full remission of the cancer. Pray for a miracle.

In Ephesians, St. Paul the Apostle says that God gave gifts to the human race in the form of men: some as prophets, some as teachers, preachers, apostles, and evangelists. These gifts are a miracle, these men are a miracle for us. Phil is one of these men. Pray for the miracles that these men need so that they can fulfill their vocation. A lot of people just say," God will handle it. It's in God's hands. God will see to that." when I hear that I remember the words of St. Thomas Becket in the movie 'Becket'," No, my bishops! The kingdom of God on earth must be defended like any other kingdom." That's the grit of Christianity, work and prayer.

When brown-nosing priest-mongers go on ad nauseum about how much the priests sacrifice of themselves for us it's easy to get a little nauseated. It's easy to think," Boo-hoo! They get to be in a position of respect for the rest of their lives, travel the globe, go to Lourdes, Fatima, Rome, schmooze with the richest parishioners who never cease inviting them over to their homes or out to eat at fine restaurants, make influential friends, never have to pay rent, never have to buy food, and spiritually condescend to the rest of us. Boo-freakin-hoo. Yeah, they give up so much. Please!"

That's the wrong attitude. These guys do get lot's of great stuff; it seems like fortune loves them at times. But these guys give up successful careers, the opportunity for a wife and children, their property, their time, their bodies, their freedom, their dreams, their friends and families sometimes, their whole lives. They give up one life for another. They have begun to live the Gospel," Go, sell all that thou hast and you shall have treasure in heaven." Instead of being rich and living in other countries, they are poor but fortunate enough to go visit them. Instead of being the rich parishioner who invites the priest over, they are the one getting invited. Instead of being the influential friend, they get to have an influential friend. Instead of living where they want to, they get told where to live. Instead of being spiritually fed, they feed us. They get a double portion of Satan's hatred, of spiritual attack, and double the temptation. They are the face of the Catholic Church that the world will spit in.

By no means is the priest's life a terrible one. But it's different. They've made sacrifices, ones that are not easy to comprehend. They have to defend the sheep to the death and it can be a very dangerous job. Pray for these men, they bring you the sacraments. They've given up their lives for your salvation. They do need our prayers, especially this one, my dear friend, Philip Gerard Johnson. Pray for his soul, pray for his flesh, pray for his vocation. I deeply thank you all, as I am sure you will diligently pray for this man and all priests.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Tradition

2011-01-31T16:59:00.005-05:00

Tradition, it's something American Protestant Evangelicals (APEs) have a huge gripe about. They immediately level this accusation at any and all organized religions. So, I'd like to take this opportunity to rebut.

Often the "religious" person will haphazardly give a reason for tradition and the "bible Christians," as they like to call themselves, will start to realize that they are being backed into a corner with fuzzy logic and facts. When this happens, all the sudden, the "bible Christian" takes leave to redefine their position. They say that they aren't against pious tradition, per se, just the vain traditions of "mere men."

This seems even more absurd to me, because suddenly this individual takes the mantle of authority upon themselves to confirm tradition as "acceptable" and dismiss others as "unacceptable," all the while claiming to do so with the scriptures. The problem is, none of "them" agree on the scriptures! So, who are they to definitively say? The mantle they've put on themselves is tailor-made for a very large man, and they sit swamped in it's folds like a little child. It reminds me of the cartoon, Robin Hood, where prince John is perpetually stretching his ears out to hold up a crown that belongs to his cousin, king Richard the Lionhearted.

Proverbs 3:5 says," Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding." If they are "bible Christians" then why are they doing the opposite of what the bible compels them to do, leaning on their own understanding of scripture? Quite frankly, it's because each of them is woefully convinced that all of their conclusions about everything under the sun are divine, because they have the Holy Spirit.

It brings to mind Voltaire's words," These fellows are certain that the Holy Spirit 'with which they are filled' is above the law, that their enthusiasm is the only law they must obey. What can we say to a man who tells you that he would rather obey God than men, and therefore he is sure to go to heaven for butchering you?"

Now, I'm not suggesting that APEs (American Protestant Evangelicals) want to go around killing people in the name of God. Nor am I suggesting that they are law breakers by nature, and neither was Voltaire. He was talking about religious fanaticism. But he brings up a valid point, that even the APE must deal with: What is the standard for truth? Many of our sad APE friends and family, without batting an eyelash, will have already said emphatically," It's the Bible!" But that is exactly what we are talking about here: How does one interpret the bible? Again, here, many of our APE friends and family will say without missing a beat," With the Holy Spirit!" It's the old circular logic, which is a fundamental error of logic.

There is an illustration that some clever person made, called rather mockingly 'The Wheel of Power," which was drawn up at the APE's expense. It's a circle and every so often on the circle is a question, and after it is an answer and it says:
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!
"But how can you be sure it's the word of God?"
BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS US SO!
"But why believe the bible?"
THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE!
"But how do you know it's infallible?"
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!
"But how can you be sure it's the word of God?"...

And around it goes forever and ever. All those statements might be true, but those are not answers to those questions! Further, they don't even begin to address the issue of interpretation, which is what we've been talking about up to this point. Even if all of the above declarations were established, we have to ask questions about the matter of interpretation. And in order to answer those questions we absolutely must get away from erroneous circular logic, which we know to be false. Otherwise, we could just make our own wheel of power addressing the issue of interpretation.

So, being properly motivated in the inquiry, I think we've established to a degree which answers are unsatisfactory. We've also established that the right questions have to be asked. To that end, let's digress and go into what the APE says they're against: the vain traditions of men. That's what they claim to be against.

Well, let's look at this and ask the right questions so that we come up with the right answers. Is the following proposition true?
1.) Vain traditions of men= df (identical) Traditions of men

No. That isn't true, is it? Of course not! It's not true, because vanity isn't necessary to the traditions of men. That is to say, traditions of men can exist without being vain. Now, on the other hand, traditions are necessary to the existence of vain traditions, right? You can't have vain traditions without 'tradition;' you'll just have 'vain' then, yeah?

So, the point of all that is, these APEs call themselves 'bible Christians.' That is supposed to mean that they only believe in what the bible says. Well, it's obvious to everyone, including them, that, that is not the case. Case in point, that APEs stand in opposition to all traditions of men, while claiming to stand only against the vain traditions of men. And why is this? Because to the APE, proposition #1 which we all concluded is necessarily false, is in their mind true! To them, all the traditions of men are vain. The problem with this is, it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that all the traditions of men are vain. In fact, the bible doesn't even come close to suggesting that they are; it says quite the opposite. One begins to wonder why they call themselves 'bible Christians.'

Before we can just move on beyond the APE's prejudices against the word tradition and talk about what the bible says, let's quickly address what the bible is. The bible is tradition! That's right, the canon of scripture is tradition, and that's a fact. The bible as the APE's know it has 66 books; the original bible has 73 books, that's the one that Catholics use. When the canon of scripture was being compiled it wasn't an issue merely of voracity, literary accuracy, or aesthetics. Those 73 books were chosen from approximately 350 different books that were deposited as worthy of canonization or note.

So, not only did everyone have dozens of copies of these 350 books, but after they decided which ones were pseudo-epigraphical (of dubious authorship), which ones were heretical, and which ones were readable, they had to go through and figure out which books everyone had in common, if their copies of the same books all agreed, and if not, which ones were most accurate. The accurate ones that everyone already had that corroborated with each other, were then synthesized into a single definitive version of the book. Then the book was added to the canon, after much debate about its place in the chronological order of epistles and Gospels. This process took years to complete.

The one thing that all of these books have in common, both the valid scriptures and the invalid, was that the local traditions stated that they were noteworthy. All the New Testament and Intertestamental books were the deposit of tradition. Not only were they traditionally true and the version which seemed most reliable out of all of the books, but they knew that they were the most reliable and true out of all the books, precisely because they agreed with tradition. That is why the bishops (the direct successors of the apostles) came together to discuss the matter as a Universal Catholic Church. These books agreed with not only their verbal traditions, which is all most Christians had, but also, their liturgical traditions (the latter which is exactly what APEs are referring to when they say 'the vain traditions of men.')

The Christian bible itself is a tradition; it is what all Christians, throughout the ages, have traditionally believed to be valid, true, and right. That is, until the Reformation, when Protestants decided they would simply stop believing in part of the bible, and took a pair of scissors to it. That being the case, you might rightly say that the Protestant form of the bible is in fact a vain tradition of mere men. A terrible and sweet irony there, aye?

Let's use the vain tradition of mere men, called the King James Version Bible, then, since the irony is so sweet and it is their translation, after all. Note ostensibly, it is His Majesty, King James' version of the Bible. Well, what does it say about tradition? Here are some apostolic quotes from the New Testament :

2 Thessalonians 2:15
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." I say! Will you look at that: whether by word OR their apostolic epistle. I say! Take note of that if you will, not only that the apostles were delivering more than doctrines and dogmas, namely traditions, but that these traditions whether oral or written were binding. Which means that there would have been a very clear system of authority to validate these traditions. Otherwise, the apostles would have been commanding everyone to believe anything that people claimed the apostles to have said. I say! Not only do we have here evidence of apostolic authority to innovate traditions, traditions of men, but that they are binding upon believers, and also we have here implicit evidence of a definitive apostolic delivery of these traditions.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." Here we have it that tradition ameliorates and prevents the poison of disorder. It must have been well said the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion (disorder). Tradition protects the Church, keeps it in order, and prevents the faithful from wandering away into true vanity, the vain traditions of men. Holy Apostolic tradition, according to this scripture, most emphatically separates the sheep from the goats. And atop it all is the first statement," "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..." Again, we see that Holy Apostolic tradition is binding and compulsory to every Christian. Not only that, but we are to get away from every brother who does not observe it!

When Christ rebukes the pharisees in the Gospels, we see Him saying that they reject the Law and observe the traditions of the elders. We see Him saying that their rabbinical traditions nullify the law. We see Him saying that the rabbis had overburdened the people with their many traditions. Yes, we see this, most certainly.

What we do not see is Christ saying that their traditions are evil or useless. There is a difference between observing the Law and traditions that are intended to help one observe the Law, and rejecting the Law and observing only tradition for the sake of traditions themselves. There is a difference between traditions which help and cause one to observe the Law, and those traditions which negate and seek to replace the Law. There is a difference between traditions which help a man do and obey what he must in order to make his life holy, and those traditions which ruin his life and crush him beneath innovated obligations. These and these alone were the issues Christ dealt with. Christ's condemnation of the pharisees and some of their traditions (those which negated the law of Moses) was not a condemnation of tradition itself; and that is self-evident. A blind man could see that. Christ never condemned tradition, nor heralded its ending.

Is the bible necessary to Christianity? No. Otherwise, there were no Christians before the bible existed and there were no Christians to write the New Testament and no Christians to write it about. Christianity is necessary to the bible, the bible is not necessary to Christianity. The truth of the bible is necessary to Christianity, now that is a true statement. That truth which is necessary to Christianity was and is alive in holy apostolic tradition, it first existed in tradition, it spread around the world in the form of tradition. If you were to put the mediums of the bible and tradition next to each other and compare them, they are both indispensable to communicating the Truth of Christ.

Think about the proposition of such a condemnation, that somehow God is not revealed in sensible things(bells, incense, vestments, the Eucharist, the holy oil, confession, marriage, holy orders, art, confirmation, Church documents), but He is revealed in sensible things (letters and words, e.g. the bible). Well, either He is revealed in sensible things or He isn't! It can't be both! A contradiction is absolutely, necessarily, always false. A Church with apostolic traditions is a Church with sacraments; sacraments are a visible sign of an invisible reality.

A lot of APEs say that tradition is keeping them out of the Catholic Church. That's erroneous; traditions keep one in the Body of Christ. Traditions protect the faith, are confirmed by scripture, expound the truth of Christ, and reveal the fullness of salvation in every generation. Traditions keep worldliness, confusion, chaos, and dissent outside of the Church and divinity, clarity, peace and concord inside the Church. Tradition keeps the salt salty, it keeps the spring fresh, and the virgin's lamp burning.

If tradition is keeping them out of the Church of the Apostles, then they are stating that they're worldly, confused, disorganized, and dissenting. Look at the APE "church." Do they match up with that? Look at fad Christianity, Mega-'churches' with 'executives' for pastors, rock bands and giant T.V.'s. Look at the 'Prosperity Gospel' people 'living in authority' with their $1,000 seeds and their $23,000 dollar toilets. Look at the confusion of 30,000 Protestant denominations, like Ishmael, a wild man whom eveyone's hand is against and whose hand is against everyone, ever envious of Isaac, the Catholic Church.

Yes, APEs fit the bill perfectly: worldly, confused, disorganized, and dissenting. It's not tradition that keeps them out of the Church, it's their pride. It's their refusal to renounce the world and embrace the Church, to submit to the teaching of the Church, to submit to Apostolic authority, and to be unified with Christ through obedience to His bride, the Holy Catholic Church and her sacraments.

But despite all of this, there is a reason that Protestants go on praying, and keep going on missions trips, and keep trying to innovate new ways to keep each other excited about the Gospel, and keep digging through Jewish culture, and keep doing good works, and read their bibles, and show up to their churches which they know are wholly inadequate, and listen to their pastors who they regularly disagree with, and argue with each other about theology to no end seeking the truth. It's because they want what only tradition can give them. The substance of apostolic tradition is what they want, it's what they need. They need the sacraments and Christ keeps calling them to Himself through the sacraments, which they have cut themselves off from. He's like a man on the other side of a door to a pitch black room full of people looking for the same door, shouting," HERE!" hoping they find the door and then the handle. He sees how confused they are, how frantic they live, the nervous energy that possesses all their endeavors that comes from never knowing what to do next, and the perpetual longing for something more.

It's terribly ironic that APEs always invite people to have a 'deep personal relationship' with Jesus Christ, to make Him 'their personal Lord and Savior.' They only think about #1, me, me, me. But Jesus Christ is not only a personal savior, He is a communal savior. When we receive the Eucharist, we become one with Christ, because He enters not only into our souls, sharing His divinity, but He enters into our bodies, sharing His perfect humanity with us. Becoming one with Him in the Eucharist, we become one with all who partake of His Body and Blood. We become one with God and His Church, a perfect union in a single instant. There is nothing more personal than that; that is hyper-personal.

Listening to Christian rock, saying some personal prayers, talking to God like a buddy, flipping through a KJV bible, listening to Pastor 'X' and eating cracker/ juice packets is not a 'deep personal relationship.' Those things cannot replace the Eucharist and don't even come close to it. It is despair of this fact that drives Protestants to peddle what they cannot give... ' a deep personal relationship with God.' Because deep down, in his soul, every Christian recollects those non-negotiable words of Christ,"... Whoever does not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood has no life in him." The Protestant, the separated brethren, craves the Eucharist, which holy tradition transmits to us. There is only one place to get it: in the Churches of the Apostles. Pray for their conversions.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Antidote

2011-01-29T23:54:00.002-05:00

I had forgotten what a simple pleasure it is to read Chesterton. Every book to one degree or another and for one reason or another is like an opponent. Some are like harsh school masters cracking your knuckles with a ruler, frustrated to no end at our difficulty to understand them. Demand after demand, they dun away at the door of the mind until the due payment of credence is given and we have reconciled ourselves to their wisdom or their nonsense.

Other books, are like the childhood playmate who never tires of playing the same games and never tires of talking and reminiscing. The one who would walk five miles to your house without an idea of what you would do together, and for whom you'd do the same. You might call them the holidays of the soul.

But Chesterton, he is that rare friend that demands not only that you listen to him in order that he should make you better, but that you give him the precious chance to make you smile. He's the friend who invites you over for a fine dinner and a few drinks, so that he can force you to discuss philosophy and theology. Yes, he's like the artisan who compels you into a dark cathedral to show you his work, and pulling down a huge canvas he reveals a beautiful stained glass window from which you couldn't possibly turn away, lit up by the sunlight which your tortured eyes are wont to escape.

As I read the master of syllogism's work 'The Dumb Ox,' I was in agreement with him especially on two points. He said that at times St. Francis of Assisi was almost too efficient for him, and that every generation seeks out a saint that is the antidote to its own excesses. And I thought," Well, isn't that right?" Don't we love the saints not only because of their love for that which we love, namely God, but because of whom they rebuke and those pernicious ideas they so easily dispense with through word and deed? We love the saints because they show us how to efficiently love God and how to be loved of God. We love them because of how quickly their light destroys the same darkness that menaces us.

And to the later, isn't it true that we do love rest? Once we've exhausted ourselves with passion, once society is in the throws of mortifying agony due to want of vain things, having been forced to recognize the futility of our vain ideas, don't we seek any means to end suffering? Don't we seek an antidote once we've injected ourselves with poison? Every generation seeks out its saint.

The thaumaturgist St. Pio, what a marvelous antidote he was in the age of doubt when the world of intellectuals said that belief in religion and miracles was only sacred to superstitious idiots and fearmongers. And St. Josemaria Escriva, whom I am learning to love, what a contradiction he was to those who said that the Church and progress are irreconcilable. When the fount of prayer, the holy order of Carmelites foundered in worldliness and arrogance, the clasped hands of Sts. Teresa De Avila and John of the Cross chained the gates of Carmel which Satan had thrown open.

I think now, what poison is it which the world has? What antidote does she need? God knows, but how shall we begin to tell? Seeing the destruction of the family, is the antidote family? Seeing all the confusion in the world, is it order? Having been infected with amorality, is it morality? Ten thousand questions we might ask just to find the answers.

In relation to all of this, I thought earlier today about the crisis of vocations. We usually think about diocesan priests and deacons when we think about vocations, but we forget about those who pray for us. In the English speaking world, Catholics are infected with Luther's idea that each is sufficient for himself, excluding the necessity of the Priest to bring us the sacraments. This is an entirely heterodox concept. We are all called to holiness and good works, but what about those who are supposed to be perpetually devoted to good works and a contemplative prayer life?

You know, most of us have a Super-Walmart in our area. Well, imagine the parking lot of the Walmart. If you placed them shoulder to shoulder with a foot's space in front of each of them, you wouldn't be able to fill up half of one Super-Walmart parking lot with all of the monks on the entire continent of North America. Think about that. With 350,000,000 people living in North America, that is the state of monasticism. Something grave is wrong with this picture. Something grave is wrong with the faith of Catholics when monasticism has become a superfluity. But it is the tip of the iceberg in the way of what is wrong with the world.

So, pray for the antidote to this generation. Without prayer, we will surely perish.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

My Fear

2011-01-28T20:06:00.001-05:00

One's path to God is through the sacraments in which one is engaged. I am a Catholic, a husband, a father, a son, a brother, and a friend. My path to God is through these sacraments. My greatest fear is failing to observe them, to have something to give and not give it, to have something I must say and not say it, to have something to do and not do it, to have something to love and not love it. Where will I be if I betray these?

It is mine to suffer if I do not pray, if I do not confess, if I do not communicate. It is mine to be crushed if I do not teach my children what is right and teach them to reason, to be chaste, and to love. I am to be tormented with every vanity and every passion if I do not love my wife. Dishonor is mine if I dishonor my parents. It is mine to be alone if I do not do every good to my friends.

Yet, I know that the world hates the righteous. Never yet has there been a person who loved righteousness that the world did not hate. I know that if I pray, if I confess, and if I communicate I will suffer. I know that I will be crushed if I teach my children to be good and do good, to love God and His holy Church. I know that if I cleave to and love my wife I will be tormented with vanity and every passion. I know that if I honor my parents, the world will wag its ugly head at me. And if I am the truest of friends, if I behave as a true friend does... I will be very alone.

To live out one's sacraments is a life of courage. "O, Lord! How heavy Thy honor is to bear!" To live a sacramental life with fidelity, that is the long, hard and narrow path between two mountains. A hard place where your enemies crash down upon you, and the rocks roll down and crush you. It's to choose to do what is right and abstain from evil everyday of your life, knowing that concupiscence never abates; to have to make the same decision 1,000 times everyday. There is no hope of resisting so long that one day all temptation to sin ceases. There is only the hope that God strengthens, that resolve may harden and chastity endure. A vain hope to lessen the ferocity of evil; we can only put on the mail of piety from lip to ankle, and there upon place the full plate of charity and obedience; on our head, the sallet of wisdom, and a shield and sword in hand.

O, that tomorrow were the day! That some agent of evil would martyr me so that I could in one hour secure the crown of life! Such an end I do not fear. That some deadly disease sent from Satan for hatred of me would shortly deprive me of life! Then, I could so easily count up my offerings to Him, with sturdy hope of rest in sight. Then, I would have a deadly sign of my friendship with Him, a clay seal on the contract of my salvation. Such a death I cannot fear. Yet to wake up everyday and live, with no respite and no end of toil, this is menacing.

To not be a great Christian, that is my fear. To have never inspired anyone, that is my fear! While I am alive, let me speak for those who do not know how to say what they believe. Let me get beyond being a gadfly, only irritating the wicked and the reprobates. Let me reason for those who cannot reason! Let me defend the weak and succor the poor by the work of my hands! Let me pray for those who have no one to pray for them! Let me be a hammer against heresy, and a doctor to those who have fallen. For those who have not known true friendship, let me be a friend. Let me be the ram who protects the sheep where the shepherd is not near. Let me crack the teeth and the ribs of the wolves who have yearlings in their mouths.

I am afraid of dying and having been less than this, to come into His courts with only self inflicted injuries of negligence and no battle wounds. How can I sit at His table in the presence of so many with not so much as a scar?! Eternal shame! I am afraid of dying and not having spoiled my enemy. To die not only in the dregs of mediocrity, but to have left my work undone, to have failed my sacraments, of this I am afraid. To fail in this single hard hour of combat and glory, and to have it slip through my fingers beyond all recovery, of this I am terrified.

O Lord, deliver me from such an end! Grant me the strength to honor Your name! Some pray for a peaceful death, but I have no such prayer. I pray for the end that best glorifies You. I do not pray for a peaceful death, only, let me have a holy death reconciled to You, in Your friendship. Grant me, therefore, a happy death; and whether it is peaceful matters not to me. The peace of Your friendship and the peace of knowing that I have honored You is sufficient for me.Your holy will be done. Amen

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Can't We All Just Get Along?

2011-01-27T17:26:00.002-05:00

The short answer is no. Progressivism has saturated the Church with its stupid concept of unity. Unfortunately, due to a world culture of relativism, most poor suckers hear that word unity and just open their mouths up like that cartoon guy off of the old Oral-B commercials. Unity is great when and where unity can be had. But the unity the Progressives are pushing isn't the old," Unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials." Some of you might be familiar with that phrase. It's intended to be a quasi-definition of the term "orthodoxy." Unity in the essentials, yep, that's great. In fact, Catholic means "on the whole." Unity in the essential articles of faith is implied in the very etymology of "Catholic."

The unity Progressives are talking about is the happy-clappy, 'it's a small world after all,' kumbaya, Communist Internationale, John Lennon's 'Imagine,' Dr. Phil, compromise all of your beliefs, Tangerine Dream sort of unity. It's the unity that says," Can't we all just accept that we each have our own truth? That we're all equally right and wrong at the same time?!" It's the unity that says," Hey, everyone's already having a party! You Catholics need to quit being wallflowers and party-poopers!"

The thing that really infuriates me is when you hear Catholics praying for unity with Protestants. What are they talking about? What does that even MEAN?! Can someone please tell me? Do they have some definition of unity that I'm not aware of? "We pray for unity in the world, O Lord." What the does that mean?! That is a bogus filler prayer designed not to catechize, but rather to confuse and to mean whatever the one saying it intends. That's the prayerful equivalent to " Um, like, yeah... uh." It means NOTHING! Unity HOW? Whose definition of unity? Unity with whom, concerning what exactly? What species of unity are we talking about? I cannot remember the man who said it, but he said," Tis easier for man to ascertain the truth from lies, than from confusion." With that in mind, you must see how sinister this is.

Look at what is being unified, as a Catholic. On the one hand, you have the Catholic Church who cannot be corrected or altered in matters of doctrine and dogma. On the other hand, you have Protestants who in part agree with Catholicism and in part disagree with Catholicism. How can their be any compromise on the Catholic part? There can't be; the Protestants, therefore, have to do all the compromising. So, instead of making vain, weak, pathetic, nebulous, milk-toast prayers designed only to be politically correct statements tacitly addressed to an issue, how about we pray for conversions which is what the equation calls for? Or what are we asking for unity in? For unity in those things which we already having in common? Are we asking for unity where unity already exists? Then what is the point of that prayer? If we were "legitimately" unified with Protestants, they would cease to be Protestants. And if we "illegitimately" unify with Protestants we cease to be Catholics. What is so hard about understanding this?

Don't you see it? These prayers are made for a pretense. Recall the gospel and what Christ said about the pharisees, how they would broaden their phylacteries and stand on street corners saying long prayers so that they could make a point to the people about their own piety. He says that they have their reward, already. Their prayers were addressed to people and not to God; they were designed to obtain the praises of men instead of those of God. These styrofoam prayers for unity are directed at false ecumenism and not towards God. And these progressives that push them onto Catholics have their reward.

I'm not bashing the idea of working together insofar as we can, in whatever ways we can, with people who have different beliefs than Catholics. I'm not bashing true ecumenism. Those concepts are perfectly fine and legitimate. I'm bashing false ecumenism, the slaughter house of religion where human dignity and true faith dies. I'm bashing the idea that we have a bag full of things we can compromise with. I'm against individual Progressive Catholics, Progressive parishes, Progressive bishops taking it upon themselves to perpetually standing in front of the world with their hands in this bag acting like they're about to pull something out that is theirs to compromise with. No we CANNOT and WILL NOT compromise! No, you cannot unilaterally compromise on behalf of Catholicism, Nancy Pelosi, Progressive 'X,' Progressive parish 'X.' The Holy Catholic Church cannot and will not compromise over:
Contraception
Abortion
An all male priesthood
Theology
Philosophy
The Bible
Morality
Human Sexuality
Homosexuality
The Sanctity Marriage
Justice
The Eucharist
Evangelization
Education
Euthanasia
Human Rights
Etcetera...

It's a stupid proposition, made by stupid people. By stupid people, I mean people who have a greater desire for unity than integrity, dignity, honesty, reality, honor, and morality. By stupid people, I mean people who desire unity at any cost, even if that means they're the only ones paying and it costs them everything. The problem is, they aren't the only ones paying; they are selling the rug right out from under millions of Catholics. They would compromise away the Church's traditions, the Church's moral teachings, the Magisterium, the sacraments, the sovereignty of the Church... they would sell everything for nothing.

And what are they trying to trade all this stuff off for? What do these progressives get in return? What does Catholicism get in return? A handful of liberals clapping their hands at the demolition of the Church? So that a bunch of people who aren't even Catholic will be happy that we marry gay people, have priestesses, accept abortion, euthanasia, endorse contraception, give our Eucharist away without discretion and stand for nothing? To borrow a phrase from Archbishop Sheen," Like Judas Iscariot, they know the price of everything and the value of nothing." That's the sort of people these are, wolves in sheep clothing.

No, there can be no unity of the nature that Progressives talk about. There can be no unity between the Church and a medical system that murders children. There can be no unity between the Church and those who hate what makes the Church "The Church." There can be no unity between those who love the Mass and those who think it is demonic. There can be no unity between those who protect the dignity of all life and those who trivialize it, destroy it, and terrorize it. There can be no unity between those who believe in something and those who believe in nothing. And we could go on and on this way.

When you hear people talking about "unity" don't just open your mouth up like a baby bird ready to receive a mouth full of vomit. You as human beings, regardless of what you believe, have an obligation to chew your own food. You have a sacred obligation to THINK, to reason about what you are going along with and what you are giving assent to. If you just say," Yeah!" every time you hear the word unity, you are doing violence against yourself, your people, and what you believe in. You are committing violence against God through recklessness. If you just ignorantly jump into the mob mentality of unity, don't be surprised where mob takes you. You loose your dignity and your sovereignty when you do that, and come under the terrible tyranny of ignorance and passion.

A lot of people want peace on earth, but that is not promised here and now. That is why the Apostle St. Paul says to all Christians," Live quiet peaceful lives, in silence and labor, insofar as it is up to you." Notice the very last word there. If you compromise away WHO you are you cannot fulfill this apostolic command. When it comes to unity, Christian, you must be very aware of the fact that there is a line out there, maybe not even so far away, where if you cross it, you cease to be who you are. If you cross that line you go from being a lion to a wolf, from being a sheep to being a goat, from being a friend of mankind and God to being an enemy. So, by all means have unity with all men in those ways that do not compromise your faith, what the Church is and who you are, in ways that do not compromise your brothers and sisters, and the honor of God. Have unity with all men as far as truth, justice, and righteousness can go, but do not ever cross that line and put your immortal souls in danger.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Calvinism

2011-01-26T19:34:00.001-05:00

The proposition of Calvinism states that God predestines all things. It also has some other propositions and they are as follows:

1.) Damnation is justified (right)= Damnation is willed by God.
2.) What God wills is right. (substantive & synthetic)
3.) What God wills is willed by God. (trivial & analytic)
4.) Proposition 3 is identical to proposition 2.
5.) Proposition 2 is both analytic & not analytic (i.e. synthetic). *contradiction, i.e. an untrue statement..)
6.) Damnation is right =/= Damnation is willed by God.

Something which is analytic cannot be synthetic, because an analytic statement is necessarily true all the time and in all possible "worlds," whereas a synthetic statement merely tells us about something that is dependent. So for instance: All bachelors are unmarried males, is an analytical statement. Whereas, to say Scott is a bachelor, is synthetic, because bachelorhood isn't necessary to Scott's existence; it isn't necessarily true. Otherwise, if Scott got married, he would die! He would cease to exist and become a non-person, yeah? So, the Calvinist proposition cannot be true, because it says that," What God wills is right." is both analytic and synthetic, which is contradictory and therefore the conclusion of the premises is false. It can be analytic or it can be synthetic, but it cannot be both.

The Calvinist heresy states that some people are predestined to salvation and others are predestined to damnation. In fact, it is popular for them to compare the people who are "damned," which basically means the people they have written off, as pots made to be shattered. They basically compare them to clay pigeons. And they try to justify it by twisting a few Pauline quotes. There's no point in a scripture battle over the matter where Calvinists will take everything out of context and accuse their opponents of the same. So, quite simply, here we have the proof that their proposition is necessarily false.

The logical proposition which one would get from the Catholic Church is as follows:

A.) Whoever becomes saved must have been damned (not saved).

And of course this follows necessarily from natural theology:

A.) Whatever becomes hot was cold (or not hot).
B.) Whatever becomes dry was wet (or not dry).
C.) Whatever is in motion was in a state of rest.

Etcetera...

But some of you might be wondering how the first argument might work for anything else, for instance with a Catholic teaching. First, let's outline the form of the argument more clearly:

1.) 'x' is right= df (identical to) 'x' is willed by God.
2.) What God wills is right. (substantive & synthetic)
3.) What God wills is willed by God. (trivial & analytic)
4.) Proposition 3= df Proposition 2.
5.) Proposition 2 is both analytic & not analytic (i.e. synthetic) * contradiction

(Because 'x' cannot be both 'f' and not 'f.')
6.) 'x' is right =/= df 'x is willed by God.'

Having said that much. Here is how it would work for a Catholic teaching:

1.) Trent is right = Trent is willed by God.
2.) What God wills is right. (substantive & synthetic)
3.) What God wills is willed by God. (trivial & analytic)
4.) Proposition 3 is identical to proposition 2.
5.) Proposition 2 is both analytic & not analytic (i.e. synthetic). *contradiction, i.e. an untrue statement.
6.) Trent is right =/= Trent is willed by God.

Even though the Holy Spirit was what made Trent valid and true, God does not will imperfection. Trent in all its parts is perfect, but is incomplete in relation to human existence. Incompleteness is imperfection. You must remember that all councils are for the religious government of the faithful who are under original and particular sin. We are working out our salvation. Nothing pertaining to us is perfect and God only wills that which is perfect. Therefore, Trent is not perfect form, only in substance. So, more councils after it are naturally needed.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Legislating Humanity

2011-01-21T17:45:00.000-05:00

Regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice "so-called" I'm asking everyone to take a challenge. If you can tell me what a chair is, I will believe that human life can be legislated. That is to say, if anyone can tell me what a chair is, I will believe people can decide what human life is. Please leave a comment. But if none of you can tell me what a chair is, then I'm going to assume that you can't tell me what a human being is. And if you can't tell me that, then no one has the right to legislate what a human life is and due to such ignorance, abortion cannot be justified. Leave a comment.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Humanity

2011-01-19T22:41:00.000-05:00

Humanity is something that we all have; human is what we are. Our humanity is the "image" of God spoken of in Genesis. If we are totally depraved as the Calvinists say, then it follows necessarily that we are not human. If the image we were created in is totally depraved, there remains nothing left to call human. Christ is called the "kinsman redeemer." It was St. Gregory of Nazianzus who said that, that which is not assumed is not redeemed. Christ redeems humanity and if there is no humanity to redeem, then there is no redemption. The heretical doctrine of Total Depravity seeks to nullify the Incarnation.

Man is certainly depraved by concupiscence; that is not doubted or disputed. However, can one human be more human than another? By all means and this is the work of Christ. Let us begin a discussion of forms. Imagine before you there are two knives. One is dull on the point and on its edge, also corroded and dirty; the other knife is sharp on the point and on it's edge, clean and shinning. Further, imagine that the dull knife has a worn handle that is falling apart and dry rotted. And suppose that the sharp knife's handle is sturdy and sound. If necessity was upon you, which knife would you choose? Certainly, you would choose the sharper, cleaner, and sturdier knife over the dull, decaying knife.

Each of them are knives, no doubt. Yet, you would choose the good knife to the one in disrepair, because the good knife is more like a knife. That is to say, if we define as knife a tool of utility meant for the cutting of food and cloth and other things of a similar sort, then, it is evident to us that the good knife is truer in form to what a knife is than the shoddy knife. The good knife has more knifeness than the bad knife. So, it follows that while they are both knives, the good knife is more of a knife than the bad knife.

Again, let us examine a fruit, a plant. Imagine, that before you are two apple trees; one of them is blotched and cancerous, while the other is healthy and sound. Suppose that the desire to eat an apple came upon you, which tree would you extend your hand to? Would you choose the malformed and blotched, hard fruit of the cancerous apple tree? Or would you not be more likely to reach out and take an apple from the healthful tree, which is succulent, ripe, and shinning? To be sure, you would prefer the wholesome apple to the depraved apple for the very reason that it is more like an apple. It is better for eating and is without blemish or malformation, and is more like an apple than the diseased permutation. Therefore, the good apple and the bad are both apples, yet the good apple has more appleness than the bad apple.

Once more, let us examine animals. Imagine a bitch gave birth to a litter of pups and one of them was mutated, with a malformed jaw and sealed eyes, while it's siblings were sound in form. Suppose further that you were interested in obtaining a pup for breeding other dogs, so as to carry on a pure breed. Which would you choose for this venue? A sound animal or the mutant? Certainly, you would choose one of the sound offspring over the mutant, because it is more like it's own species and breed. Therefore, while all are certainly being dogs, the mutant is less of a dog than its siblings who are sound in form.

We could go on this way with angels as well, and any other species of plant, animal, or object ad infinitum, but there is no need. Therefore, it is rightly said that whatever is more like unto itself is truer. Here we digress to the issue of humanity.

Original Sin deformed mankind so that humanity became less like itself. As a means of remedy, Christ came as a man. In fact, as we can readily discern from our experiment, Christ was more human than the humans he lived amongst and came to die for. Thus, St. Paul was right in calling Him the Second Adam in that He had in His person undelimited humanity. Comparatively, if we use ourselves as the definition of what human means, Christ was superhuman. Yet, in point of fact, Christ alone is the definition of what a human is; He is completely human and it is we who are deficient in humanity.

The Eucharist, which may only be found in the Churches of the Apostles, is given unto us to strengthen us. By receiving the Eucharist, we not only obtain divine graces and mercy, but also become more human by virtue of Christ's humanity which we receive into ourselves. When we look at what God said to Adam in the Garden, we know that Adam was without death. Then, we look at what Christ, Who is God, says to us in the Gospel," Whoever does not eat of My Flesh and drink of My Blood has no life in Him."

This is the truth and we can go to no one else, for as the apostles said, who else has the words of Life? The more human we become, the more like God we become, because our humanity is being restored to its full glory, the true image of God. But this is not the end of Christ's work, for we are brought into God by receiving the Holy Spirit into us. But here, I've committed to only speaking to you about humanity and must digress from theosis and divinity, though admittedly they are intertwined.

Hitherto, those who faithfully receive the Eucharist and continue in it are becoming more human; they are attaining to Christ's humanity. This is why it is so important to be in a Church with VALID sacraments. This is the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. This is why one should be a Catholic, and why being a "Bible Christian" is not enough. This is only part of what the Most Blessed Sacrament does for us. It is the power of God to put our souls into order. It is the power of God to place our bodies in subjection to the soul. It is the power of God, to literally undo the Gordian Knot of sin and restore our nature. This is how God returns us to being a true microcosm of the Macrocosm, as discussed in my previous note Ecclesiasticus.

And everything on top of this is working out our salvation, attaining to and obtaining the promises of Christ, becoming joint heirs with Christ. How wonderful that we are not only set in order, having our humanity restored to us, but that we have separate graces so as to participate in the righteousness of God. This is eternal life, the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Eminence of Conscience

2011-01-16T21:38:00.004-05:00

The word conscience is perhaps the most abused word in Catholicism and since it is such a broad subject, I'm not even going to address genuine situations of culpability and conscience; that is to say, I'm not addressing the instances in this blog where conscience truly is a legitimate factor in decreasing culpability to sin, for instance those victims of sexual abuse who left the Church. The point is that deformity of conscience is not a license to sin.

There is a heterodoxy frequently encountered by the faithfully, namely, that conscience is what man makes it. This is a rather convenient heresy for those who seek to destroy the Church, because herein is the idea that each person is granted the power to impose upon himself a subjective body of morals, which he is obliged to observe.

The gravity of this error is profound; by it we see all sorts of allowances for sin in the Church, but not only within the Church. Those without the Church of the Apostles suffer as well from this insidious heresy, because the Catholic Church is the moral authority of Western Civilization. Amongst ourselves we see people admitted to the Eucharist who live in a morally unacceptable manner. For instance, the cohabiting are given the Eucharist, sexually and emotionally active homosexuals are admitted to the Feast, those who support abortion and homosexual marriage are admitted to the Feast, and others of such a similar sort are allowed to receive the Eucharist as well. All of them receive against the prohibitions of the Church. And if anyone points out this profanation of the sacrament they are met with the charge that they are un-Christlike and uncharitable, where upon they are told," Who are you to judge?! It is a matter of conscience!"

This error seems most often amongst the laity to be born of a species of arrogant ignorance and amongst the priesthood a virulent desire for subversion of sound doctrine. It is important, therefore, to educate and reprove if possible all such people gently at first and severely if necessary. The object that is hidden in this heresy and in ignorance is the true substance of the conscience. On the one hand, some people being deceived by themselves or others who propound error, do not know what the conscience is; even further, they are not certain of what is concomitant to the conscience. Others, still, know very well what the conscience is and take whichever means and occasions present themselves to stymie the understanding of what the conscience truly is in the minds of the faithful.

In this fashion, the latter confuse sound doctrine and heterodoxy seeking to make a profit. The profit they seek to bring about through this perversion is to accomplish the peace of Christ through their own so-called logic. They suppose wrongly that if anything may be part of conscience, then nothing will be judged. They seek to let everyone off the hook, so that they themselves escape. They seek to stop the violence between good and evil by neutralizing them both, through making morality out to be wholly subjective. They strive to make God acceptable to man, instead of making man acceptable to God, which is the end of the Eucharist that is the source and summit of our faith.

However, you will all know and be sure that they are in error and do not hold the opinion of the Apostolic See. There is one truth; indeed the truth is a singularity. Christ says of Himself," I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." If we desire to be sure about the nature of the truth we have but to look at God. We do not give assent to multiple gods, but instead one Holy God. In the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church it teaches us that God is One, but He is not solitary. Therefore, the truth is infinitely voluminous and at the same time simple, but not varied; the truth is a singularity.

Further, we know that God is not made up of a sum of parts so as to make Him dissolute if it were possible. Created things are made up of a sum of parts, but God is not created and therefore is One in fact. In this manner you should be able to know what is the truth and what is the lie. The heretic says that the conscience is the voice of the man, it is his own judgment of his actions. Much the otherwise, the Church teaches that the conscience is a moral law which man did not impose upon himself, but rather is a grace given to him by God. The Church teaches that the conscience is the inmost part of a man where God whispers to Him behind a veil. The Church says further that the man who listens closely to his conscience hears the voice of God and not that of himself.

So, who will you believe? The one who seeks to save the flesh of a sinner a little pain by deflecting judgment by saying that all consciences are subjective and are crafted by our unique observations and experiences? Or the Church who with the magesterium seeks to save the sinner's soul and tells us emphatically that the conscience is God speaking to us true judgments?

The bible tells us that we are made in the image of God. In this teaching we see why we are drawn to the Good and convicted by it. The conscience is the metronome in man which makes him act in accordance with God. True conscience is God's discernment. Therefore, the man who acts in perfect accord with the conscience God gave him does not offend God. Since his fall, man has experienced a deformity of conscience; herein, his conscience is materially deformed and muted to varying extents. He does not hear the voice of God with perfect clarity, he cannot discern perfectly which portion is divine and which is not.

To write off sin and the effects of sin upon the human soul on account of man's deformity is precisely what those in error intend to do. They seek to suggest that God is content with ignorance, that God is sufficed and pleased with deformity, accepting of evil. But we know from scripture that nothing evil shall abide or endure in the presence of God; it cannot come before Him. This heresy makes twins of its evil.

Firstly, it seeks to negate the work of Christ, the very purpose and necessity of the Incarnation. If man in his deformity and depravity is already acceptable to God, then where is the atonement of Christ? Do they make him out to be a mere man, a hyper-prophet? What possible purpose does Christ crucified have if their heterodox position is true? None at all.

Secondly, they seek to make the deformed conscience of fallen man equal with the perfect conscience of the Second Adam. According to those who teach this error, God is equally pleased with the conscience of the heathen and the saint. Thus, it follows necessarily that they say that God and man are equal by holding on the same level their separate products which are the perfect and deformed conscience. By this they make man out to be a god unto himself, becoming idolaters.

St. Paul speaks about these corrupters and the corrupted in the first chapter of the Book of Romans. He exposes those who weave such lies, gives proofs of the conscience and what it truly is, and shows the consequences of those who reject the gift of conscience and corroborating knowledge for their own vanity:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving. unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."

Do not let those who are mistaken and those who are heretics mute you out and shame you by telling you that you are uncharitable when you stand by Holy Mother Church and her teaching in regard to offenses, abuses, and undeserved allowances. When you hear people say that all kinds of evil must be permitted and wholly ignored because it is a private matter of conscience, be ready to correct them charitably at first and sternly if necessary. We must all strive to perfect our conscience by coming under the yoke of the Church's teaching and moral authority, not being rebellious and perverse seeking to reconcile the Church who is one with Christ to ourselves, but seeking to reconcile ourselves to the Church who is one with Christ. If we seek to reconcile the Church to us, then we seek to make the Bride of Christ a whore. She will not commit adultery and those who compel her to do so will be punished.

Live at peace with the teachings of Christ. Be convinced and seek to be convinced. Christianity is hard and we all fail; that's what confession is for. But beware of honeyed words like," It's ok. It's a matter of conscience." As the Psalmist says," If a righteous man strikes me it is a kindness, but let not the oil of the wicked anoint my head." We can't afford to lean on the crutch of heresy. It seems like every time a Catholic struggles unsuccessfully with a sin or a teaching of the Church all the sudden someone magically pops up like a fairy godmother and says," Good news! It's a matter of conscience! So, don't sweat it!" as if to say," Don't worry about it, it's not important, because of the state of your conscience. So, no matter what you do, DO NOT make any changes or strive for conversion... and you'll be o.k." It is precisely this lie that is destroying the Church today. Be on guard against the easy path, be on guard against what you want to hear when the going gets tough. The grace of God is your strength. God bless you.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

First Tridentine Latin Mass

2011-01-16T17:37:00.004-05:00

Today was the first time I went to a Tridentine Latin Mass. Usually, I go to a Maronite Catholic parish. To avoid any confusion, I am a Roman Catholic. Personally, I prefer a good Novus Ordo Mass. However, I have heard so much about the Extraordinary form that I wasn't met with what I expected. I suppose underwhelmed is the word for it.

The Mass was flawless, at least I think so. The priest was reverent, grave, pious, and dignified. The altar boys were in sync and also very reverent, pious, grave and dignified. No one could say anything bad about that Mass. I've been to that parish numerous times before for holy hour and once for a Novus Ordo Mass, but never found the time to get to Latin Mass.

So, naturally like me you must be saying," Well? What's the problem?" I once went on a mini-pilgrimage in my diocese with the priest who converted me and on that pilgrimage we stopped off at the parish I went to today. The two priests are great friends and so we hung out for about half a day. We had a great time. I suppose that part of my expectation for the TLM was born out of my knowledge of Fr. "X" who said the TLM today. Perhaps, I expected the Mass to be full of vim and verve. Knowing his enthusiasm for his vocation and the Latin Mass, perhaps I was expecting the mass to be chanted and loudly enunciated.

I felt as though I was simply kneeling the whole time in a tiny Church that looks like it's from 1901. In fact, if I was forced to sum up my experience today that is very much what I would have to say," I knelt a lot." I loath American-Catholic art, that's just a personal preference, and the place was loaded with it, but only because the poor little parish has limited assets. For such a modest place it was brilliant and puts other parishes in the diocese to shame. Still, I didn't feel catechized like I do at the Maronite Church or even in the Novus Ordo. Even though I wasn't intending to find this out, today I understood the necessity of the reforms which brought about the Novus Ordo a little better. Without the Novus Ordo's overt catechetical nature, the world might be much darker, right now.

I've always been a defender of the Novus Ordo, against both the abuses of the Progressives and the criticism of Neo-Cons. Today, after attending the blessed TLM, I was made even more tangibly aware of how much good the Novus Ordo can do and is supposed to do. It is a sure way to combat the multitude of heresy in our times, if it is supplied with zealous celebrants and a fervent laity. In times past, Holy Orders were often the sole defenders of the flock. But in this new age, the faithful are bombarded with heresies and evil in ways that have never been before, and it falls to all of us to defend ourselves by participating with and being inculcated by the sacred teachings of the holy Catholic Church.

In my mind it's very analogous to what has happened to the American military in the "War on Terror." The U.S. military went from being a conventional warfare fighting force to an unconventional type fighting force. They still maintain the ability to fight a conventional war, but in general and for the most part they are engaged in unconventional warfare in urban environments and inaccessible terrain. The demands placed upon the military due to the environment demanded a paradigm shift in their fighting style and focus. Similarly, the demands placed on the faithful by the spiritual and intellectual environment of the world demanded a paradigm shift in the order of the Mass.

When we think about the attacks going on from the inside of the Church, they are directed against the Novus Ordo. Why is that? Because the Novus Ordo has the ability to do the most good and if the enemy can cause the Church to be combat ineffective, they benefit. I sincerely believe that this is why so much energy has been put into denigrating, diminishing, abusing, and discriminating against the Novus Ordo.

If you look at the arrival of the Novus Ordo, it was right on time. A lot of people will say," Yeah! Right in the 60's and that's why it is such a bad thing. So much for the 'winds of change,' aye?" But the Church changed it's fighting style just as the enemy was changing his style of attack. But on that same note the TLM was suppressed. The TLM has made it's resurgence and two Popes have done extensive work to bring it back to play a significant role in the Church. I think this signals what we must see as the herald of more conventional attacks on the Church. I don't mean violence and terrorism or Muslim hordes seeking to eradicate Catholicism. Rather, I mean that attacks against the Church are becoming and will become more and more organized and official; they're becoming more and more devious and intellectual.

I think you are gonna see a lot more governments speaking out in an official capacity against what the Church teaches, it's moral authority, and the Church itself. The Church is making itself ready to fight both a conventional and unconventional war. To that end, the comeback of the TLM might be more for the sake of the priesthood than it is even for the laity, though it is certainly benefiting both.

In any case, I shall have to go to the TLM again on a high holy day and see some of the vim and verve I was looking for. God Bless.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Mary Queen of Peace

2011-01-14T21:02:00.000-05:00

There are some who doubt that the Blessed Virgin has been coronated as the Queen of Heaven, but I will give evidence that it is so. The sort of evidence I will give is that of faith, in the first place, because faith is that decision which follows from the assent to knowledge. I will give proof, in the second place, from logic; that is, I shall give logical proofs. I know that I will not be dismissed by you, even if now some of you say," The proof of word is not proof at all, nor is it even evidence." I know that you won't dismiss me, because to write off metaphysical evidences and proofs is to write off all of the classical philosophers. I don't think you are willing to do that on your own authority.

In the first place, we have a great clue that Mary is in heaven because of her fluency of language and culture. In each place, she appears in such a likeness that she can be received by the people, going so far as to take on the particular physical characteristics of the people. Certainly, one might point to this precisely as evidence against the claim that she is in Heaven, making these stories out to be nothing more than mere imagination or legend. Such a refutation is not without merit; after all, don't those who look at the sun in Africa see the same sun as those who are in Europe? Without a doubt the whole human race sees the same sun and has since the first of us walked the earth. Yet, I will point out that the sun looks different at dusk, as it does at dawn, just as it does when it shines through the fog, or at its zenith, but it is still the same sun. In different places in the sky it looks different, but is the same. Though sometimes white, it is also yellow, orange or red, large or small, fiercely hot or benign, yet it must be and is the same star.

It is of no real consequence, then, that Mary has several permutations if anyone should use this to disprove apparitions. In fact, it can only be said that it is proof that she is holy indeed and resides in Heaven as she demonstrates the same vicissitude of the sun as it goes from one end of the sky to the other. However, to compare Mary to the moon would be far more appropriate. In the end, however, she does possess both the vicissitude and verisimilitude of the sun and the moon, at once.

Someone might say,"Ah! But Christ is the Day Spring." Not so. This was said for your sake and not for His. For there is no variation in God, the source of light. Indeed, anything which is one is in fact 'one.' To say that there is variation in a thing which is one is incorrect, because it is one; and anything that is what it cannot be is something else. Similarly, anything which is not what it must be is not at all. God is One, being homoousios, that is to say 'consubstantial.' God is One and the way He 'IS' does not change or diminish, nor does it increase so as to make anything previous inferior, because He is above time, place and dimension. He is not made up of a sum of parts like created things, but he is One. He is not constrained by anything conceived by the human mind whether it be corporeal or incorporeal, or any of the things concomitant to those. If you have trouble receiving this, think upon and learn whatever you can by meditating upon what God is not and begin with the fact that He is not three gods and does not change. It only suffices to say that He is One.

Therefore, this is another proof for Mary being holy indeed in apparitions, for she does not appear everywhere unaltered, in such species of constancy which is God's alone. Instead, she makes herself more like sister moon who varies at every showing, always reflecting the glory of 'The Greater Celestial Light.' Further, she has no light of her own, just as the moon has no light of it's own, but she receives all of her glory and power from the Holy Trinity, just as the Moon receives its light from the sun. In the same way as the moon glorifies the sun, Mary glorifies the Holy Trinity. Just as the sun and the moon and the stars are in the same abode, so are God, Mary, and the angels.

Aside from these evidences, as stated before, she is fluent in all languages. This is an act of loving condescension to the human race. Being that she is in Heaven she enjoys the perfect edification of the Holy Spirit. She no longer strives with the curse of language which was given to our fathers at the destruction of Babel, for there are no curses in Heaven. She being in Heaven, is in the presence of the Holy Trinity, having that Gift which Christ gave as an eternal gift, namely the Holy Spirit who is God. The same Holy Spirit who is the personal love that the Father has for the Son and the Son has for the Father, the same love that They each possess. Into this love Mary has been grafted, just as has been promised to all of the saints by Christ. This promise has been confirmed by the Holy Spirit through miracles, and attested to by the Father by the very giving of the Son and the Spirit as a sign and foreshadowing for us to hope upon as surety that the promises of Christ are just so for the Church.

Just as a person thinks to themselves as a form of incorporeal communication with self, it is the same with the Holy Trinity. But even more so, because our minds are limited to that which is perceived in creation and not even all of what is in creation, where as the Holy Trinity has no bounds, having been eternally uncreated. Mary is grafted into this boundless and limitless means of communication through the Holy Spirit, by the promises of Christ, at the will of the Father, making her prayers infinitely more efficacious than any prayer uttered in the tongues of men. We too possess this ability; unfortunately we have our corporeal minds to ever interfere with this greater gift. Yet not at all times, for this is the same gift of tongues spoke of in the book of Acts.

So, in the main, I say all this to point out that for Mary to speak in the tongues of men under any circumstance is to glorify the Son, because she would be doing as he once did. That is, she would be yoking herself with the curses of men to help men, curses which she is immune to having once died, yokes that she is not obliged to wear any longer. For her to speak to us is for her to literally suffer a curse for our sakes and her suffering, as the suffering of all the saints, is incorporated into the Head, Who is Christ Jesus, as she is the verisimilitude of the Church, the Body of Christ.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Just Love

2011-01-14T20:25:00.003-05:00

Love is. It does not ever try to prove itself, because it is. If you have true love, you will never be lonely; you will never lack genuine and unfeigned love. True love is selfless and strives to take care of everyone else first. In this way it propagates agape and provides for the one who loves and the beloved.

The person who loves in truth gets the benefit of their own love; their own love ministers to them. It is like a mother feeding her child, yet both of them become full. Again, it's like filling one sack from another, but both of them become full. Love is infinite, because God is Love. If our love is infinite and we give away an infinite amount of love, we still have an infinite amount of love. Do you see the mystery of love? Don't horde your love, or you will run out; that is the life of misery and despair.

Love is. Stop trying to prove your love. Don't choosing substitutes to love instead of the true path. Don't grooming your outward appearances so that people will like you or even worse lust after you. Instead, become concerned with doing good to the souls of others, ministering to people's hearts, wiping away their despair and people will love you. Propagate the love of God; propagate agape.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Ecclesiasticus

2011-01-11T13:25:00.000-05:00

Ecclesiasticus 18: 1-5

"He that liveth forever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king forever. Who is able to declare his works? For who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? Or who shall be able to declare his mercy? Nothing may be taken away, nor added, neither is it possible to find out the glorious works of God..."

What a great passage! Let's dissect this shall we? Here we have a perfectly ordered idea before us. First we are presented by the Author with the infinite nature of the Creator and then the infinite nature of His works. Just as man is created and therefore creates out of that which is created, here we see that God Who is uncreated creates out of that which is uncreated. This is what Paul was talking about when we access the wonders and power of God in Christ through faith,"... calling those thing that were not as though they be."

To prove God's infinite nature, he does not address His person. Rather, he points out the nature of His works, at the same time showing man his finite nature. He does this so that man will first acknowledge his own nature so that he can begin to recognize God's nature. Being fully aware of his own limitations, man begins to be aware of God's boundless nature. For it is self-evident to all rational creatures that they're limited by their natures. Hence, by this scripture we are made to know that just as God's nature is not delimited, neither is His person and we are sure hereby that He is God.

And who is able to declare His works? Being thusly convinced of his own finite nature and God's infinite nature, man is made to know that he is a microcosm in a macrocosm. His understanding is limited by his own nature. If man knows anything beyond himself it is because the macrocosm of God condescends knowledge to him. And if a man knows anything about himself, then it is only because the Macrocosm caused him to be. In this way man is convinced that all things must come from God and that man can neither add to or take away from their sum. He may know with certainty that even the sum of created things is too excellent for him and learns true humility. Understanding the nobility he has over other creations, man begins to know his order in creation and begins to understand God's love for him.

Man is a microcosm of a macrocosm. God cannot but love man, because he is the image of Himself. And if man is disordered, God is motivated by primal love of Himself to restore the microcosm to homeostasis. The macrocosm will make the microcosm anew. Like from like, and we are convinced of the Incarnation, knowing that God had to become man to make us anew.

When the Blessed Trinity looked down on man's fallen state, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity each were moved to compassion. This is because the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. Together they love the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit loves Them; one God, pure, unadulterated love. In looking on man, each Person of the Holy Trinity saw the other two Persons explicit in man's nature. It was the love of God that caused the salvation of mankind primarily. Their love of each Other necessitated the Incarnation. That same divine love is why Christ endured all things.

The only way than man can show anything about God is by being a perfect microcosm, to do more than this not in man's power. But by being perfect, man becomes one with the Macrocosm. In becoming one with God he begins to participate in superhuman activities. His love becomes God's love, his thoughts become God's thoughts because he is taught of God, his motives become God's motives. Man when rightly ordered is absorbed into the macrocosm of God, maintaining his own unique person, yet uniting in fact with the Person of God. And we've seen these people, who God put in order and brought into His bosom and they are the saints.

But who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? Or who shall be able to declare his mercy? None, except God, because it is written that we shall no longer say to one another,"Know God!" but rather that we shall be, each of us, taught of God ourselves. It is God who shows forth His glorious acts and the power of His majesty. It is God who declares His mercy. But having been united with God, man may begin to know and do those things that were too great for his nature. This is the work of Christ, and for this purpose it is written," You shall be as gods to the Egyptians." the Egyptians not only being themselves, but also representing a type of fallen man, a microcosm cut off from the Macrocosm.

We cannot comprehend the gift of God and that is why it is the most that we can do, by the very limit of our natures, to adore Him. That is why our adoration of Him is the meaning and purpose of life; it is incumbent upon us. It is the sacrifice due to Him; it was why we were made. Our adoration must be total and complete; we must love as He loves. This is why Christ said," I give you a new commandment: love one another as I have loved you... This is how all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one." It must extend to all things: what we do, what we do not do, our intentions, our actions, our thoughts, all things. And this is why we are exhorted by the holy apostle St. Paul to,"...work out our salvation." and the holy apostle St. James says," Faith without works is dead." This is how we are to know full well that the "once saved, always saved" doctrine is a heresy and a lie designed to make us lazy and rob us of our blessings and salvation. Strive to workout your salvation.

Just as St. Paul says, you were foreknown, predestined to salvation by God. Therefore, seek to make your calling and election sure through good works, as though you could justify your own election. Be blessed, all of you and pray for me a sinner.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Novus Ordo & Real Catholics

2011-01-10T12:10:00.004-05:00

As you are all well aware, there's been quite a bit of noise recently over the Tridentine Mass and the Novus Ordo. By recently, I mean in the last few years. But one thing I keep hearing from people is absolute nonsense and I have a duty as a Roman Catholic to address it.

Lots of people have been lauding one form of the mass or the other so as to diminish the glory and efficaciousness of the other. This error has been aggravated by the SSPXer's (Society of St. Pius X), but probably even more so by all the folks who violently resist noticing the state of the Church and sit quietly like a bunch of good for nothings in their parish pews. Quiet, that is, until someone criticizes the progressives.

Now, many of you know me. I'm not some technicolor vestment endorsing nut job who thinks that we should have priestesses and homosexual marriage. I despise just like the rest of you the finger-painting, Gumby sculture crap that progressives try to pass off as religious artwork. I'm the guy who kneels when he receives the Eucharist, even though he's been told that such behavior is illicit in spite of the fact that it is our right under canon law to kneel down. I've been ostracized from my progressive home parish for my orthodoxy and my zeal and watched my friends endure the same. Like you, I wonder," What's extraordinary about about extraordinary ministers if there are 14 of them every Sunday's Mass?"

It's easy to run away to a Latin Mass, even if that means that you have to drive an hour every Sunday. There is nothing wrong with going to a Latin Mass, but do it for the right reasons. If you think that there is a different Eucharist at the Tridentine Mass, you are mistaken. The priests who administer the Extraordinary form, the Latin Mass, were ordained in the Novus Ordo. If you have questions about the validity of the Novus Ordo, you have questions about the validity of the priesthood, and if you have questions about the validity of the priesthood then you have questions about the validity of the Tridentine Mass you are attending.

It is the mark of a noble and educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without believing in it. You need to all be hyper-vigilant against allowing dissent to roost in your hearts. Some of you attend parishes where the lectern is a lady with a deep voice and a bowl cut who takes it upon herself to replace "mankind" with "humanity", "men" with "people", and "He" with "God" at the daily reading. If you sit on the wrong side of the pews you find yourself forced into a receiving line where the extraordinary minister is a butch lady dressed like Indiana Jones. You show up on high feast days to see the holy day squandered on non sequitur, watered down, social justice homilies delivered by Fr. Stanford Nutting (google). But their evil, their irreverence, their heterodoxy does not warrant the same from you.

You must remember who you are; you are members of the Church Militant and the order of your military is called the Novus Ordo. A lot of times people get a great idea and screw it all up with their mouths. The form of your protest can be going to a Latin Mass, it could be going to an Eastern Church in communion with Rome like I myself do, it could be going to a more respectful Novus Ordo parish, or some of you might have found a way to stand your ground. You must protest such abuse, it is implicit in your duties as a soldier of Christ. But there are some who do exactly what I am warning you against doing. They go from protesting to being seditious by calling into question the validity of the Novus Ordo. You are protesting the abuses of the Novus Ordo, not the Novus Ordo itself. To protest the Novus Ordo doesn't make anymore sense than to accuse the victims of other forms of abuse. Who would accuse the innocent children and women who are abused in domestic violence? No real man or woman. And just the same, no REAL Catholic questions or accuses the Novus Ordo.

For some of you it is hard, because these progressives try to make themselves and their parish staff aristocracies synonymous with the Novus Ordo; because of their vanity they would have you believe that they are the Novus Ordo. Do not be deceived. The Novus Ordo is your post. You were given orders to dig in and hold your ground. Some of us have been overrun; most of us have been overrun. You've been forced to fall back to a previous position (the Latin Mass) or go into a flanking maneuver (Eastern Rite Catholicism), but your task is to get back into position, to retake the ground. We need to be dumping all of our ammo into their position and lobbing every spiritual grenade we have around the clock until those HIPPIES are all orthodox again or Anglicans! That is OUR position and you all need to understand that.

Now, there is good news. Not only do we have people on the inside, we've taken back the seminaries and all the bishops who've been failing the Church have either died off, come to their senses, been relieved of their duties, or have a big red "H" for heresy sown on the front of their miter for giving communion to drag queens, needles to drug addicts, condoms to homosexual couples, and endorsing pro-abortion/ homosexual marriage candidates. The oil and the water is beginning to separate. There is a whole generation of young zealous, pious priests coming to the front. At first they will only be parochial vicars, they'll be treated shamefully just like you... at first. But they will be parish pastors one day. It WILL happen and until that day comes they need your encouragement, your exhortation, and if they draw back or cower at some point they might even need a kick in the ass! They need the sacrament of your friendship. And we need to be ready at a moments notice to retake the ground as soon as they fly up the flag. Might be next year, might be five years, but it's gonna happen.

The enemy has a "scorched earth" policy. You can expect that when we retake the proverbial ground they will have thrown salt on it, destroyed every building, and emptied the coffers. Our churches will still be effaced with modern art. We will still be broke due to paying for excessively large progressive church staffs and other progressive campaigns. We will have to reseed the minds of all those who unwittingly sat in their pews every Sunday. But we are ROMAN Catholics, we don't just fight, we build. There's a hard fight ahead and a lot of work to do afterward and the last thing we need is a bunch of cowards who turn their backs on the Novus Ordo running over the Latin and Eastern Rite parishes feeling sorry for themselves and bad mouthing the Novus Ordo!

If you go to the Latin Mass or an Eastern parish, do it for the right reasons. It's not enough to do something right, you have to do it for the right reasons. If you go because YOU are offended by the abuses of the Novus Ordo, you are wrong. You go because Christ is offended, it wasn't just you who was offended. I went through one of the most progressive RCIA's in America, safe to say, just to be with you wonderful people. I was processed into the Church with expedition, six months ahead of my peers, not because of aptitude or wisdom, but because I was such a thorn in the sides of those who taught heterodoxy and they knew they couldn't keep me out or stop my mouth. To the present time, those people know what sort of man that I am and avoid me, knowing that I detest novelties and heresy and stand ready to publicly confront them, and not only that I am ready, but very capable.

The thing about the enemy is that he keeps face until he loses face and when he does it's a pathetic sight. You've gotta keep hitting him until you knock him down! I'm proof that it works; it works and we WILL win. It's like Brother John says in the movie Beckett," I know that I'm just a grain of sand in the machine, but if you fill that machine with sand, you'll bring it to a screeching halt." The gates of Hell will not prevail against us. The day will come when this is all just a memory and when that day comes what will you say?"I was there, leading from the front." or," Well... I was a SSPXer." or even worse,"I just... hid in the pews." At least the SSPXer's are doing something! Don't be a nobody. It's a war and our weapons are the rosary, the bible, all the teachings of the saints and the Holy Catholic Church, prayer, our mouths, our charity, our courage to stand up to heresy vocally. Let's get to it.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Dumbocracy

2011-01-07T15:45:00.000-05:00

There is no more sure means of destroying a civilization, a society, a religion or any other institution than by employing democracy. A lot of people go on and on about how great democracy is. They mention freedom and democracy together, as though freedom is gotten or ensured by democracy. But it has always been known that democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the many over the few, the ignorant over the enlightened, the base over the excellent, the mean-spirited over the noble-spirited.

You know from my blogs that I never make ostentatious appeals to other men greater than myself. I don't quote them to make my points, but I resort to the application of reason. However, on this subject, why should you believe me? Since childhood everyone around us has been filling our heads with democracy. They've been telling you since the first time you said the pledge of allegiance," A free country is a democratic country!" and,"Democracy makes all men equal!" You've even seen us "bring" democracy to more than one country by force in the last twenty years. Whenever someone would say something about another form of government, they were shot down with their comments and ideas, unless they were shooting down the other forms of government.

Republics were for Romans, Nazis, and Soviets. Monarchies were for the British and Arabs. Dictatorships were for banana republics and Asian people. And all those countries that were truly democratic, like so many African states, were simply doing it wrong. I can't undo the last 20 years of brainwashing with one blog. But I can break from tradition and give some quotes from greater men than myself. Listen to them:

"In our so-called democracy we are accustomed to give the majority what they want rather than educate them to understand what is best for them."
~Carter G. Woodson~
"Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time."
~E. B. White~
"Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."
~Ron Paul~
"The world is weary of statesmen whom democracy has degraded into politicians."
~Benjamin Disraeli~
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
~Vladimir Lenin~
"Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated."
~Gilbert K. Chesterton~
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."
~H. L. Mencken~
"Democracy is the road to socialism."
~Karl Marx~
"Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education."
~Franklin D. Roosevelt~
"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."
~Oscar Wilde~
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."
~John F. Kennedy~
"Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure."
~Ronald Reagan~
"The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart."
~Mohandas Gandhi~
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
~Winston Churchill~

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
~John Adam~
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "
~John Adams~
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
~John Adams~
"Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal."
~Aristotle~
"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers."
~Aristotle~
"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme."
~Aristotle~
"Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."
~Aristotle~

"The mob is the mother of tyrants."
~Diogenes~
"Democracy passes into despotism."
~Plato~
"Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike."
~Plato~
"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."
~Plato~

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Abortion- Errors of Logic

2011-01-06T00:01:00.003-05:00

Previously, I wrote a secular argument against abortion that left out moral judgment. For those of you who read my blog and other Catholic writings, you might come across philosophical language and theological three dollar words which at times may seem like little more than a vain attempt to sound smart. But they're actually quite necessary in conveying specific ideas and keeping clear of semantics in already complicated issues. To those of you who aren't used to the jargon, just hang on! You'll get used to it and understand why these subjects have their own terminology. I just wanted to throw that out there to whoever it applies to. Also, if you want to leave a comment in the form of a rebuttal or a counter question, all are welcome. You can be passionate, but please be respectful. I'll try to respond to any comment.

So, having said that much, this time around I would like to talk about the pro-choice ontological argument. That is, I'd like to address the pro-choice (pro-abortion) argument concerning "being." We often hear pro-abortion folks declaring that a fetus is not a human life. Without sliding into "yes it is! no it isn't!" style argumentation, I'd like to look at some of the assertions that are necessary to this stance that a fetus is not a human life. Now, I'm addressing the logic, or lack thereof, of some common pro-choice arguments. I'm not saying that everyone who is pro-choice believes these things, makes these arguments or that they don't for that matter. So, read with that in mind.

This is actually a very weak argument and I'll show you why. The pro-abortion side says," The fetus cannot live outside of the mother, it cannot live without the mother. Therefore, the mother and the fetus are synonymous biologically. Ergo, the fetus is not a human life, because it is part of the mother's body just like a fingernail, or an elbow." I don't think that any pro-choice individuals would say that I've misrepresented their argument, here.

Well, fine. Why would they point this out, though? Very obviously, it is because they wish to say convincingly what they always say," My body, my choice!" Let's look at our laws and see if they make provision for that kind of thinking, that sort of philosophy if you will. Can we do whatever we want to with our bodies, because they are our bodies? If I wanted to sell an organ, rumor has it that I could do so for thousands of dollars on the black market. But the black market is simply a phrase which means 'illegally.' Doesn't look like I can do what I want to with my own body. Or imagine that I was pulled over and given a ticket for driving without a seat belt. It's my body, why am I getting a ticket for not buckling it in? I obviously can't do what I want to with my body; it's obviously not my choice.

Jack Kevorkian, a.k.a. Dr. Death, sits in prison because he agreed with a lot of people that they have the right to choose what to do with their own body. Looks like the law doesn't agree, there. And what about all those people incarcerated for drug possession and prostitution? It's their body, their choice, right? Well, the law doesn't agree. What about drugs? What about prostitution? The law doesn't agree that you have the right to do either of those "because it is your body." This is yet another reason why in my previous blog I mentioned that abortion causes hypocrisy in government. If we are allowing women to have abortions based on the idea that it is their body, their choice, then why are we disallowing these other things? Abortion keeps no continuity with our other laws; it's a contradictory and erroneous law. It's not derived reasonably from our other laws.

O.k. so I haven't made a moral argument, yet. Can you blame me? It's like shooting fish in a barrel. So, let me make an ethical argument against. An ethic of course is a moral generally agreed upon by a given society. Ethics are rapidly disappearing because of relativism. That's the real danger present in society today; it's not that we are becoming immoral. That's what the last fifty years were all about: immorality. Now, society is just becoming amoral," Morals are subjective. Who needs 'em?" they say.

Well, since ethics still exist I'll make use of them here. Another pro-abortion argument overlaps the one I just mentioned and it's that the fetus or the zygote are not human because they do not possess all of their body parts and don't function like an independent human specimen. Further, part of that assertion is what was stated previously, namely that it cannot survive independently. Their organs aren't formed completely and they don't even have a complete skeletal system. They point these things out to make the fetus or the zygote as dissimilar from a fully formed human child outside of the womb as possible, so as to make them seem like two different species of organism.

I'm going to indulge in sarcasm here and talk about the implications of those assertions. So, the fetus is not a human because it's organs don't work or aren't formed completely? Does that mean that people who have malformed hearts aren't human? Does that mean that the mentally and physically handicapped aren't human? Does that mean that people with rare bone diseases and deficiencies aren't human? Can we just kill them off, too?

What about that idea that people aren't human because they can't survive by themselves? Technically, human children are meant to survive by breastfeeding for the first portion of their lives. They still need their mother's bodies. They also need handling and affection, otherwise they die and/ or can develop serious psychological and chemical disorders. How old must a child be before it can survive independent of it's parents? Eight years old, maybe? Lot's of old people can't take care of themselves, neither can lots of invalids. There are many mentally and physically handicapped people who simply cannot survive without assistance. Some people need machines to stay alive. So, what are they trying to say? That we can just kill them off, too? They meet the criteria. Perhaps, we should bring back the practice of exposure and just leave unwanted infants for dead on hillsides to be picked apart or eaten by birds and wild animals.

And I'm not even going to mention the other subjective nonsense arguments concerning unwanted children, children born into poverty, into areas of crime. I'll just simply say, what I said above against the so-called disqualifying factors: does that mean we should kill all poor people, too? And the unwanted, whether they be elderly or in the womb? Should we just kill everyone in every ghetto in America like the Nazis did all over Europe?

You know, it sounds like they are supporting euthanasia at the same time when they support abortion. In fact, they are, de facto. But even more grotesquely the scope of who doesn't qualify as humans is astounding if we go by this definition of human life. We can kill all mentally and physically handicapped people, invalids, those on life support, all children under the age of eight, the elderly, the deformed, etc. The only people who would be classed as humans are those who are of sound body and mind, capable of surviving independent from all other human beings. Well, they'd quickly disqualify themselves, because no one who thinks that is of sound mind, unless they are pure, cold, calculating, intellectual evil.

Sounds a lot like eugenics; you know, the same thing the Nazis were all about. They say the apple never falls too far from the tree. Well, the rotten apple of modern abortion proves this maxim correct. Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a.k.a. the abortion people, was an avid activist of eugenics. She thought that criminals and the mentally handicapped should be involuntarily sterilized. She even suggested the following to congress,"Keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924." She also said," The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

She was an open racist. Do you know that today, right now, you can call Planned Parenthood and tell them you want to donate specifically to black abortions? Did you know that Planned Parenthood's all over America are intentionally and strategically placed near minority and low income areas? Eugenics in action here in the 21st century and we still look to the past and wag a finger at the Nazis. Looks like her philosophical offspring still agree, even if they deny it, even if they don't realize it. Those are the implications of their arguments; eugenics and euthanasia follow necessarily from these arguments.

So, where are the legitimate arguments for abortion? What's another one we all hear," Do you want it to go back to what it was like in the past?! Back alley with a coat hanger?! Do you know how many women died and became barren because of those illegal procedures?!" What kind of argument is that? That's like if tomorrow we passed a law that said people are allowed to break into houses and steal. If people tried to repeal the law, the ones who passed the law would say," Do you want it to go back to like it was in the past?! Back when criminals had to worry about being shot?! Do you know how stressful that was?! Do you know how many thieves died over a T.V. or a gold watch?!" You'd look at them and say after a long pause," ARE YOU INSANE???" We don't alter our laws because criminals suffer the natural consequences of their actions! That's not even an argument. That's argumentum absurdum.

Almost anyone who is pro-choice would look at the consequences and logic of these common arguments and say," No! Of course I don't believe any of that is ok!" But show the logical argument for abortion, then. Show a bullet-proof, iron-clad, objective argument for abortion. I'm not trying to paint everyone with one brush stroke, but let's face it, the pro-choice side is not a theistic stance. The pro-choice movement is primarily an atheistic one. I've never met an Atheist who wasn't pro-abortion; well, maybe one, but I can't recall exactly. Anyway, this seems to be the case. So, just like the Atheists like to put the onus on theists to prove that God exists, it's up to pro-choice individuals to prove that it isn't a human life. The onus isn't on the pro-life side to show that a human life does exist. We all know what the course of nature is for a zygote, we know what the fetus becomes. There is no denying what the course of nature is; that much is evident. The onus is on the pro-abortionists to prove their correctness, because nature is the ultimate default. If you are an Atheist and a pro-choice individual, don't be a hypocrite. Just make your objective argument. Or if you don't have and argument, accept the fact that you don't have one and the next time someone asks you why you're pro-choice tell them the truth," I don't have a real reason. I just am."

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Abortion- Not Smart

2011-01-05T14:29:00.006-05:00

Talking about abortion is always difficult, not because we must grapple with semantics, morals, ideas, ethics, virtues, science, medicine, or anything else of that order. It is difficult to talk about because there is so much wrong with abortion that one struggles to know wear to start, which door to enter, where to grab on, which error and vice to first expose. Now, perhaps some of you are in favor of abortion and don't like what I've just said, but hear my argument if you will; I'm going to keep this one secular. I will gladly read any rebuttal in the comments section.

First, let me not make a moral criticism of abortion, but rather let me propound to you some commonsense reasons for why abortion is bad for society. In the first place, it causes hypocrisy in government. The United States government says that it does not fund abortions with tax payer money, at least at this present moment. Is this true? No, and an emphatic resounding 'no' at that. Companies like McDonald's, Sam Adams, Coca Cola, Swiffer and many more give millions and millions to Planned Parenthood every year so that they can have huge tax write-offs. That means that the tax money they would have had to pay was diverted to an organization whose primary mission is to provide abortions and contraception. Monies owed to the state, taxes, was given to abortions.

How exactly does the government not pay for abortions when such so-called philanthropy is at the expense of the government, a detriment to its total collection? What? Because the money didn't pass from the government's hands the government didn't fund abortions? How can anyone say that when it was the government in the first place who agreed not to collect the monies so that it could be so diverted? The government is financially complicit in abortion. For the government to say that it doesn't fund abortion is a pathetically feeble deceit of the first order.

Are you not convinced? Let's try this with other organizations. What if Smith & Wesson had given one million dollars to the Irish political party Sinn Fein back when they were fund raising in America during the 1970's, during 'The Troubles,' for the IRA. Keep in mind that the IRA is considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Let's imagine further that Smith & Wesson got a tax break out of it. Everyone in America and the U.K. would be screaming about how the U.S. government was funding terrorism against the U.K. in Northern Ireland, in the same fashion that the PRC and USSR funded North Korea and North Vietnam.

Or let's imagine that the U.S. government declared that it wasn't attempting to sway the Iraqi economy in any particular direction, that it wasn't interested in imperialism or colonialism. Then, let us imagine further that congress passed a bill which said to all U.S. oil corporations that they would only pay 50% domestic taxes and 75% foreign for 20 years if they established themselves inside Iraqi oil fields. The U.S. government's actions would be irreconcilable with its words.

This is precisely what we have here: lies, deceit, and hypocrisy. Do you imagine that this sort of behavior is acceptable and good for government? Or do you suppose that such governments are worthy to govern their people? Can such governments be trusted? Perhaps, up until now you've been saying," The government does the same thing with write-offs to religious organizations." You are correct, but the government never said,"We don't give money to religious organizations." What the government says is that there is a separation of Church and State, so that no religion is founded or established by the government. That statement was in direct condemnation of what king Henry VIII did when he established and founded the Church of England with his secular power.

Also, notice that it is a separation of Church and State, not church and State. If the separation of Church and State is to be understood as an absolute as so many like to suggest, how then does the State impose this law upon the religious without dissolving such a separation? The very idea doesn't even make sense. How are they separate when religious interference in politics is limited and prohibited by the state if such restrictions are imposed by the state? It cannot be! This species of separation defies logic, unless such a phenomenon were accidental and mutual, but it is not. The nature of the separation must be otherwise defined. Ergo, as stated, there is a separation of Church and State, so that no religion is founded or established by the government.

So, it isn't the same. What happens with abortion and religious organizations are very dissimilar in substantial ways. There's no need to address or entertain that assertion further. Let's rather look at the fiscal responsibility of abortion. The last time I checked, every American has an estimated monetary value. Some of you might remember the old movie "Boy's Town" with Spencer Tracy. In that movie there is a line that says," That boy is worth $10,000 dollars to the state!" It was said in reference to an orphan played by Mickey Rooney. But that was back during the Great Depression. Everyone back then was estimated to be worth about $10,000 to the state. That means that the mathematical mean of what a person will produce is X amount of dollar from the time they are born to the time they die.

We can contrast this with the debt average. I keep hearing rough numbers about the amount of debt allotted to each American; supposedly it's about $2.5 million and rising. That is to say, if we took the national debt and distributed it equally across every living citizen in the United States, each of us would owe approximately $2.5 million dollars. Now, today each of us is obviously worth more than $10,000 USD, quite a bit more in fact. More like $1.4 million. So, that means you still have $1.1 million hanging over your head if you are an American citizen.

All of that to say, every person born in America alleviates $1.4 dollars of debt. You could also say they generate $1.1 million. Still doesn't change the fact that they alleviate more than they generate. Abortion on the other hand costs money and generates none. Abortion is fiscally irresponsible; it does not have the power to generate wealth, only to stymie growth and progress. Any semblance of wealth is an illusion, comprised of money merely changing hands, insurance monies, and donations. It is a drain on society. The average abortion costs about $300 dollars, but certain procedures which occur less frequently can cost up to $1,000 dollars.

So, let's do some simple math here. I'm gonna be conservative with the constant here; the old general estimate of how many abortions have occurred since Roe vs. Wade is 50,000,000. Now, it's closer to 60,000,000 if it isn't almost there. So, 50,000,000 it is. And as we stated, the vast majority of abortions cost about $300 bucks. So, $300 bucks it is. Now, understand, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, that this is not statistical science here. This equation proves nothing. It's merely an illustration, but a powerful one.

If we multiply 50,000,000 with 300, we get 15,000,000,000. That's $15 billion dollars in debt to kill the unborn. If we multiply 1,400,000 with 50,000,000, we get 60,000,000,000,000. That's $60 Trillion dollars. To put that in perspective for you, the infamous national debt is $14 Trillion, 5 Billion. Abortion has hurt us financially, regardless of what oat bran hippie fear-mongering fanatics might say about over population. Abortion has hurt us badly. And because of abortion this generation not only suffers from old debt, but at some point will face what Europe now faces: more dependents than there are people to depend upon. Enter welfare state.

We can't say that we'd be better off or worse off debt-wise at the present moment, or at least I'm not qualified to say so. It would probably take a decade, hundreds of people, and lots of money to find out the precise truth of the matter. But it's very probably we'd be in the exact same place we are at right now, financially speaking. Except for one thing: having too few people to support the aging population of 'baby-boomers.' That certainly would not be a problem. Abortion is irresponsible, it exists primarily because of irresponsibility, and creates a culture of irresponsibility. Abortion is bad for the world, plain and simple, even leaving moral arguments aside.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Latin Rosary

2011-01-04T17:31:00.000-05:00

THE PRAYERS OF THE ROSARY (http://www.ewtn.com/library/prayer/latrosar.htm)

Sign of the Cross:

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen

Apostles' Creed:
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae. Et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, descendit ad infernos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis, inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam. Amen.

The Lord's Prayer:
PATER NOSTER, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

The Hail Mary:
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.

Glory Be:
GLORIA PATRI, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Oratio Fatimae (The Fatima Prayer)
Domine Iesu, dimitte nobis debita nostra, salva nos ab igne inferiori, perduc in caelum omnes animas, praesertim eas, quae misericordiae tuae maxime indigent.

Hail, Holy Queen:
SALVE REGINA, Mater misericordiae. Vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve. Ad te clamamus exsules filii Hevae. Ad te Suspiramus, gementes et flentes in hac lacrimarum valle. Eia ergo, Advocata nostra, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte. Et Iesum, benedictum fructum ventris tui, nobis post hoc exsilium ostende. O clemens, o pia, o dulcis Virgo Maria.
V. Ora pro nobis, Sancta Dei Genitrix.
R. Ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Theodicy - The Problem of Evil

2011-01-03T22:37:00.005-05:00

I was commenting recently to an Atheist friend; the eminent Richard Dawkins had come up on her page. I was wondering what Richard Dawkins would do with a guy like Ken Miller, a well published molecular and cell biologist who gives assent to evolution and does his own debates against American Evangelical Creationism. Ken Miller is Roman Catholic and says that he is a theist in the broadest sense. Admittedly, that can only mean one thing... he doesn't give much attention to his faith.

A little while later it dawned on me," You know... that probably wouldn't be that great of a debate." The reason being is that the only thing they would have to argue about is the cosmological argument, which is the issue of whether or not the universe has a cause and what that might be. The other thing they might argue about is theodicy, which addresses the problem of evil.

These are the two pitfalls of such debates. It's one thing to watch an atheist scientist beat up on a theist rhetorician who parrots second hand Creationist arguments, to watch an atheist scientist and a theist scientist shrug in agreement, but quite another to watch them wade into a mire of philosophical issues they don't have the credentials to discuss.

So often people watch these epic clashes, bedazzled by the scientific jargon, sitting on the edge of their seats, mesmerized by the simultaneous embarrassment and verbal glory of the debaters. We forget that these men are usually specialists, or at least pretend to be. They are either theologians, scientists, philosophers, or mere rhetoricians. Too often, the rhetorician plays the menace and it must be admitted that most often in the matters of science it's a theist. A creationist rhetorician will hide behind a mass of unfinished, ill-quoted, misinformed, assumptions and subjective arguments. We even catch them holding up completely discredited and disproved theories like the infamous "irreducible complexity of the eye" and the "irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum." If the creationist initiates a question on science and the atheist responds with a line of science, he will follow a line of so-called morality, and visa versa, evading the issue.

Too often theists in general get represented by meddling rhetoricians who aren't qualified to teach a high school biology class. But on the other hand, Atheists are just as guilty. Such is the case with Dawkins. Dawkins is a Biologist; that's what he is. But you see him attempting to speak authoritatively on philosophy, morality, history, ethics, virtue, etc. He's not qualified to comment on any of those things and usually he ends up hackneying out arguments from Kant, Hegel, and Hume with shaky form and questionable understanding. Even if he did possess a good understanding of such philosophies, which has not been evidenced, he does not have the ability to defend these philosophies systematically, nor can he explain their intricacies. It's cocktail party knowledge; they don't really even know what they are talking about.

Because of this, Dawkins and other atheists often come out strong with tricky and hard ethical questions, but end up feebly retiring prematurely, feigning a noble profession of ignorance in an attempt to make their opponents look arrogant. That's not to say that such atheist debaters don't exist, those who are philosophers and anthropologist, etc. Rather, most often apologetics debates are completely mismatched. In fact, I've never seen one that was well matched. I've observed a team of atheists versus a team of creationists. But what if such a panel existed where you had the best of the best? The atheist team having an anthropologist, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist; and the theist side had a theologian, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist? Only then I think would such a debate be worthy of note; a debate where another two could continue where the former two left off.

Anyway, as stated, most apologetics debates disintegrate once the issue of philosophy and theodicy arise. The debate turns into a defamation of ideas, a verbal slug-fest, and all sides deteriorate into ridiculous non sequiturs and random scenarios designed not to reveal the truth, but rather into trap the opponent in his words or trick him into admitting something as if character assassination was the point of the debate. This of course usually takes place at the end of the debate once both sides are fatigued after having tried to their utmost to make eloquent arguments and eloquent refutations. It becomes nothing more than a show of vanity by the end, very often.

Leaving aside the venue of apologetics and focusing on theodicy, I think the subject deserves some treatment. It's a fair question the atheist asks," If there is a God, then why is there so much suffering and what we might call evil in the world?" The thing is, most atheists would be talking out both sides of their mouth by even saying this. Atheist don't believe in a universal morality, they don't believe in objective ethics and virtues. In fact, most of them would staunchly defend the notion that these are conventional, man-made, subjective concepts. So, in essence, if we take their assertion as just stated, then that would be like asking an Alaskan native to account for culture of the Bushmen of Africa. Subjective is subjective right?

But far from attempting to wiggle out of answering, like the rhetorician does, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy there, and I'll go a little further. The atheist asks the question because the theist is stating that there is an objective morality and that there is a universal right. So, the atheist is basically putting a ball in the theists court that he's pretty sure the theist can't possibly dribble. That's fair; the atheist shouldn't have to argue the theists side of the argument for him. But supposing that the atheist is right, what then? What do we make of evil? What can we possibly say? There's only one thing we can say: there is no real evil, there is no real morality. What then? If there's no tangible, objective moral difference between giving a person a hug and giving them poison, then there is no problem of evil. It simply doesn't exist.

This is where the atheist hypocrisy usually rears it's ugly head and we have a full on, uncompromising endorsement of morals from the atheist, which is exactly what they atheist was refusing to tolerate from the theist. Except, instead of the theist's morals, the atheist pushes post-modern humanism down everyone's throat. So, the atheist only condemns the theist so they can turn around and do the same exact thing, and that as we all know, whether you're a theist or an atheist, is pure hypocrisy.

Theodicy can seem like a tough nut to crack, but in reality the only thing that makes it a tough subject is that people apply strawmen to the people arguing the issue. For some reason, the theist isn't allowed to make an argument unless he defends the Calvinist double-predestination, where God controls everything and everyone and micromanages the universe with supreme impeccability, right down to the tiniest quirk. That's kinda like the atheist saying to the theist," Hey, let's race, but you have to drive in the car I give you." Huh?

In a universe where God and man are both described according to the Catholic schematic, answering theodicy isn't problematic at all. The universe works in the same pattern as we observe everyday. Parents make a child, the child once grown has choices to make. It can make good choices or bad choices. In short, freewill is the answer to theodicy. At the bottom of each of my blogs I have my favorite quote from Aristotle, perhaps from all philosophy," Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."

God is the good; the good is certainly something anyone can give assent to and at the same time know that it is immeasurable. Here we have a reasonable argument concerning God, I think.. Everyone does what they do for a reason, even when accidents happen, they did certain things which set the accident in motion. A woman procures an abortion so that she will not be encumbered with a child, aiming at the good of freedom. A man steals to satisfy a desire, aiming at the good of happiness. People rape to satisfy sexual urges and to establish dominance, aiming at the goods of power and pleasure. All of them fail miserably. In the end, however, they prove Aristotle correct, that all things do in fact aim at the Good.

So, the problem of evil is exactly what Christians have been saying it is all along: a conflict between man's ability and desire to obtain the good. It comes down to free will. Man must take responsibility for the problem of evil, because he causes it and eliminates it, by both action an inaction. This has nothing to do with God being malevolent and everything to do with His sovereignty. As the Greek philosophers were so fond of saying," The sun, too, peers into privies and is not contaminated by them." That evil exists has not to do with God. In fact, evil is a kind of vacuum, seeing as how God is the Good and evil is chiefly a lack of good, as we have just demonstrated with the rapist, the thief, and the murderer. The Christian schematic isn't problematic at all, like the Atheist suggested it was. It's only problematic if Christianity is forced in such a debate to defend a heresy and a non-God. There, theodicy solved.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Communion of the Saints

2011-01-03T15:47:00.001-05:00

This is quite possibly one of the most self-evident and easiest doctrines of the Church to defend and explain. This is because it follows necessarily from faith in Christ.

When we think of the word "communion" we might think of several things. We may think of the Eucharist, we may think of juice and cracker packets, we may think of unity, solemn prayers, etc. Depending on who we are, the word communion can be rather nebulous. Rarely do people stop and look at the obvious etymology of the word: common-union. Some common union must be effected in order for communion to be effected. We must participate in that common union to be affected by the communion.

Now, the Catholic dogma known as the "Communion of the Saints" states that the Church Militant (the Church alive on Earth) benefits from the intercession of the Church Triumphant (the Church in Heaven) and the Church Purgative (those in Purgatory) benefits from the intercession of both the Church Triumphant and Militant. These three have a common union with each other because they are commonly unified in Christ by the Holy Spirit. That is to say, they are each of them individually and all of them communally unified with God the Father and God the Son, having been incorporated by the gift of the Holy Spirit who is God.

All true Trinitarian theology states that there is one God, three Persons. Further, it is stated that the Holy Spirit is the mutual love that God the Father has for God the Son and visa versa. Therefore, the Holy Spirit while being God, is the union between God the Father and God the Son. So, it follows necessarily that the Holy Spirit is equally God. There is no disputation or discrepancy on this point between Christians, regardless of whether they be from the Orthodoxies in the East, the Roman Church in the West and those in communion with her, or even amongst the Protestants. If anyone denies these essentials they deny what Christianity has faith in and are not Christians, ipso facto.

The purpose of bringing this up is to show, or remind rather, what kind of union it is that the Christian is incorporated into. The union takes on the attributes of the unified; for this reason God became a man. St. Gregory of Nazianzus said," That which is not assumed is not redeemed." God shared in our humanity so that we might share in His divinity. Being human ourselves we know precisely what it means for Him to take on humanity.

But what does it mean to put on divinity? Does the Catholic faith teach that we become gods independent from the One True God? By no means. It teaches that we share in what He promises, namely His Holy Spirit. So then, what does it mean to share in this divinity? It means that we will be holy as He is holy, it means that we share in His eternal life, in His omnipotence, in His omnipresence. It means that we enjoy that same degree of closeness with the Trinity that It enjoys Itself. This is accomplished by the work of Christ, at the good pleasure of the Father, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Now, it is written in the Book of Hebrews that we have been given an eternal priesthood, in the order of Melchizedek and that we have a High priest, who is Christ. Christ is both the Lamb who was sacrificed and the Priest who sacrificed Himself for us and we know this from the Gospels, because he told them that no one takes His life away from Him, but He lays it down for His sheep and has the power to take it up again. And He tells us further that this command is from His Father.

Now, there is no other purpose for a priest except for to make sacrifice for the people, but here we see that Christ the high priest has made a sacrifice once and for all. And yet our priesthood does not end here; no, much to the contrary, we hear that ours is an eternal priesthood. What does this mean? Let us examine. God is infinite and God was sacrificed, therefore the sacrifice is infinite. We behold an infinite sacrifice of mercy, more than sufficient for the offenses of mankind. But why then are we yet priests?

St. Paul says," How I wish that I were with you to make up for that which is lacking in the wounds of Christ!" Does St. Paul contradict what we know to be true, which is precisely what we just stated, that Christ's sacrifice is more than sufficient for the sins of mankind? By no means does he disagree, but understand what he means to say... you and I are the wounds of Christ. Not only this, but we must assist one another and workout our own salvation, meeting faith with works and giving life to the hope we have in Him, participating with the work of Christ.

If then we are the Body of Christ, which is the Church, and we are the wounds of Christ shouldn't we know that we have become once with the Eternal Sacrifice and the same Priest who did sacrifice It? Aside from all this, don't priests also make offerings of prayer? Isn't it written that our praise and prayers go up to heaven as an offering of sweet smelling incense? We offer these prayers and praises not only for ourselves, but for each other and the whole world, because God wills that all men shall be saved according to the scriptures.

We read in the Gospel that after Christ was done answering the Sadducees concerning their question about marriage and the resurrection He gave them evidence of the resurrection and proof of the life of the righteous. He said unto them that when God spoke to Moses in the bush He said," I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." And Christ said that God was a God of the living and not of the dead.

So, what is this that you say that the dead are cut off from the living? Who told you this and where did you read it? Did you forget that Moses and Elijah were present at Christ's transfiguration? How then do you define eternal life? If you say that the soul lives, where? If the soul is present in the body the body is alive, and if the soul is absent from the body the body is dead. And if the soul is alive the body shall live; this is the resurrection.

If then you have eternal life and an eternal priesthood, don't you know that you will not cease your priesthood in bodily death, seeing that the soul yet lives? Or do you believe that you are only a priest sometimes, and that you only kind of have eternal life? Eternal means one thing only, there is no such thing as delimited eternal life. Either it's eternal or it's not. There's no such thing as a delimited eternal priesthood; you either participate eternally in an eternal priesthood or you don't.

So, what's your priestly duty after you have died? Will it not surely be to pray for those who toil on the earth against temptation to evil and the power of darkness? Will you not pray for those souls which fly toward God and experience a painful purging, which is called Purgatory?

Do you suppose you will pray as feebly as you do, now? Ignorant of what is needed, deluded by vanity, swayed and distracted by the flesh, deceived by sin? Or will you, standing in the presence of God, after having come through the fire, not pray more perfectly? Will you not confess what we already know to be true, which is precisely what we said earlier, that we share in the divinity of Christ just as He shares in our humanity? Will you not enjoy His omnipotence, His omnipresence, His wisdom, His compassion, His knowledge, His understanding? You must already know that you will!

And wouldn't you prefer someone to be praying for you in this manner? When you communicate to these saints who have gone on before you, how will they hear you? Will your prayer be carried on the wind into heaven to souls that do not have bodies, and therefore have no ears? Don't you know that you rather will communicate by a common union, namely by the Holy Spirit? Are you confused, even though you know that you are One in Christ and both have the same Holy Spirit, and share in the same eternal life and are members of the same priesthood, with One High Priest? This is the 'Communion of the Saints.'

Now, without a doubt, there are many of you who until this point are saying that Christ alone is the Mediator between God and man. You are right, but here you show more than a little confusion. We know that He is in us and we are in Him. Further, we know that we are the Body of Christ and that we are His wounds. Then, why are you so fearful as though this mediation is not done in Christ? You yourselves just now said that Christ is the Mediator between God and man. Listen to your own mouth, friend, and be taught by yourselves that the doctrine of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is true.

And if there is anyone else who says that they shall have none pray for them but Christ alone, to you I say charitably and gently, do not be a hypocrite. You are the same person who asks his fellows to pray for him, you are the one who says," I covet your prayers." You are the one who when distressed looks for the one who seems the most spiritual among you and ask him to pray for you; very often it's your pastor. Therefore, again, do not be a hypocrite concerning the Church and the things of God.

The communion of the saints is a blessing to us. The Saints in heaven, those martyrs and Apostles, innocents and holy, are not bound as they once were by the flesh, praying for one person at a time. They now pray perfectly and intimately for you and me and for all, without ceasing. This is the will of the Father, established by Christ, accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Christ has prepared this for you and set it before you on the table. Christ said that whoever rejects those whom He sends also rejects Him; and whosoever rejects the Son rejects the Father also, because He and the Father are One. It is not right to reject Him. "Today, if you hear the call of the Lord, harden not your heart."

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

India

2011-01-02T23:11:00.001-05:00

A dear friend of mine is in India doing missions work. Per usual, the greatest set back for a missionary is money. She is one of many all over the world who do this sort of work out of pocket working alongside other devout people. It's a cheap price for the happiness it brings to many, for the health it brings, for the holiness it engenders. Many of you have read about Mother Teresa of Calcutta and for those of you who have, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Not everyone can make donations to these kinds of efforts because of financial limitations; some might even be apprehensive due to many of the abuses of money which occur in religious organizations. And not just because of Televangelist Protestant "Prosperity Gospel" types who haggle their viewers for a "thousand dollar seed." In our own time we've seen Catholic money squandered and laundered by certain members of the Legionnaires of Christ, known in Mexico as the "Millionaires of Christ." We've seen similar abuses occur on the parish level, where money is squandered on superfluous building campaigns.

Many have been scandalized by this sort of abuse and rightly so. It's hard looking at a private person who is trying to start a mission asking for money without a little suspicion. But money isn't the only thing we can give to these people. They need prayers, time, talent. In a word they need help. These are real people helping other real people. Sometimes, these sorts of endeavors have a gallery where you can see where your money, time, talent, and prayers are going and what it is doing. You can contact these people and get to know them and learn about their operation.

It's so easy to just throw a little money into the basket as Mass and have done with it. But I encourage everyone to pause and give a little thought to the idea of searching out those who need the help desperately. Maybe it's a convent in a foreign country forgotten by most people that struggles to get by. Maybe it's a priest retirement home in your diocese or a village in Asia, Africa, or South America. Your gift can feed many, it can stop young women from resorting to a life of prostitution, young men from a life of crime. You can help house the elderly, the sick, the crippled. When you give time, talent, prayer, and money to these germinating missions and desperate situations you buy in to the yield. You will reap along with those who toil.

So, give a word of encouragement to these people. Send them a check, let them know you are praying for them... let them know if it's a rosary or a novena. Tell them when you let people know about their operation and give them a little bit of hope. It goes a long way. Be blessed! Please check out this mission site devoted to housing unprotected children in Chennai, India: http://francoslightpainting.yolasite.com/

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Pauper- On Hypocrisy

2011-01-01T23:11:00.000-05:00

There once was a man who lived in the streets of the city and he was a pitiful sight of mange and emaciation. As long as he had been in the city the young boys would come out and mock him; and he was the butt of all their jokes and songs. Whenever they saw him they would pass no occasion to speak evil of him.

Then one night, three drunken men came out and began to tear his clothes and kick his dog, which was his only companion until it laid down and died. And they began to beat the man with the palms of their hands. Now, when the young men saw this from a distance they ran shouting to stop the men from beating this man, though they didn’t know who they were beating. And when the drunken men saw them coming they turned to them and said,” Go away, fools! Or we'll beat you too!” And they all began to fight fiercely over this man. Having pulled him to safety and driven off the drunk men, the young men realized it was the same man who they mocked every single day and threw garbage at and defamed.

Therefore, who had the greater shame, the drunkards or the young men? There are a lot of Protestant churches who are really involved in missions. They go on thousands of missions trips each year to Central America, South America, Asia, Africa. Often they are simply trying to convert people away from Catholicism. But then fierce persecution of Catholics starts in some foreign country and all of the sudden the Protestants say," Christians are being persecuted! We're being persecuted!" To many Protestants, Catholics aren't Christians until they're martyred or persecuted; they have no scruples about using Catholics this way. The people who do this should be just as aware of their shame as the young men in this parable.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~