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,"
Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." 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~
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Monday, 30 May 2011
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
St. Anselm's Ontological Argument
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~
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~
Monday, 28 March 2011
On Prudence
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~
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~
Friday, 14 January 2011
Mary Queen of Peace
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~
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
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~
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~
Saturday, 1 January 2011
The Pauper- On Hypocrisy
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~
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~
Monday, 27 December 2010
Christian Liberty
In the modern day we have seen both the true and false liberation of women. I say true in that now a much greater dignity and task has been conferred upon womankind, which is their liberty. I say false, because they have become the victims of double tongued serpents. How so? Very simply, if a woman decides to put off marriage and children until the flower of youth withers, she is regarded as shrewd. If she goes and gets an education and pursues all the temporal advantages of business success, she is considered keen and self-sufficient. Finally, if she begins to be promiscuous, she is regarded as an all-powerful and jaded goddess who is above the emotional trappings which affect us mere mortals.
However, say that a young woman has decided to marry and have children, without having gone to college, with no aspirations of a business career. Let us say further that such a woman comes across the path of a so-called liberated woman, or perhaps one of their "emancipators." What do you suppose will happen? Do not speak to me of extraordinary instances, but avail your mind to the common occurrence. Will they not start in with all kinds of false pity, indirectly insulting her? Or the more mean spirited sort, will they not even go so far as to degrade her, putting on airs of superiority, making ostentatious gestures, and so conveniently steering conversation and venue to places the mother and wife cannot come? If they hear of any misfortune in the mother or wife's life, are they not eager to blame her children, brand her husband as a jailer, and amongst each other speak of her stupidity for having chosen such a life?
Or say perchance, there is a woman who has chosen to be a wife and a mother, and she goes out getting an education and making a career. Being surrounded with so-called liberated women, will they not prefer each other to her? Tell me, will they not incessantly propound to her that it is her being a wife and a mother that is the cause of all her troubles? Will they not attempt to exclude her on the pretense that her motherhood and her being a wife are at irreconcilable odds to her so-called professional goals?
Therefore, do they not rather propound to her an ultimatum, which is," Be a stupid animal, a slave, living with no one to care about the things you want." or," Be like us. Take charge. Free yourself. Get what you want." By this ultimatum, do they not say to wives and mothers," You have chosen to be stupid animals, slaves. You chose this; it is your fault." What sort of strange and exceedingly wicked perversity is this! These, their so-called liberators said to begin with," Women are prevented from all sorts of liberties. They are confined to specific social roles, so we are going to liberate womankind!" Yet, which of you can't see the difference between this statement and what actually is, now? I do not intend to paint every woman with the same brush, by no means. However, look at what we have already laid out. Can you not see that it was not want of liberty, but hatred of social roles which drove the multitude to revolt? The majority of women wanting merely liberty, lead on by women who had hatred for wholesome things in their hearts. Now, it seems that the liberty has been granted the hatred still remains. Where is the proof? The proof is in the scorn of motherhood, the hatred of marriage and the fear of both. The proof is in the rolling eyes of "liberated women" at pious mothers and wives who hold their husbands arms. The proof is in the gossip and ostracizing against holy women who have, because of true liberty, chosen to be mothers and wives. The proof is the torrents of implicit, and often explicit, disrespect which are blown against wives and mothers.
So, are women free? It seems they are free to do anything their hearts desire, except to be mothers and wives, especially the sort which stay at home and tend to those things. It has become taboo, even. All of society strives in sneaky and sometimes overt ways to dispossess these mothers and wives of their sacred place. They are the pillar of civilization upon which the whole human race rests, as I have often said, but the world tries to convince us," Kick out the pillar, the building will not fall." So, they strip them of their glory and honor, trying to make women like men and men like women; always doing and teaching what is perverted and abominable.
Still, as much as is written here concerning the fairer sex, I do not mean to make you think about womankind and their plights. Rather, I mean to communicate with you concerning another woman and her liberty, the Bride of Christ and Christian liberty. Part of the error of the secular feminist movement, and in truth it is the same error of the humanist movement, is that they demand liberty and give it no purpose. Liberty to do what, exactly? Whatever one wishes? That is not liberty! That is the most horrific and terrible tyranny of the senses and passions, which leads mankind away from all virtue, morality, and ethic. Liberty without a reason is the greatest of deceptions, the worst of lies. Knowing this, God has given us liberty for a reason.
What is that reason? Listen to the words of Zechariah," This was the oath He swore to our father Abraham:
To set us free from the hands of our enemies,
free to worship Him without fear,
holy and righteous in His sight
all the days of our life."
We were made free to worship Him without fear and to be holy. What does this tell you about Christian liberty, then? It says to us that we are no longer beholden to death, we do not owe a debt here to this sin and a debt there to that sin, but we have been emancipated. We now possess the ability to worship without fear of death. Before, there was no possibility that we should be holy, justified, and righteous. Now, we are made free and can be, because of our liberty, something which we could never be before, which is holy and righteous in His sight, forever.
So what, then? What point do I bring to you? That many do not know what sort of liberty it is which they have. They think," I am free to do this and that. I may wear this with that. I may eat whatever I wish. I may drink this and say this, and go here or there." This is true, but this is only what pertains to sensible things and truly, they are not even the most blessed things which pertain to sensible things! This error comes from littleness of soul, hardness of heart, and dullness of mind. These poor siblings of ours stop here and realize no more than these things which pertain to food, clothing, speech, and the body. However, which is better, that is, more blessed?
You are free to eat what you wish, by God's allowance, this is your liberty. Does this mean that it is your liberty to offend God by eating too much or breaking His fasts? By no means! Only you have the freedom to do so, and incur judgment on yourselves. You are free to dress in garments of any material, according to the customs of whatever nations you live in. However, does this mean that you are at liberty to don impious apparel covered in blasphemies, or be clad in such fashions as are offensive to God? Are you at liberty to dress in such a way that makes your fellow human being stumble at you, or in such a way that is irreverent at the Mass, or all places? God forbid it! Only, know that you have the freedom to do such things and incur judgment on yourselves.
Some of you are saying," This is not true liberty, as it is delimited." Hypocrites! How can you say this? In your own countries where you govern yourselves as you please, is your own liberty not delimited as you call it? What sort of boundaries are these, which make your civil liberties delimited? Are they not such limits that prevent a person from infringing upon the rights of his neighbor, nor upon the rights of the collective? Will you whinge and cry because you can not go murder without consequence? Will you say that you are shackled because you can not steal? Will you say that you are oppressed because you can not rape? Will you say that you say you are slaves because you may not perjure the courts of your own country? Shame on you, hypocrite, for such reasoning. You have liberty in your own countries, of the sort which is good for you and for all and to such an extent that you consider yourselves, often enough, the freest of men. So it is with God, you are free and He has liberated you, but you do not have the liberty to trespass and offend God. Is there any legitimate government in the heavens or on earth that can truly give men the liberty to do evil, so that it is no longer evil? No, and throughout history wherever there has been such a government, it has been destroyed by it's own citizens.
So, now that we have talked generally about what we may not do, let us talk about what we may do. Now, as stated previously, unfortunately, many Christians merely view their liberty as a temporal emancipation from the Law of Moses and neglect the incorporeal aspects of that. Yet, I have no desire, right now, to talk to you about the inside of the cup, that is, incorporeal things. I desire to talk to you about the damage being done to the inside of the cup, because of the outside of the cup, through presumption.
For some strange reason, Christians look at someone who is cleaning the outside of the cup and assume the worst about them. They show how little they know, because Christ lauded the pharisees for cleaning the outside of the cup, which is bodily purity according to the Law of Moses, but rebuked them for neglecting the heart of the Law, which is the purity of the soul. Christ says to them that they had done well, but that they should not have neglected the inside of the cup. Christ does not even so much as say that they should have cleaned the inside of the cup instead of the outside. Only, he says to them that all things are clean to those who clean the inside of the cup, speaking the truth to them, but more importantly speaking of future things to come of which we in the Kingdom of Heaven have the benefit of.
Does this mean that men have the power to make holy that which can not be sanctified? Then they should not be practicing what can not be sanctified.
"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~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)