An Exposition of Love- Part I

That all people are drawn to God is evident in the saying: God is Love. In one way or another, at some time or another, each one of us evidences that they love Love itself. We are the product of Love itself, by our love of things, namely beauty. We are in love with beauty, and at the same time we are attracted to love because of its own beauty. It’s almost become a cliché to say that Love is an action. But love really is a work, the highest expression of human dignity and to negate it is to extinguish a very real part of our humanity in who we are essentially.

            One of the greatest temptations in modern society is the temptation to negate work while obtaining its ends. It’s a paradoxical problem, for love in particular, because while it is yet so concomitant to the formal and essential existence of mankind and the individual person we’ve deceived ourselves into thinking that the act of love can be left aside while getting at things such as sexuality which in truth is a beautiful expression of love. In reality, love, while being a labor in itself to various goods and ends, is not merely sought for these ends but for the sake of itself. And here is the proof of it: What is family without love? What is friendship with out love? What is sex without love? What is work without love? What is patriotism, or religion, or anything besides without love? We all know the very simple answer, which is that it is all vain drudgery. There is no enlightening that takes place in any of these apart from love. They become purposeless and base, essentially aimless, when existing only for the sake of themselves. Love alone is that which in existing for itself, exists for all things.

            We cannot have things like family, friendship, sex, or vocation, as we really desire them, apart from love. Love itself is essential to the fabric of what we desire as human creatures. Therefore, apart from love, we cannot hope to obtain those things which make us human. It’s really quite profound that we cannot realize our humanity without the presence of love in society and in our own individuality. That’s why we call that which lacks love, inhumane, in the schema of human relations. Just as profound, while realizing our own humanity in love, our individualism and our communal identity bleed into one in the context of love. We are willing to do more than guard the integrity of our individual identity, sacrificing ourselves for that which would sacrifice itself for us, even aside from the knowledge that it is the case. In other words, we are loving before it is requited, when loving purely. This is where the greatest magnanimity of the human spirit is seen: unconditional and selfless love.

            Much of man’s pain arises from the fact that he is awash with internal and communal paradoxes. It’s often said that people do the most horrible and senseless acts because they are afraid. That can be a difficult concept to grasp, and at first may not ring completely true. However, upon examination, we can unravel a perhaps a more articulate exposition of this truth, which is that man is in a state of seemingly hopeless despair. His despair comes from his inability to reconcile these paradoxes with each other and with what he knows and believes to be right and true. His despair comes from his quest to find himself, as he really is and to provide for that real man in accordance with his real needs. As stated early, man cannot realize himself as he truly is apart from love as it truly is.

            Imagine the great psychosis we are all under to some degree. How often does time reveal our needs to only have been wants? How many things have we and do we view as essential that later prove only to be ancillary? In the course of life, how often do we cast ourselves upon fashion hoping to find ourselves therein, only to realize as we get older how shallow of a substitute those fashions were to something more real? This species of bewilderment and beguilement which man labors under also stems to greater things, such as ideology, politics, and economical systems. In a great irony, we begin to see clearly how hardly man sees at all. We are suddenly inclined to say with Socrates,” I am only [truly] aware of the fact of my own ignorance.”

            There is one paradox in which man can hope to be lost in addition to the knowledge of his own ignorance, however, and that is his ability to while receiving divine love and attempting to share it in its fullness as he receives it, to give something genuinely to activate that participation; that ‘something’ is his very self. Participation with this divine love must be more than active, just as it must be more than an emotion. It must be active as an extension of something real within him. That is to say, love acted out in the form of charity and compassion, must be love from man’s inner intention finding extension in the world.

            Herein, we see that practiced love is only half the matter. No amount of self giving or communal giving for the temporal and psychological needs of our neighbor could ever replace the true intention of the inner man. This is where love becomes hard. Man co-suffers with his neighbor when he truly loves, and he obtains this schematic from God who is Love. For this reason, it could not have been any other way, except that God override his justice with his mercy, to fulfill love, to co-suffer with his beloved, mankind. So, just as he as Love itself was called to co-suffering with his beloved, we are required by love to co-suffer. This engages our whole being, which is why Christ commands us,” You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Naturally, we put at the disposal of our own pursuit of happiness all of our faculties. If we are to belong to God, we admit that we belong to love, and in belonging to love it is incumbent upon us to obey this command of co-suffering.

            It is an arduous path to choose to love, over and over, because in light of our concern for self, which is ever present, it does not appear to us initially as the choice to love. On the contrary! This choice appears to us as the choice to suffer, and in such a fashion that it is to someone else’ good, or perhaps more pertinently that we do not suffer to our good. Similarly, we see ourselves suffering if we are selfish. This, however, is at least to what our own psychosis esteems as our pleasure and our good. Therefore, essentially the decision to act becomes the decision to suffer for someone else’ good or our own.

            Much of mans inner dialogue centers around this very choice of preferment. In reality the choice is to suffer for the real good of others or the imagined good of ourselves. The only real good we can hope to achieve for ourselves comes from suffering for others. It’s a great mystery, but a very present and clear one. It’s a part of the paradox man may rightly hope to lose himself in. The conversation between mans passions and his conscience is evidence of his great nobility and dignity, and wherever his conscience is rightly informed and wins out he is noble and dignified. However, wherever his conscience surrenders to his passions he experiences degradation, while inflicting degradation upon his community as well, because at least in himself he is a part thereof.

            In many ways, modern society has compounded mans proclivity to find the easiest route to pleasure and success. His genius, intellect and cleverness are part of his identity, and when in conjunction with his conscience and selfless love, do manifest the most noble of paradigms. But when out of the context of morality and conscience his genius loses its inherent nobility. It is important to note that the nobility of mans genius is inherent to its goodness, and that the divine meaning of his genius is more important than the genius itself. We see that love is the source of life, and not only, but good and abundant life. The nobility of genius, which it gets in the context of conscience and morality, subordinates it to love. Apart from love, the ends of genius become the bait of proverbial rat traps.

            Without love, genius is dehumanized. If we look back to a time when the field of psychology had no substantive ethics, we see human genius misguided. In the attempt to understand himself and to gain knowledge that would be advantageous for mankind, we see psychologists engaging with some frequency and notoriety in positively atrocious experiments which degraded human beings into mere objects of experimentation. We see these victims of inhumane genius offered up, as it were, to so-called progress. We see the same sort of depraved medical experimentation, even more dramatically and horrifically, carried out by Nazi doctors in concentrations camps. In the attempt to obtain scientific and medical progress, these intellectuals who represent the apex of society made shipwreck of conscience in the name of society’s welfare.

            We do the same thing as individuals when we choose to degrade other human being for our own pleasure, profit, and welfare. For instance, abortion, pornography, child labor, and unjust wages to name a few prime examples. The love which we owe our fellow man, the love which is incumbent upon us to give to our neighbor, our family, is negated in these. Humans are very adept at identifying goods, and I use that term not only in a tangible sense, but also psychosocially and metaphysically. These goods drive us, as an incentive to participate in the excellence of love. One of the most exemplary models of love, sex itself, is one such good. In the modern time, when man has been lead to believe that through various means he may obtain the ends of work, the goods, without work he is particularly susceptible in his sexuality. He is prone to believe that apart from the work of love, sex can be his. It’s the cheese on the rat trap, a trap that can only contribute to the destruction of who he really is, because who he really is can only be realized through the work of love.

            Hitherto, we seem reaffirmed in the notion that the arduous path of love in which man realizes his true self is a choice. Not only, but that it is the highest expression of his dignity and that all things pertaining to him are concomitant to it. The only way to love, then, is in the context of this notion that all things are subordinate to love, making all life subordinate to love. How sad then that love has been turned into a game, that people, the young especially, are encouraged to treat it like a game. Even worse that they are given license by modern society to love with gravity as many as they see fit, capitulating the most sacred part of themselves in dating. Herein, whether or not sex is present, a confusion and obfuscation of love, of an immense order, is fomented. All this under the pretense that some how they will learn how to love, or the true meaning of love, through exercising their sexuality in perennial relationships with members of the sex to which they are attracted.      

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

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 Antidote

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

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~

Humanity

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~

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~

Ecclesiasticus

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 First Love

What is the first love? To figure that out, you must start at the beginning. You must go back to the beginning of your faith and find out what it was that you loved at first. What was the object of your love that made you a Christian? Truly, it was Christ. Further, everything you admired in the Christian faith while you were still a heathen and an infidel pointed to him.

Today, we hear so often that we must go and be Christ to the world and so it is. We hear that Christ enters us in Communion, that he fills us so that we can live as him and so it is. These things illuminate in our minds the mystery of what sort of help we are to be to others. However, beloved, there is another thing to which these truths point to implicitly and it is this which I would like to elaborate for you.

My dear siblings, I don't propound to you anything new, only anew. Do not glory in your flesh, but glory in his flesh. I can not say it more excellently, so I will say it again: Do not glory in your flesh, but glory in his flesh. Do you understand, now? Live as Christ. Again, do not glory in your flesh, but in his flesh.

Just as you invite Christ to dwell in your body by partaking of the Eucharist, it is as though your soul has been invited to dwell in the body of Christ. Did you see that? Live in your body as you would in Christ's body. If you were in Christ's body, if you had control of Christ's body, as though it were a vehicle, what would you do with it and to it?

Now, I implore you to think about what you do with your own bodies, having this very idea in mind, that you must live in your body as you would in his body. Perhaps, you will find yourself to be not so reverent a person as you thought. Perhaps, now, you will see more clearly what sort of person you must become. What would you set before his eyes if you were stewarding his body? Would you place violent, immoderate, immoral spectacles before his eyes? Or would you place holy things before his eyes? What sort of sounds would you fill his ears with? Would you fill his ears with meaningless, evil and worthless music that ruins the soul, detracts from God, degrades the dignity? Would you fill his ears with lewd jokes, excessive laughter, impious comedy, wanton stories, abusive language, curses, lies, mockeries, politics and idle talking? Or would you fill his ears with hymns, prayers, uplifting speech, truth, pious conversation, the scripture, that is to say, holy things?

Would you fill his body with alcohol and make him drunk; would you put anything in his body unhealthy, of such a sort that cause addictions, shame and malady? Would you have his body suffer the consequences of gluttony; would you let his body fall into disrepair? Or would you not rather keep his body clean from all addictive substances, and keep him pure from all such things which create malady and shame? Wouldn't you rather use moderation in eating and in drinking, keeping his body strong and fit? Wouldn't you rather keep him free from the fetter of addiction?

What would you do with his members? How would you use his neck to turn his head? Would you use the neck to turn the head toward everything which is shameful, causing the head to lust? Or wouldn't you rather use the neck to turn the head toward everything which is holy and way from that which is debauched and unclean? Would you use his feet to run to evil or to flee from the mere occasion of sin? His hands, too; what would you use them for? Would you use them for what you presently use them for? What sort of speech would you use his mouth for?

How would you groom his body? Would you strive to conform him to the customs of the secular world which rejects God? Would you mark up his body with tattoos? Would you shave him and pierce his ears; and what would you do with his hair? What sort of clothes would you put on his body? Would you make him look like everyone else in the world? Also, if you had his mind what sort of thoughts would you allow and disallow?

Live as Christ, glorying in his flesh and not in yours. Stop watching spectacles which do nothing for your souls, but rather numb you against the revelation of God. Start praying. Stop paying to go fights where those made in the image of God beat each other for your amusement! Start giving alms to the poor; invest more in the Kingdom of God. One might even say that you, by your running to such wicked spectacles and your cheering, harden the knuckles of those men fighting for your amusement. They bleed on account of you and do you think, Christian, that their blood does not cry out against both of you, alike? Quit spending hours, crazed, watching men riding in circles hoping to see one die in flames. Do you still think you are better than the Romans? What will you say to God? "I did not do your works and I was idle so that I could watch men ride in circles." Stop setting aside time to watch men throw a ball back and forth between themselves and having feasts in their honor. Stop imitating them like children and teaching your children to imitate them so fanatically! Will you men be reduced to games?! Put away childish things and teach your sons to be men. Put aside time for holy things, have feasts in honor of the martyrs who won the crown of life with a bold death; imitate the saints! Who will you give your son as a hero? A stranger who catches a ball? Or those who won the crown of life in a single hour through fierce martyrdoms?

Live as Christ, glorying in his flesh and not in yours. Do this faithfully and you will not offend God. Liberty exists for you so that you will forfeit it and be conformed to him. Do not glory in your liberty, the liberty of your bodies and minds, but glory in your liberty to live as Christ. Do not glory in strength and beauty, glory in his holiness and piety. Do not glory in youthful vanity, but in his ancient wisdom. Do not glory in wit and intellect, glory in his mysteries and his humility. Again, do not glory in your liberty, the liberty of your bodies and minds, but glory in your liberty to live as Christ.

When you live this way, you will begin to see what a terrible will your flesh has. Crush it, therefore, through mortification. By dying we live with Christ. What else is mortification but making something dead and are you bewildered, Christian as to what you are making dead? Judge for yourself and see if I am deceiving you. If a Christian dies in a state of grace, does any Christian reckon that person to be dead, in fact? Or do they not rather say that he is only sleeping, referring to the certainty of his resurrection? They say this because while his body is dead, having paid its debt to sin, the soul yet lives with Christ and therefore, as men exist both as their souls and their bodies, if one item lives the other must live again also and so we are certain of the resurrection. If the soul lives the body will live, if the body is alive, the soul is yet alive.

Again, in baptism, you died to death and you well know that it was a spiritual death that you died. Perhaps, there are some of you who think that you only died symbolically. I ask you, then, did you cure with a symbol what was a malady in fact? No! Baptism is not a placebo cure for the death of the soul. It is the bath of regeneration in which our souls come to life in Christ. You were resurrected from the waters of baptism as from a tomb. Just as the body has a death to die, the soul has a death to die and this is baptism. You were raised from death to life in the waters of baptism, I say raised from one to the other. Such power is in that death and resurrection that it washes away all sins and exorcises all demons. What is the benefit of these deaths? Christ says that if we die with him we shall live with him. What is this like? It is like 10,000 devils held you fast like a pillar of salt, because you had become a pillar of salt just like Lot's wife by sinning and longing for your sins, and the waters of baptism dissolved you so that you could no longer be grasped at by devils.

So, then, what is mortification? It is the same species as baptism and resurrection. It is the death of the iniquitous will, piece by piece. It is gangrene in the body of sin. It is leprosy in the body of concupiscence. Whatever you mortify lives again as Christ, because life kills death, so that whatever is death in the body of sin is life in the body of righteousness. Is so much of your strength spent on sin? Mortify yourself and that strength will be free to uphold righteousness. Therefore, wherever you see the body of sin, crush it with mortification and wherever you see the body of Christ nourish it. Let the rock of Christ fall on that flesh and grind it to dust. I am speaking to you about yourselves.

You are called to mortify the body of sin, not the body of Christ. God forbid! You are called to have the mind of Christ and no more be deceiving yourselves with vain imaginations and excessive rationalism. Mortification is every good and natural pain. What pain is natural? That of hunger, cold, heat, discomfort, and thirst. I do not say destroy the God given gift of the body. I do not tell you to do evil to bring about good! But, perhaps, some of you eat too much, then, eat less and be hungry. Perhaps, some of you are vain, then, give away your fine clothes, grow a beard, or for those of you who are obsessed with your physique, fast more often. It may be that some of you are lazy; go and do penance, walking eight miles in prayer. Are you always eating delicacies? Make your meals simple and bland. Do you sleep too much? Stay up in prayer or in reading scriptures. Do you talk to much? Be quiet. In this manner subjugate yourselves to Christ. In this way die, so that you might live as Christ.

What about the mortification of the soul? Be assured that whatever you do in the body you do in the soul. That is to say, the mortification you impose on your fleshly members is also benefiting the soul. Indeed, it is the soul which is benefited, because the body is perishing and can not truly benefit, except by chance, and will be made new with Christ in the resurrection. However, since baptism, your souls have been raising to life in Christ. You exercise the soul over the flesh in mortification and make it stronger, ordering yourselves aright in the order which God intended. Do you suppose that God intended for that which is less real to have dominance over that which is more real? Or do you think that God desired it to be that, that which is perishable should have dominion over that which is imperishable? Certainly not! Know, then, that the soul must govern the body.

Still some of you are saying," There must be a mortification of the soul which may be implemented." There is such a thing and it is compassion. This is suffering with others through empathy and sympathy; also it is to suffer because of their wounds. Think about what that means, Christian. Is there someone in your life who clings to everyone, someone who always feels utterly alone? Admittedly, this person is annoying, but why are they this way? They are this way because they have no spiritual companionship. They are starved and their stomachs have shrunken so to speak. So, how much compassion would it talk to fill that person? Is there someone who clings to possessions? Speak with them about immaterial things and draw their souls away from that which is leading them into Gehenna. Compassion, co-pain, putting up with the weakness of others because of the love of what is weak and not the weakness itself. Does anyone look at a child's broken arm and love the break? Do they not rather love the arm because it belongs to the child whom they love? In the same manner, you are not called to love the wrong opinions of others or their misguided emotions, but you are required to love their ability to feel, because you love them on account that they are made in the image of God whom you are called to love, firstly. Understand those words.

Aside from all this, to the person doubting that their penance does good for others. It is by Christ's wounds that we have salvation. Do you not know already that you are the Body of Christ? Christ willingly suffered in the body for you in an efficacious manner. Will the Body of Christ suffer and it not be efficacious for you and for many? Again, you are the Body of Christ and your suffering is His suffering, therefore, your suffering can only be efficacious, when rightly ordered.

So, again, do not glory in yourself, but in Christ. Now, may our God, the Holy Trinity, protect you and enlighten you and make each of you gifts to the human race, in His name. Peace be with all of 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~

To Those Uninitated Who Think They Should Be Allowed To Receive Catholic Eucharist (Communion)

Very often I find people who are not Catholic who are offended at the tradition in the Churches of the Apostles, whether they be in the East or in the West, whereby, they are refused the privilege of receiving the Most Holy Sacrament. Their reasoning goes something like this:

"I'm a Christian and therefore I should be allowed to receive."

So, for all of you outside of the Churches of the Apostles, holding a different opinion than the tradition handed down from the Apostles, I'm going to put forth the sound reasons for your exclusion from the Feast.

In the first place, many of you do not share the belief held by the Apostolic Churches that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. Many of you are of the different opinion that communion is merely a sign and an ordinance. That is, you think the communion is a sign to remind you of Jesus Christ's Passion so that it initiates you in a spiritual and intellectual manner into a deeper love and reverence of God. You think that it is an ordinance, that is, something ordered to be done amongst believers by Christ and on those grounds you execute what you have effectively reduced to a mere ordinance. You have the bread to "remember" His body, and you have the grape juice to "remember" his blood.

For the Catholic and Orthodox Christian, however, we believe that the fullness of Christ's body, blood, soul, and divinity mystically abide under the species of bread and wine. We confess that in a great mystery Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist. The wine no longer being wine, but blood. The bread no longer being purest wheat, but flesh. We believe this so much so, we profess that the Communion, as you prefer to call it, is the source and summit of our faith, because it is God and our revelation of God. We will kneel down and worship what were once mere elements of bread and wine, knowing and confessing that they have mysteriously through the power of the Holy Spirit, at the good pleasure of the Eternal Father, become the Body and Blood of our King and our God, Jesus Christ.

For us, it is a sacrament, something which literally and truly initiates us in an ontological sense into the mystery of becoming One with God. We hold the Eucharist to be a symbol to the eye and a sacrifice in fact. To those of you who would level the accusation that we mean to "re-sacrifice" Christ, that is another evidence that you are not in communion with us. God 'IS,' because He is outside of time and, therefore, completely in all time. So, whatever happened to Christ in His life as a human 'IS' being, right now. His Passion has taken on the same infinite attribute that is unique to His essence, because only God is infinite and He is God. By this we know and have no need to debate with anyone, that the Eucharist is not "re-sacrificing" Christ, but only the reality of what 'IS.' So, we make a good profession of these truths.

Hitherto, some of you say you agree with us. Others of you say that you don't agree with us. To those of you who agree, how can you partake of communion if you are not in communion? The Eucharist requires participation of the whole person, body and soul. The Body of Christ is the Church and the Body exists because of the common faith, because without the common faith in common things, there is no body. How can you then say that you discern the body of Christ in the Eucharist, but can not discern the Body of Christ, which is the Church, all around you? St. Paul commands that everyone discern the Body, lest they eat and drink unto condemnation. If you say you do discern, then why aren't you in the Church of the Apostles? You testify against yourselves! And will you continue to think that we have done something arrogant and rude to you, because we did not enable you to eat and to drink unto condemnation of yourselves?

To those of you who had disagreed, I say much the same. To your sensibilities we have become idolaters and cannibals. Will you partake of a feast of idols? Will you become a cannibal? I don't speak as though you are of the right opinion, but in such a manner which is not at all incongruent with your beliefs and in such a way as should be fitting to your conscience if you have these heterodox opinions. Take measure of what you believe; and will you still act so offended as though we did something evil to you, when it was our tradition which prevented your imprudence from making you a cannibal or making you in communion with the cup of idols? Again, I am only speaking in accordance with your opinions and not those of the Church.

Further, to each of you, no Catholic or Orthodox may receive while being in a state of mortal sin. This is so that Christ is not offended. Also, no one being stubbornly anathema in their denial of the dogmas of the Church should ever receive, because they are ipso facto out of communion with the Body of Christ. Again, this is so that Christ is not offended. Will any of you deny that Christ is offended? St. Paul said that some had died and fallen ill and become weak because of eating unworthily. Do you think that happened for no reason, or does not your reason lead you to the perfect knowledge that Christ is truly offended by those who partake unworthily? If so, why then are you compelling us, those who you are not even in communion with, to assist you in offending God? Why should we take you at your word that you are receiving worthily without any evidence of it? Confession, baptism and confirmation would be sufficient signs to the Body of Christ, which is the Church that you are receiving worthily. Why should we do as you do, giving the communion indiscriminately to any and all who enter through the doors of your places of gathering, whether they be Christians or otherwise, in opposition to the sacred scriptures?

Again, on the other hand, why are you compelling us to be complicit in your own harm? Why should we who have been given the sacred task of being Light in the world, be the same people who lead you to punishment? Why are you compelling us to get you into trouble? You are like a boy telling another boy to push him up over a fence; and if you fall and break your arm will you not both be in trouble?! Stop being offended then and know that no one has deprived you the privilege to receive because of hatred, arrogance, or elitism. It is prudence and integrity that deprives you.

Speaking even more plainly, as stated before, no Catholic or Orthodox may receive without being confessed, unless they are without mortal sin. Not even the children of the Church may do this; no bishop, no Pope, no priest, no deacon, and no laity may receive in this state. In fact, it has always been the tradition and teaching of the Apostles that no one is to ever receive without having made a first confession and being chrismated. How can you, who have never been confessed and who have not made a public profession of faith in the Body of Christ, which is the Church, receive the Eucharist? You are accusing us of arrogance, but here you think that you should be allowed to do what we do not even allow ourselves to do! You declare you have the right to circumvent us? You declare you have a right to our most Holy Treasure, without first giving a sign that you are worthy? You scorn everything that we are and have, but this, our Most Holy Sacrament, you demand?

Truly, none of us would come to you to receive what you call an ordinance, which is your own concept of communion. Never! The one who does such a thing would betray his faith, communing with those who are of a different opinion. Also, Christ said to partake of the Eucharist as often as you come together, yet you are not. You only quarterly take your wafer and juice packets, some more frequently. However, we come together so that we may receive the Eucharist, because it is the source and summit of our faith. We do this everyday, not only on Sundays and Wednesday which are your choice days of meeting. We do this throughout the whole earth, reading the same readings, partaking of the same body and blood. You come together to partake in scripture which is the center of your worship; we come together for the Eucharist, which is the center of our worship. We are different men.

Yet, some of you think that it is your right to take communion, because you are called by the name Christian. How can this be sufficient? If five sisters marry five brothers can any sister have any brother she desires? All of them have the same last name, all of them are equally married. However, they are not all equally bound in the sacrament of marriage, because one is wed to another and another is wed to another. Many of you are married, but you are not married to everyone, you may not have your neighbors wife, but only your own. There is schism in the Church between the East and the West, but one Church in essence and these may legitimately receive from one another, being Churches of the Apostles; however, this excludes separated brethren which are the Protestants and heretics, whom we trust will attain the Mercy and Grace of Christ in an extraordinary way in the resurrection.

The Church is the Bride of Christ and you profess to be the Body of Christ. Why then are you attempting to have two spouses? Why are you turning the matter into an affair of adultery? Why are you going to the places of Protestants who are separated and then to those whom they are separated from? It would be better for you to pick one or the other instead of engaging in adultery. Think about what you are doing with the temple of Christ, which is your body. Will you try to enter into two women? Why are you trying to enter into two fundamentally different bodies of faith? Take account of what it is precisely you are trying to do.

"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~