tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3858505177567855162023-11-16T04:16:23.972-08:00DCMissionMissionaries to the Digital Continent
<br><br>
<small>DCMission on
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/DCMission/125416190852406/"><u>Facebook</u></a>,
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/dcmissionvideo"><u>YouTube</u></a></small>Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-83899142271266795972015-07-12T11:32:00.000-07:002015-07-12T11:48:28.174-07:00Sāncta Māter Ecclēsia, Tē Amō.<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
<br />
<br />
— Matthew 13:17.
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
The more discussions I have about Sacred Scripture, the more I realize how much confusion exists regarding it. How often does one read a passage and wonder, "What exactly does this mean? What exactly is God trying to say to us here?"<br />
<br />
There are certain moments in which I am granted the gift of a partial realization of how lost I would be without the guiding light of Holy Mother Church. One of these moments came in my discussions with others about the recent decision by the Supreme Court constituting an attempt to alter the unchangeable definition of marriage — a definition which, I should say, is unchangeable even by Holy Mother Church, Herself. In a conversation with someone who was defending the Court's decision, I was taken aback to realize that some are going so far as to make efforts to contort Scripture in such a way that would allow for such alterations:<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
... from a biblical standpoint, I have been engaged in healthy debates about whether the "homosexuality" Paul may have been railing against had more to do with casual same sex adultery and pederasty than what we see today. ...
<!-- Beyond that, if it is truly a sin, the marriage part isn't the sin part. Logically, it's the sex part not the marriage part that would be problem if it were a sin. Since that part is legal and happening anyways, why does it matter in any way whatsoever if they are married or not. Bottom line, -->
if <!-- it --> [the homosexual act] is a sin (which is debatable), ...
<!-- and we are enforcing Christian morality (which we shouldn't do), and we're ignoring a laundry list of sins that we know are worse (which is hypocritical), -->
stopping the marriage part will not affect the thing some consider to be the sin. ...
<!-- So, therefore, --> there is no compelling argument even within the faith community, that justifies the opposition of Gay Marriage.
<br />
<br />
— An Interlocutor, defending the Court's decision.
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
It is in moments such as these that my deep appreciation and love for the guiding magisterial light of Holy Mother Church grows deeper. How lost I would be without Her.<br />
<br />
I encountered one particular passage in the Gospels a few days ago that caused me some confusion. It was in Luke 19, when Jesus is entering into Jerusalem, and the disciples are rejoicing and praising him, saying, "Blessed is the King who comes in the Name of the Lord!" The Pharisees then tell Jesus to rebuke his disciples, to which He replies,<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out.
<br />
<br />
— Luke 19:40.
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
What does Jesus mean by this, "the very stones would cry out"? Well, in such situations when I am confused about a particular passage of Scripture, I've found the commentary from Navarre, under the auspices of Josemaría Escrivá, to be quite helpful. Quoth the Navarre,<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
The Pharisees, maybe because they fear a riot, criticize Jesus for allowing the demonstration. He replies in a phrase which sounds like a proverb: so obvious is his messiahship that if men refused to recognize it, nature would proclaim it.
<br />
<br />
— from the Navarre Commentary on Luke 19:28-40.
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
I must say, yet again: how lost I would be without the guidance of the innumerable well-trained theologians of the Church, lead by the Holy Spirit. I have little doubt that, without them, it is quite possible that I would be among those subscribing to the untenable — to be sure, patently ludicrous — conclusions such as those of my interlocutor above, or even that I would be engaging in snake-handling based on what we read in Mark 16:18. Indeed, we should not take lightly what Jesus tells us in Matthew 13:17. Many great men — even "righteous men" — have lived and died without having heard and understood the words of Jesus. But for the grace of God, working through the teachings and sacraments of Holy Mother Church, there go I.<br />
<br />
Quaerimus, "Father, how should we deal more with the Holy Spirit in our ordinary life?"
<br><br>St. Josemaría Escrivá responds,
<br />
<br>
<center>
<iframe src="//gloria.tv/embed/frame/media/bHTeikqddCB/width/320/height/240" width="320" height="240" frameborder="3" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
<br>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
In your ordinary life, by seeking -- I am sure that you do so -- the presence of God who is within you. You receive Him in Holy Communion. The gastric juices in the stomach function in their natural way, the sacramental species disappear and with them the presence of Jesus Christ. But then, the Holy Spirit remains behind and continues to act. Together with Him, the Father and the Son also act, because there is only one God. But it is the Holy Spirit who acts in the souls of Christians. And you, who are a tabernacle of God, you go into yourself many times a day and say: "Lord, how can I do this in such a way that it is more pleasing in your sight?; Lord, I am feeling this tempation, and that one, these bad inclinations ... " Don't get frightened, Ok? All of us have a beast inside of us. Even older people. In this regard, we are all the same, and it is one of the marvels of God's goodness, because if we did not know we could fall into all kinds of miseries, we would be very proud. In this way, not being proud, we will tend a little towards humility. If only we could tend a lot more towards humility.
<br />
<br />
— St. Josemaría Escrivá (✝1975).
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<center>
St. Josemaría Escrivá, pray for us and our nation, having long faltered.<br><br>
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Etiamsi oportuerit me mori tecum, non te negabo.
<!-- — St. Josemaría Escrivá (✝1975). -->
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-79192180037034621352015-06-13T16:46:00.000-07:002015-06-13T16:46:37.535-07:00cout << ( (i < 3) ? "Domine non sum dignus" : "Corpus Domini nostri..." );In the lifelong search for what might have been eternally lost, each of us faces in every moment a tension between two often opposing forces. The tension is found between the moment and the eternal, the pull between the idea and the principle underlying the idea, and in the word and the medium through which the word is expressed. We have heard the tension discussed in philosophical circles since the Presocratics in the discourse on being and becoming.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, this tension is evident to an extreme degree, and it is a curious point that it is quintessentially expressed in two objects whose physical forms are strikingly similar.<br />
<br />
<center>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><div class="separator" style="border: 3px solid black; clear: both; margin-right: 2em; padding: 2px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVi2B-Y13emqydA8AfNX6SxaOyHWBu7HfSnsxFvHjIEeW9irwyfNp9ND-xmp3ASV0sSpFEq6VQVJWaTQbM9p4MX1wmerAma_2_UddS-wygHscCQFOeDZfgY2ZuvHEnLkVfmPDqDdUEqq_l/s1600/pope-corpuschristi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 0em; margin-right: 0em;"><img border="0" height="140" separator="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVi2B-Y13emqydA8AfNX6SxaOyHWBu7HfSnsxFvHjIEeW9irwyfNp9ND-xmp3ASV0sSpFEq6VQVJWaTQbM9p4MX1wmerAma_2_UddS-wygHscCQFOeDZfgY2ZuvHEnLkVfmPDqDdUEqq_l/s320/pope-corpuschristi.jpg" style="display: block;" /></a>
</div>
</td>
<td><div class="separator" style="border: 3px solid black; clear: both; margin-right: 2em; padding: 2px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyULieAoIGEHSubO5qMujQbRWl4HVDCxhoxBCnxf8gEVpV5jMh4_Fw-GrU70TP9-VQ6QmnKMKx8eQZcEMpj9Nm9f38R6mxXwYvJFhT-SEQ1v45smmL4bpMcKTewjnZ-daJMogU6P2rZ5M5/s1600/moore.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 0em; margin-right: 0em;"><img border="0" height="140" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyULieAoIGEHSubO5qMujQbRWl4HVDCxhoxBCnxf8gEVpV5jMh4_Fw-GrU70TP9-VQ6QmnKMKx8eQZcEMpj9Nm9f38R6mxXwYvJFhT-SEQ1v45smmL4bpMcKTewjnZ-daJMogU6P2rZ5M5/s200/moore.jpg" style="display: block;" width="200" /></a></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</center>
<br />
In one of these wafers, man concerns himself with things passing. He is quite literally interested - to a degree that could easily be considered obsessive - in nanometer-scale phenomena that come into being and go out of being in a matter of picoseconds. In the other wafer, we find a man who, through his teachings and his life, demonstrates to us how to enter into a relationship with the being who is outside of the spatial and temporal order. One of the wafers provides man the means of turning in on himself through access to a virtually endless supply of indecent material. In the other is a man who, through his teachings and his life, demonstrated that the only way for one to truly live is by laying down his life for others. Through this one, we have learned the traditional principle that "to veil something is to reveal it: it is revelation through veiling." In the other we commonly find application of the principle that holds mystery in contempt and does violence to it by attempting to unveil it whenever encountered. In this one we find the driving force behind the machinery that underlies economic progress. In the other we find the man who taught us the way to find that which is beyond the value of anything that we can imagine in this life. The other cannot get its function, which is its essence to modern man, without having light shined upon it. And the other is essence itself and the source of all light. In the one we find bits of silicon that provide the foundation for the culture of consumerism but in the near future will be worth only a few cents. In the other we find bits of a man's flesh and blood whose value is beyond measure and that if one does not consume, he does not have life within him.<br />
<br />
The tragedy is that it is not necessary that the two worlds be in conflict, as the man who is found in the one has been given power over the other. In fact it is in the Eastern churches that we find the boundary between the secular and the sacred to be much less perceptible than in the West. In spite of this fact, Sheen has noted the following:<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
... everything that is mysterious tends to be hidden and
concealed. The Eastern World is much more aware of this than the
Western World. That is why the consecration in the Eastern
religions takes place behind a screen, whereas in the Western rite
it is more public. The very hiding of the mystery of
transubstantiation is a highly developed form of the concealing of
anything which has to do with God.
<br />
<br />
— from <i>Three to Get Married</i>, Ven. Fulton Sheen (†1979).
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
And is it not common sense to acknowledge that there is something of the eternal hidden within those slivers of shiny material that are sold for thousands today and thrown out tomorrow? Are not those timeless mathematical principles that govern the natural order to be found pervasively present in the hierarchy of the machinery? Were these not part of that for which those great scientists Isidore of Seville, Albert the Great, Duns Scotus, and all the others searching? Do we not see God praised through the many facets of this same world in the prayers of the three men who, after refusing to worship a product of that world, were protected from the fires of Nebuchadnezzar? Are these principles not inextricable from the world through which Francis of Assisi, as expressed through his canticle, saw reflections of the Creator?<br />
<br />
I cannot say the answer for certain. It was lost sometime many millennia ago, and it is the task of each individual man to find it again for himself. But it won't be found without the help of many friends.<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
<br />
<br />
Of the ‘shining leprosy’ of transitory honour, Baldad the Suhite says in Job:
<br />
<br />
<i>
Shall not the light of the wicked be extinguished,<br />
and the flame of his fire not shine?<br />
The light shall be dark in his tabernacle:<br />
and the lamp that is over him shall be put out.</i> [Job 18.5-6]<br />
<br />
The light of the wicked is extinguished, because the success of a fleeting lifetime ends with it.
The flame of his fire does not shine, the burning fire of temporal desire, whose flame is outward
dignity and power, arising from its inward heat. It stops shining, because at death all outward
show is taken away. The light is dark in his tabernacle, where ‘light’ means joy and ‘darkness’
grief. In the wicked man’s tabernacle, light becomes dark because the joy in his heart that came
from temporal things fails. The lamp that is over him is put out. We think of an earthenware
lamp: a symbol of joy in the flesh. The lamp over him is put out, because when retribution for his
evil deeds comes upon the wicked man, the joy of the flesh is driven from his mind.
<br />
<br />
— from a sermon on the 14th Sunday after Pentecost, St. Anthony of Padua (†1231).</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<hr width="50%" />
<br />
On the new calendar, June 13, 2015, as the Saturday after the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart, is the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. On both calendars, June 13th is the feast of St. Anthony of Padua (†1231), Franciscan friar and Doctor of the Church.<br />
<center>
<br />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><div class="separator" style="border: 3px solid black; clear: both; margin-right: 2em; padding: 2px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNOyW5OgnIyNwtDUYEyOcKqjtpnVjNQC0AhDCAG1Isq7FBQoqzU4U4zCmzFx4wmzMg1xka5T80SEtWJItZKT2kfRlTIlBxkDaRk5ISLIj36ZFc_RN_e3BgzTuRXl3SLDUzxbDOUuJikmYP/s1600/Francisco_de_Zurbar%25C3%25A1n_-_Sto_Antonio_de_Padua-516x500.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 0em; margin-right: 0em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNOyW5OgnIyNwtDUYEyOcKqjtpnVjNQC0AhDCAG1Isq7FBQoqzU4U4zCmzFx4wmzMg1xka5T80SEtWJItZKT2kfRlTIlBxkDaRk5ISLIj36ZFc_RN_e3BgzTuRXl3SLDUzxbDOUuJikmYP/s200/Francisco_de_Zurbar%25C3%25A1n_-_Sto_Antonio_de_Padua-516x500.jpg" style="display: block;" width="200" /></a></div>
</td>
<td><div style="border: 3px solid black; padding: 2px; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9qDT9ISKS-49HpvqumRBkQmaevMCUW2h53JBJKWUULt4o18Y9f0WS4Qa73pmFKuvFqq9c8PldTYa0npDfIsEpWd3tKpJ4lE6ms9iFrvS0O50xV4w2wPKV7-R3bnZpjrMLapFmzfhx604y/s1600/o-l-fatima-bust2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 0em; margin-right: 0em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9qDT9ISKS-49HpvqumRBkQmaevMCUW2h53JBJKWUULt4o18Y9f0WS4Qa73pmFKuvFqq9c8PldTYa0npDfIsEpWd3tKpJ4lE6ms9iFrvS0O50xV4w2wPKV7-R3bnZpjrMLapFmzfhx604y/s200/o-l-fatima-bust2.jpg" style="display: block;" width="156" /></a></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br />
</center>
<center><i>
Cor Maríae Immaculátum et Sancte Antoni de Padua, orate pro nobis.</center>
</i>
<center>
</center>
<br />Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-58538006819413727452015-04-26T13:53:00.002-07:002015-04-26T16:52:35.038-07:00Quaerimus VI: In what sense is the distinction between "the form of a [woman's] life" and "the substance of her virtues"?In a document entitled <i><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxPAbG2HT3e9NXQ0UDlTMDVnWkE&authuser=0"><u>Duties of a Wife and Mother</u></a></i>, distributed at a recent mission on the topics of Our Lady of Lourdes and piety, the author sets forth one of the principles of motherhood as the following:
<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
The service a woman renders her loved ones will become for her the <i>form of her life</i>, the <i>substance and center of her virtues</i>, the rule of piety set by God for her sanctification.
<br />
<br />
— From <i><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxPAbG2HT3e9NXQ0UDlTMDVnWkE&authuser=0"><span style="color: blue;"><u>Duties of a Wife and Mother</u></span></a></i>, p.2. (Emphases in context.)</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
He goes on to explain in what ways the "service to her family becomes the <i>form of her life</i>" and "<i>the substance of her virtues</i>."
<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
The service of her family becomes the <i>form of her life</i> when she surrenders herself to its tasks.
<br />
<br />
— From <i><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxPAbG2HT3e9NXQ0UDlTMDVnWkE&authuser=0"><span style="color: blue;"><u>Duties of a Wife and Mother</u></span></a></i>, p.2. (Emphases in context.)</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
The service of her family becomes <i>the substance of her virtues</i> when she recognizes that God has provided the grace and all that is required for the highest perfection in every state of life.
<br />
<br />
— From <i><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxPAbG2HT3e9NXQ0UDlTMDVnWkE&authuser=0"><span style="color: blue;"><u>Duties of a Wife and Mother</u></span></a></i>, p.2. (Emphases in context.)</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
To understand the distinction he is making here, it seems to me necessary to understand in what sense he is using the terms "form" and "substance." While it is possible that he is using them informally, I think that, given the fundamental importance of the terms in Aristotelian thought, Thomism, and Catholic teaching in general, it is worth at least entertaining the possibility that he is using them in their formal senses.
<br />
<br />
As a bit of an aside, even if we are to assume that he is using them informally, the question still remains: what really is the distinction he's making here? It appears to be an important distinction, and therefore an important question.
<br />
<br />
Since assuming an informal use of the terms does not immediately offer a clear answer, let's consider what he might mean if he is indeed using the terms formally. In any case, what we are looking for are definitions of the terms "form" and "substance" in the context of Catholic teaching.
<br />
<br />
The <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i> has an article entitled "Substance" which includes a section on "Aristotle's account of substance." This section contains two subsections, "Categories" and "Metaphysics." Given that the entire article is on "Substance" itself, one would hope that each section on the topic might begin with a definition of what it is. So let's begin at the beginning of the section on "Aristotle's account of substance."
<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Aristotle's account in <i>Categories</i> can, with some oversimplification, be expressed as follows. The primary substances are individual objects, and they can be contrasted with everything else—secondary substances and all other predicables—because they are not predicable of or attributable to anything else. Thus, Fido is a primary substance, and dog—the secondary substance—can be predicated of him. Fat, brown, and taller than Rover are also predicable of him, but in a rather different way from that in which dog is. Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of predicables, namely those which are ‘said of’ objects and those which are ‘in’ objects. The interpretation of these expressions is, as usually with Aristotelian cruxes, very controversial...
<br />
<br />
— <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#AriAccSub"><span style="color: blue;"><u> "Aristotle's account of substance"</u></span></a>.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
Although I can't speak for the average reader, this introductory content here is less than reassuring for me. What I set out looking for was a statement looking something like, "Substance is ____," and instead it appears that what I am getting is a discussion on "primary substances" and "secondary substances," with a little bit of controversy in the mix for good measure.<br />
<br />
The section on "Metaphysics" offers a little clarification on this point. We read:
<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
The <i>Categories</i> sets out important logical distinctions between different kinds of attribute, but it does not enter into a metaphysical analysis of substance itself. This takes place mainly in <i>Metaphysics</i>, Book <i>Z</i>.
<br />
<br />
— <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#AriAccSub"><span style="color: blue;"><u> "Aristotle's account of substance"</u></span></a>.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
So, at last, what the article seems to be telling us is that, although Aristotle went into a discussion of substance in the <i>Categories</i>, he doesn't really get around to defining it until the <i>Metaphysics</i>. We read on:<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
In [<i>Metaphysics</i>], the analysis of substances in terms of form and matter is developed, whereas these notions have no place in <i>Categories</i>. The distinction has led some commentators to talk of Aristotle's ‘two systems’, containing two radically different conceptions of substance.
<br />
<br />
— <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>, <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/#AriAccSub"><span style="color: blue;"><u> "Aristotle's account of substance"</u></span></a>.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
"Two radically different conceptions of substance"? Well, ask a simple question, get a not-so-simple answer.<br />
<br />
At this point, I have to take a step back and consider whether there might be a resource on the subject that is a bit more accessible and better-suited for our purposes. Although (good quality) material on the internet appears to be limited, I was able to find a <u><a href="http://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/Metaphysics.htm">document from a somewhat reputable source</a></u>.<br />
<br />
In Book V, Lesson 10 of the document, entitled <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Commentary-Aristotles-Metaphysics-Aristotelian-Series/dp/1883357616">Commentary on the Metaphysics</a></i>, Thomas addresses exactly the question with which we are dealing, namely, "What are the <a href="http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Metaphysics5.htm#10"><u>meanings of substance</u></a>?"<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Aristotle now explains the various senses in which the term substance is used; and in regard to this he does two things. First, he gives the various senses in which the term substance is used. Second (903), he reduces all of these to two (“It follows”).<br />
<br />
In treating the first part he gives four senses of the term substance.
<br />
<br />
— <i>Commentary on the Metaphysics</i>, <a href="http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Metaphysics5.htm#10"><span style="color: blue;"><u> "Meanings of Substance"</u></span></a>, St. Thomas Aquinas.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
Although it appears that we are still dealing here with a potentially complex definition, at least we have a trustworthy guide. He begins by quoting the relevant sections from Aristotle's <i>Metaphysics</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
440. The term substance (substantia) means the simple bodies, such as earth, fire, water and the like; and in general bodies and the things composed of them, both animals and demons and their parts. All of these are called substances because they are not predicated of a subject, but other things are predicated of them.
<br />
<br />
441. In another sense substance means that which, being present in such things as are not predicated of a subject, is the cause of their being, as the soul in an animal.
<br />
<br />
442. Again, substance means those parts which, being present in such things, limit them and designate them as individuals and as a result of whose destruction the whole is destroyed; for example, body is destroyed when surface is, as some say, and surface when line is. And in general it seems to some that number is of this nature; for [according to them] if it is destroyed, nothing will exist, and it limits all things.
<br />
<br />
443. Again, the quiddity of a thing, whose intelligible expression is the definition, also seems to be the substance of each thing.
<br />
<br />
444. It follows, then, that the term substance is used in two senses. It means the ultimate subject, which is not further predicated of something else; and it means anything which is a particular being and capable of existing apart. The form and species of each thing is said to be of this nature.
<br />
<br />
— <i>Metaphysics</i>, <a href="http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Metaphysics5.htm#10"><span style="color: blue;"><u>Book VIII</u></span></a>, Aristotle.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
He then goes into a not-so-brief discussion of what all this means. Most relevant for our purposes is the concluding part, in which he gives the final definitions of the term, along with a definition of the term "form" and how it is distinct from "essence":<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
903. It follows (444).<br />
<br />
Then he reduces the foregoing senses of substance to two. He says that from the above-mentioned ways in which the term substance is used we can understand that it has two meanings. (1) It means the ultimate subject in propositions, and thus is not predicated of something else. This is first substance, which means a particular thing which exists of itself and is capable of existing apart because it is distinct from everything else and cannot be common to many. (2) And a particular substance differs from universal substance in these three respects: first, a particular substance is not predicated of inferiors, whereas a universal substance is; second, universal substance subsists only by reason of a particular substance, which subsists of itself; and third, universal substance is present in many things, whereas a particular substance is not but is distinct from everything else and capable of existing apart. <br />
<br />
904. And the form and species of a thing also “is said to be of this nature,” i.e., substance. In this he includes the second and fourth senses of substance; for essence and form have this note in common that both are said to be that by which something is. However, form, which causes a thing to be actual, is related to matter, whereas quiddity or essence is related to the supposit, which is signified as having such and such an essence. Hence “the form and species” are comprehended under one thing—a being’s essence. <br />
<br />
905. He omits the third sense of substance because it is a false one, or because it is reducible to form, which has the character of a limit. And he omits matter, which is called substance, because it is not substance actually. However, it is included in the first sense of substance, because a particular substance is a substance and is individuated in the world of material things only by means of matter.
<br />
<br />
— <i>Commentary on the Metaphysics</i>, <a href="http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Metaphysics5.htm#10"><span style="color: blue;"><u> "Meanings of Substance"</u></span></a>, St. Thomas Aquinas.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
Clear enough?<br />
<br />
I might have to spend an afternoon (or a few afternoons) on that excerpt and get back with you.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, I leave the question outstanding as Quaerimus VI.<br />
<br />
<hr width="75%" />
<br />
On the Traditional Calendar, April 26th is the Feast of Our Lady of Good Counsel. On the New Calendar, it is Good Shepherd Sunday.
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJzKVkg40dPEybAAJ4LZ-D18ANOiqqrnGOWfJfw_0oCq82XuuvlgtKaaexdOzXgv4zP_GgBFdsG9hLW_S79E3pBTwmhoVT4khBfIooO-gt9BodIfrQKIEnObP_JMPVW_w5I9qfThOppzjQ/s1600/OurLadyGenazzano02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJzKVkg40dPEybAAJ4LZ-D18ANOiqqrnGOWfJfw_0oCq82XuuvlgtKaaexdOzXgv4zP_GgBFdsG9hLW_S79E3pBTwmhoVT4khBfIooO-gt9BodIfrQKIEnObP_JMPVW_w5I9qfThOppzjQ/s1600/OurLadyGenazzano02.jpg" height="320" width="240" /></a></div>
<center>
Mater Boni Consilii, ora pro nobis.</center>
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Lord Jesus, Author and Dispenser of all good, Who in becoming incarnate in the womb of the Blessed Virgin has communicated to her lights above those of all the heavenly intelligences, grant that in honoring her under the title of Our Lady of Good Counsel, we may merit always to receive from her goodness, counsels of wisdom and salvation, which will conduct us to the port of a blessed eternity. Amen.
<br />
<br />
— From the <i>Our Lady of Good Counsel Litany</i>, courtesy <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/Devotionals/Litanies/OLGC.htm"><span style="color: blue;"><u> EWTN</u></span></a>.
</div>
</blockquote>
<br />Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-9164651231307381702014-08-06T20:28:00.000-07:002015-04-26T14:02:01.337-07:00Sheen and Pacwa on Angels, the Intellect, and the BodyAlthough some seem to have suggested otherwise to me, the writing of Ven. Fulton Sheen can be somewhat challenging, in my opinion. In what I've read of his book <i>Three to Get Married</i>, there are a few cases in which he challenges the reader with material that can be fairly deep for one who does not have a solid background in certain subject matters. A case in point is the following passage in which he discusses the relationship between the mind and the body.
<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
It is a basic principle of philosophy that there is
nothing in the mind which was not previously in the senses. All
our knowledge comes from the body. We have a body, St. Thomas
tells us, because of the weakness of our intellect.
<br />
<br />
— Ven. Fulton Sheen, from <i><a href="https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/3GETMARR.TXT"><span style="color: blue;">Three to Get Married</span></a></i>.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
While it may be common sense to some that our bodies result from the weakness of our intellects, this is not exactly the most intuitive point for me. Consequently, this passage (along with the encompassing paragraph) has caused me a bit of trouble.
<br />
<br />
Much to my delight, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. - who, on his program <i>Threshold of Hope</i>, is currently working through the encyclical of Pope St. John Paul II entitled <i>Fides et Ratio</i> - recently had an individual call in to ask about a topic related to the above passage. Although the question does not deal directly with the point regarding the weakness of the intellect being the <i>cause</i> of the body, Fr. Pacwa offers, in his usual way, a clear response to a closely related question with a practical example which most will find accessible. The question and answer can be found in the video below from 39:40-42:26.
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pbEDfd5fPTc?list=PLBC7E2C12010A545B" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
Caller: "...on page 290 in the <i>Magnificat</i>, it says that the Devil is God's creature - the very first line. Why don't we pray for the conversion of the Devil like we do for the conversion of Russia and other sinners and people that commit violence?"
<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Great question, Amy, and what you are dealing with here is the difference between the nature of an angel and the nature of human beings. Let me give you a couple of ways to look at it. First of all, let's take a look at human beings. We are spirit and body, right? Now, have any of you here in the audience ever tried to lose a little weight? All right, I did too. So, as a result, [did] you say, "Ok, I'm going to lose some weight, so I'll stop eating all the bad stuff." Did that work? Not for me! You know, when I see a homemade apple pie, or something like that, I say, "Oh, this can't be that fattening!" And so here's the thing, because we have a body with its different desires as well as a mind and spirit, we can say in our mind, "This is what I want to do," but my body says, "Apple pie! ... With a lard crust!" (Cause those are the good ones.) So we can go back and forth. Angels, on the other hand, don't have bodies that contradict what's in their spirit. They are pure spirit. And when an angel makes a decision, it is permanent. So, you and I, as human beings, are compared in the Bible to clay, and we keep getting molded throughout life. Angels are like fast-setting concrete. They make a decision - boom, that's it. They can't change. That's why we don't pray for the evil angels to change, and that's also why the good angels cannot go back and start over and say, "Maybe I'd like to try being evil." They make their decision, it's permanent. That's the nature of being pure spirit versus body and soul.
<br />
<br />
— Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J., from <i><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbEDfd5fPTc&index=3&list=PLBC7E2C12010A545B"><span style="color: blue;">Threshold of Hope, 22 July 2014</span></a></i>.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<hr width="50%" />
<br />
August 6 is the Feast of the Transfiguration (both calendars). The Collect for today is discussed on <a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/08/transfiguration-the-spring-goes-down-to-suffer-thirst-and-you-refuse-to-suffer-2/"><u>a post at Fr. Z's blog</u></a>.
<br />
<center>
</center>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic-fl9j1UFJtSl6kvslbV2g-Vd4SGELUBJY1c2K8Sx85rylZXVk0TdctEjBYRt9ECy_-htbROZhD6ZDnxn6rvo2hZVFebkeszCRv9t2J0B7R90IWLQyCi8_jb1ikNfDuII4DZRuBLxcxEN/s1600/8-point.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEic-fl9j1UFJtSl6kvslbV2g-Vd4SGELUBJY1c2K8Sx85rylZXVk0TdctEjBYRt9ECy_-htbROZhD6ZDnxn6rvo2hZVFebkeszCRv9t2J0B7R90IWLQyCi8_jb1ikNfDuII4DZRuBLxcxEN/s1600/8-point.jpg" height="320" width="225" /></a></div>
<center>
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
<br />
<br />
O God, who in the glorious Transfiguration<br />
of your Only Begotten Son<br />
confirmed the mysteries of faith by the witness of the Fathers<br />
and wonderfully prefigured our full adoption to sonship,<br />
grant, we pray, to your servants,<br />
that, listening to the voice of your beloved Son,<br />
we may merit to become co-heirs with him.
<br />
<br />
— Collect for the Feast of the Transfiguration.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-89973579699323713432014-06-14T17:15:00.003-07:002014-06-14T18:05:24.263-07:00The Problem of Reconciling Evil as Nothingness and Being in Hell: Fr. John Hardon Answers (Quaerimus IV)<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
"...seek and you will find..."
<br />
<br />
— Matthew 7:7, Luke 11:9.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
An ongoing search has been underway since last October when I posed the question dealing with the notion of evil as nothingness - famously proposed by St. Augustine - and the problem to which this leads given that Hell and the beings in it exist. I posted the original question <a href="http://dcmissionvideo.blogspot.com/2013/10/quaerimus-authority-of-thomas-aquinas.html"><u>here</u></a> and offered some thoughts on a reader's response <a href="http://dcmissionvideo.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-problem-of-reconciling-evil-as.html"><u>here</u></a>. In listening to a series of talks by Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J., I have been fortunate enough to come across a lecture in which he addresses this question explicitly, referencing Sacred Scripture as well as teachings from the Church's Sacred Tradition in his response.
<br />
<br />
He begins with an enumeration of the three senses in which God is omnipresent found in Church teachings:
<br />
<center>
<br />
<audio controls="controls"><source autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/Hardon/hardon%20-%20omnipresence%20-%201.mp3" type="audio/mp3"></source></audio></center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Before we go into the closer meaning of God's omnipresence, I think we should know something about the world in which God, as we say, is omnipresent. The first way that God is present is called "natural." By the very nature, whatever exists, exists only because God is present to that creature sustaining it in its existence. It is also called "ominipresence." This is called God's "universal presence." In all creatures - both rational and irrational - in Heaven, on Earth, in the center regions, is God - <b>even present in Hell</b>. We must say "yes." If that's the fundamental way in which God is present, we ask, is God also present in a supernatural way? Yes. More properly called, "the divine indwelling." The way that God is present in the souls of those who are in the state of grace. Oh, what a difference between God being present in every creature and God's unique presence in those who possess His grace. Finally as our Faith tells us, God is also present in what we call His "Real Presence," where God is present, not only as God, but as the God who became man. In His Real Presence, God is present, as we say, "corporeally." He is present in the Holy Eucharist for all eternity...
<br />
<br />
— Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0009000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">Our Spiritual Life – Men’s Retreat</span></u></a>, <i>Lecture 23: Omnipresence of God</i>, 1978-9. (Emphasis added.)<br><br></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
The next writings he cites on the topic come from the Old Testament, namely Psalms 139 and Jeremiah 23:24:
<br />
<center>
<br />
<audio controls="controls"><source autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/Hardon/hardon%20-%20omnipresence%20-%202.mp3" type="audio/mp3"></source></audio></center>
<center>
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
What is the revelation of God on His omnipresence? Both Sacred Scripture and what we call "Sacred Tradition": they are filled with professions of faith in God's omnipresence. Just to read one short passage from one of the Psalms: "Where shall I go before your spirit?" the psalmist prays to the Lord. "Where can I flee before your face? If I ascend to the heavens, you are there. <b>If I descend into Hell, you are there.</b> If I take my wings and fly to the outermost parts of the sea..." even there, you, my Lord, are there. You are everywhere. You are always near me with your omnipresence. Then, the Lord says to the prophet Jeremiah, "Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?" The answer is, God fills every creature that exists. Unless God were present, nothing else would be there.
<br />
<br />
— Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0009000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">Our Spiritual Life – Men’s Retreat</span></u></a>, <i>Lecture 23: Omnipresence of God</i>, 1978-9. (Emphasis added.)<br><br></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="text-align: start;">Finally, I think that the post would not be complete without a quotation giving what Fr. Hardon refers to as "the most detailed profession of faith in God's omnipresence from the Scriptures," found in Acts 27:</span>
<center>
<span style="text-align: start;"><br /></span></center>
<center>
<audio controls="controls"><source autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/Hardon/hardon%20-%20omnipresence%20-%203.mp3" type="audio/mp3"></source></audio>
<br />
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
St. Paul is speaking to the pagan Greeks of Athens. He tells them that the God who created the world is everywhere. This gave St. Paul the occasion for explaining that this "unknown God" - as the pagan Greeks called Him - this "unknown God" is not far from any human being. In fact, unless God were present, there would not be a human being. Says Paul, "In him we live, and move, and have our being." (Acts chapter 17, verses 27 and 28.) Now we ask, how is God present everywhere? Given the revealed fact that God is omnipresent everywhere, the Church has, over the centuries, gone on to explain...
<br />
<br />
— Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0009000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">Our Spiritual Life – Men’s Retreat</span></u></a>, <i>Lecture 23: Omnipresence of God</i>, 1978-9.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
Servant of God Fr. John Hardon (†2000), pray for us.
<br /><br>
<center>
<hr width="50%" />
</center>
<br />
On the traditional calendar, today is the feast of St. Basil the Great (†379), bishop and Doctor of the Church.
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img height="320" src="http://www.mliles.com/melkite/images/stbasil8.jpg" width="220" /><br>Sancte Basili Magne, ora pro nobis.<br><br></div>Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-25068504982060098032013-12-07T21:36:00.001-08:002013-12-15T12:35:51.858-08:00The Problem of Reconciling Evil as Nothingness and Being in Hell:An Anonymous Reader Responds (Quaerimus IV)<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Earlier I wrote evil does not exist, so what then is in Hell? Angels and the souls of man who have deprived themselves so much of God’s Goodness that they could not bear to be in His light. When we say Hell is an eternal fire, it could be taken that God’s holding them into existence is the fire that burns them for eternity. This fire is only stoked more and more from their more deprived state.
<br />
<br />
— An Anonymous Reader, in response to <a href="http://dcmissionvideo.blogspot.com/2013/10/quaerimus-authority-of-thomas-aquinas.html"><i><font color="blue"><u>QUAERIMUS III, IV, V: The Authority of Thomas Aquinas, The Problem of Evil, and The Nature of Time - Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J. Weighs In.</u><br></font></i></a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
An anonymous reader has responded to the section of <a href="http://dcmissionvideo.blogspot.com/2013/10/quaerimus-authority-of-thomas-aquinas.html"><u>my previous post</u></a> dealing with the problem of reconciling St. Augustine's conception of evil as nothingness and Hell as a place in which beings are separated completely from God. He writes:<br><br>
<hr width="50%"><br>
"After thinking about your question on evil, I think there may be a misunderstanding of God's essence/existence and the essence/existence of things that are not of God which may be applied to the question of evil.
<br><br>
God's existence is his essence. God is to be. We get this from Thomas' Summa Theologica Q. 3, Art. 4. This is because God's essence would either have to be from an outside source which we know is impossible due to the demonstration in the first three of the five ways or his essence would come from a principle of his essence. This is also impossible as we can see that a human does not come from a tooth.
<br><br>
Existence is to act as essence is to potentiality. From Q. 2, Art. 3 of the ST we see that act must come prior to potentiality. Thus, existence in all things, that are not of God must come prior to its essence.
<br><br>
Something which exists but did not cause its own existence must have a prior cause. There must always be a first in the line of movers, actuality must always come prior to potentiality, contingent beings must necessarily come from a necessary being.
<br><br>
God must then be pure act. Must be the first, the unmoved mover. His existence must be his essence. What must be remembered is that when speaking of God we always speak through analogy and that speaking in terms of essence and existence is the closest man can come to speak of God.
<br><br>
Now for everything else that is not God must be thought of in a matter of degrees of being. God is being, Angels are more perfect beings than humans for they are pure intellect without body. Humans are more perfect than animals because of intellect but less than angels because humans have bodies and so on.
<br><br>
What does this have to do with the problem of evil?
<br><br>
The problem of evil comes from the idea of an all perfect and all good God accepting evil into the world. Evil, as you know is not a thing. Evil in itself does not exist. Rather, evil is the decision of an existing being, one who must possess intellect, in order to not choose good. The idea of evil is a turning away from the Creator, when one chooses that which is not God they become less themselves and the larger the separation the less angelic or the less human they become. God sets angels and man into existence and holds them there because of his eternal love for them. Even if they commit evil and more and more atrocities are committed God will not take man out of existence because of his eternal love for God set man into existence out of his own free gift.
<br><br>
God created man and angel in order for man and angels to love him. In order for there to be love there must be a freedom of choice from his creatures and thus we are made with freewill.
<br><br>
In a perfect setting, The Garden of Eden, freewill is used to make a choice between one good and another using a degree of goodness. Once man became selfish and wished to be his own God, out of his own choice, man could no longer handle being in the perfect garden and thus was cast out. In this casting out all things were changed and privation entered the entire world. Evil then is a privation of a good. In the case of the squirrel outside of my window, it is an evil that this squirrel lacks a tail. The squirrel is deprived of its tail and thus there is an evil.
<br><br>
I think a problem we, as humans, have with the notion of evil is that we cannot speak of evil truly as it is. We do not know what Heaven or Hell is like. We do not know, nor can we speak, of God perfectly for we are imperfect beings. Man participates in being for man is not being in and of himself, whereas God is being itself. We must speak from analogy and from here is where we have trouble for we can never get an exacted notion. Who is to say that Aquinas or Augustine or the many other thinkers are correct in their ideas on the concept of evil? Whenever we say the word evil there is a connotation that evil exists and so we come to the crux of the matter.
<br><br>
I think from now on when I speak of evil I will define it as nothingness. Evil has no actuality and thus there is no potentiality. When creatures were created by God the act of going from being to being allowed for there to be an imperfection. This is because God, who is absolutely perfect, first cause, first unmoved mover, etc, cannot create Himself. God cannot create God for one would have to come prior and thus the made 'God' would be existing in potentiality. Once potentiality comes into the picture there allows a lack of perfection for only God can be truly perfect in every way." ~An Anonymous Reader, in response to <a href="http://dcmissionvideo.blogspot.com/2013/10/quaerimus-authority-of-thomas-aquinas.html"><i><u>QUAERIMUS III, IV, V: The Authority of Thomas Aquinas, The Problem of Evil, and The Nature of Time - Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J. Weighs In.</u></i></a>
<br><br>
<hr width="50%"><br>
I responded with the following:<br><br>
"Thank you for your thoughts. ... one point ... is curious to me: how can we speak about God through analogy if we do not know Him? We cannot know God in His fullness, so we must know Him partially. But what does it mean to know God partially?<br><br>
I am still a bit confused about Hell. From what you've said, a being in Hell is held in existence by God, but by that being's will he is eternally separated from God. But because the being is held in existence by God, it seems that he still has some connection to God. So his will itself must be held in existence by God (because all things are held in existence by God), but I guess the will is permanently in some sort of disordered state. But it seems that there must be some definite line between the perfect order (God) and the disorder. But the disorder exists also to some extent in purgatory. It is hard to fathom that the disorder will exist for all eternity, even though God is not willing it. But, if by the "disorder," we are referring to evil, then perhaps the disorder itself doesn't exist. But it seems that we can say that there is something in Hell and that something exists, no? So what is it? And how is it separated from God?<br><br>
Anyhow, I appreciate your comment that "...a problem we, as humans, have with the notion of evil is that we cannot speak of evil truly as it is." It is just a bit confounding to me that we have some notion of good and evil, but not a perfect notion of them. I guess an analogy could be that we sort of know a right triangle indirectly. We can draw something that resembles a right triangle, but we can't ever see it. Only by reason do we know about it. Even this seems inaccurate, though, because I think someone could make a case that we do know a right triangle in its fullness - even if we can't see it." ~My Response to the Anonymous Reader.
<br>
<br><hr width="50%"><br>
The reader answered with the following:<br><br>
"If we take this thought beyond Natural Theology and into Theology, involving revelation, then we can say we know God for Christ came into this world for us to know God. If we are sticking with Natural Theology then the only way to understand God is through analogy. This is because there are no words that we have that can describe God. We can go by way of the via negativa and see that God is not finite and so must be infinite, finite things participate in time and so God must be outside of time, finite things move by way of locomotion and so God must be unmoved but how can these words actually speak of God in His fullest? So far we have only covered small aspects of God. How then can we speak of God in His full nature? Coming by way of Natural Theology we cannot express God’s fullest nature. Even entering Theology we cannot. Yes, God is Unity and within this Unity there are three Persons but does this even capture the fullness of God? No, it is possible to capture the fullness of God for if we could fully understand God it would not be the real God for we would be creating this God. God is so far beyond understanding that saying I fully understand God means I created this God in which I understand. The best analogy for God is mathematics. We can have a triangle in which I understand fully the idea of a triangle in my mind and yet when I go to draw a triangle, even using the best measurements, I fail because the lines which make the triangle have width and the lines which make up a true triangle do not. God is similar in that we can have concepts of God and understand facets of who He is yet we will never know Him in fullness. It is also not a waste of time to study who God is for in studying about Him we are praying to Him and in doing so we will inevitably be drawn closer to Him. <br><br>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
When God creates us He automatically will Himself to hold our souls in existence. ... A soul in going to hell is said to perpetually blaspheme the name of God and this is because in going to hell there is the knowledge that God holds them in existence while the souls in hell would rather hold themselves in existence. These souls have made themselves their own God and thus are no longer perfect for they are no longer human. To be human is to fully recognize that we are subordinate to our Creator.
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hell:<br>
When we are created we are given an eternal soul in a mortal body. Therefore, from the moment of conception the soul is to live forever and our earthly body is to perish until we are given our glorified bodies at the end of time. When God creates us He automatically will Himself to hold our souls in existence, not our will or our intellect but our soul, which some may equate with the will but is not the will. When a soul goes to hell it is an eternal act by which the person decides to be as far from God as possible. A soul in going to hell is said to perpetually blaspheme the name of God and this is because in going to hell there is the knowledge that God holds them in existence while the souls in hell would rather hold themselves in existence. These souls have made themselves their own God and thus are no longer perfect for they are no longer human. To be human is to fully recognize that we are subordinate to our Creator. An example of this thought comes from St. John of the Cross’s book the Ascent to Mount Carmel where he writes, “It ought to be kept in mind that an attachment to a creature makes a person equal to that creature; the stronger the attachment, the closer is the likeness to the creature and the greater the equality, for love effects a likeness between the lover and the loved.” Thus, when we make ourselves God we become less human for we are not to make ourselves God but rather we are to be in the likeness of God. That distinction separates the Saint from those most vile in hell. The Saint conforms his will to God’s and so becomes like him, the one in hell conforms his will to himself and thus distances himself from God in a very sad event.
<br><br>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Thus, when we make ourselves God we become less human for we are not to make ourselves God but rather we are to be in the likeness of God. That distinction separates the Saint from those most vile in hell. The Saint conforms his will to God’s and so becomes like him, the one in hell conforms his will to himself and thus distances himself from God in a very sad event.
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Earlier I wrote evil does not exist, so what then is in Hell? Angels and the souls of man who have deprived themselves so much of God’s Goodness that they could not bear to be in His light. When we say Hell is an eternal fire it could be taken that God’s holding them into existence is the fire that burns them for eternity. This fire is only stoked more and more from their more deprived state.
<br><Br>
For one in Purgatory it is a similar idea. God’s Goodness is so “bright” that it burns and this burning heals the soul so it can be purified and perfected so to enter eternal glory." ~The Anonymous Reader.
<Br><br>
<hr width="50%"><br>
Thank you to the readers who have responded to me with very helpful thoughts on this topic which I find quite difficult.
<br><br><hr width="50%"><br>
December 7 is the Vigil of the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Feast of St. Ambrose (✝ 397) (both calendars).<br><br>Regina sine labe originali concepta et Sancte Ambrósi, orate pro nobis.<br><br>Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-30992927782322924112013-10-27T17:34:00.000-07:002013-12-07T21:23:12.735-08:00QUAERIMUS III, IV, V: The Authority of Thomas Aquinas, The Problem of Evil, and The Nature of Time - Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J. Weighs InThree topics on which I am quite interested in gathering the various thoughts of great Catholic thinkers are the determination of authority in the formulation of Catholic doctrine, the problem of evil, and the nature of time. I was pleased to come across a lecture by Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J. in which he speaks on all three of these topics in a span of nine minutes. An audio recording of the complete lecture can be found on <a href="http://therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0001000.htm"><u>this page</u></a> at therealpresence.org. It is the fourth lecture, entitled <i>Review of Creation and Beginning of Providence</i>, in a series on the Catholic Faith.<br />
<br />
Two years ago, soon after the founding of the DCMission blog, I had <a href="http://dcmissionvideo.blogspot.com/2011/08/do-animals-have-soul.html"><u>written a post</u></a> in which I alluded to a question of great interest to me: What weight do the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas hold in the formulation of Catholic doctrines? Given the arguably unparalleled genius of Thomas, does the Church accept everything that he wrote as true?<br />
<br />
Fr. Hardon, in the lecture mentioned above, states the following on this subject and its relevance to the Society of Jesus during its early years, around the end of the 16th century:
<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
...a number of our theologians were wondering how literally we must follow Aquinas.
<br />
<br />
— Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0001000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">A Course on the Catholic Faith</span></u></a>, <i>Lecture 4: Review of Creation and Beginning of Providence</i>, 1978-9.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
In the context of this passage, he addresses the question of whether everything that Thomas taught is necessarily accepted as true by Church authorities. Fr. Hardon's statements may surprise you. In two specific cases he mentions, he goes so far as to say that Thomas, in spite of his "towering genius," was wrong.<br />
<br />
<center>
<audio controls="controls"><source autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/Hardon/thomas.mp3" type="audio/mp3"></source></audio>
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
There is a controverted question in theology over the possibility of an eternal creation of the world. First, let's be clear. The world had a beginning. That is an article of the Faith. The world - and not merely the world of space and time - but the world of spirit, too - whether angelic or our own souls - began. That's number one. The world had a beginning. Secondly, it is therefore erroneous to say that the world is de facto eternal. Because if it began in time, it could not have been timeless in having always existed. But thirdly, can we prove from reason alone that the world began? Yes. A fourth question: Can we hold that the world might have existed from all eternity? Among the persons who held this was Thomas Aquinas. At least, he said, you could not disprove from reason the impossibility of an eternal world. This, among other things that Thomas taught, he was wrong in. And, sometime after St. Ignatius prescribed on the Society of Jesus that we follow the teaching of Thomas Aquinas - it is part of our constitution in our teaching - a number of our theologians were wondering how literally we must follow Aquinas. So our then-Father General commissioned Robert Bellarmine, a great Saint and now since a Doctor of the Church, to examine the writings of Thomas Aquinas - who by that time had already been canonized - and which things that Thomas taught, in his judgment, Jesuits would not be bound to hold. He ended up with twenty-four things in Thomas that Jesuits need not folow. This is one. And as I'm sure you all know, another is that Mary was not immaculately conceived. Thomas held it: he was wrong. Which indicates why we need an infallible teaching authority to stand judgment even on a towering genius like Aquinas.
<br />
<br />
— Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0001000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">A Course on the Catholic Faith</span></u></a>, <i>Lecture 4: Review of Creation and Beginning of Providence</i>, 1978-9.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
The next question, on the problem of evil, is much more difficult for me personally. St. Augustine in his <i>Confessions</i> famously cast the problem and subsequently addressed it. Here is the problem in simplistic terms: if God is perfectly good and created everything, and evil exists, then how did God create it? Augustine addresses the problem by saying that evil is not itself a created thing. It is, rather, the lack of something: the lack of being. I've heard an analogy given between this proposed model and the familiar phenomena of light and darkness. Darkness is not something in and of itself, the analogy states. It is, rather, our perception of the absence of light. (As a bit of a digression, I recall a series of lectures at Notre Dame in which the late Prof. Michael Sain proposed a compelling case for a correlation between this model of evil and the nature of the Ringwraiths in Tolkien's <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>.)<br />
<br />
While somewhat satisfying at first, this solution seems to create problems with respect to some aspects of the Faith. For example, if Hell entails complete separation from God, and God is necessary for an entity's existence, then how can Hell exist?<br />
<br />
Fr. Hardon addresses the problem of evil as follows:
<br />
<center>
<br />
<audio controls="controls"><source autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/Hardon/evil0002.mp3" type="audio/mp3"></source></audio>
<br />
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
...what God created is good. Why is it good? Because God made it. Well, that's not really maybe answering the question. What is good that God created is such because it corresponds perfectly to what His will wanted to make. And, therefore, in Genesis when we read that God saw what He made and it was not just good but, remember, "very good." Is there evil in the world? You better believe it. Let me ask this: why is there evil in the world? Is it because of God? It must be because of what? Creatures. So whatever is good in the world is the result of God's will. Whatever is evil in the world is the result of created will. And can we ever produce evil things. If I further ask: what makes what man creates - if it's evil - evil? It's because it is contrary to the will of God. The essence of goodness is that it conforms to the divine will. The essence of evil is that it conforms to the created will and contrary to the divine will. And you don't push beyond that. You believe it.
<br />
<br />
— Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0001000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">A Course on the Catholic Faith</span></u></a>, <i>Lecture 4: Review of Creation and Beginning of Providence</i>, 1978-9.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
This response is, admittedly, a bit problematic for me. With his mandate, "you don't push beyond that," I gather that Fr. Hardon is suggesting here that we forgo our reason and accept the claims given regarding the nature of evil. However, we've been taught through documents such as Bl. John Paul II's <i><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html"><u>Fides et Ratio</u></a></i> and Pope Emeritus Benedict's <i><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html"><u>Regensburg Lecture</u></a></i> not to accept the contemporary narrative that faith and reason work contrary to one another. Rather, the Church has proposed in such documents that faith and reason complement one another. They are "like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." This being the case, why does it seem that we are being asked here on the problem of evil to forgo reason? Should not the use of reason, in general, be commended? I can't say that I understand Fr. Hardon's "you don't push beyond that" against the backdrop of the narrative of the complementary nature of faith and reason given to us by Church authorities in recent decades.
<br><br>
<center>
<hr width="50%" />
</center>
<br />
Finally, Fr. Hardon offers some brief thoughts on <a href="http://dcmissionvideo.blogspot.com/2012/04/dcmission-video-catholic-perspectives.html"><u>a topic that is dear to me</u></a>: the nature of time. My inclusion of this excerpt here entails less of a question for addition to the list of <a href="http://dcmissionvideo.blogspot.com/search/label/Quaerimus"><u>Quaerimus</u></a> posts, and more of a point of interest to me that I serendipitously found addressed in media res.
<br />
<center>
<br />
<audio controls="controls"><source autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/Hardon/time2.mp3" type="audio/mp3"></source></audio>
<br />
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Then he created in time. ... Consequently, the world had a beginning in time. Or, more accurately, it began with time. What is time? Somebody? [Change.] ... Change. Well, change is part of time. Time is, rather, the measure of change. You've got to have things changing to have time. That's why God, in an absolute sense, is timeless. And the fewer changes or the less aware you are of those changes, the more swiftly the time passes, right? It's when you're watching that clock - and it never moves more slowly than when you watch it - because you're conscious of the change - whatever you're expecting or looking forward to seems to be so slow in coming. In other words, there was no time before creation. Why? Because the only being that existed was a changeless being. Since time is the measure of change - sometimes called the "measure of motion," which is the more philosophical definition but less intelligible because the word "motion" in philosophy corresponds to "change" in more popular language. Now the motion or the movement may be through space, and that's a change. Or the motion may be inside my head, and that's a change. For example, I hope in the last five minutes, you've learned something ... Whatever change took place - and we can measure the change that took place, whether in body or in spirit - can be measured. Therefore, you have time. The moment God created anything, at that moment, time began.
<br />
<br />
— Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0001000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">A Course on the Catholic Faith</span></u></a>, <i>Lecture 4: Review of Creation and Beginning of Providence</i>, 1978-9.</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<center>
<hr width="50%" />
</center>
<br />
On the Traditional Calendar, today is Solemnity of Christ the King.<br><br>
<center><a href="http://youtu.be/NKeOHZ9NWao">¡<u>Viva Cristo Rey</u>!</a></center>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieRo_QhCvZLtiyjU74-g6ormm5GTWfVxc5NuOI7YW4RNVqoXYwtEvx4MKeKCUEm0H9OOiE0ZoyKxk7rVztiT_F-YIH1THrvdIf8JbDRJ75hW7I4xhyphenhyphenbkGPuUiUVXeWAa-pDq2sRD3Uqemk/s1600/christ20the20king.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieRo_QhCvZLtiyjU74-g6ormm5GTWfVxc5NuOI7YW4RNVqoXYwtEvx4MKeKCUEm0H9OOiE0ZoyKxk7rVztiT_F-YIH1THrvdIf8JbDRJ75hW7I4xhyphenhyphenbkGPuUiUVXeWAa-pDq2sRD3Uqemk/s320/christ20the20king.jpg" width="239" /></a></div>
<br />
<center><hr width=50%></center>
<br>
<u><b>Update:</u></b> I noticed a possible problem in the first excerpt above. Fr. Hardon states that, "At least, [Thomas] said, you could not disprove from reason the impossibility of an eternal world." This is a bit of a difficult statement to parse with all the negatives (i.e. "...could <i>not</i> <i>dis</i>prove ... the <i>im</i>possibility..."). However, we understand the intended message: the Church teaching is that the world is not eternal and that we can prove this from reason, but Thomas said otherwise. However, I believe the way in which Fr. Hardon formulates this has one-too-many negatives. I believe what he meant to say was either that Thomas said that "you could not prove from reason the impossibility of an eternal world" or "you could not disprove from reason the possibility of an eternal world." Feel free to check me on this.<br><br>
Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-65497129870561514912013-07-30T21:36:00.000-07:002013-07-30T21:58:28.983-07:00Screwtape's Eighth Letter and the Spiritual Undulations of St. Ignatius of LoyolaCurrently in a reading group that is covering C.S. Lewis's <i>The Screwtape Letters</i>, one of the letters I found particularly noteworthy is number 8, in which Screwtape instructs his nephew on the "law of Undulation" and its effects on the interior lives of humans. I came across a recording of a reading of this letter and thought it would be worth sharing here.
<br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
[The Enemy] will set them off with communications of His presence which, though faint, seem great to them, with emotional sweetness, and easy conquest over temptation. But He never allows this state of affairs to last long. Sooner or later He withdraws, if not in fact, at least from their conscious experience, all those supports and incentives. He leaves the creature to stand up on its own legs -- to carry out from the will alone duties which have lost all relish. It is during such trough periods, much more than during the peak periods, that it is growing into the sort of creature He wants it to be. Hence the prayers offered in the state of dryness are those which please Him best. ... Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.
</p>
<br>
— Screwtape, from <i>Letter 8</i>.<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/fcXMwlZi8hk?list=PLA8BAC9375345E6C7" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
<br><br>
On a related note, tomorrow is the feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), founder of the Jesuit order. (Perhaps it is worth noting here that Pope Francis is the first Jesuit pontiff.) Fr. Mitch Pacwa, a Jesuit priest, has given an eloquent summary of the conversion story of St. Ignatius. Key to the story is St. Ignatius's overcoming of his attachments to the fleeting pleasures he enjoyed that were part of his life prior to his conversion. Fr. Pacwa explains how Ignatius's gradually deepened intimacy with Christ allowed him eventually to recognize the passing nature of these pleasures, to found the Jesuit order, and to become at last a great Saint.<br><br>
The homily begins at 5:14 in the video.
<br><br>
<center>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/FsSZpXGP_jA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
<br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
...key to his conversion is that the process of reading the life of Christ and the life of the Saints is that he found that very enjoyable, and it left him with peace. But - even though he didn't have books about it - he would consider saving damsels in distress, fighting great battles, riding off for the king of Spain, and doing all sorts of great things - and he felt good about that too. Both of them made him feel very good. But what he noticed as time went on is that when he considered various aspects of being a knight, it would only feel good at that moment. It would then become hollow and leave him feeling empty. And thinking about Christ and the Saints and the joys of heaven gave him peace, and that did not leave him empty. It gave him a peace that lasted. And he began to notice the difference.
</p>
<br>
— Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. on the Conversion of St. Ignatius of Loyola (@9:30 in the video).<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<hr width=50%>
<br>
July 30th is the feast of St. Peter Chrysologus, Doctor of the Church. St. Ignatius of Loyola (✝ 1556) and St. Peter Chrysologus (✝ 450), pray for us.<br><br>Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-78944036156714739652013-07-25T20:59:00.001-07:002013-12-07T21:22:39.725-08:00QUAERIMUS I, II: Audible Congregational Responses in the Tridentine Mass and the Canonical Status of SSPXMost who have spent a significant amount of time reading the blog of <a href = "http://wdtprs.com/blog/"><u>Fr. John Zuhlsdorf</u></a> likely have some exposure to his series of posts tagged <a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/?s=quaeritur"><i><u>Quaeritur</u></i></a> (translated from the third person singular present passive indicative Latin word: "it is being asked"). Well, given that priests are in general rather busy fellows -- what with their administering of the Sacraments, offering of spiritual direction to members of the faithful, and carrying out of other activities generally directed toward saving souls from the forces of evil, etc., etc. -- it makes sense that they don't always have time to answer every <i>Quaeritur</i> that comes their way. (This is not to mention the fact that some of the questions that some of us (and by <i>some of us</i> I mean <i>me</i>) ask can every now and then be a bit academic.) In any case, I can see it being expedient to keep a record of the questions from myself and others that have accumulated over time. I'll tag posts containing such questions as <i>Quaerimus</i> (translated from the first person plural present active indicative Latin word: "we are asking").<br><br>
Now, the lay faithful have a bit of a responsibility to make a sincere effort to look for answers to such questions that come to mind (Mt 7:7). In this age of the internet, the answers to them may very well be as close as our smartphone. However, among the many challenges one might encounter in seeking answers is the deluge of convoluted, misleading, or even incorrect information that is widely available. How often has one thought of an excellent question whose answer could greatly advance his spiritual and moral life and, after having searched the internet for it, come across only a few lengthy discussions on Catholic forums containing a plethora of people's speculations, opinions, and expressions of uncertainty about the matter?<br><br>
It is not an exaggeration to say that the internet is an increasingly vast ocean of information in which one could easily find himself lost in the middle of nowhere surrounded by ominous figures. We set out like quasi-Chestertonian wayfarers, as it were, during the dark night in search of those islands of truth which will eventually lead us to our home, with the lamp of reason as a guide. The night sky is filled with the Saintly stars who also offer us some direction, albeit in a way that is mysterious, frequently unclear to us, and often involves some degree of uncertainty. We have also the moon: Mary, Our Mother -- to borrow the famous analogy -- receiving her light from Christ, the Sun, toward whom we look to the East for His rising, but presently see only through the veil of the Sacred Species. <br><br><center>Conscendamus.</center>
<br>
<hr width = "50%">
<br>
<b>QUAERIMUS I: Audible Congregational Responses in the Tridentine Mass</b><br><br>
I recently attended the Tridentine Mass with my father. Not having attended many Tridentine Masses recently, he expressed confusion afterwards due to a discrepancy he observed. When he served Mass as a young boy -- even prior to Vatican II -- the congregation always responded aloud to the prayers when the servers did so, and in some cases, such as the <i>Pater Noster</i>, the congregation even recited the prayers aloud in their entirety. But at this Mass, the congregation was silent nearly the entire time. I noted that this is frequently the case for Low Masses I attend. Perhaps, I suggested, he had always served Solemn Masses? But I thought this unlikely for every daily Mass he'd ever attended as a child. Further, at the Solemn Masses I've attended, the <i>Pater Noster</i> has been chanted aloud only by the priest.<br><br>
Fr. Z has posted on this topic more than once in <i>Quaeriturs</i>. In July of 2008, he wrote in response to a reader:
<br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
There is no hard and fast rule about vocal responses. I think you have to go with the flow.<br><br>
That said, various Popes before the Council encouraged congregational responses, the so-called "dialogue Mass".
<br>
...
<br>
In my travels, I have seen various levels of participation. ... Much will depend on what the priest wants and promotes.<br><br>
But yes, congregational responses are permitted and, in many cases, a good idea.
<br><br>
Personally, I prefer responses from the congregation and have no problem at all with them saying the parts pertaining to the server, and even prayers like the Gloria and Creed.
</p>
<br>
— Fr. Z, from <a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/quaeritur-congregational-responses-at-tlm/"><u><font color=blue>QUAERITUR: congregational responses at TLM</font></u></a>, 1 July 2008.<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
More recently, in a response to a similar question from a reader, he has written:
<br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
I think people should make the responses.
Popes of the 20th century were speaking about “active participation” before the Second Vatican Council.
<br>...<br>
In a nutshell, before the Council, it was strongly encouraged that people make responses, especially at Solemn and Sung Masses. This applied often to Low Masses as well, the so-called dialogue Mass.
<br>...<br>
That said, if no one else at the place you are going makes responses – at all – then I don’t recommend making them loudly all by yourself.
</p>
<br>
— Fr. Z, from <a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/05/quaeritur-should-people-make-responses-during-the-traditional-latin-mass/"><u><font color=blue>QUAERITUR: Should people make responses during the Traditional Latin Mass?</font></u></a>, 30 May 2013.<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Returning to 2008, we find Fr. Z responding to a reader specifically regarding whether the congregation is permitted to sing the <i>Pater Noster</i>:<br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
But, the bottom line is yes, even before the Council the Holy See said that the congregation could sing the Our Father with the priest during a sung Mass.
</p>
<br>
— Fr. Z, from <a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/10/quaeritur-can-the-congregation-sing-the-our-father-at-a-tlm/"><u><font color=blue>QUAERITUR: Can the congregation sing the Our Father at a TLM?</font></u></a>, 20 October 2008.<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>Notice here, though, that Fr. Z is referring specifically to the <i>sung Mass</i>. My father mentioned that, as a young boy, at <i>all</i> the Masses the <i>Pater Noster</i> was recited by the congregation. To remedy this problem, we have a statement from Fr. Augustine Thompson, O.P., of the <a href="http://dominican-liturgy.blogspot.com/"><u>Dominican Liturgy Blog</u></a>, offering clarification in the comment box of Fr. Z's post referenced above:<br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
...It was my understanding that the recitation of the whole Pater by the people applied to dialogue Low Mass...
</p>
<br>
— Fr. Augustine Thompson, O.P., from the combox of Fr. Z's <a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/10/quaeritur-can-the-congregation-sing-the-our-father-at-a-tlm/"><u><font color=blue>QUAERITUR: Can the congregation sing the Our Father at a TLM?</font></u></a>, 20 October 2008.<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<hr width = "50%">
<br>
<b>QUAERIMUS II: Canonical Status of SSPX</b><br><br>
Some confusion arose following the Mass during my discussion with a woman who was claiming that the excommunication of the SSPX had been invalid. While this may or may not be true, I was somewhat certain that their excommunication had been lifted, while also fairly certain that the fact remains that they are not in full communion with the Church. On these points, it appears that I was correct:<br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
</p>
<br>
— Pope Benedict XVI, from <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica_en.html"><u><font color=blue>Letter of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Remission of the Excommunication of the Fourt Bishops Consecrate by Archbishop Lefebvre</font></u></a>, 10 March 2009.<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
See also <a href="http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/01/24/sspx-excommunications-lifted.htm"><u>SSPX Excommunications Lifted</u></a>.
<br><br>
(Note that I said that it may be true that the original excommunications were invalid only because I don't see in this case how a <i>latae sententiae</i> excommunication -- which, as I understand it, happens automatically without any statement made by a Church authority -- could be remitted in such a way that it was valid only for a period. It seems that such an excommunication would either be valid and remain so or never have been valid to begin with. Perhaps this would not be true if the laws were changed in such a way that the offending act is no longer an offending act, but I don't see how this could be true in this case. At any rate, I digress.)
<br><br>
Now, in trying to verify anything beyond my claim that the SSPX is not in full communion with the Church, I've found that the whole situation gets quite controversial and confusing very quickly. I've heard claims that some of their Sacraments are valid and other such things. These claims may be true. I will say one last thing on this here: as recently as May of this year, we see none other than Fr. Z himself casting doubt on the validity of Sacraments administered by the SSPX:
<br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
In a nutshell, the article argues that SSPX priests absolve validly. I do not believe that to be true. SSPX priests do not have faculties to receive sacramental confessions. Period. Faculties are necessary for <i>validity</i>.
</p>
<br>
— Fr. Z, from <a href="http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/05/again-about-validity-of-absolutions-by-sspx-priests/"><u><font color=blue>Again about validity of absolutions by SSPX priests</font></u></a>, 16 March 2013.<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-48370507683166439902013-07-24T20:58:00.002-07:002013-10-23T14:49:56.159-07:00Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J.: Six Key ExcerptsAside from the men and women of heroic virtue who have been canonized as Saints by the Church over the centuries, there are others whose lives are under close examination by the Church for the purpose of considering that they also may be recognized as Saints. We say that for such men and women, the cause is open for their canonization. The stages for canonization include designation of the individual as a <i>Servant of God</i> (e.g., Fr. Michael J. McGivney (1852-1890), founder of the Knights of Columbus), as <i>Venerable</i> (e.g., Archbishop Fulton Sheen (1895-1979)), as <i>Blessed</i> (Beatification) (e.g., Mother Teresa (1910-1997)), and finally as a <i>Saint</i> (Canonization) (e.g., Thomas More (1478-1535)).<br />
<br />
It is worth considering the lives of the men and women whose causes are open but who are in the earlier stages of the investigation. Part of the canonization process is the detailed examination of miracles alleged to have occurred following an individual or group requesting a certain individual's intercession, so it is worth the time to consider requesting the intercession of individuals who are recognized by the Church as having lived particularly holy lives. Note that it is, in some cases, centuries before the Vatican finally determines that an individual should be beatified or canonized. Consider the case of Bl. John Duns Scotus -- known for his famous defense of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception -- who died in 1308 but was not beatified until 1993 (it is apparent that the Vatican is diligent in the study of its long-kept records of certain individuals' lives!).<br />
<br />
Among the individuals whose causes are open is the Jesuit priest Fr. John Hardon (1914-2000), currently designated as a Servant of God. As will be more frequently the case for men and women with open causes, many of Fr. Hardon's writings and lectures are available online for our study and edification. Those interested in getting to know Fr. Hardon through his own works can visit the archives over at <a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/archives.htm"><u>therealpresence.org</u></a> to browse the texts, audio recordings, and videos.<br />
<br />
After listening to a small portion of the lectures posted, I came across a few excerpts that I thought were especially worthy of being written down and shared here. I will offer a brief thought before each clip.<br />
<br />
<hr width="50%" />
<br />
First are two excerpts from a men's retreat Fr. Hardon gave in 1999. He speaks here on the importance of our own personal spiritual writing.<br />
<br />
<!--Lecture 1: 2:00-->
<br />
<center>
<audio controls="controls"><source src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/SpiritualWriting1.mp3" autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" type="audio/mp3" /></source></audio>
<br>
<!--
<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/SpiritualWriting1.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/SpiritualWriting1.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
-->
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
As you know, during the retreat, it is customary to make a good confession. ... Also, I recommend that those who make the retreat do some writing. What you write is more surely remembered than what you just think about in your mind.
<br />
<br />
— Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0009000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">A Retreat for Men</span></u></a>, July 14-18, 1999.<br />
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<center>
<audio controls="controls"><source src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/SpiritualWriting2.mp3" autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" type="audio/mp3" /></source></audio>
<br>
<!--
<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/SpiritualWriting2.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/SpiritualWriting2.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
-->
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
...we go on with this important, shall I call it, an exultation. I urge every one of you to do some writing: maybe your daily reflections; maybe your spiritual insights; something you read or heard. During my four years of undergraduate theology, I would write down what I thought from books I was reading deserved to be remembered. By the time I was ordained, I had over five thousand quotations.<br /><br />
Now we get closer to our subject: What is spiritual reading? We can begin by describing it in terms of what it is not. That's easy. Spiritual reading is not secular reading. And more positively, spiritual reading is that reading whose purpose as writing is to assist the believer to better know, love, and serve God and thereby become more God-like, which means more holy, especially in his life of prayer and the practice of Christian virtue.<br /><br />
Whatever I would recommend during these, I'll say, four days of the retreat: in God's name, write. That's the imperative: write.
<br />
<br />
— Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0009000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">A Retreat for Men</span></u></a>, July 14-18, 1999.<br />
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
The remaining clips are from a two-semester course on the Catholic Faith Fr. Hardon gave beginning in 1978. In the first clip, he offers a story to illustrate the difficulty that we all must face as a result of original sin: detachment from the things of this world and the willingness to sacrifice anything if it is God's will. I suspect that many, if not most of us struggle often with the specific temptation that the woman in the story was able to overcome through heroic fortitude: namely, the temptation to put affection for another person over one's devotion to God.
<br />
<br />
<!-- Lecture 8: beginning -->
<br />
<center>
<audio controls="controls"><source src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/DetachmentFromHumanAffection.mp3" autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" type="audio/mp3" /></source></audio>
<br>
<!--
<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/DetachmentFromHumanAffection.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/DetachmentFromHumanAffection.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
-->
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
...and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Whether it was a physical apple is not important, but it seems somehow Adam took a piece of what she gave him -- whatever it was. He loved Eve more than God. All I know is one of the hardest responsibilities in life is to sacrifice human affection for God -- that's hard. The hardest thing in life is to give up what or especially whom you love when it's God's will that you do so.<br /><br />
Like the woman in Indianapolis: I came a week after the event on supply at a parish -- a week after one of my Jesuit confreres had been on supply, as we say, at that church. And it seems after the eleven o'clock Mass as he was going into the rectory though the front door -- from the church to the front door, he just stepped inside, when the woman was running up the rectory steps, rang the doorbell in great distress, and just as he opened the door, two shots rang, and the woman fell into his arms. She was killed. She was taking instructions for the Catholic Faith, was living in adultery with another man -- or the husband, well, of another woman's, in other words, another wife: he had another wife. She was told she'd have to give up this man to become a Catholic. You have a man who was divorced and felt he wanted this woman. "But I'm becoming a Catholic." He threatened her life. So during the course of instruction, she was going from church to church in Indianapolis to try to avoid him, because she was scared. She realized he meant business. This Sunday he saw her coming out of the church. Instead of shooting into the crowd, at the risk of killing somebody else, he waited till she was alone. And luckily for him, she -- well, she saw him, and she panicked. She was killed. ... And how often -- how very often -- in our lives this lesson has got to be lived: to give up what we love because we love God more.<br /><br />
The consequence, therefore, was not only for Adam, but, as we know, for the rest of the human race.
<br />
<br />
— Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0001000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">A Course on the Catholic Faith</span></u></a>, 1978-9.<br />
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
We live in a world today in which the consecrated religious life of Catholicism, from the perspective of the mainstream culture with its egocentric principles likely seems impractical or even nonsensical. I try to make it a point to recall often that in the Catholic Faith, the consecrated religious are indispensable -- are <i><u>necessary</u></i>. Fr. Hardon emphasizes this point beautifully here. Let us consider these words carefully and continue to pray for those who have given nothing less than their entire earthly existence to know, love, serve, and grow in deeper union with Our Lord.
<br />
<br />
<!--Lecture 13 0:40 -->
<br />
<center>
<audio controls="controls"><source src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/ConsecratedReligiousInTheChurch.mp3" autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" type="audio/mp3" /></source></audio>
<br>
<!--
<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/ConsecratedReligiousInTheChurch.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/ConsecratedReligiousInTheChurch.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
-->
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
...the Christianization of Europe is unintelligible without a flourishing monastic life. It is not only that the monks and nuns were the ones who both evangelized and prayed Europe, you might say, into the Faith, but that ever since, a good barometer of the strength of the Church in a given country or part of the world is the strength of its religious institutes. The Church is no stronger or weaker in any given period or place than are Her religious institutes: which, by the way, says something very serious and significant about the condition of the Church in our country.
<br />
<br />
— Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0001000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">A Course on the Catholic Faith</span></u></a>, 1978-9.<br />
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
Fr. Hardon next highlights the necessity of devout women for the preservation of the Faith, especially in nations such as ours that are in spiritual and moral decline.
<br />
<br />
<!-- Lecture 13: 10:00 -->
<br />
<center>
<audio controls="controls"><source src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/WomenInTheChurch.mp3" autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" type="audio/mp3" /></source></audio>
<br>
<!--
<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/WomenInTheChurch.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/WomenInTheChurch.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
-->
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
...my Jesuit brethren ask me, "Whatever possessed you to get so involved with sisters, with nuns?" Well -- humanly speaking -- speaking mainly to sisters: this would not have been my choice. But, I know that if we can keep the women in the Catholic Church sound, we can preserve the Faith. If you let the Church down, even God -- barring a miracle -- will not save it. The Church needs you.
<br />
<br />
— Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0001000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">A Course on the Catholic Faith</span></u></a>, 1978-9.<br />
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
In the lectures, Fr. Hardon sets forth detailed expositions of several of the various mysteries pertaining to Mary, Our Mother. The veneration of Mary expounded upon in the lectures, along with the material such as that given in the previous quotation, emphasize important aspects of the Catholic teaching on the special dignity -- or "genius," to quote Blessed Pope (soon to be Saint) John Paul II -- of women that would likely be foreign to many in the mainstream.
<br />
<br />
<!--Lecture 14: 12:58-->
<br />
<center>
<audio controls="controls"><source src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/HardonPerpetualVirginity.mp3" autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" type="audio/mp3" /></source></audio>
<br>
<!--
<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/HardonPerpetualVirginity.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js" type="text/javascript">
</script>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/HardonPerpetualVirginity.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
-->
</center>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px;">
<div>
Absolutely speaking, Christ might have been conceived by carnal intercourse. It is not absolutely impossible, of course, for God. Nevertheless, in order to both emphasize Christ having only a divine paternity -- to emphasize Christ's divine eternity -- to show that those who are conceived and born in sin are conceived and born in sin through paternal generation: it's the father who is the source of the sinful contagion with which the rest of us are conceived and born. Mary, then, conceived Christ virginally, and miraculously she gave him birth...
<br />
<br />
— Fr. John Hardon, S.J., from <a href="http://therealpresence.org/archives/MP3/RP0001000.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">A Course on the Catholic Faith</span></u></a>, 1978-9.<br />
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
Could an institution that is considering for veneration a man who has taught such things be justly labeled as misogynistic? I will leave that to you to decide.
<br />
<br />
<center>
Servant of God Fr. John Hardon, pray for us.
</center>
<br />
<hr width="50%" />
<br />
July 24 is the feast day of Sts. Christina of Bolsena († 3rd century) and Christina the Astonishing († 1224).
<br />
<br />
<center>
Orate pro nobis.</center>
<br />Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-54161165202054156542013-06-29T12:14:00.000-07:002013-10-23T14:53:52.217-07:00Matt 16:13-19: Jesus Establishes the Papacy, The Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; width:65%; border-style:solid"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhikp1wQW_ZKeeNP2xNLOHrSDHGdVj1qDV3z3ExTdW0pZ4VQgX4xoaJjcR1ro65VxbSGQm_gSgJiWXlYmcM8kN7YgSGyul2grIvwHy3NTjA0-ujgaBR9FRHMI7veSiRCAttJ0FZpLFLmSR_/s1315/Saint-peter-paul-with-Mary-and-Jesus2.jpg" imageanchor="0" style="margin-left: 0em; margin-right: 0em;"><img width="100%"border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhikp1wQW_ZKeeNP2xNLOHrSDHGdVj1qDV3z3ExTdW0pZ4VQgX4xoaJjcR1ro65VxbSGQm_gSgJiWXlYmcM8kN7YgSGyul2grIvwHy3NTjA0-ujgaBR9FRHMI7veSiRCAttJ0FZpLFLmSR_/s1315/Saint-peter-paul-with-Mary-and-Jesus2.jpg" /></a>
</div>
<center><br>
<i>Madonna and Child with Sts. Peter and Paul</i>. (1608-1609)<br>
by Giuseppe Cesari (c.1568–3 July 1640),
</center>
<br>
Today is the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul, apostles and martyrs. The Gospel for today's Mass is Jesus's institution of the Papacy in which He establishes Peter as the first pope of the Church. The audio clip below is a recording of this reading chanted by a deacon at a Mass in St. Peter's Basilica celebrated by Bl. Pope John Paul II on this solemnity. The text in Latin and English is given at the bottom of this post.
<br><br>
<center>
<audio controls="controls"><source src="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/Evangelium%20(Matth.%2016%2C13-19).mp3" autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" type="audio/mp3" /></source></audio>
<br>
</center>
<!--
<center>
<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/27403430/Evangelium%20(Matth.%2016%2C13-19).mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js">
</script>
</center>
-->
<br>
In the video below, Jimmy Akin at Catholic Answers gives responses to objections that Protestants make to reject that Jesus here is establishing Peter as the first pope. In the video, two documents are referenced: 1) <a href="http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock"><u><i>Peter the Rock</i></u></a> by Karl Keating, 2) <a href="http://jimmyakin.com/why-be-catholic"><i><u>Why Be Catholic?</i></u></a> by Jimmy Akin. CatholicApologetics.info has given thorough responses to many Protestant objections in a document entitled <a href="http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/rock.htm"><u><i>10 Answers on St. Peter the Rock</u></i></a> by Mario Derksen.
<br><br>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/g5VSv1LsAmg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><br><br>
<hr width=50%><br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
In illo témpore: Venit Iesus in partes Cæsaréæ Philippi, et interrogábat discípulos suos, dicens: Quem dicunt hómines esse Fílium hóminis? At illi dixérunt: Alii Ioánnem Baptístam, alii autem Elíam, álii vero Ieremíam aut unum ex Prophétis. Dicit illis Iesus: Vos autem quem me esse dícitis? Respóndens Simon Petrus, dixit: Tu es Christus, Fílius Dei vivi. Respóndens autem Iesus, dixit ei: Beátus es, Simon Bar Iona: quia caro et sanguis non revelávit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in coelis est. <br><br><b><u>Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram ædificábo Ecclésiam meam...</b></u><br><br> ...et portæ ínferi non prævalébunt advérsus eam. Et tibi dabo claves regni coelórum. Et quodcúmque ligáveris super terram, erit ligátum et in coelis: et quodcúmque sólveris super terram, erit solútum et in coelis.
</p>
<br>
— Lectio ✝ sancti Evangélii secúndum Matthaeum (16:13-19).<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
At that time, Jesus having come into the district of Caesarea Philippi, began to ask His disciples, saying, Who do men say the Son of Man is? But they said, Some say, John the Baptist; and others, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He said to them, But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Then Jesus answered and said, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father in heaven. <br><br><b><u>And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church...</u></b><br><br> ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
</p>
<br>
— A Reading ☩ of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew (16:13-19).<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br><center>
Sancti Apostoli Petre et Paule, orate pro nobis.
</center>
<br><br>Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-70480680093995648032013-06-20T23:05:00.000-07:002013-06-20T23:47:35.786-07:00An Open Discussion on Liturgical Music
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
...at some point we must get beyond the matter of taste and various technical issues and go a bit deeper: What is truly appropriate for Mass? How have we justified discarding the texts that the Church provides for us and replacing them with hymns that we choose according to criteria of taste and other subjective factors?
</p>
<br>
— Father B. Jerabek, from <a href="http://fatherjerabek.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/pop-music-at-mass/"><font color="blue">"<u>Pop Music at Mass</u>"</font></a><br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Fr. Jerabek has <a href="http://fatherjerabek.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/pop-music-at-mass/"><u>published a blog post</u></a> on liturgical music that addresses the questions of whether it is appropriate to deviate from the texts of the Mass established by the Church and how melodies should be selected or composed for the texts chosen. At the end of the post, he <a href="http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/is-inculturation-an-excuse-for-pop-music-at-mass"><u>references an article</u></a> at the <i>Crisis</i> website by Jeffrey Tucker that discusses related questions. Mr. Tucker presents a brief sketch of the recent history of liturgical music that has lead up to the Life Teen subculture involving Masses in which one is likely to find a "rock group ... that sings music with repetitive words that have nothing to do with what’s in the liturgical books and accompanies that music with pop rhythms."
<br><br>
Because questions regarding liturgical music -- and especially those involving whether different musical styles and lyrics are appropriate, licit, or even moral within the context of the liturgy -- are of particular interest to me, I would like to open the floor to discussions on this topic. I will begin the conversation below with some thoughts from a reader, followed by my response. Please provide thoughts you have in the comment box below.
<br><br>
As a reminder of the sharp distinctions between the types of music being discussed, I have included below videos from two different Masses containing contrasting musical styles and texts. I will leave it to you to determine which falls into which category.
<br><br>
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0_F8OBRabTo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>
</iframe>
<br><br>
<hr width="50%">
<br>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JqlBHuo8gaQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
<br><br>Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-64821765706075402112013-05-11T21:04:00.000-07:002013-05-24T16:48:36.013-07:00Suffering and Forgiveness: Finding God when Light Deceives Us
<!--
"Patrick, when was the last time you did anything useful?"<br>
~A superior at my place of employment.
<br><br>
-->
Fr. Wade Menezes, C.P.M. has presented in a homily a list of salvific aspects of suffering given by Bl. Pope John Paul II in his apostolic letter <i><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html"><u>Salvifici Doloris</u></a></i> ("On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering"):<br><br>
<center>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/CLhnLAACu-E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
<br><br>
1. Suffering strengthens character.<br>
2. Suffering helps us to be sympathetic toward others who are suffering.<br>
3. Suffering helps us to make up for past forgiven sins already confessed in the confessional.<br>
4. Suffering unites the sufferer with Jesus Christ.<br>
5. Suffering can be offered up for the benefit of others.<br>
6. Suffering benefits the caregiver(s).<br>
<br>
Here, we will be considering one aspect of number 4.
<br><br>
Let us return to this point later. If we are to step back for a moment and take a close look at 14th-century France, we will come to find the bishop of Lisieux, Nicole Oresme, gazing at the stars and studying an effect for which scientists and engineers still account in their work today. A DCMission video presents briefly some basic details regarding Oresme's dealings with this problem called atmospheric refraction, which can cause a star at a distant location in the cosmos to appear at a different position than it actually is.
<br><br>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MIG2gzRzzQs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><br>
Now, it just so happens that my coworkers and I encounter this problem quite frequently in our daily work. With long-range radars, when an object resides in a different layer of the atmosphere than the radar itself, the varying conditions of the atmosphere (e.g. pressure, temperature, moisture) cause the electromagnetic impulses to travel a bent path and make that object appear in a different location that it actually is. Going by the labels in the figure below, the bending of the light can in fact make the object appear at distance d1+d2. Through a closer look and a more thorough analysis - a more logical analysis - one will come to find that the object is actually at distance d0 from the radar. The light has deceived us. Our object is actually closer to us than we had first thought.
<br><br>
<center>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimIx3z0h2DA8j1-tFZaKtJMqyI0ghWbWXcEaJ-zHLPDcgESAZac0FjedMGYUz0ugfHpHLUsAKzbAPiVbgTYUfWeYg1RIAftKGnfMnBVXOIFHg1vMyr_MP2UGrymyunKFSXxiKky_K8I28q/s1600/refract.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="5" style="border-style:solid; border-color:black" width="90%" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimIx3z0h2DA8j1-tFZaKtJMqyI0ghWbWXcEaJ-zHLPDcgESAZac0FjedMGYUz0ugfHpHLUsAKzbAPiVbgTYUfWeYg1RIAftKGnfMnBVXOIFHg1vMyr_MP2UGrymyunKFSXxiKky_K8I28q/s320/refract.jpg" /></a>
</center>
<br>
Now, when others cause us to suffer unjustly, we are presented with an occasion to allow God's forgiveness to work through us. This forgiveness means no less than that all of our efforts - including both our prayers and our actions - are directed toward that person's eternal salvation. But realize that what we can see of God's forgiveness flowing through us for the other person is only a dim reflection of Christ's forgiveness of us - which is infinitely more - for our offenses against Him and others. The suffering, then, when integrated with this glimpse of God's forgiveness, affords us the opportunity to form an enhanced rendering of the nature of Christ Himself. By this sharper vision, might we be so bold as to wager that He may be closer to us than we might have estimated at first glance?
<br><br>
I just might.Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-68833728948661796972013-04-08T16:34:00.000-07:002013-09-27T08:22:08.189-07:00DCMission Video: Performance of the Bach/Gounod 'Ave Maria' for Cornet and Organ in Honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary for the Solemnity of the Annunciation<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/87CrQpao43Y" width="560"></iframe><br />DCMissionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09362421074505003149noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-5683086101498730422013-03-10T17:44:00.001-07:002013-07-27T15:05:26.222-07:00An Open Letter to Friends of the Dominicans: On Aristotle and Induction
I was recently conversing with a friend who was telling me about her current enrollment in a class covering Aristotle. Given that it is all too easy to dismiss such course material as simply a dull and pedantic undertaking, I wanted to offer some thoughts that emphasize the importance of his role in the history of thought: particularly in the intellectual tradition of the Dominicans. As it turns out, I was visiting with this friend and others in the company of two Dominican sisters recently, and a conversation came up in which there arose a question regarding the distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning.
<br><br>
Well, I was listening to a lecture series by Prof. Daniel Robinson the other day, and by a seeming coincidence, he discussed both of these topics in a single lecture. Here is an open letter to friends of the Dominicans regarding what I learned -- and found quite interesting. I hope that you will, too.
<br><br>
<hr width=50%>
<br>
Dear Friends of the Dominicans,
<br><br>
Regarding our recent conversations on various interesting topics -- particularly Aristotle, deduction versus induction, and those amidst ongoing discussions about the Dominicans -- I wanted to share with you my recent discoveries on these topics contained within some enlightening lectures by Prof. Daniel Robinson. Upon reading this letter, I hope that you will come to see the following:
<br>
<ol>
<li>The significance of Aristotle, which cannot be overstated -- particularly within the intellectual tradition of the Dominican Order.</li>
<li>Evidence to support the rejection of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis"><u>Conflict Thesis</u></a>, widely promoted by Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918).</li>
<li>The emphasis placed on inductive reasoning by Christian thinkers in the High Middle Ages, in anticipation of the founding of modern science.</li>
</ol>
<br>
Before we begin, a few words are in order about Prof. Daniel Robinson, whom I will be citing in this letter. He taught at Georgetown University for 30 years and is currently a philosophy professor at Oxford, where he has been on the faculty since 1991. Within the lectures I'll be referencing, he associates himself with no particular religion. At times, he gives comments that would likely be taken by the general public to be praiseworthy of various religious figures in history. At other times, he gives scathing criticisms of certain religious groups. With regard to the Catholic Church in particular, it is worth noting that he devotes an entire lecture to excoriating the Catholic Church for Her dealings with the <i>Malleus Maleficarum</i> in the fifteenth century. Hence, I consider him to be a neutral source when it comes to the area of religion.
<br><br>
Two of the lectures focus on some of the great thinkers of the Scholastic tradition during the High Middle Ages. Prof. Robinson begins with Peter Abelard (1079–21 April 1142) and continues on to cover to varying degrees Robert Grosseteste (1175–9 October 1253), Roger Bacon (ca.1214–1294), John Duns Scotus (ca.1266–8 November 1308), Albert the Great (1193/1206–November 15, 1280), and Thomas Aquinas (1225–7 March 1274). Over the course of the discussions of these figures, we can see the intellectual foundations being laid for the great achievements to come in the following centuries. And whom do we meet at each step along the way, playing a vital role in guiding each of these important thinkers? None other than our dear friend, Aristotle. We begin with Peter Abelard.
<br><br>
<center>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyJ15hTOcGrsI88oOFqimScJzjg-eyVXj5BDGZNPvBO1n9_iLcRdn-rMFqkZ0R7ZbS4I6PxV57suibRucuGt32KPmEdrPOiryTGNmAUMM4CafE2NcSS-9Tq_CMgHAUFt0LybGMQaa1qjIC/s1600/PeterAbelard-s-h.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyJ15hTOcGrsI88oOFqimScJzjg-eyVXj5BDGZNPvBO1n9_iLcRdn-rMFqkZ0R7ZbS4I6PxV57suibRucuGt32KPmEdrPOiryTGNmAUMM4CafE2NcSS-9Tq_CMgHAUFt0LybGMQaa1qjIC/s320/PeterAbelard-s-h.jpg" /></a>
<br>
Peter Abelard (1079-1142)
</center>
<br><br>
<center>
<a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob1.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js">
</script>
</center>
<!--
<br>
<center>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob1.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
</center>
-->
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
Consider Peter Abelard whose life stretches from 1079 to 1142 and whose celebrated teaching earned him the title of ... <i>Peripateticus Palatinus</i>. A "palatine" here suggests a form of lordship, and the "peripatetics": that was a term historically assigned to the school of Aristotle. So here you have a "lordship" in the domain of Aristotelian thought. Abelard's own teacher was the philosophically acute Anselm whose instruction was a staple in Roman Catholic higher education...
</p>
<br>
— Prof. Daniel Robinson, from <i>The Reappearance of Experimental Science</i><br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
Note that the Anselm mentioned above is not <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01546a.htm"><u>St. Anslem</u></a> (ca.1033-21 April, 1109), the Benedictine monk and Doctor of the Church.
<br><br>
From Abelard, we move on to <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07037a.htm"><u>Robert Grosseteste</u></a>, who served as Bishop of Lincoln and was influential as a scholar in the fields of philosophy and theology. In a DCMission video (<a href="http://dcmissionvideo.blogspot.com/2012/06/dcmission-video-liberation-from.html"><u>available here</u></a>), we have presented a brief consideration of his accomplishments in the field of natural philosophy. Grosseteste leads us then to his student <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13111b.htm"><u>Roger Bacon</u></a>, a Franciscan whose <i>Opus Majus</i> covered a wide range of topics, including the Scriptures, moral philosophy, mathematics, optics, and others.<br>
<center>
<table cellspacing="30">
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik6wncoHxRRM66g_RHNiNimCSngc2rZcgQDib5ee5WPlul3A0_dpliV4XOdLMC_EFu_UVegixfY13cgx_qhPq9zcOWxDzP4cS2tszvQFzhIkDnxu4MvT4uWItFpGxUQKxJpNdV2IK7tXfO/s1600/robert-grosseteste.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik6wncoHxRRM66g_RHNiNimCSngc2rZcgQDib5ee5WPlul3A0_dpliV4XOdLMC_EFu_UVegixfY13cgx_qhPq9zcOWxDzP4cS2tszvQFzhIkDnxu4MvT4uWItFpGxUQKxJpNdV2IK7tXfO/s320/robert-grosseteste.jpg" /></a><br>
<center>
Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253)
</center>
</td>
<td valign="top">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1ols4QRycbUhEVaQr5PHG_rkgXRJt2EkJVdqYJoc4qCek5Ka0uZBVUSrH8ONyt31QCf_bNjp3Zke-GxE8PqZyq0inD4ZLsNpBdGMai5DRD6jksACfqvjAWsOX9VTyZ3hv493wZXwwxvCv/s1600/nb_sculpture_hope-pinker_statue_of_roger_bacon.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1ols4QRycbUhEVaQr5PHG_rkgXRJt2EkJVdqYJoc4qCek5Ka0uZBVUSrH8ONyt31QCf_bNjp3Zke-GxE8PqZyq0inD4ZLsNpBdGMai5DRD6jksACfqvjAWsOX9VTyZ3hv493wZXwwxvCv/s320/nb_sculpture_hope-pinker_statue_of_roger_bacon.jpg" /></a>
<br>
<center>
Roger Bacon (1214-1294):<br>Statue at the<br>Oxford University Museum
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
<br>
<center>
<a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob2.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js">
</script>
</center>
<!--
<center>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob2.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
</center>
-->
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
Let me return to the thirteenth century when, again, thanks very much to Islamic commentaries on Hellenic texts, the West begins to recover Aristotle the natural scientist and sees in these Aristotelian works the possibility for genuinely progressive knowledge. Two figures of immense importance are found at the already thriving University of Oxford: both members of the Catholic clergy and both among the most instructed minds of their century. In Robert Grosseteste, the bishop of Lincoln, we find a scholar as much at home with optics as with theology. His dates are 1175 to 1253. His commentaries on Aristotle were authoritative well into the sixteenth century. Significantly, in addition to commentaries on the ethical treatises, he also studied and wrote on Aristotle's <i>Physics</i>. And by the time of his death, he had created at Oxford an interest in science in which his young student, Roger Bacon, would come to call experimental science. Now, Roger Bacon's great work, his <i>Opus Majus</i>, is one of the foundational works in the modern scientific movement.
</p>
<br>
— Prof. Daniel Robinson, from <i>The Reappearance of Experimental Science</i><br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
Robinson's mention here of the Islamic philosophers' roles in the study of the ancient Greeks is worth highlighting, as such points in the history of philosophy indicate the importance of Islamic thinkers oppose popular trends among Christians that attempt to cast Islam as an intrinsically anti-intellectual religion. The works of such Islamic thinkers such as Avicenna and Averroes are discussed briefly by Fr. Frederick Copleston, S.J. in Volume 2 of his well-known series, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/History-Philosophy-Vol-Medieval-Augustine/dp/038546844X/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2"><u>A History of Philosophy</u></a>. Note that these Islamic figures by themselves offer evidence against the Conflict Thesis, in that thinkers such as a Avicenna and Averroes, while not Christian, are reported to have conducted studies into the natural sciences, while at the same time being religious men.
<br><br>
Robinson goes on to quote an excerpt from Roger Bacon's <i>Opus Majus</i> which highlights the fundamental importance of experience in the pursuit of Truth. We see here that the foundations for the experimental study of nature are being further developed. Note well that, although he lived 1600 years before, we see the influence of Aristotle at play here as Bacon is laying these foundations.
<br><br><br>
<center>
<a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob3.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js">
</script>
</center>
<!--
<center>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob3.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
</center>
-->
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
Aristotle had taught that "proof is reasoning that causes us to know," and Bacon understood that this required as a proviso that the proof is accompanied by its appropriate experience and is not to be understood as the bare proof of a syllogism. Thus he says, "He, therefore, who wishes to rejoice without doubt in regard to the truth's underlying phenomenon must know how to devote himself to experiment." What an incredible statement of purpose. What a pedagogically rich, instructive, guiding precept [from Roger Bacon's <i>Opus Majus</i>, ca. 1267]."
</p>
<br>
— Prof. Daniel Robinson, from <i>The Reappearance of Experimental Science</i><br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
Following Roger Bacon, we encounter Duns Scotus (ca.1266-1308). Scotus was born around the time that Bacon's <i>Opus Majus</i> was authored, and we see that he picks up where Bacon left off in the emphasis of the role of experience in the acquisition of knowledge. As a component of Scotus's contributions, Robinson mentions his recognition of the use of <u><b>inductive reasoning</b></u> in the process of cultivating order within experience-based knowledge.<br>
<br>
<center>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIJeY9GevaBqowVQzuWE_1X42WHH67V5B4kxGifCoGrB6-1J4Vs4ttsUgn92qMP5uaNV91D3Z9sgiTUFc-d2zDuzr6hT49tPKx6oKOtRE1qexDPf9V859d9Lo_1UFVo2Bzo7TKW4g-sBNo/s1600/duns-Scotus.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIJeY9GevaBqowVQzuWE_1X42WHH67V5B4kxGifCoGrB6-1J4Vs4ttsUgn92qMP5uaNV91D3Z9sgiTUFc-d2zDuzr6hT49tPKx6oKOtRE1qexDPf9V859d9Lo_1UFVo2Bzo7TKW4g-sBNo/s320/duns-Scotus.jpg" /></a><br>
Bl. John Duns Scotus (1266-1308)
</center>
<br>
It is worth noting that, within Catholic contexts, I suspect that one is more likely to hear the name of Bl. John Duns Scotus, O.F.M. (beatified by Bl. John Paul II in 1993) mentioned not as a precursor to modern experimental inquiry, but rather for this Franciscan's indispensable contributions to Catholic Mariology. On this point, the Catholic Encyclopedia at <a href="http://www.newadvent.org"><u>NewAdvent.org</u></a> states the following:<br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
The famous Duns Scotus (d. 1308) at last (in III Sent., dist. iii, in both commentaries) laid the foundations of the true doctrine so solidly and dispelled the objections in a manner so satisfactory, that from that time onward the doctrine prevailed. He showed that the sanctification after animation — <i>sanctificatio post animationem</i> — demanded that it should follow in the order of nature (<i>naturae</i>) not of time (<i>temporis</i>); he removed the great difficulty of St. Thomas showing that, so far from being excluded from redemption, the Blessed Virgin obtained of her Divine Son the greatest of redemptions through the mystery of her preservation from all sin.
</p>
<br>
— <i>Catholic Encyclopedia</i>, from the article "<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm"><u><font color="blue">Immaculate Conception</font></u></a>"<br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
Returning to Robinson and his thoughts on Scotus:
<br><br><br>
<center>
<a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob4.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js">
</script>
</center>
<!--
<center>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob4.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
</center>
-->
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
The great medieval Christian philosopher Duns Scotus put the case in yet another way. "As for what is known by experience, I have this to say. Even though a person does not experience every single individual, but only a great many - nor does he experience them at all times, but only frequently - still, he knows infallibly that it is always this way and holds for all instances." Now, you know what he's getting at here, don't you? This is a forerunner of what is now called the "frequentest probability approach (probabilistic knowledge)," establishing an <b><u>inductive inference</u></b> as a permissible mode of knowledge. Once you've sampled a number of cases and you see that things work out - remember Aristotle's <i>hôs epi to poly</i>: "by and large," "for the most part," "in general" - well, you don't have to wait for an infinite time to consult every single instance. By inference - by logical inference - by a plausible, rational mode of thought - you can lay claim to understanding how this will be under all circumstances, no matter how many times it's sampled.
</p>
<br>
— Prof. Daniel Robinson, from <i>The Reappearance of Experimental Science</i><br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
Robinson goes on to explicate how Scotus's emphasis on inductive reasoning played such an important role in the intellectual developments within the studies of nature in the following centuries. He goes so far as to say that we are seeing through Scotus an "actual philosophy of science" beginning to appear, along with a "justification for experimental science itself."
<br><br><br>
<center>
<a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob5.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js">
</script>
</center>
<!--
<center>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob5.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
</center>
-->
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
Put another way, in the words of Duns Scotus again, "Whatever occurs in a great many instances by a cause that is not free is the natural effect of that cause. This proposition is known to the intellect even if derived from erring senses." You see what's going on here. There is an actual philosophy of science being developed in these texts. Here's a justification for experimental science itself - a justification if I ever saw one. What the proposition is is this. You take a fairly large sample. You see what the general pattern of outcomes is. You have every right to conclude by inference that there is a general law controlling these things. You know that you can't observe every event for all time to come. Nonetheless, your knowledge is infallible when the pattern is so securely repeated a given number of times.
</p>
<br>
— Prof. Daniel Robinson, from <i>The Reappearance of Experimental Science</i><br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
To conclude his thoughts on these men, Robinson ends with a point that, to many today, could very well come as a bit shocking. This work by the Christian Scholastics -- which prefigured the experimental sciences -- at this time in history did not occur in spite of their faith, but <i>because</i> of it. The reasons for this takes us all the way back to beginning of Genesis itself. The creation gives insight into the creator. The depths of the mysteries within the natural world are seemingly impenetrable, but the intelligibility of these mysteries tell man something about himself and his own rationality. Through an increase in his knowledge about the natural world and the resulting increase in knowledge of his own nature, man - being made in God's image - discovers something about God Himself.<br><br>
<center>
<a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob6.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js">
</script>
</center>
<!--
<center>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob6.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
</center>
-->
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
Duns Scotus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon: they're defending a mode of thought in the Scholastic period that is characteristic of that period, though also original and groundbreaking. There's something quite commonsensical about it all, even amidst the analytical rigor and the formal arguments. This comes about, in a very considerable measure, as a result of Christian teaching itself: the requirement that we know God through His creation; an inquiry into our own nature, because by way of <i>imago dei</i>, to know oneself is to know something of God. So, again, this is not an age hostile to the senses, indifferent to experimental modes of inquiry.
</p>
<br>
— Prof. Daniel Robinson, from <i>The Reappearance of Experimental Science</i><br><br>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
Now, lest Christians become too proud of this heritage, it is important to note that the aforementioned Islamic thinker <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02150c.htm"><u>Averroes</u></a> in the 12th century is reported to have held an interest in the sciences, such as astronomy, for example. And of Avicenna before him, even in the first millennium, it has been said that "before he was sixteen he had mastered what was to be learned of physics, mathematics, logic, and metaphysics; at the age of sixteen he began the study and practice of medicine..." (from the <i>Catholic Encyclopedia</i> article "<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02157a.htm"><u>Avicenna</u></a>"). Having been men with interests also in theology, it would seem to make sense to speculate that they understood this connection between inquiry into the natural world and knowledge of the Creator. Here we have further evidence which works contrary to the anti-religious sentiments expressed by those subscribing to the Conflict Thesis.
<center>
<table cellspacing="30">
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjvh2l7lpB48t7dh0TJlvBy5vXFXDjtzvWLk9aXIRENGpDNIC8gpRc6naFvIIO3FDg9aHNaEDCasnJyqqMNx0fUUOeTAj6bGWPcw_WQbIXnpX7azB1xkI6Oqfbh4UTzC_brYVM4zYYcLR2/s1600/avicenna2.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjvh2l7lpB48t7dh0TJlvBy5vXFXDjtzvWLk9aXIRENGpDNIC8gpRc6naFvIIO3FDg9aHNaEDCasnJyqqMNx0fUUOeTAj6bGWPcw_WQbIXnpX7azB1xkI6Oqfbh4UTzC_brYVM4zYYcLR2/s320/avicenna2.jpg" /></a><br>
<center>
Avicenna (980-1037)
</center>
</td>
<td Valign="top">
<center>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9ovurgd5bxMimirh_kBRqcriyI3l6loaAIWgM0MjrHGyHesx-LyCG7zX2WIKN4qveaxtzhS4jdoscxCTi976bC-m7ARgnhYG2XzPyvJ5QNEM4t0BOCIwM-pLyuPkyPjjpkAH_kz4lqzpt/s1600/aver2.PNG" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9ovurgd5bxMimirh_kBRqcriyI3l6loaAIWgM0MjrHGyHesx-LyCG7zX2WIKN4qveaxtzhS4jdoscxCTi976bC-m7ARgnhYG2XzPyvJ5QNEM4t0BOCIwM-pLyuPkyPjjpkAH_kz4lqzpt/s320/aver2.PNG" /></a>
<br>
Averroes (1126-1198): Pictured reading over the shoulder of Pythagoras (ca.570 - ca.495 B.C.) in Raphael's <i>The School of Athens</i> (1511)
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
Born around the same time as Roger Bacon was a man who was to become one of the greatest minds in history, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), a Dominican and Doctor of the Church. His teacher, St. Albert the Great (ca.1206-1280) - also a Dominican Doctor of the Church - was a great thinker in his own right. His <i>Opera Omnia</i> (available online <a href="http://albertusmagnus.uwaterloo.ca/newFiles/index.html"><u>here</u></a>), which is a compilation of his written works, consists, in one translation, of thirty-eight volumes and covers a multitude of topics including theology, philosophy, the physical sciences, psychology, anthropology, and many others. In Prof. Robinson's lecture, <i>Scholasticism and the Theory of Natural Law</i>, he offers us an eloquent introduction to Thomas and Albert.
<br><br>
<center>
<a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob7.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js">
</script>
</center>
<!--
<center>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob7.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
</center>
-->
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
Thomas Aquinas, <i>Tommaso d'Aquino</i>, the famous and great Doctor of the Church. The great thirteenth-century Dominican figure whose Scholastic philosophy continues to dominate thought within the overall religious philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church. He was a prolific writer. He was not, however, the most promising of students. At least legend has it that he was a large and rather lumbering chap called by his classmates, "the Dumb Ox," and his celebrated teacher, Albertus Magnus, was persuaded that when that ox started making sounds, the entire world would quake. And in this, Albertus Magnus was correct - in this and in many other things.
</p>
<br>
— Prof. Daniel Robinson, from <i>Scholasticism and the Theory of Natural Law</i>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<center>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ5IlvAH4n0__KD8lIAK6YPDqcOYf0bj0odtUH1pGU1AytELSXgjFJk8hLCi1Uat8B5lS3aSzpJK6omXImcFu4STgpJ6aILB97evqDSG1LfanIUMV5sX9P7LibVXb1F7K7mm-d9AOWvg8I/s1600/St_Albert_the_Great_Painting_by_Joos_van_Gent-sm.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQ5IlvAH4n0__KD8lIAK6YPDqcOYf0bj0odtUH1pGU1AytELSXgjFJk8hLCi1Uat8B5lS3aSzpJK6omXImcFu4STgpJ6aILB97evqDSG1LfanIUMV5sX9P7LibVXb1F7K7mm-d9AOWvg8I/s320/St_Albert_the_Great_Painting_by_Joos_van_Gent-sm.jpg" /></a><br>
St. Albertus Magnus (1193/1206–1280)
</center>
<br>
It is worth noting that when one looks a bit deeper into Albert's works, he might come to see an influence from none other than Avicenna, the Islamic polymath mentioned earlier. The <i>Catholic Encyclopedia</i> tells us:
<br><br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
A favourite principle of Avicenna, which is quoted not only by Averroes but also by the Schoolmen [i.e. the Scholastics], and especially by St. Albert the Great, was <i>intellectus in formis agit universalitatem</i>, that is, the universality of our ideas is the result of the activity of the mind itself.
</p>
<br>
— <i>Catholic Encyclopedia</i>, from the article "<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02157a.htm"><u><font color="blue">Avicenna</font></a></u>"
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
This brings us, then, to St. Thomas Aquinas himself. Allow me to illustrate the supreme dignity of St. Thomas anecdotally. I was visiting a Dominican convent recently, and I noticed a painting of a Dominican standing at the foot of the Cross. I asked one of the sisters, "Is that St. Thomas?" She responded, "No, it is St. Dominic [i.e. the <i><b>founder</i></b> of the Dominican Order] -- but he would have no problem with you mistaking him for St. Thomas." Hence, one cannot overestimate the rank of St. Thomas within the Dominican tradition. What Robinson will illustrate to us now is that neither can one overestimate the rank of Aristotle within the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.
<br><br>
<center>
<a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob8.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js">
</script>
</center>
<!--
<center>
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/AristotleAndInduction/rob8.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
</center>
-->
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
Now, Thomas Aquinas's deep and enduring respect for Aristotle has him invariably referring to Aristotle not by name, but simply as "the philosopher": Aristotle as a philosophical guide and often, but not always, a philosophical authority. Recall that Thomas Aquinas is going to become Saint Thomas Aquinas. He's a Dominican priest. His mission in life is service to the Church. What he's attempting to get right is the spiritual dimension of human life; the obligations we have to God: conducting our lives in such way as to be worthy of the salvation secured through the death of Jesus Christ. So this is not someone seeking tenure in a philosophy department, and he certainly isn't going to settle, once and for all, for the philosophical musings - no matter how deep and penetrating they might be - of a pagan philosopher who died in the fourth century BC. To make the point briefly, then, I should say, we don't want to read Thomistic philosophy as a gloss on Aristotelianism. The stakes are different, and the stakes - at least for Thomas Aquinas - are much higher.
</p>
<br>
— Prof. Daniel Robinson, from <i>Scholasticism and the Theory of Natural Law</i>
<p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<center>
<table cellspacing="30">
<tr>
<td valign="top">
<center>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLTWa_Cse4pyJb5XH19edr19fkQCiCNZOhcfCNko_vHI_OwCdNuQUSqo_hVXra28UTGnw03QGxMdrNd3fCxisj3RZla12vj0xIqhP-yTgXCM7ZndSTjk9RbHAELIQYYm4BcSOsin6Su9qX/s1600/Gentile_da_Fabriano_052.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLTWa_Cse4pyJb5XH19edr19fkQCiCNZOhcfCNko_vHI_OwCdNuQUSqo_hVXra28UTGnw03QGxMdrNd3fCxisj3RZla12vj0xIqhP-yTgXCM7ZndSTjk9RbHAELIQYYm4BcSOsin6Su9qX/s320/Gentile_da_Fabriano_052.jpg" /></a><br>
St. Thomas Aquinas<br>(1225-1274)
</center>
</td>
<td Valign="top">
<center>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihYJXFS7Bn5P-_Z-sMHFUqigpTora7bmOITYLaBWDOT_JcUU0NhP_iR2slqkB89-_qq5zWdQxz5-pnNKPVvZZd37DNxg3kpV0b2fkU_IfKHqXJokY1znvwizQtkXdjjW2bRHPNhkl2mrGU/s1600/Aristotle.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihYJXFS7Bn5P-_Z-sMHFUqigpTora7bmOITYLaBWDOT_JcUU0NhP_iR2slqkB89-_qq5zWdQxz5-pnNKPVvZZd37DNxg3kpV0b2fkU_IfKHqXJokY1znvwizQtkXdjjW2bRHPNhkl2mrGU/s320/Aristotle.jpg" /></a>
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.):<br>As depicted in Raphael's <i>The School of Athens</i>
</center>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</center>
And this brings us to the end of our journey through the High Middle Ages. We've met several monumental minds from Christianity and Islam who were forerunners to the great founders of modern science. All along the way, we've seen the influence of a man who, although he lived about 1500 years earlier, played an undeniable role in the intellectual lives of each of these men. The spirit of each is, in a real sense, present with us today in a world enriched with scientific inquiry. But the question for us remains: how will Aristotle, the great "philosophical guide," affect each of our lives?
<br><br>
Pax Christi Vobiscum,<br>
Patrick<br>
Laetare Sunday<br>
Dominica IV in Quadragesima<br>
Feast of the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06153a.htm"><u>Forty Holy Martyrs of Sebaste</u></a><br>
On the Date of the Dedication of Our Lady, Help of Christians Parish in Huntsville, Alabama, by Most Rev. Robert Baker, Bishop of Birmingham<br>
<br><br>
<center>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip5tk7byOwM3ZOkJ7qnRffM1xADWrgS-F3yy60zJFwUNHTCD78Z9lknU0rKWo0VZkCYE26JkrU5h9zyBicQV9p1zn8GAsgd7MbBjIwxOUwcT5BLxrQnyiKX8Lc8y2_JwLWq9D6YwCsUxKJ/s1600/430891_10100735643995393_204180423_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEip5tk7byOwM3ZOkJ7qnRffM1xADWrgS-F3yy60zJFwUNHTCD78Z9lknU0rKWo0VZkCYE26JkrU5h9zyBicQV9p1zn8GAsgd7MbBjIwxOUwcT5BLxrQnyiKX8Lc8y2_JwLWq9D6YwCsUxKJ/s320/430891_10100735643995393_204180423_n.jpg" /></a><br>
My Meeting with Dominican Sisters at the<br>2012 March for Life, Washington, D.C.
</center>
<br>
<hr>
<br>
<center>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAXsEYKJzQmxqXXV1tBFELHVxyMJdJZK5vx4rsipmmzHHo3o2v51TTFW2NU9iqa-O2d_ueXPt1dosL-vD82sV_i7mqqnJ2VJ0WPOgR7FqOTD7DK85k9gDpyF3n3kt8qBRztjL6P3E82z5q/s1600/FortyMartyrsofSebaste.JPG" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAXsEYKJzQmxqXXV1tBFELHVxyMJdJZK5vx4rsipmmzHHo3o2v51TTFW2NU9iqa-O2d_ueXPt1dosL-vD82sV_i7mqqnJ2VJ0WPOgR7FqOTD7DK85k9gDpyF3n3kt8qBRztjL6P3E82z5q/s320/FortyMartyrsofSebaste.JPG" /></a>
<br>
Forty Holy Martyrs of Sebaste († 320).
</center>
<br>
<blockquote style="border: 2px solid #666; padding: 10px; background-color: #FFFFFF;">
<div>
<p>
According to St. Basil [ca.329-379], forty soldiers who had openly confessed themselves Christians were condemned by the prefect to be exposed naked upon a frozen pond near Sebaste on a bitterly cold night, that they might freeze to death.
</p>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<center>
Domina Nostra, Auxilium Christianorum<br>et Quadrāgintā Sānctī Martyrēs, orate pro nobis.
</center><br>Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-51366374595793484962012-11-14T19:12:00.000-08:002014-01-28T20:33:11.426-08:00A Secular Interpretation of Thomas's "Palea"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3zAPEFFVq_Q2wZVy2ya_NdpQh98lpZcH0VLl0TF2n5qiKFli-MsHD2m0qGQ_1pcea4xhtb8tx4qJDjE7GwffTjsy1EvVQY8JhmcaZ_m9xzQhkEYh1qSYHwvYrgfiw-ixiVh9zk9pfY71K/s1600/220px-AlbertusMagnus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="232" width="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3zAPEFFVq_Q2wZVy2ya_NdpQh98lpZcH0VLl0TF2n5qiKFli-MsHD2m0qGQ_1pcea4xhtb8tx4qJDjE7GwffTjsy1EvVQY8JhmcaZ_m9xzQhkEYh1qSYHwvYrgfiw-ixiVh9zk9pfY71K/s320/220px-AlbertusMagnus.jpg" /></a></div>
<br>
Nov. 15 will be the feast of St. Albert the Great: Bishop, Doctor of the Church, and patron of scientists. Of all the monumental achievements of Albertus Magnus, arguably one of the greatest was his mentorship of St. Thomas Aquinas, another Dominican Doctor who has been described as one of the greatest minds in the history of the Church.
<br><br>
It is perhaps worth the time of every individual interested in the pursuit of the examined life to reflect on one oft-told story of Thomas regarding an event near the end of his life. It is said that, following a profound interior experience, he stepped away from his authorship of the <i>Summa Theologica</i>. When asked to continue his work, he refused, replying to his comrade, "I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me" ("mihi videtur ut palea"). His life on Earth would expire without his ever completing the <i>Summa</i>.
<br><br>
In my experience, two interpretations of Thomas's statement seem most prominent. The first might be called the skeptic's interpretation. This interpretation suggests that through his experience, Thomas somehow came to the realization of the truth that the god on which all of his writings were founded was, in fact, non-existent. Hence, his statement that his writings were "straw" is taken by the skeptic to mean that all of his efforts had been completely in vain.
<br><br>
The next interpretation might be called the interpretation of the faithful Catholic. This interpretation states that in his experience, Thomas caught for just a brief instant the image of God with whom he was destined to dwell upon passing to eternal life. Just this brief glimpse of God was enough to reveal to him that his works - monumental as they were - were, in comparison to this glimpse, nothing more than "straw."
<br><br>
I surmise that many men of much greater erudition than I have supported one or the other of these interpretations, so I will not try to make a case here for either. However, recently, I came across a third interpretation by Prof. Daniel Robinson that is worth considering. I've listened to many lectures by Prof. Robinson, and in none of them does he affiliate himself with any religion. He has, in fact, directed harsh criticisms toward Catholicism in particular: perhaps the most stern criticism being that of Her dealings with the <i>Malleus Maleficarum</i> in the fifteenth century. Anyhow, in what might be called the secular interpretation, Robinson asks us to "step out of the context of religion itself and just consider the man Thomas Aquinas." This perspective affords Robinson the opportunity to provide a reflection that will likely be edifying for proponents of either of the previous interpretations.
<br><br>
<center>
<audio controls="controls"><source autoload="true" autoplay="true" hidden="true" src="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/ThomasAquinas.mp3" type="audio/mp3"></source></audio>
<!--
<a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/ThomasAquinas.mp3">Click Here to Play Audio Clip</a>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://webplayer.yahooapis.com/player-beta.js">
</script>
-->
</center>
<!--
<embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.google.com/reader/ui/3523697345-audio-player.swf" quality="best" flashvars="audioUrl=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27403430/ThomasAquinas.mp3" width="400" height="27"></embed>
-->
<br>
"Well, never before or since would there be so complete a faith in an age hosting such extraordinary intellects. It is quite remarkable, I mean, if you step back, and, in fact, step out of the context of religion itself and just consider the man Thomas Aquinas. This is a towering intellect: the author of still-to-be-translated hundreds of thousands of words of rich philosophy, logic, ethics, etc. An instructed mind, a mind fashioned by the best productions of the classical world, and a mind that, at the end of the day, turns itself away from scholarship, from writing - comes out of a chapel toward the end of his life, reflecting on everything he had put in print or put to paper, saying that, 'It was pointless - it was just like sand, do you see?' That is, one who thinks so deeply and so persistently on the meaning of life: a life - an examined life, and examined at such depth and with such sincerety and purpose and gratitude as to find words incapable of expressing truths that somehow and otherwise are known by the grace of God. This is a tradition put in place where the intellectual foundations of the faith are thick and firm and, I should say, even into the twenty-first century, durable. A great figure in a great age: Thomas Aquinas.
<br><br>
...not a bad lawyer, either." ~Daniel Robinson.
<br><br>
Sancte Alberte Magne (c.1206-1280) et Sancte Thoma de Aquino (c.1227-1274), orate pro nobis.
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhybMcLMNSe7hy77AQGXw0SDWFmxf_40981tJwtoOVlw3WpJKeEsZQ0lYIj0SVABDwg7smWaHrfhKt8Fi3nRrdnNre8pLk8wFw5lr4qjhPsCyRpJAZYMBF9XDsaN6f3Iu4w0cb024upSrDt/s1600/St+Thomas+Aquinas+3b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="320" width="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhybMcLMNSe7hy77AQGXw0SDWFmxf_40981tJwtoOVlw3WpJKeEsZQ0lYIj0SVABDwg7smWaHrfhKt8Fi3nRrdnNre8pLk8wFw5lr4qjhPsCyRpJAZYMBF9XDsaN6f3Iu4w0cb024upSrDt/s320/St+Thomas+Aquinas+3b.jpg" /></a></div>Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-35221497127744776872012-08-14T19:52:00.001-07:002012-08-14T20:21:45.877-07:00Vigil of the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Feast of St. Maximilian KolbeToday is the Vigil of the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
<br />
<br />
<center>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh06GVx7K_uXZoh6ct-AAokcmr7nqxt9ZLcURUYO6xil2I0M03hrfzOAcqVJdJXDE7g-PxHH3YtbMQcds1KESQcmZf67AApWj9l0_GBcbGgJYKP3s1a986fXjU-IPqfTlEXmAMDPAqAReW1/s1600/GuidoReniAssumptionMR1642WKM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh06GVx7K_uXZoh6ct-AAokcmr7nqxt9ZLcURUYO6xil2I0M03hrfzOAcqVJdJXDE7g-PxHH3YtbMQcds1KESQcmZf67AApWj9l0_GBcbGgJYKP3s1a986fXjU-IPqfTlEXmAMDPAqAReW1/s400/GuidoReniAssumptionMR1642WKM.jpg" width="274" /></a></div>
</center>
<br />
<br />
Beatíssima Virgo María, in coelum assumpta, ora pro nobis.
<br />
<br />
A friend mentioned to me that on the new calendar, it is also the feast of St. Maximilian Kolbe (1894-1941), a Franciscan friar who is the patron saint of the pro-life movement. Due to his Marian spirituality and fervent promotion of devotion to Mary, St. Maximilian holds the title of the <i>Apostle of Consecration to Mary</i>. He was martyred at Auschwitz.
<br />
<br />
<center>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://cf.mp-cdn.net/6d/1e/c78e91e854620ad613550ff31441.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="370" width="440" src="http://cf.mp-cdn.net/6d/1e/c78e91e854620ad613550ff31441.jpg" /></a></div>
<a href="http://cf.mp-cdn.net/6d/1e/c78e91e854620ad613550ff31441.jpg">(<u>Enlarge image</u>.)</a>
</center>
<br />
<br />
The Servant of God Fr. John Hardin, S.J. (for whom there is an <a href="http://www.hardonsj.org/"><u>open cause</u></a>) wrote an article on the Marian Spirituality of St. Maximilian that is available here: <u><a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/kolbe.htm">link</a></u>. Another interesting fact is that St. Maximilian was an Amateur Radio operator. His call sign was <a href="http://k6sa.net/k6m.php"><u>SP3RN</u></a>. (Mine is <a href="http://call-signs.findthedata.org/l/798819/Patrick-A-La-Fratta-AG4JQ"><u>AG4JQ</u></a>.)
<br><br>St. Maximilian Kolbe, ora pro nobis.
<br />
<br />
For the Vigil of the Solemnity of the Assumption, here is the Magnificat in C by Johann Pachelbel (1653-1706), composer of the famous Canon in D. The Gospel tomorrow will include the Magnificat (Lk 1:46-55).
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D1YefiDw1-s" width="560"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<center>
Et ait María:<br>
Magnificat: anima mea Dominum.<br />
Et exultavit spiritus meus: in Deo salutari meo.<br />
Quia respexit humilitatem ancillae suae:<br />
ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes.<br />
Quia fecit mihi magna, qui potens est:<br />
et sanctum nomen eius.<br />
Et misericordia eius, a progenie et progenies:<br />
timentibus eum.<br />
Fecit potentiam in brachio suo:<br />
dispersit superbos mente cordis sui.<br />
Deposuit potentes de sede:<br />
et exaltavit humiles.<br />
Esurientes implevit bonis:<br />
et divites dimisit inanes.<br />
Suscepit Israel puerum suum:<br />
recordatus misericordiae suae.<br />
Sicut locutus est ad patres nostros:<br />
Abraham, et semini eius in saecula.<br />
<br />
<hr width = 50%><br>
And Mary said:<br>
My soul doth magnify the Lord.<br>
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.<br>
Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid;<br>
for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.<br>
Because he that is mighty,<br>
hath done great things to me;<br>
and holy is his name.<br>
And his mercy is from generation unto generations,<br>
to them that fear him.<Br>
He hath shewed might in his arm:<br>
he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.<br>
He hath put down the mighty from their seat,<br>
and hath exalted the humble.<br>
He hath filled the hungry with good things;<br>
and the rich he hath sent empty away.<br>
He hath received Israel his servant,<br>
being mindful of his mercy:<br>
As he spoke to our fathers,<br>
to Abraham and to his seed for ever.<br><br>
</center>Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-61314664430019678562012-08-09T18:16:00.001-07:002012-08-09T19:04:21.403-07:00Catholics and Contraception: Blind Acceptance of Authority?I recently was speaking with a protestant who intimated an understanding of Catholics' opposition to contraception as being just another instance of our blind acceptance of an authoritarian rule established by the Catholic Church that has been added to the Bible arbitrarily. Here, I present four perspectives - in brief form, conveniently tailored for our ADHD culture - in response to this claim to illustrate that it is unsubstantiated and unequivocally false.
<br><br>
<u>A Brief Historical Note: For Centuries, Protestants Rejected Contraception</u>
<br>
The first important point is that although protestants depict the Catholic opposition to contraception as a teaching through which the Church exercises its supposedly totalitarian control over those subscribing to the Catholic Faith, the truth of the matter is that the founding members of the protestant movement - including Luther and Calvin - also openly opposed contraception. In fact, Christianity was unified in its opposition to contraception for centuries, until the early 20th century when the Anglican bishops convened at the Lambeth conference in 1930 to establish some exceptions to their opposition to the use of contraception. Hence, if the Catholic Church is in this case, as many protestants say, simply adding arbitrary rules to those established in the Bible, then so were the protestants for all those centuries.
<br><br>
To this conclusion, the pro-contraceptive protestant may respond, "Fine - the protestants were wrong all those years. It took this long for us to realize that contraception is indeed morally permissible." Ignoring the unabashed brazenness of this claim for the time being, I will respond by saying, "OK, but the evidence above still eradicates the grounds for holding the position that the Catholic teaching on contraception is just another instance of Catholic authority flexing its muscles of totalitarian control over its people through the establishment of principles that were (it is alleged) without good reason added to those principles found in the Bible, when in fact all of Christianity, including protestants, taught and abided by a principled opposition to contraception for centuries."
<br><br>
For more on the history of the Christian opposition to contraception, which dates back to the infancy of Christianity (about two millennia ago), see Fr. Mitch Pacwa's article on the subject: <u><a href="http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/abortion-contraception-and-the-church-fathers/">link</a></u>.
<br><br>
<u>A Response to the Claim that the Catholic Teaching on Contraception is an Authoritarian Rule Created by the Pope that is Blindly Accepted by Catholics</u>
<br>
One of the many works by Christian figures giving a reasoned opposition to the use of contraception is the great book <i>Love and Responsibility</i> by Karol Wojtyla (who later was to be elected Pope John Paul II). Upon mentioning that such works exist, the protestant whom I mentioned earlier made it clear that she understood that such works are simply instances of Catholics blindly accepting the authoritative teachings of Church leaders.
<br><br>
Such an understanding is, to be frank, a gross distortion of the truth of the situation. In fact, in Wojtyla's introduction to <i>Love and Responsibility</i>, he establishes clearly that the book was not written to be taken as doctrine - that is, as an authoritative teaching of the Church. It was, in fact, written 18 years before he was even elected pope. (Note that there are many other books by people who aren't even priests that establish through reason the immorality of contraception. I mention <i>Love and Responsibility</i> here only because it is the best one I have read.) If it helps the protestant reader, you may think of <i>Love and Responsibility</i> as similar to a sermon written by the pastor of your own church, in which he (or she) discusses his (or her) understanding of how one is to rightly live out the Gospel. You as a member of that church may accept or reject that understanding based on your own reasoning. I could say more on this, but I will leave it to the reader to study for himself the introduction to <i>Love and Responsibility</i>, which is available in its entirety in the preview of the book on Google Books (<u><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=TNRY9HkssDQC&printsec=frontcover">link</a></u>).
<br><br>
(The reader will note that the above analogy between the teachings on contraception contained in <i>Love and Responsibility</i> and a protestant pastor's sermon is somewhat inaccurate, in that the faithful Catholic cannot in good conscience refuse to accept the Church's teaching on contraception, since this teaching has <u><b>elsewhere</b></u> been stated authoritatively (for example, in Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical <i>Humanae Vitae</i>). However, this point is tangential to the current discussion, as my objective here is to establish that non-authoritative works, such as <i>Love and Responsibility</i>, do indeed exist and establish the immorality of contraception based on reason alone, without relying upon authority.)
<br><br>
<u>A Note from a Prominent Protestant Leader of Today on the Catholic Opposition to Contraception</u><br>
Although many protestants have since 1930 rejected the centuries-held Christian opposition to contraception, there are still prominent protestant leaders who are not vehemently opposed to the Catholic teaching on the matter and who actually see great value in it. This fact by itself is further evidence that this teaching is based on reason, and is not accepted solely because it is taught authoritatively. Consider the thoughts of the Protestant pastor Russell E. Saltzman on this topic: <u><a href="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/07/bachelorettes-and-humane-vitae">link</a></u>.
<br><br>
<u>A Note from the Perspective of a Young Lady</u><br>
A video was produced recently by a young lady (in her teenage years, I would guess) that offers her case for opposing contraception. Although less intellectually rigorous than the above references, it is more lighthearted and was received well by priests I know, so it may be helpful for some.
<br><br>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wU0umiHWQ5k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><br><hr width=50%><br>
On the General Calendar, August 9th is the feast day of St. Edith Stein (1891-1942), Carmelite nun, prominent Catholic intellectual, convert from Judaism, and martyr of Auschwitz. On the Traditional Calendar, it is the feast of St. John Marie Vianney (1786-1859), patron of parish priests. Orate pro nobis.<br><br>Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-85457027192924698382012-07-25T16:39:00.000-07:002012-07-25T16:39:48.904-07:00DCMission Video: Liberation from Ignorance: Science vs. Religion, Nicole Oresme<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MIG2gzRzzQs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>DCMissionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09362421074505003149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-59605959208478981722012-07-21T15:37:00.001-07:002012-07-21T19:11:48.981-07:00Fr. Wade Menezes, C.P.M. on Mt. 10:24-33 - Fear of the World and Its Complexities<center><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/e-Md8A0Skqw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><br></center>
"Even so, my child, your changed life may be attended with some inward discomfort, and you may feel some reaction of discouragement and weariness after you have taken a final farewell of the world and its follies. Should it be so, I pray you take it patiently..." ~St. Francis de Sales, <i>Introduction to the Devout Life</i>, <u><a href="http://www.catholicity.com/devoutlife/4-02.html">Part IV, Ch. 2</a></u>.
<br><br>
<hr width=50%>
<br>
Throughout the writings of the spiritual masters, we see an emphasis on the importance of a devout prayer life - so much so that one could easily get the impression that a life of prayer per se is a reliable means to attaining holiness. One might come to the conclusion that amidst the trials that he will inevitably encounter in the world that he will always be able to find peace and consolation in prayer. Indeed, the importance of prayer cannot be overstated. The Doctors of the Church have assured us of this. Ralph Martin has stated:
<br><br>
"Teresa of Avila tells us that the entrance into the mansions (or stages) of the spiritual journey begins with prayer." ~Ralph Martin, <i>The Fulfillment of All Desire: A Guidebook for the Journey to God Based on the Wisdom of the Saints</i>, p. 121.
<br><br>
He goes on to quote several other Doctors of the Church in support of this point:
<br><br>
<hr width = 50%>
<br>
"Prayer opens the understanding to the brightness of Divine Light, and the will to the warmth of Heavenly Love - nothing can so effectually purify the mind from its many ignorances, or the will from its perverse affections." ~St. Francis de Sales, <i>Introduction to the Devout Life</i>, <u><a href="http://www.catholicity.com/devoutlife/2-01.html">Part II, Ch. 1, No. 1</a></u>.
<br><br>
"How wonderful is the power of prayer! ... With me prayer is an uplifting of the heart; a glance towards heaven; a cry of gratitude and love, uttered equally in sorrow and in joy. In a word, it is something noble, supernatural, which expands my soul and unites it to God." ~St. Thérèse of Lisieux, <i>The Story of a Soul</i>, <u><a href="http://www.storyofasoul.com/?page_id=18">Ch. 9</a></u>.
<br><br>
"So, dearest brothers, I exhort you to participate always in the divine praises correctly and vigorously: vigorously, that you may stand before God with as much zest as reverence..." ~St. Bernard of Clairvaux, <i>On the Song of Songs</i>, <u><a href="http://www.pathsoflove.com/bernard/songofsongs/sermon47.html">vol. III, sermon 47, no.8 </a></u>.
<br><br>
<hr width= 50%>
<br>
<u><a href="http://www.frjacquesphilippe.com/bio/bio.html">Fr. Jacques Philippe</a></u>, a French priest and author of many books on the spiritual life, has emphasized that prayer is indispensable in the search for interior peace:
<br><br>
"Acquiring and maintaining interior peace, which is impossible without prayer, should consequently be considered a priority for everybody, above all for those who claim to want to do good for their neighbor." ~Fr. Jacques Philippe, <i>Searching for and Maintaining Peace: A Small Treatise on Peace of Heart</i>, p. 8.
<br><br>
While the importance of prayer cannot be overstated, it has also been made clear that it is wrong for us to always view prayer as a means to receiving consolation from God. Again, the Doctors of the Church have taught us:
<br><br>
<hr width = 50%>
<br>
"What a farce it is! Here are we, with a thousand obstacles, drawbacks, and imperfections within ourselves, our virtues so newly born that they have scarcely the strength to act (and God grant that they exist at all!) yet we are not ashamed to expect sweetness in prayer and to complain of feeling dryness." ~St. Teresa of Avila, <i>The Interior Castle</i>, <u><a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/teresa/castle2.vi.i.html">Second Mansion, Ch. 1, No. 14</a></u>.
<br><br>
"These persons have the same defect as regards the practice of prayer, for they think that all the business of prayer consists in experiencing sensible pleasure and devotion and they strive to obtain this by great effort, wearying and fatiguing their faculties and their heads; and when they have not found this pleasure they become greatly discouraged, thinking that they have accomplished nothing." ~St. John of the Cross, <i>Dark Night of the Soul</i>, <u><a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/john_cross/dark_night.vii.vi.html">Book I, Ch. 6, No. 6</a></u>.
<br><br>
"I would say, then, that devotion does not consist in conscious sweetness and tender consolations, which move one to sighs and tears, and bring about a kind of agreeable, acceptable sense of self-satisfaction. No, my child, this is not one and the same as devotion, for you will find many persons who do experience these consolations, yet who, nevertheless, are evilminded, and consequently are devoid of all true Love of God, still more of all true devotion." ~St. Francis de Sales, <i>Introduction to the Devout Life</i>, <u><a href="http://www.catholicity.com/devoutlife/4-13.html">Part IV, Ch. 13, No. 1</a></u>.
<br><br>
<hr width = 50%>
<br>
And Fr. Philippe, quoting another Doctor of the Church, St. Catherine of Siena, ensures that we are aware that the journey to interior peace through the life of prayer is indeed a struggle:
<br><br>
"Every Christian must be thoroughly convinced that his spiritual life can in no way be viewed as the quiet unfolding of an inconsequential life without any problems; rather it must be viewed as the scene of a constant and sometimes painful battle, which will not end until death - a struggle against evil, temptation and the sin that is in him. This combat is inevitable, but is to be understood as an extremely positive reality, because as St. Catherine of Siena says, 'without war there is no peace'; without combat there is no victory. And this combat is, correctly viewed, the place of our purification, of our spiritual growth, where we learn to know ourselves in our weakness and to know God in His infinite mercy. This combat is the definitive place of our transfiguration and glorification." ~Fr. Jacques Philippe, <i>Searching for and Maintaining Peace: A Small Treatise on Peace of Heart</i>, p. 9.
<br><br>
Fr. Wade Menezes, C.P.M. has explained that in the journey to God, there is a "Holy Separation" that must take place between us and all things that separate us from God, to which Jesus refers in Mt 10:34 when he speaks of bringing "not peace but the sword." Relying upon Isaiah, Fr. Menezes goes so far as to say that God will even <u>separate us from our own prayer</u>, insofar as it separates us from union with Him:
<br><br>
"...and, if necessary, His ministry of division might include - even for a short time - separating Himself from our prayers. Let us not forget that the book of Isaiah, chapter 1 verse 15, says, 'Though you pray the more, I will not listen.' Why? Because the people were living, knowingly, sinful lifestyles, and refused to turn away from them." ~Fr. Wade Menezes, CPM, <u><a href="http://youtu.be/5y19MH-UsaY">Homily for 16 July 2012</a></u>, @13:42.
<center>
<br><br>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5y19MH-UsaY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center>
<br><br>
The image of the sword as a weapon in the "spiritual combat" in which each of us fights daily is used elsewhere by St. Catherine of Siena. Ralph Martin states:
<br><br>
"Catherine of Siena talks about fighting the spiritual battle with a two-edged sword in our hands, with hatred of sin as one edge of the blade and love of virtue as the other." ~Ralph Martin, <i>The Fulfillment of All Desire</i>, p. 155.
<br><br>
In the midst of this tension between seeking peace through prayer and the temptation to presume that we will receive consolation in it, it is easy for one to become fearful of the adversities, temptations, and struggles that lie ahead. As St. Bernard of Clairvaux has warned us:
<br><br>
"Our common experience tells us that it is fear which disturbs us at the beginning of our conversion, fear of that dismaying picture we form for ourselves of the strict life and unwonted austerities we are about to embrace. This is called a nocturnal fear, either because in scripture adversity is usually represented by darkness, or because the reward for which we are prepared to suffer adversity is not yet revealed to us." ~St. Bernard of Clairvaux, <i>On the Song of Songs</i>, <u><a href="http://www.pathsoflove.com/bernard/songofsongs/sermon33.html">vol. II, sermon 33, no. 11</a></u>.
<br><br>
But from the Scriptures, the addresses of Bl. Pope John Paul II, and the lives of the martyrs, we have been taught repeatedly, "Do not be afraid." We will inevitably face adversity in our efforts to attain uniformity with the will of God, but as Fr. Menezes, in his homily on 14 July 2012, states:
<br><br>
"...we should not fear death, dying, pain, persecution, rejection, loneliness, poverty, old age. We should not fear having a large family, evangelizing, defending traditional marriage as God's masterful design for the continuance of the human race. We should not fear going to confession, being a priest, a religious, or a missionary. We should not be afraid of tithing and giving alms, of downsizing our lifestyles and the like. We should fear none of these things, my dear friends." ~Fr. Wade Menezes, CPM, <u><a href="http://youtu.be/e-Md8A0Skqw">Homily for 14 July 2012</a></u>, @8:14.
<br><br>
Amidst all of these challenges and tensions within the struggle for holiness, there is yet another threat that we face, and that is the danger of becoming overwhelmed by the complexities faced in both the intellectual endeavors of the spiritual life and also those in our secular affairs. However, with her life and her writings, St. Thérèse has shown to us that we may rest assured that union with God requires of us a child-like simplicity.
<br><br>
"As Thérèse grew in the simplicity of her relationship with God, she found it increasingly difficult to speak about what was going on inside her soul even to her wise and kind superiors. One day an elderly nun spoke to her about why this was the case.
<br><br>
`"[It is] because your soul is extremely <i>simple</i>, but when you will be perfect, you will be even <i>more simple</i>; the closer one approaches to God, the simpler one becomes." The good Mother was right.' " ~Ralph Martin, <i>The Fulfillment of All Desire</i>, p. 154, quoting St. Thérèse of Lisieux, <i>The Story of a Soul</i>, <u><a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/therese/autobio.xv.html">Ch. 7</a></u>.
<br><br>
From St. Thérèse, we have assurance that our struggles are not in vain, when our hope is placed in seeking uniformity with God's will:
<br><br>
"The saints tell us that usually, even in the very midst of exterior and interior trials, a deep-seated peace is felt. Perservering in the midst of these trials is a very important part of uniting our will to God's - and in His will is our peace.
<br><br>
Thérèse testifies to this reality in her own life especially as she approached its end.
<br><br>
`For seven years and a half that inner peace has remained my lot, and has not abandoned me in the midst of the greatest trials.'
<br><br>
Indeed, in His will is our peace." ~Ralph Martin, <i>The Fulfillment of All Desire</i>, p. 178, quoting St. Thérèse of Lisieux, <i>The Story of a Soul</i>, <u><a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/therese/autobio.xv.html">Ch. 7</a></u>.
<br><br>
21 July is the feast of <u><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_of_Brindisi">St. Lawrence of Brindisi, O.F.M Cap.</a></u> (1559-1619) (General Calendar) and <u><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Praxedes">St. Praxedes</a></u> († 165) (Traditional Calendar). Orate pro nobis.Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-89598406639674594802012-07-11T17:00:00.000-07:002012-07-11T17:00:13.661-07:00DCMission Video: Statues and the Catholic Church<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AE-6EPq6XhQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>DCMissionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09362421074505003149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-56088780270388567012012-07-03T21:31:00.000-07:002012-07-03T22:23:28.885-07:00Fr. Pacwa, S.J. on Verbum Domini #38: On the "Spirit" of Sacred Scripture<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SLiSbDLhTbk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><br>
One of the many features of the Catholic Church that I cherish is that the greatest biblical scholars are Catholic. It is a popular misconception that it is protestants who best know Scripture and that their extensive knowledge of it is something that Catholics should learn from them. But the evidence of the unrivaled excellence of Catholic biblical scholarship is readily available, now that we have in recent decades broken ground upon the Digital Continent and have access to the great writings and commentaries on Scripture by popes, bishops, and priests over the centuries. Although it may be true, in general, that the average protestant has more Bible passages <i>memorized</i> than the average Catholic (although even this fact may be debatable), rote memorization of the <i>letter</i> of Scripture is limited in usefulness if one has not begun to attain a <i>spiritual</i> comprehension of Scripture. But what exactly does the "Spiritual" comprehension of Scripture entail? Fr. Pacwa here has given us a discussion which addresses this very question.
<br><br>
I found this discussion to be particularly important today, as the idea of the "spirit" of the law - both in the context of Scripture and elsewhere - has been greatly misconstrued. We often hear of people referring to the "spirit" of the law as a means to relax the strictness embodied by a written rule when interpreted literally.
<br><br>
For example, let's consider a situation in which a police officer finds his friend's car parked illegally over the lines in a parking lot with no other cars in it. In such a situation, one might not be surprised if the officer were to pardon the offense on the grounds that, although the letter of the law has been broken, the "spirit of the law" allows him to excuse it. Although this may be permissible on the grounds of common courtesy, the truth of the matter is that such a pardon opposes both the letter <i>and</i> the spirit of the law, in their true senses.
<br><br>
To consider an ecclesial example, we hear frequently of certain questionable activities in the Liturgy being justified on the grounds that they are being done in the "spirit of Vatican II" (a talk by Bishop Athanasius Schneider in January on this topic can be found <u><a href="http://www.paixliturgique.org.uk/aff_lettre.asp?LET_N_ID=863">here</a></u>). For one who has an apprehension of what the "spirit of the law" really means, this is quite confusing when it is used to permit actions that are not supported by the Council's texts themselves. Even more perplexing are cases in which the actions permitted by the "spirit" of the Council go so far as to <i>contradict</i> what is written in the conciliar documents. A particularly noteworthy example of this is the common practice of the complete elimination of the use of the Latin language from the Mass, a practice which is allegedly justified by the following of the so-called "spirit of Vatican II," while being expressly forbidden within the documents themselves (see <u><i><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html">Sancrosanctum Concilium</a></i></u>, #36).
<br><br>
The truth regarding the "spirit" of the law - as presented by Pope Benedict in <i>Verbum Domini</i>, Fr. Pacwa here, and Eric Moore elsewhere - is that it builds upon and even transcends the letter - rather than working in opposition to it - and it is vital that we grasp this point.
<br><br>
Toward this end, in this episode of <i>Threshold of Hope</i>, Fr. Pacwa gives a discussion of paragraph 38: <i>The Need to Transcend the "Letter,"</i> from Pope Benedict's apostolic exhortation <i>Verbum Domini</i>. You can follow along with Fr. Pacwa by reading the document online <u><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html">here</a></u>.
<br><br>
Fr. Pacwa begins by emphasizing what is needed to gain a "Spiritual" comprehension of Sacred Scripture, which requires that one understands the text in four senses:
<ol>
<li>The Literal Sense: To understand the "meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture" (CCC 117) - "All other senses ... are based on the literal" (St. Thomas Aquinas).</li>
<li>The Allegorical Sense: To understand what we believe, the doctrines.</li>
<li>The Moral Sense: To understand right from wrong.</li>
<li>The Anagogical Sense: To understand life and the after-life, or what happens when we die.</li>
</ol>
As Fr. Pacwa mentions in the <a href="http://youtu.be/lQG9VPNWjpM"><u>previous episode of <i>Threshold of Hope</i></u></a>, these four senses are presented in greater detail in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #118.
<br><br>
Two important points Fr. Pacwa goes on to make are that:
<ol>
<li>The "interplay between the different senses of Scripture is <u>essential</u> in order to grasp the passage from letter to spirit" (4:38).</li>
<li>"...this is not an automatic passage, and it is not spontaneous - it takes some work." (4:55) </li>
</ol>
Fr. Pacwa then begins a discussion of what such an understanding of these senses entails. He emphasizes that we must look at the passages of Scripture in context: that is, "not only the context of the other words around it, but also to see various elements of the Bible in the context of the whole of Scripture and the whole development of the history of the people of Israel from Abraham forward..." (12:39). Hence, we see here the importance of not only the Scripture itself, but also of Sacred Tradition, which is rejected by many heretical teachings today. In this paragraph of <i>Verbum Domini</i>, Pope Benedict explicitly highlights the importance of Scripture through a reference to Pope Paul VI's 1965 dogmatic consitution <u><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html"><i>Dei Verbum</i></a></u>, and through making this reference, implicitly highlights the importance of Sacred Tradition. In opposition to this fact regarding the emphasis that the Church has placed on the study of Scripture, some protestants have propagated the falsehood that a distinguishing feature of Catholic Church history is that the Magisterium has discouraged or even forbade people from reading Sacred Scripture. To counter this, Fr. Pacwa mentions Pope Leo XIII's (R. 1878-1903) order to print in every Catholic Bible that Catholics would receive indulgences for reading Scripture (19:55). Although there may have been Catholic individuals who were discouraging laypeople from reading the Bible, this has not been the official teaching of the Church.
<br><br>
So we see here that the interplay of these two contexts illustrates the timelessness - manifesting itself through temporal universality - of the Truth embodied within Christianity. The Tradition of the Faith was an inextricable component of the Councils of the early Church at which the Bible was compiled, as it continues to be an inextricable component today, and will continue to be in the future life of the Church. However, this vitality of Scripture within the Church does not sustain itself automatically, but rather requires a volitional participation of learning and living the Scriptures from each of its members. Fr. Pacwa, quoting <i>Verbum Domini</i>, states, "There is an inner drama in this process, since the passage that takes place in the power of the Spirit inevitably engages each person’s freedom" (13:23). This deep level of understanding of Scripture will necessarily involve an act of one's will and will affect his daily decisions as he lives, "demanding full engagement in the life of the Church" (9:48, quoting <i>Verbum Domini</i>).
<br><br>
July 3 is the feast of St. Thomas the Apostle († 72) (General Calendar) and Pope St. Leo II (R. 682-683) (Traditional Calendar). Orate pro nobis.Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-43198113903488951022012-06-24T23:56:00.001-07:002012-06-28T06:40:11.435-07:00The Problems with Ecclesio-Nihilism<center>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6fb-BgUi8JnAiMd-08cen0nxegsNKlfLIQTp-MrGZxLS-84ZmpR6mYrLGbc6iFmfJ9_Oi-YsmZXgJn31Dfd-qTC1osbXxhct6snv8sC6bAPimjy3WJi49evBnrIhz9P2LFZ3d0Z574sfV/s1600/20th_09_domine_non_sum_dignus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="550" width="367" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6fb-BgUi8JnAiMd-08cen0nxegsNKlfLIQTp-MrGZxLS-84ZmpR6mYrLGbc6iFmfJ9_Oi-YsmZXgJn31Dfd-qTC1osbXxhct6snv8sC6bAPimjy3WJi49evBnrIhz9P2LFZ3d0Z574sfV/s400/20th_09_domine_non_sum_dignus.jpg" /></a>
</center>
<br><br>
"He must increase, I must decrease." ~St. John the Baptist.
<br><br>
One may come to the arguably reasonable conclusion that our existence in this world is really nothing. This is not to say that each of us is merely a grain of sand in the seemingly infinite cosmos - but that we really are <i>nothing</i>. However, in disagreement with this, one could with good reason present his successful career, his stellar academic record, or the endearing words of his significant other as clear evidence of the meaningfulness of his life. But when gazing in adoration at our Lord during the elevation, contemplating the prayers of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and many others over the centuries in their preparation for receiving Him, whom could we convince that we really are something? It would seem to me easy to convince ourselves that we are, in truth, nothing.
<br><br>
One might then convince himself that his being misled into believing that he was something is primarily the fault of the secular culture. It is the fault, he might say, of those in the mainstream of society who, in rejection of the transcendent, portray happiness as something attained through egocentrism and rebellion against any system of morality imposed upon them, who are guilty of fooling us into thinking that we could find meaning in our lives completely on our own.
<br><br>
There are two problems I see with the nihilistic view and this claim regarding its roots. The first is that it is clear that our society - which would include those groups who adhere to no particular religion - is not completely devoid of the sense that we really are in need of something outside of ourselves - namely, something other than nutritional sustenance. A faculty member at Wellesley High, a public school in Massachusetts, recently gave an address that expressed clearly the importance of our acknowledging our minuteness in the grand scheme (<u><a href="http://www.theswellesleyreport.com/2012/06/wellesley-high-grads-told-youre-not-special/">link</a></u>). We can also see an acknowledgement of this truth clearly in the lives of countless other individuals: in the soldier who gives his life for his nation, in the parent who lives out his entire life in the service of his family, and in the mother who carries and sustains her child for nine months in her womb.
<br><br>
So, it would be a caricature to say that the secular society is completely out of touch. To address society in such a way would be a distortion of the truth of the situation. To gain perspective, we could consider that there may be a number of statue-worshipping, pagan individuals who claim to be Christian, but it is obvious that it would be unfair for anyone to speak as if all Christians were this way. In reality, there are competing, mutually exclusive worldviews that are subsisting within society. No one group of people embodies perfectly one or another of these worldviews. Here, we are perhaps getting at what people speak of when they talk of spiritual warfare. It is a battle taking place within and outside each one of us, and the only reasonable response to such a dire situation is a life of prayer, seeking mercy, and repentance from sin.
<br><br>
The next problem with the nihilistic view is that, strictly speaking, we aren't really <i>nothing</i>. After all, we exist, don't we? To speak more precisely, we should instead say, then, that we are just <i>virtually</i> nothing. However, to ensure an accurate perspective on this, let us imagine a picture of all people who have ever lived, are now living, and ever will live, appearing on a standard 1680x1050 monitor. If one were to look for himself in such an image, he could realize in short time that he is much smaller than even a single pixel. Hence, we are virtually nothing. So close to nothing we are, in fact, that one might even be justified in making the claim that we <i>are</i> nothing. The more that one grasps this and attempts to deal with it on his own, the more he might be drawn to self-destructive habits. Do we have the courage to place instead our trust in our Lord, and turn to him during the great "Hoc est enim corpus meum"? How does one find the courage to approach Him in whom we find all that sustains us? We find part of the answer by looking around at our fellow congregants in the Mass and thanking God for them: the parents, the children, the religious, etc. Their very presence might speak to us, "We know. We are virtually nothing. It is only by receiving Him into our lives that we have hope." We look to the priest: at his life and in his prayers. It may seem impossible to approach our Lord, but we don't have to ask the priest the question, "How?" He tells us in the thrice-spoken "Domine non sum dignus." We listen also to the voices of the Saints, echoing throughout the centuries:
<br><br>
"He must increase, I must decrease."
<br><br>
June 24 is the Solemnity of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, prophet and martyr.Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-9692241691037631062012-06-20T17:52:00.000-07:002012-06-20T17:52:41.392-07:00DCMission Video: Liberation from Ignorance: Science vs. Religion, Robert Grosseteste<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8bwsCN2Ard0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>DCMissionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09362421074505003149noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-385850517756785516.post-88753329521588541382012-05-12T22:37:00.002-07:002012-05-12T22:57:13.257-07:00Fr. Pacwa, S.J. on John 15:9-11 - Love is not in the Passions<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hFzZPmULUz0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><br>
"What does it mean to 'remain in Jesus'?"
<br><br>
He begins in the first 11 minutes (6:15-17:00) by responding to the question from a Scriptural perspective. The Readings will explain in the coming days how we are to "remain in Jesus," in large part by developing the theme of what it means that He is the vine and we are the branches (<u><a href="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/John_15">Jn 15:1-8</a></u>, the reading from last Wed.). He references the passages that tell us that Jesus loves us as the Father loves Him (<u><a href="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/John_15">John 15:9</a></u>), and that to understand this, we must see it in light of the passages that tell us that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son (<u><a href="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/John_3">John 3:16</a></u>), and also that everything that the Father has He gives to the Son (<u><a href="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/John_16">John 16:15</a></u>). Furthermore, He loves the world in spite of the fact that the world is characterized by an opposition to His Son. As the Father gives completely to the Son, the Son gives Himself completely to us, and it is this love which draws us to Himself (<u><a href="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/John_12">John 12:32</a></u>). This complete gift of self is "what it means to 'remain in Jesus'." This kind of love, indicated by the word "agapan," is expressed exteriorly: it does not subsist only in the interior life or only in the emotions. The primary expression of this love is the keeping of His commandments, which Jesus emphasizes three times in Chapter 14 to stress its importance.
<br><br>
In the remaining 9 minutes, he gives a practical discussion of these verses, presenting the forces that work against us in today's society when trying to live according to these teachings. What follows, in part, is an elaborate refutation of the common misconception that love is an emotion. In our society, love is commonly portayed as a "passion that somebody undergoes and cannot help feeling." The culture establishes and builds upon this principle that if one has a passion, he must act upon it. In fact, by this principle, one is being "inauthentic" by not acting upon his passions. Fr. Pacwa presents the situation in which one's passions change from being directed from one person to another, in which case it is considered by our culture right for one to act on those new passions, even when these acts of passion are contrary to the commandments of God. Continuing on to a deeper level to unveil the causes of these errors, he states that this principle upon which the media builds is a manifestation of how those in the media are living their own lives, and that a large amount of effort is put forth into promoting to the rest of the culture the worldview based upon this principle. They see this as a very progressive and "post-Christian" worldview that is leaving behind the Christian worldview, which is built upon the "old-fashioned" principle that the foundation of love is the following of God's commandments. However, it is evident that they are so ignorant of history, that they don't understand that in actuality their worldview is not cutting-edge at all, but is even pre-Christian. Because of this ignorance, they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes that follow from this distorted definition of love - as has been done so many times over the centuries by other societies, including the Romans and many others. These cultures inevitably collapse, as Christians have foreseen by the teachings of St. Paul in <u><a href="http://www.veritasbible.com/drb/read/Ephesians_2">Eph 2:2-3</a></u>. And what remains is the Christian Church - those who remain in the love of Jesus, the Word of God who will never perish - by following His commandments.
<br><br>
"Right now, we have people throughout the West who see themselves as post-Christian. They see that they're leaving this behind and coming to a brand new culture. They're not. They are so ignorant of history that they are actually reverting to the type of culture that once existed in pre-Christian times. They are being the conservatives in trying to change Christian morals, Christian family, the definition of what it means to be a family. They are trying to change that and think this is modern. They will fall away." (@ 24:30)Patrick L.http://www.blogger.com/profile/18364574304865606488noreply@blogger.com0