tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-39613953682274827172023-12-31T20:35:34.062-05:00Commentarius de Ecclesia et CivitateEt accesserunt ad eum Pharisaei et Sadducaei tentantes et rogaverunt eum, ut signum de caelo ostenderet eis. At ille respondens ait eis: “ Facto vespere dicitis: “Serenum erit, rubicundum est enim caelum”; et mane: “Hodie tempestas, rutilat enim triste caelum”. Faciem quidem caeli diiudicare nostis, signa autem temporum non potestis. Generatio mala et adultera signum quaerit, et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Ionae ”. Et, relictis illis, abiit.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger206125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-58348593593664985822023-08-09T17:32:00.002-04:002023-08-09T17:32:58.473-04:00Feminismus Toxicus<p> A few years ago I attended a one hour lecture on Toxic Femininity by Dr. Carrie Gress at a Catholic Parish. The Doctor’s web site is located here:</p><a href="http://www.carriegress.com/">http://www.carriegress.com/</a><br /><br />She has written a book called "The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity" that gives more detail on the material that she covered in her one hour lecture.<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-Hbvu8s5yGZIWbyw5q9oV5PNEZw1qOwmrCgBifSxdm3RfXoPTn6-PYwDYfv0ygf_zcvZqB6uwRX33CUy9aVPzpHOD5xm0WgjaVr0quQ9hFrgPyNrox4DJ2ZIeLKMsQ-ZUVEByNKFuywsIwrWxB1o6-smyw31x2Xs6LmnyZnoe1ehcvUzHSA8OkpVWmEM/s499/Anti-Mary.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="322" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-Hbvu8s5yGZIWbyw5q9oV5PNEZw1qOwmrCgBifSxdm3RfXoPTn6-PYwDYfv0ygf_zcvZqB6uwRX33CUy9aVPzpHOD5xm0WgjaVr0quQ9hFrgPyNrox4DJ2ZIeLKMsQ-ZUVEByNKFuywsIwrWxB1o6-smyw31x2Xs6LmnyZnoe1ehcvUzHSA8OkpVWmEM/s320/Anti-Mary.jpg" width="206" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>This lady “has a doctorate in philosophy from the Catholic University of America. She is the editor at the online magazine Theology of Home.” Additionally she has written a number of books and “is a regular blogger at The National Catholic Register.” What follows are my notes and memory recollections from her talk, with a few editorial comments and explanations. But first before I begin, for my Protestant readers, consider this: if Christ was born of Mary, then by whom will anti-Christ be born? If St. Paul and St. John wrote about the spirit of anti-Christ in the New Testament, then what about the spirit of anti-Mary that gives rise to the spirit of anti-Christ? There will be a number of things in Dr. Gress’ talk that Protestants – particularly Evangelicals and Pentecostals – may find objectionable. But when veneration (NOT worship – we worship ONLY God) of the Most Holy Mother of God was rejected by many Protestant sects, then the spirit of anti-Mary that gives rise to the spirit of anti-Christ crept in. The Christian tradition of the Blessed Virgin Mary for the first time in human history recognized woman’s equality in dignity with men (which is exactly what NuScale's embrace of toxic femininity ends up denigrating). Dr. Gress confirmed that during the Q&A session at the end of her talk. But I digress; my notes follow:<br /><br />In the culture of anti-Mary, the values of the elite women of modern culture (i.e., the women in charge of this feminist initiative at NuScale) are opposite of the virtues of the Blessed Virgin Mary. With the spirit of anti-Christ there is a corresponding spirit of anti-Mary. The spirit has taken hold of women since the 1960s. It is a restoration of the myth of Lilith in feminist, lesbian literature. Lilith is mentioned in the ancient Sumerian epic Gilgamesh, as well as Isaiah 34:14, “And wild beasts shall meet with hyenas, the satyr shall cry to his fellow; yea, there shall Lilith (the night hag) alight, and find for herself a resting place.” [I checked Strong’s Concordance to confirm what Dr. Gess said about Isaiah. Sure enough, the Hebrew word used is לִילִית which is transliterated as liyliyth or Lilith.] The word lullaby derives from the Arabic "Lilith-Abi" which means “Lilith be gone.” Writer James Joyce calls Lilith the patroness of abortion. She is known as the night terror seducing men and killing babies. She is used in today’s feminist movement as an icon standing up to Adam, opposing patriarchy. According to Catholic exorcists, she is one of the top five demons hardest to exorcise.<br /><br />There is a similar spirit of Jezebel who flaunts authority. These spirits create a cultural dynamic that will breakdown the fabric of society.<br /><br />In the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament Moses tells us the things we should NOT do. In the New Covenant the Blessed Virgin Mary tells us the things we should do. Our Lady gives to womanhood a dignity equal to that of manhood – equality in dignity, NOT equality in function [my addition]. (This is just the opposite of what NuScale's feminists maintain.)<br /><br />In the 1960s women did not know these stories of Lilith, but today they have become powerful as the Judeo-Christian values in our culture have become weak. Indeed, Wicca (pagan witchcraft) is more popular with more adherents than the Presbyterian Church USA.<br /><br />Kate Millett “was an American feminist writer, educator, artist, and activist” and “has been described as "a seminal influence on second-wave feminism", and is best known for her book Sexual Politics.” She was heavily influenced by Marxism. She organized 12 women who met in NYC to promote Maoism and “consciousness rising.” These women created a Litany by which to make revolution:<br /><br />“Why are we here today?” the chairwoman asked. “To make revolution,” they answered.<br />“What kind of revolution?” she replied. “The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.<br />“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.<br />“By destroying the American family!” they answered.<br />“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.<br />“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.<br />“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she probed.<br />“By taking away his power!” “How do we do that?”<br />“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted. “How can we destroy monogamy?”<br />“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution, abortion and homosexuality!” they resounded.<br /><br />These 12 women became the anti-apostles. By evil imitation Satan likes to mock Jesus. Just as the Church has its heroic women saints like St. Monica, St. Helen, St. Catherine of Sienna, etc., so too does Satan have his anti-saints. These are the opposite of everything that is holy. Phyllis Chesler exemplified this in her book “A Politically Incorrect Feminist” with the subtitle, “Creating a Movement with Bitches, Lunatics, Dykes, Prodigies, Warriors, and WONDER WOMEN.” All these women had big issues with their mothers or fathers or both.<br /><br />Helen Gurley Brown is another such woman, the editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine for 32 years. Her goal was to make women cosmopolitan and to make Cosmopolitan magazine like Playboy magazine. She actively promoted abortion on demand. To be popular in her magazine, a woman must be neither virgin nor mother, which is just the opposite of Mary Who is both Virgin AND Mother.<br /><br />There are four chief lies behind the movement of feminism:<br /><br />1. Men are the enemy because men cause wars. But a Wonder Woman (like Lynda Carter on the old TV show of the 1970s) can save the world. The cognitive dissonance is this: Women want to be just like men while telling men to be just like them. The goal is a genderless people.<br /><br />2. Women can have it all. But the truth is that no woman can have everything all at the same time.<br /><br />3. Children are the enemy. A child must take second place to career and personal happiness. Because of that ideology, while abortion existed previously in history due to civil war, invasion, etc., abortion was never on such a massive scale as today. Death from abortion exceeds 3000 per diem, greater than mortality from cancer, heart disease and war.<br /><br />4. Women must be powerful, not fruitful.<br /><br />One the warnings from our Lady of Fatima in Portugal the early 20th century was that if Russia was not converted, then its lies would be spread through the whole world. Indeed, while the Soviet Union fell and Russia has returned to her Orthodox Christian roots, the lies of communism (in the form of feminism) have been spread through the whole world. Under communism women must work in industry, and if that meant abortion, then so be it; everything was dedicated to the “Almighty State.”<br /><br />A new Matriarchy (those 12 women who met in NYC in the 1960s) were to replace Patriarchy in modern culture. Thus, today there are few if any celibate pro-life conservative Christian women. These new women are NOT nurturing of children and NOT loving of husbands. When such an ideology was forced on the Russian people in the old Soviet Union, while they were powerless to stop it, they knew it was wrong (hence Russia’s rapid return to Eastern Orthodox Christianity). But today’s people in Western Europe and North America know no better (hence the domination of evil women in industry's like NuScale's).<br /><br />A Polish man by the name of Ryszard Legutko wrote a book entitled, “The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies.” An excerpt from the Amazon summary of this book is essential: “Ryszard Legutko lived and suffered under communism for decades—and he fought with the Polish ant-communist movement to abolish it. Having lived for two decades under a liberal democracy, however, he has discovered that these two political systems have a lot more in common than one might think. They both stem from the same historical roots in early modernity, and accept similar presuppositions about history, society, religion, politics, culture, and human nature. In "The Demon in Democracy," Legutko explores the shared objectives between these two political systems, and explains how liberal democracy has over time lurched towards the same goals as communism, albeit without Soviet style brutality. Both systems, says Legutko, reduce human nature to that of the common man, who is led to believe himself liberated from the obligations of the past. Both the communist man and the liberal democratic man refuse to admit that there exists anything of value outside the political systems to which they pledged their loyalty. And both systems refuse to undertake any critical examination of their ideological prejudices.”<br /><br />Side Note: The Founding Fathers of these United States created a Constitutional Republic where the individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are sacrosanct, NOT a liberal Democracy where a simple majority may determine the fate of a nation. The Constitution limits both the power of Government and the power of a dictatorial majority. Without the Christian religion, a Republic will become a Democracy which will always devolve into Dictatorship. Indeed, John Adams wrote the following words in 1798, “The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”<br /><br />What liberalism like its parent communism does is three-fold:<br /><br />1. Liberalism stifles cultural diversity into a monogamy of one point of view only.<br /><br />2. Liberalism destroys the language with an Orwellian Newspeak, suing alliterations such as Planned Parenthood and War on Women.<br /><br />3. Liberalism has an uncompromising hostility towards dissidents.<br /><br />Example: Serena Williams recently blamed her poor performance at a tennis match on “the Patriarchy.”<br /><br />Studies show that today feminism has NOT made women happier. Depression, drug abuse, sexually transmitter diseases, suicide, and divorce are all on the rise. There is no faith, no sense of purpose. But in contrast, devout Catholic Christian women are happier.<br /><br />Studies also show that correspondingly men are not happier either. Furthermore, women have turned themselves into victims. Why did this happen? It started in the 1960s when motherhood and virginity were both targeted. This is in stark contrast to Mary Who is both Virgin and Mother. What is important in womanhood? Virginity and Motherhood.<br /><br />Mothers are the soil in which seeds are planted. They are nurturing, cultivating vessels. Consider the words in Romance languages that are feminine which reflect this:<br /><br />Latin – English<br />Terra – 1st declension feminine, Earth<br />Humus – 4th declension feminine, Soil<br />Aqua – 1st declension feminine, Water<br />Navis – 3rd declension feminine, Ship<br /><br />Women have these capacities of nurture and cultivation on both physical and spiritual levels. Example: Mother Theresa was both a virgin nun and a nurturing spiritual mother. Because of her cultivation, her religious order flourishes after her death. This is what a good mother does.<br /><br />A woman’s deepest fear is that she will not be provided for. Satan preys on that fear. He thus comes after the dirt, the soil, the woman, hence our culture of contraception and abortion which prevents anything from taking root. This is the cause of women’s unhappiness today.<br /><br />St. Edith Stein (whose Feast Day we have just passed) was a German Jewish philosopher who converted from Judaism to Catholicism and became a Discalced Carmelite nun. She was murdered at the Auschwitz concentration camp with other Jews on August 9, 1942. She once said, “The woman’s soul is fashioned as a shelter in which other souls may unfold.”<br /><br />The Blessed Virgin Mary is really our model. Her focus was on being fruitful. At the Wedding Feast of Cana (John 2:1-12) she said to the servants, “Do whatever He tells you.” That is Mary’s constant admonition.<br /><br />It was during the end of Dr. Gress’ talk that I wonder whether or not the degeneracy of today’s culture (exemplified everywhere now in industries like NuScale's) stemmed in large measure from the rejection of the Blessed Virgin Mary within Protestantism. Dr. Gress confirmed that when someone asked a similar question. When Protestantism rejection veneration (NOT worship) of the Holy Mother of God, an archetype of a heroine equal in all dignity to men was removed from women. With the rejection of Mary came the rejection of women’s religious orders and any God-given role women had in the Church.<br /><br />Side Note: Now the pendulum swings the opposite way as some sects – so-called “Catholic” and more and more Protestant ones – embrace the heresy of woman priestesses and women pastors or ministers, placing them in roles for which God never intended them.<br /><br />When women model the Blessed Virgin Mary, then they become happy. Women understand suffering, but in emulating Mary they have joy and peace.<br /><div><br /></div><div>Ferminism does NOT empower women. Rather, it will promote women into roles and positions for which they are NOT prepared, thus causing their failure and it is that - setting women up to fail - to which I object most strenuously. No one has more power, more authority, more influence than a mother. Feminism removes all that and denigrates women as mere cogs in an industrial machine. One day, however, at the Final Judgment, Jesus Christ the Great Judge will cast anti-Christ, the False Prophet, the Devil and all their works - feminism, socialism, Islam, modernism, humanism, secularism, etc. - into the Lake of Fire to burn forever and ever. Let us repent before that day comes.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-28461572952879940022019-05-03T09:30:00.001-04:002019-05-03T09:30:24.204-04:00Censura<p dir="ltr">Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br>
 <br>
Sadly some censorship is necessary, for example, the anti-Semitism of Islamist Louis Farrakhan, or the genocidal racism of Nazism and Fascists. However, Infowars host Alex Jones, conservative activist Milo Yiannopoulos (who is homosexual) and conservative political activist Laura Loomer do not fall into that category. Yet Facebook is indiscriminately banning such people.<br>
 <br>
<a href="https://www.chron.com/news/article/Facebook-bans-far-right-leaders-including-13814271.php">https://www.chron.com/news/article/Facebook-bans-far-right-leaders-including-13814271.php</a> <br>
 <br>
Now I pay no attention to either Alex Jones or Laura Loomer because I personally think they are both a bit too looney tunes for my tastes. And once in a while I do read what Milo Yiannopoulos writes, but his personal behavior is objectionable. And as for people like Louis Farrakhan, Ilhan Omar and other anti-Semites, I say again there is no room in a free Republic for such people and their hateful ideas. But my sentiments along these lines have gotten me banned before and perhaps will again. So be it. I will continue to support human freedom (that by definition radical Islamists, communists, socialists, Fascists and Nazis oppose) and the dignity of human life from birth to natural death<br>
</p>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-35654327487528056672019-03-10T20:01:00.001-04:002019-03-10T20:01:12.589-04:00Iesus non Socialista<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyHuj8lv1_roL2ZZx0OCgqvXgsOVw5lvL0Khc9JpgLSdOy7Y3nvCn0q5AyjkFroi7UHi7qQhmTOhrUOsPJ9WtzXpgWUKDWig8yQObeC-aW11rE5mlFOTNpsLuT-V3jtSv_iKRvsFd39hc/s1600/Temptation-of-Jesus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="679" data-original-width="709" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyHuj8lv1_roL2ZZx0OCgqvXgsOVw5lvL0Khc9JpgLSdOy7Y3nvCn0q5AyjkFroi7UHi7qQhmTOhrUOsPJ9WtzXpgWUKDWig8yQObeC-aW11rE5mlFOTNpsLuT-V3jtSv_iKRvsFd39hc/s320/Temptation-of-Jesus.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Temptation of Jesus</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
JESUS NOT A SOCIALIST<br />
<br />
Amici, Amerciani, Compatriotae,<br />
<br />
Today at Mass for the First Sunday of Lent the priest at my parish spoke about the Temptation of the Jesus as recorded in <a href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/bible/luke/4:1">Luke 4:1-13</a>. He brought forth three salient points:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
STONES INTO BREAD</div>
<br /><i><span style="color: blue;">The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”</span></i><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jesus isn't a baker. He isn't a socialist who will manipulate you by giving you want you want in exchange for your obedience. He is the Savior of the world and if you voluntarily accept Him as the Bread of Life, then He will save you from your sins.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
KINGDOMS OF THE WORLD</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<i><span style="color: blue;">Then he took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a single instant. The devil said to him, “I shall give to you all this power and their glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I may give it to whomever I wish. All this will be yours, if you worship me.” Jesus said to him in reply, “It is written: ‘You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him alone shall you serve.’”</span></i><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jesus isn't a tyrant who by force will command obedience from you. He is the Savior of the world and if you voluntarily accept Him as the Lord your God, then He will save you from your sins.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
BE A SPECTACLE</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<i><span style="color: blue;">Then he led him to Jerusalem, made him stand on the parapet of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,’ and:‘With their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’” Jesus said to him in reply, “It also says, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”</span></i><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jesus isn't an entertainer here to dazzle you with spectacles of delight so that you'll do anything just to see another marvel of wonder. He is the Savior of the world and if you voluntarily accept Him as the Lord your God, then He will save you from your sins.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's what the world wants today: a socialist tyrant entertainer, an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And that's not what Jesus gives. Remember this. In <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+6&version=RSVCE">John chapter 6</a> Jesus fed the 5000 with the loaves and fishes. Then He crossed the sea to the other side and crowd followed Him on land. What happened when they finally caught up with Him?</div>
<br /><i><span style="color: blue;">When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”</span></i><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
No more free handouts. You work for what you get. That's what St. Paul said in 2nd Thessalonians 3:10:</div>
<br /><i><span style="color: blue;">For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one will not work, let him not eat.</span></i><div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jesus demands personal responsibility and individual accountability. He's the Savior of the world, not your baker, not your tyrant, not your entertainer. So buckle up, repent and get to work for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.<br /> <div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-1180863694579655282019-03-02T07:05:00.000-05:002019-03-02T07:05:25.631-05:00Diei Hebdomadis et Menses AnniDAYS OF THE WEEK AND MONTHS OF THE YEAR<br /><br />Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br />
<br />
I have always been fascinated with the origin of the names of the days of the week and months of the year in Lingua Anglica. The picture below provides tables showing the correlation between modern English names and ancient ones in West Germanic (for week days) and Latin (for months). The reason for this post is a comment on <a href="http://www.the-american-catholic.com/2019/02/28/kalends-of-march/">The Kalends of March</a> at <a href="http://www.the-american-catholic.com/">The American Catholic</a> blog.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy1CYJeNy7V0h0bxKhs5wlcSAKk01xjZwwoCcCNmLunPBDzNqGC0kT2G3tL12eHCYjYcybBOoIh89SiwNtFxGwMooeGeoUeYdCmMOLqQHhHRlX002zUEzVIS2h2lrinV36-CeXxkkDSoM/s1600/Days+of+the+Week.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="693" data-original-width="923" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiy1CYJeNy7V0h0bxKhs5wlcSAKk01xjZwwoCcCNmLunPBDzNqGC0kT2G3tL12eHCYjYcybBOoIh89SiwNtFxGwMooeGeoUeYdCmMOLqQHhHRlX002zUEzVIS2h2lrinV36-CeXxkkDSoM/s640/Days+of+the+Week.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-74869558555782313682019-03-01T10:34:00.001-05:002019-03-01T10:41:53.383-05:00Sal Conventus Tui Dei<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcxocj644PtjiL-WJb-2i9UqRjAstGDzwCuaEruBtyyLi8Kwbl_GbxN-5qmJYuVEzvoFvK3aMTLmsbxGWxGeoCukdxETboIMiCQE6JwgCSvUcZCW0TuP-nSmrn1MUmptsdqxnc8GanhGk/s1600/Salt+and+Bread.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="331" data-original-width="496" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcxocj644PtjiL-WJb-2i9UqRjAstGDzwCuaEruBtyyLi8Kwbl_GbxN-5qmJYuVEzvoFvK3aMTLmsbxGWxGeoCukdxETboIMiCQE6JwgCSvUcZCW0TuP-nSmrn1MUmptsdqxnc8GanhGk/s320/Salt+and+Bread.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Salt and Bread</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
SALT OF THE COVENANT OF YOUR GOD <br />
<br />
I likely have heard the things written below about salt sometime before in some homily or sermon but over time I have forgotten it, so it is good to be reminded of these Biblical truths. Yesterday’s Gospel reading for Daily Mass was Mark 19:41-50. The account of salt in verse 50 is duplicated in Matthew 5:13 and Luke 14:34-35. But St. Mark includes a prefatory addition in verse 49 which really struck me: <br />
<br />
<i>Everyone will be salted with fire. </i><br />
<br />
I looked this verse up in my several editions of the Latin Vulgate and in my Greek New Testament. The Vulgate edition from around the time of the Council of Trent in the 1500s expands this verse somewhat (numbering it as verse 48): <br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: red;">Omnis enim igne salietur, et omnis victima sale salietur. </span><br /><span style="color: blue;">For everyone will be salted with fire, and every victim salted with salt. </span></i><br />
<br />
I did not find this addition – and every victim salted with salt – in my Greek New Testament (where here the text is in verse 49): <br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: red;">πας γαρ πυρι αλισθησεται. </span><br /><span style="color: blue;">Everyone for fire shall be salted.</span> </i><br />
<br />
So I wondered why the addition appears in the Latin Vulgate form the Council of Trent. The answer is that the version of the Greek New Testament used by the translators at the Council of Trent was the 1550 Stephanus New Testament and it has the addition which modern Greek texts omit: <br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: red;">πας γαρ πυρι αλισθησεται και πασα θυσια αλι αλισθησεται. </span><br /><span style="color: blue;">Everyone for fire shall be salted and every sacrifice to salt shall be salted. </span></i><br />
<br />
Then I wondered from where this addition came. A little research showed that it comes from Leviticus 2:13 which Jesus’ disciples, being devout Jews, would have known straightaway: <br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: red;">Quidquid obtuleris sacrificii, sale condies, nec auferes sal foederis Dei tui de sacrificio tuo: in omni oblatione tua offeres sal. </span><br /><span style="color: blue;">Whatsoever sacrifice thou offerest, thou shalt season it with salt, neither shalt thou take away the salt of the covenant of thy God from thy sacrifice. In all thy oblations thou shalt offer salt. </span></i><br />
<br />
The sacrifices being spoken of here are cereal or grain offerings. Grain was used to make bread. And who is the Bread of Life but Jesus Christ Himself? He is the Bread we offer at the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist – the very Flesh we consume at each Holy Communion. This is a very important thing to understand. This is why St. Ignatius of Antioch said in his letter to the Romans: <br />
<br />
<i>I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. </i><br />
<br />
This is what St. Paul meant when he wrote in Romans 12:1: <br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: red;">Obsecro itaque vos fratres per misericordiam Dei, ut exhibeatis corpora vestra hostiam viventem, sanctam, Deo placentem, rationabile obsequium vestrum. </span><br /><span style="color: blue;">I beseech you therefore, brethren, through the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. </span></i><br />
<br />
Thus, Jesus tells us in Mark 9:49: <br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: red;">Bonum est sal: quod si sal insulsum fuerit, in quo illud condietis? Habete in vobis sal, et pacem habete inter vos. </span><br /><span style="color: blue;">Salt is good. But if the salt became unsavory; in what will you season it? Have salt in you, and have peace among you.</span> </i><br />
<br />
The reason why Jesus uses this allusion to salt derives from the aforementioned Levitical practice of applying salt to grain offerings. There is an interesting note on this in my NKJV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible that may assist in further understanding the use of salt in grain offerings, and once again this would have been immediately recognizable to the audience to whom Jesus was speaking: <br />
<br />
<i>Salt was the finest preservative in antiquity, and it symbolized permanence and preservation. Salt was probably used in the covenant ceremony in which Israel celebrated its unbreakable covenant with God. The salt that accompanied many Israelite sacrifices was used physically in the seasoning of the elements, but it also symbolically contributed to the quality of the covenant relationship between humanity and God. In antiquity, parties who shared salt (here the Lord and the Israelites) were united by mutual obligations. Thus, a letter from Neo-Babylonia refers to a tribe’s covenantal allies as those who “tasted the salt of the Jakin tribe.” Similarly, the Greeks salted their covenantal meals, and in Ezra 4:14 those who tasted the salt (the literal Hebrew) of the Persian king’s palace were bound by loyalty to him. <br /><br />Since human allies establishing a covenant would commonly share a meal featuring salted meat, it would make sense for the salt in Israelite sacrifices to serve as a reminder of the covenant between God and Israel. Because salt was employed as a preservative, its use in a covenantal context also emphasized the expectation that the covenant would last for a long time, a meaning attached to salt in Babylonian, Persian, Arabic and Greek covenant contexts. Because salt inhibits the leavening action of yeast, which represented rebellion, salt could additionally stand for that which prevented rebellion. An additional explanation for the appropriateness of salt in connection with the covenant is found in its association with agricultural infertility: in a Hittite treaty, the testator pronounces a curse: if the treaty is broken, “May he and his family and his lands, like salt that has no seed, likewise have no progeny.”</i> <br />
<br />
St. John Chrysostom, one of 36 Doctors (or Teacher) of the Church, Bishop of Constantinople in the later 4th and early 5th centuries AD, provides commentary in chapter 10 of homily 15 on the Gospel of St. Matthew. <br />
<br />
<i>Now then, after giving them due exhortation, He [Jesus] refreshes them again with praises. As thus: the injunctions being high, and far surpassing those in the Old Testament; lest they should be disturbed and confounded, and say, How shall we be able to achieve these things? hear what He says: You are the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13). Implying, that of absolute necessity He enjoins all this. For not for your own life apart, says He, but for the whole world, shall your account be. For not to two cities, nor to ten or twenty, nor to a single nation am I sending you, as I sent the prophets; but to earth, and sea, and the whole world; and that in evil case. For by saying, You are the salt of the earth, He signified all human nature to have lost its savor, and to be decayed by our sins. For which cause, you see, He requires of them such virtues, as are most necessary and useful for the superintendence of the common sort. For first, the meek, and yielding, and merciful, and righteous, shuts not up his good deeds unto himself only, but also provides that these good fountains should run over for the benefit of others. And he again who is pure in heart, and a peacemaker, and is persecuted for the truth's sake; he again orders his way of life for the common good. Think not then, He says, that you are drawn on to ordinary conflicts, or that for some small matters you are to give account. You are the salt of the earth. <br /><br />What then? Did they restore the decayed? By no means; for neither is it possible to do any good to that which is already spoilt, by sprinkling it with salt. This therefore they did not. But rather, what things had been before restored, and committed to their charge, and freed from that ill savor, these they then salted, maintaining and preserving them in that freshness, which they had received of the Lord. For that men should be set free from the rottenness of their sins was the good work of Christ; but their not returning to it again any more was the object of these men's diligence and travail. <br /><br />Do you see how by degrees He indicates their superiority to the very prophets? In that He says they are teachers, not of Palestine, but of the whole world; and not simply teachers, but awful ones too. For this is the marvelous thing, that not by flattering, nor soothing, but by sharply bracing them, as salt, even so they became dear to all men. <br /><br />Now marvel not, says He, if leaving all others, I discourse to you, and draw you on to so great dangers. For consider over how many cities, tribes, and nations, I am to send you to preside. Wherefore I would have you not only be prudent yourselves, but that you should also make others the same. And such persons have great need to be intelligent, in whom the salvation of the rest is at stake: they ought so much to abound in virtue, as to impart of the profit to others also. For if you do not become such as this, you will not suffice even for your own selves. <br /><br />Be not then impatient, as though my sayings were too burdensome. For while it is possible for others who have lost their savor to return by your means, you, if you should come to this, will with yourselves destroy others also. So that in proportion as the matters are great, which you have put into your hands, you need so much the greater diligence. Therefore He says, <br /><br />But if the salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men (Matthew 5:13). <br /><br />For other men, though they fall never so often, may possibly obtain indulgence: but the teacher, should this happen to him, is deprived of all excuse, and will suffer the most extreme vengeance. Thus, lest at the words, When they shall revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you, they should be too timid to go forth: He tells them, unless you are prepared to combat with all this, you have been chosen in vain. For it is not evil report that you should fear, but lest ye should prove partners in dissimulation. For then, You will lose your savor, and be trodden under foot: but if you continue sharply to brace them up, and then are evil spoken of, rejoice; for this is the very use of salt, to sting the corrupt, and make them smart. And so their censure follows of course, in no way harming you, but rather testifying your firmness. But if through fear of it you give up the earnestness that becomes you, you will have to suffer much more grievously, being both evil spoken of, and despised by all. For this is the meaning of trodden under foot. </i><br />
<br />
Conclusion: The depths of Sacred Scripture cannot be fully plumbed without a knowledge of the historical and cultural background surrounding the text, and without reading and studying the commentary of the early Church Fathers.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-14993397993363762712019-02-24T07:07:00.000-05:002019-02-24T07:07:28.681-05:00Ei, qui te percutit in maxillam, praebe et alteram <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOSPkDYFjrUFAuLaAJly0mr2HO49N3FAVzKFsO5Z6mrGeioQ4Dy2M8Y5q4cfJwYsgJhewz-W64epn4FQ3RP4oOp2JtNHhFj0CTfH0LG2qNI7iwAK4Kc8_0IMQMXgnrXPqb62rV32sIjIA/s1600/David+and+Saul.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOSPkDYFjrUFAuLaAJly0mr2HO49N3FAVzKFsO5Z6mrGeioQ4Dy2M8Y5q4cfJwYsgJhewz-W64epn4FQ3RP4oOp2JtNHhFj0CTfH0LG2qNI7iwAK4Kc8_0IMQMXgnrXPqb62rV32sIjIA/s320/David+and+Saul.jpg" width="256" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">David, Abishai and Saul</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
TO HIM WHO STRIKES YOU ON THE CHEEK, ALSO PRESENT THE OTHER <br /><br />Amici, Americani, Compatrioate, <br /><br />We had a visiting priest from Columbia, SC at our parish, Our Lady of Grace, while Father Kirby was on pilgrimage to give a talk out of town at a Divine Mercy conference. When we have had substitute priests from St. Matthew’s in nearby southern Charlotte, invariable we receive liberal progressive Catholicism-lite with the usual anecdotal stories on the priest’s family or his favorite football team or whatever. Little if any exposition of Sacred Scripture is provided, and what does issue forth is along the theme of “Jesus is your buddy” instead of “Jesus is the Lord God Almighty.” But thanks be to God yesterday’s Vigil Mass with this visiting priest was refreshingly different. The gentleman was older, perhaps retired. He gave us his name and sadly I didn’t hear it well. He ran a very reverent and respectful Novus Ordo Mass. And he gave a barely five minute talk on the Gospel passage for the 7th Sunday in Ordinary Time that was so packed full of truth that I had to go back to my Bible at 4 am this morning to study what he meant. Below are my notes on that study. <br /><br />You can read today’s Scripture passages here: <br /><br /><a href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/022419.cfm">http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/022419.cfm</a> <br /><br />David Spares Saul a Second Time: 1st Samuel 26 <br />The Lord Kind and Merciful: Psalm 103 <br />Earthly and Heavenly Beings: 1st Corinthians 15:45-49 <br />Love Your Enemies: Luke 6:37-3 <br /><br />To get a proper view of what the visiting priest was saying about turning the other cheek, I also read: <br /><br />Esau Sells His Birthright: Genesis 25:29-34<br /><div>
Birth of Amalek: Genesis 36:12<br /><div>
The Amalekites Attack the Israelites: Exodus 17:8-16<br /><div>
The First Time David Spared Saul: 1st Samuel 24 <br />Nabal and Abigail: 1st Samuel 25 <br />Saul Consults a Medium: 1st Samuel 28 <br />Saul’s Death: 1st Samuel 31</div>
<div>
Haman the Agagite in Esther<br /><br />Father explained to us that when the Lord told His disciples to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek, He didn’t intend for them to become doormats and not defend themselves against unlawful aggression. Rather, Father explained, we must have an interior heart of forgiveness, not holding grudges and not seeking revenge. With that briefest of explanation, he ended the homily. What he said however, only makes sense if you look at the relevant Old Testament readings which Jesus’ audience, being devout Jews, would have known and understood intimately. <br /><br />You see, Saul was the first King of Israel. But he disobeyed God. He was supposed to defeat and destroy the Amalekites. These people were descendants of Esau (son of Isaac and brother of Jacob) who had sold his birthright for a pot of porridge. The Amalekites had harassed and attack the Israelites after Hebrew exodus from Egypt and during the wandering in the desert. So, God’s wrath burned against the Amalekites and He ordered Saul to wipe all of them out. But when Saul had won victory over them in battle, he spared their king, Agag and while he did destroy everything that was worthless, he took for himself the best of the Amalekite livestock and provisions as his spoil. By doing this, he allowed the eventual rise (hundreds of years later) of a descendent of Agag named Haman who was a vizier in the Persian empire under King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I). This man plotted the genocide of the Jews but was thwarted by Queen Esther. King Saul’s disobedience almost led to the extermination of God’s Chosen People. <br /><br />So how does this all tie into “turn the other cheek.” Well, you have to understand that the prophet Samuel had told Saul that the kingdom of Israel had been torn away from him because of his disobedience and given to another – obviously David. Saul was filled with jealousy at that and pursued David throughout the land, intending to kill him. During one such pursuit, Saul had to relieve himself in a cave which was the vey place where David and his men were hiding. But Saul was unaware of it, and as he went about his business, David cut the hem of his cape off. David’s men urged him to slay Saul (since David was destined by God’s will to be the new king anyways), but David said no, he would not touch the Lord’s anointed. This is very important: even though Saul had disobeyed God and was under the sentence of defeat and death, he remained the Lord’s anointed. So David turned the other cheek and after Saul left the cave, David came out with his men and said, “What is the king of Israel attacking? What are you pursuing? A dead dog! A single flea!” Saul, feeling foolish and humiliated, then asked David to spare his descendants when he would become king and David so promised. But consistent with what the visiting priest told us at Vigil Mass, David and his men went separately from Saul to their own stronghold. They didn’t trust Saul and they defended themselves. <br /><br />The story of Abigail and her husband Nabal (whose name means fool) is likewise interesting. Nabal was a rich landowner whom David and his men had protected. Being hungry and worn out from all the conflict, David sent his men to ask Nabal for provisions but was rejected. So David was filled with wrath and intended to exact vengeance. But Abigail heard about this and gathered provisions to help David and his men. When David met her and saw her intent, he spared both her and Nabal. He turned the other cheek. But in the end, God had the last word. Nabal had gotten drunk that night at a party, so Abigail waited till morning to tell him that David would have come to wipe him and his possessions out if it were not for her intercession. Scripture says, “At this his heart died within him, and he became like a stone. About ten days later the LORD struck Nabal and he died.” Being merciful to one’s enemies doesn’t mean that justice won’t be served. <br /><br />Then for a second time Saul sent out in pursuit of David. Saul was never a man of his word. One night during the pursuit, Saul and his 3000 men made camp to sleep. David and Abishai stole into Saul’s camp under the cover of darkness. Seeing Saul’s spear and water jug beside his head as he lay sleeping, Abishai asked David to allow him the plunge the spear through him just once; he wouldn’t need a second try. David again said not for Saul was still the Lord’s anointed until the Lord Himself removed him. But David did take Saul’s spear and jug of water, and after leaving the camp, awoke everyone by crying out to Abner, Saul’s servant, that he had both spear and water jug and thus Abner deserved to die for failing to provide adequate protection for his master. Again, Saul admitted, “I have done wrong. Come back, David, my son! I will not harm you again, because you considered my life precious today even though I have been a fool and have made a serious mistake.” But even though David had turned the other check, he still didn’t trust Saul’s entreaty to return. So, Scripture says that David and his went their way, and Saul returned to his place. <br /><br />Scripture goes on to explain that Saul seeks to talk with Samuel (who is now deceased) visits the Witch of Endor, asking her to conjure up Samuel’s spirit. The witch does so, and Samuel declared to Saul, “Moreover, the LORD will deliver Israel, and you as well, into the hands of the Philistines. By tomorrow you and your sons will be with me, and the LORD will have delivered the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines.” The last chapter in the book of 1st Samuel records that Saul and his son Jonathan died in battle against the Philistines. And the 1st chapter in the book of 2nd Samuel says, “David seized his garments and tore them, and so did all the men who were with him. They mourned and wept and fasted until evening for Saul and his son Jonathan, and for the people of the LORD and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.” David always defended himself and his men, but David likewise always turned the other cheek. That’s what the visiting priest at Our Lady of Grace meant yesterday evening. <br /><br />Be a forgiving and merciful David, not a vengeful and spiteful Saul. But don’t be a doormat. Jesus said, "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." Matthew 10:16</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-43239715912391140142019-02-23T11:56:00.001-05:002019-02-23T11:56:28.542-05:00Dilecti<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioKio_HTGdwuntPnlcBeg9NKmqCJvZbP4heTvBNXYiixnMmWqexdAF4MvVoTlUlUGowGqo8UjQtvoBi1OJrwFVPJOQOeRivDOK-4EmYYL7fCpvCl0z-sh93CW31aIlVjypmGk-GFblP58/s1600/Pets.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="155" data-original-width="325" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioKio_HTGdwuntPnlcBeg9NKmqCJvZbP4heTvBNXYiixnMmWqexdAF4MvVoTlUlUGowGqo8UjQtvoBi1OJrwFVPJOQOeRivDOK-4EmYYL7fCpvCl0z-sh93CW31aIlVjypmGk-GFblP58/s320/Pets.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
PETS<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Amici, Amercani, Compatriotae,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Two Wednesdays ago Father Kirby gave a talk a my parish on the topic of
the Environment and Sanity which you may read here:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<a href="https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/oecologia-et-sanitas.html">Oecologia et Sanitas</a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
While Father explained that mankind has a duty of stewardship over the
environment, he also pointed out that God gave man dominion over the Earth and
all the plants and animals therein. It isn’t vice versa. He also pointed out
that only man is created in the image and likeness of God, not animals, Rather,
animals are said to be the vestiges or footprint of God. But animals do not
have sentience, and they do not possess eternal souls.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Yes, Proverbs 11:12 states, “Whoever is righteous has regard for the
life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” Thus, my priest
explained, “It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die
needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority
go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct
to them the affection due only to persons.” My priest went on with a personal
anecdote.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
When he was a child, my priest’s family had a pet dog. The dog had
developed (or perhaps already had) epilepsy for unknown reasons. My priest’s
father brought the dog to the veterinary to see what could be done. Treatment
was available, but the cost was very high. So one day when my priest came home
from school, the dog was nowhere to be found. He asked his father where the dog
was and what had happened. His father explained that he had taken the dog out
in the woods and shot it dead. My priest asked why. His father explained that
as long as there were human children with epilepsy, he in good conscience could
not and would not spend an exorbitant amount of money on a mere animal. Humans,
being in God’s image and likeness, are far more important. So he painlessly put
the dog out of misery, and the family got a new (and health) dog.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Father Kirby explained that it is wrong to ascribe to mere animals
human feelings, motivations and intelligence. He described with disparagement
current practice among young millennials of carrying their small dogs in baby
baskets or treating their cats like little infants. A dog and a cat need to be
what they are: animals. Anthropomorphizing them does a disservice to them by
not treating them as what they truly are, and ends up denigrating us humans as
nothing better than animals. My priest explained that all this is due to the
fact that people don’t want to be inconvenienced by babies, so they end up
unnaturally redirecting affections (rightfully reserved for children) to their
pets. He ended by saying that if people treated the pre-born as they treat
their pets, then abortion would be a thing of the past. And he reminded me of
what Saint Paul wrote in Romans 1:22, 23 & 25:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the
immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles…..they
exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature
rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Pets (dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, etc.) and service animals (horses, cows, oxen, goats, sheep, etc.) are wonderful gifts from God. But let them be what (not who for they aren't a "who") they are –
animals. And don’t give to them what is rightfully reserved for humans.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-59271861903230071352019-02-20T20:18:00.001-05:002019-02-20T20:23:09.126-05:00Noe et Alluvio Magna<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP4lXOQ9Ua2t8wINg_D1qXbX0klgf8N3TfjuWz_XtsSLCOtLG07N4iXJ-fOcNrXwhAZaMf2zcEAz__0ij1JA2TB0OTuRyrDE0llYD21ViqeFoRdlL-BdEL-6GMbJCSJh834Vt90XKP5sc/s1600/noah-and-animals-39461-print.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1164" data-original-width="1600" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiP4lXOQ9Ua2t8wINg_D1qXbX0klgf8N3TfjuWz_XtsSLCOtLG07N4iXJ-fOcNrXwhAZaMf2zcEAz__0ij1JA2TB0OTuRyrDE0llYD21ViqeFoRdlL-BdEL-6GMbJCSJh834Vt90XKP5sc/s320/noah-and-animals-39461-print.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
NOAH AND THE GREAT FLOOD,<br />
<br />
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br />
<br />
Today's Old Testament Mass reading was about Noah and the Great Flood. The entire story is in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+7&version=RSVCE">Genesis chapters 7</a> and <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+8&version=RSVCE">8</a>. I used both my Catholic Navarre Study Bible and my Protestant Henry Morris Study Bible. While I am not too keen about Dr. Morris' literalism, he has some key insights which I found valuable. In both cases, however, there is a wealth of symbolism just waiting to be unlocked, so it's important not to get lost in arguments about whether or not the Great Flood was truly world-wide or merely a local event constrained to the geographical location of the Middle East.<br />
<br />
In Genesis 7:5 there is a contrast between Noah's obedience and Adam's disobedience. Hebrews 11:7 states:<br />
<br />
<i>By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith.</i><br />
<br />
In Genesis 6:14-16 the Ark is built precisely to the dimensions God gave Noah, and in Genesis 7:7 Noah and his family enter it. St. Augustine explains the symbolism of the Ark's design in De Civitate Dei 15:26 as follows:<br />
<br />
<i>Moreover, inasmuch as God commanded <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11088a.htm">Noah</a>, a <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08571c.htm">just</a> man, and, as the truthful <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/bible">Scripture</a> says, a man perfect in his generation — not indeed with the perfection of the citizens of the city of <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> in that <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07687a.htm">immortal</a> condition in which they equal the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm">angels</a>, but in so far as they can be perfect in their sojourn in this world — inasmuch as God commanded him, I say, to make an ark, in which he might be rescued from the destruction of the flood, along with his <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05782a.htm">family</a>, i.e., his wife, sons, and daughters-in-law, and along with the animals who, in <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11181c.htm">obedience</a> to God's command, came to him into the ark: this is certainly a figure of the city of <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> sojourning in this world; that is to say, of the church, which is rescued by the wood on which hung the Mediator of <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> and men, the man Christ Jesus <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1ti002.htm#verse5">1 Timothy 2:5</a>). For even its very dimensions, in length, breadth, and height, represent the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> body in which He came, as it had been foretold. For the length of the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> body, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is six times its breadth from side to side, and ten times its depth or thickness, measuring from back to front: that is to say, if you measure a man as he lies on his back or on his face, he is six times as long from head to foot as he is broad from side to side, and ten times as long as he is high from the ground. And therefore the ark was made 300 cubits in length, 50 in breadth, and 30 in height. And its having a door made in the side of it certainly signified the wound which was made when the side of the Crucified was pierced with the spear; for by this those who come to Him enter; for thence flowed the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm">sacraments</a> by which those who <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm">believe</a> are initiated. And the fact that it was ordered to be made of squared timbers, signifies the immoveable steadiness of the life of the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm">saints</a>; for however you turn a cube, it still stands. And the other peculiarities of the ark's construction are signs of features of the church.</i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Genesis 7:12 records that rain fell on the Earth 40 days and 40 nights. This prefigures the 40 year wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness, the 40 year reign of King David, and the 40 day sojourn of Jesus in the desert before His temptation by the devil. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In Genesis 8:4 the Ark is said to have finally rested on Mount Arat on the 17th day of the 7th month. Dr. Morris observes that the 7th month in the Hebrew calendar is Nisan (March / April). The 17th day is 3 days after Passover - a Sunday, the very day on which our Blessed Lord rose from the dead. The resting of the Ark on dry land after the world's destruction by flooding prefigures the resurrection of the Lord after his death by crucifixion.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Genesis 8:6-12 records that after 40 days Noah opened a window on the Ark to first let a raven go then a dove. The dove returned, having found no resting place. After 7 days he let the dove go again and she returned with an olive branch in her beak, and after a final 7 days he let the dove go and she did not return. Rubert of Deutz explains this symbology in his work, Commentarius in Genesim. He explains that the dove represents the Holy Spirit which comes to us three times: (1) when we are initially baptized into the Church (the Body of Christ which the Ark prefigures), (2) when we are confirmed by the imposition of hands from the Bishop, and (3) in the resurrection of the dead where we do not return to this world but remain with the Lord forever.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The whole story of the Great Flood is doubly symbolic: it stands for destruction and purification from evil on the one hand and for a means of salvation and a new start on the other hand. This dual symbology is repeated in the story of the Israelite exodus from Egypt. The waters of the Red Sea receding were a source of salvation for the Hebrews, but their collapse was a source of destruction for the Egyptians. Thus 1st Peter 3:20-21 states:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<i>....who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ....</i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
St. Bede writes in Hexaemeron 2:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<i>The Ark stands for the Church; the flood for the water of baptism whereby the Church in all its members is washed and sanctified.</i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is much more symbolism of the Christ and the Church in these two chapters of Genesis. The real miracle isn't so much a world-wide flood (a story repeated by Summerians, Egyptians and others in their various mythologies). the real miracle is the God had planned all this out from the very beginning of time when He said let there be light in order to point the way to the Messiah. One cannot read the Old Testament without seeing Christ in each of its pages.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-90436461012835567892019-02-20T17:35:00.002-05:002019-02-20T17:35:34.808-05:00Triticum et Zizania<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibzCV3K9CCcvM3iuLVsYEGuKC482ar9k545MLX3EfZL4BiFArhtXsT7ZWdoTh63afwQ559isQDPXLgz-vpzjw-p6-KR1mXEBO4NTocntqRXG-k7E2issRN2lJ1Hrt0CzZQPQXc-OR1C3E/s1600/John_Chrysostom.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="347" data-original-width="250" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibzCV3K9CCcvM3iuLVsYEGuKC482ar9k545MLX3EfZL4BiFArhtXsT7ZWdoTh63afwQ559isQDPXLgz-vpzjw-p6-KR1mXEBO4NTocntqRXG-k7E2issRN2lJ1Hrt0CzZQPQXc-OR1C3E/s320/John_Chrysostom.jpg" width="230" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">St. John Chrysostom</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
WHEAT AND TARES<br /><br />Regarding my previous discussion about the heresy of religious pluralism, in a comment Archbishop Gordon wisely pointed out St. John Chrysostom’s homily on Matthew 13:24-30, the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. That homily is reproduced below. Note that St. John Chrysostom is one of 36 Doctors (or Teachers) of the Church and was Bishop of Constantinople in the late 4th, early 5th century AD. I should have remembered this: God tolerates religious pluralism that that the faithful aren’t uprooted by uprooting the heretics, and that all, even the heretics, might be saved.<br /><br />Notate Bene: the translation below was copied from the Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia and is a very literal rendering, so sometimes the wording may be a bit stilted. I’m sure the original Koine Greek text can be found somewhere on the internet for the those of you willing to go that far! Ha! Ha!<br /><br />Homily on Matthew XIII: 24-30.<br /><br />Another parable put He forth unto them, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares. So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Whence then has it tares? He said to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said to him, Will you then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay, lest while you gather up the tares, you root up also the wheat with them. Let both therefore grow together until the harvest.<br /><br />What is the difference between this, and the parable before it? There He speaks of them that have not at all holden with Him, but have started aside, and have thrown away the seed; but here He means the societies of the heretics. For in order that not even this might disturb His disciples, He foretells it also, after having taught them why He speaks in parables. The former parable then means their not receiving Him; this, their receiving corrupters. For indeed this also is a part of the devil's craft, by the side of the truth always to bring in error, painting thereon many resemblances, so as easily to cheat the deceivable. Therefore He calls it not any other seed, but tares; which in appearance are somewhat like wheat.<br /><br />Then He mentions also the manner of his device. For while men slept, says He. It is no small danger, which He hereby suspends over our rulers, to whom especially is entrusted the keeping of the field; and not the rulers only, but the subjects too.<br /><br />And He signifies also that the error comes after the truth, which the actual event testifies. For so after the prophets, were the false prophets; and after the apostles, the false apostles; and after Christ, Antichrist. For unless the devil see what to imitate, or against whom to plot, he neither attempts, nor knows how. Now then also, having seen that one brought forth a hundred, another sixty, another thirty, he proceeds after that another way. That is, not having been able to carry away what had taken root, nor to choke, nor to scorch it up, he conspires against it by another craft, privily casting in his own inventions.<br /><br />And what difference is there, one may say, between them that sleep, and them that resemble the wayside? That in the latter case he immediately caught it away; yea, he suffered it not even to take root; but here more of his craft was needed.<br /><br />And these things Christ says, instructing us to be always wakeful. For, says He, though thou quite escape those harms, there is yet another harm. For as in those instances the wayside, and the rock, and the thorns, so here again sleep occasions our ruin; so that there is need of continual watchfulness. Wherefore He also said, He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved (Matthew 10:22).<br /><br />Something like this took place even at the beginning. Many of the prelates, I mean, bringing into the churches wicked men, disguised heresiarchs, gave great facility to the laying that kind of snare. For the devil needs not even to take any trouble, when he has once planted them among us.<br /><br />And how is it possible not to sleep? One may say. Indeed, as to natural sleep, it is not possible; but as to that of our moral faculty, it is possible. Wherefore Paul also said, Watch ye, stand fast in the faith (1 Corinthians 16:13).<br /><br />After this He points out the thing to be superfluous too, not hurtful only; in that, after the land has been tilled, and there is no need of anything, then this enemy sows again; as the heretics also do, who for no other cause than vainglory inject their proper venom.<br /><br />And not by this only, but by what follows likewise, He depicts exactly all their acting. For, When the blade was sprung up, says He, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also; which kind of thing these men also do. For at the beginning they disguise themselves; but when they have gained much confidence, and someone imparts to them the teaching of the word, then they pour out their poison.<br /><br />But wherefore does He bring in the servants, telling what has been done? That He may pronounce it wrong to slay them.<br /><br />And He calls him an enemy, because of his harm done to men. For although the despite is against us, in its origin it sprang from his enmity, not to us, but to God. Whence it is manifest, that God loves us more than we love ourselves.<br /><br />And see from another thing also, the malicious craft of the devil. For he did not sow before this, because he had nothing to destroy, but when all had been fulfilled, that he might defeat the diligence of the Husbandman; in such enmity against Him did he constantly act.<br /><br />And mark also the affection of the servants. I mean, what haste they are in at once to root up the tares, even though they do it indiscreetly; which shows their anxiety for the crop, and that they are looking to one thing only, not to the punishment of that enemy, but to the preservation of the seed sown. For of course this other is not the urgent consideration.<br /><br />Wherefore how they may for the present extirpate the mischief, this is their object. And not even this do they seek absolutely, for they trust not themselves with it, but await the Master's decision, saying, Will You?<br /><br />What then does the Master? He forbids them, saying, Lest haply ye root up the wheat with them. And this He said, to hinder wars from arising, and blood and slaughter. For it is not right to put a heretic to death, since an implacable war would be brought into the world. By these two reasons then He restrains them; one, that the wheat be not hurt; another, that punishment will surely overtake them, if incurably diseased. Wherefore, if you would have them punished, yet without harm to the wheat, I bid you wait for the proper season.<br /><br />But what means, Lest ye root up the wheat with them? Either He means this, If you are to take up arms, and to kill the heretics, many of the saints also must needs be overthrown with them; or that of the very tares it is likely that many may change and become wheat. If therefore ye root them up beforehand, you injure that which is to become wheat, slaying some, in whom there is yet room for change and improvement. He does not therefore forbid our checking heretics, and stopping their mouths, and taking away their freedom of speech, and breaking up their assemblies and confederacies, but our killing and slaying them.<br /><br />But mark thou His gentleness, how He not only gives sentence and forbids, but sets down reasons.<br /><br />What then, if the tares should remain until the end? Then I will say to the reapers, Gather together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them (Matthew 13:30). He again reminds them of John's words (Matthew 3:12), introducing Him as judge; and He says, So long as they stand by the wheat, we must spare them, for it is possible for them even to become wheat but when they have departed, having profited nothing, then of necessity the inexorable punishment will overtake them. For I will say to the reapers, says He, Gather ye together first the tares. Why, first? That these may not be alarmed, as though the wheat were carried off with them. And bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-36724970059813381562019-02-20T17:30:00.000-05:002019-02-20T17:30:01.504-05:00Haeresis Pluralismi Religiosi<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkMGptiyWMKdTn_xULROYHP8849Hutq3ez8f6p8wAoWzy0XROAkt72L3DK5-om1H_dkkKqzlrdd62ZJI8ZDRtazgE1ufVPIkC-_eBIGjU2ByxjM__66cv3RIfzhY8anoUp993Tq88LvT8/s1600/Pope+Francis+Kisses+Imam.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="650" data-original-width="1024" height="203" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkMGptiyWMKdTn_xULROYHP8849Hutq3ez8f6p8wAoWzy0XROAkt72L3DK5-om1H_dkkKqzlrdd62ZJI8ZDRtazgE1ufVPIkC-_eBIGjU2ByxjM__66cv3RIfzhY8anoUp993Tq88LvT8/s320/Pope+Francis+Kisses+Imam.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pope Francis Kisses Grand Imam of Egypt</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
THE HERESY OF RELIGIOUS PLURALISM<br /><br />Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br /><br />Once again Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis) has done the idiotic. He has signed a statement with Muslim clerics during his visit to the United Arab Emirates which asserts in part the following:<br /><br />“Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept….”<br /><br />Father Zuhlsdorf at his blog tries to put a positive spin on this by saying that there is God’s perfect will of one and only one Faith in Christ Jesus, and God’s permissive will wherein people have freedom to choose what faith to believe. Father’s effort is admirable. But this episode is merely a continuation of all the other nonsense that has come out from Jorge Bergoglio’s horrible Pontificate.<br /><br />Father Hunwickie in the United Kingdom discusses this whole issue at his blog, Mutual Enlightenment, where he quotes what Blessed John Henry Newman said in the 19th century:<br /><br />"For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth ... Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion, [that] revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and [that] it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy."<br /><br />There are some things we authentic Christians need to grasp, whether we are Catholic, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox:<br /><br />(1) The ONLY true religion is the Christian one, and yes, it is a religion – a binding together in Christ as the original Latin word (religare = to bind) means.<br />(2) Islam and all the rest of the world’s religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc. are false.<br />(3) God wants everyone to come to the saving knowledge of the truth; He does NOT will false belief.<br /><br />St. Paul addressed this whole issue in his sermon on the Aeropagus in Athens as Acts 17:22-31 records:<br /><br />22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29 Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30 Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”<br /><br />Now some people in a fit of misunderstanding will say that the Pope is supposed to be infallible, so how can this happen? Vatican Council I back in the late 1800s addresses this as follows:<br /><br />“For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”<br /><br />Pope Francis for the entirety of his Pontificate has been shooting off his mouth about stuff in which he has no expertise, no knowledge and certainly no charism (or gift) (e.g., climate change, economics, gun control, immigration, etc.). A great deal of what he has said and done has been contrary to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Therefore, what Vatican Council I states more than 100 years ago applies: he is NOT infallible (just the opposite in fact) when he contradicts Sacred Scripture and 2000 years of Judeo-Christian Tradition. I do not base what I just said merely on my own interpretation of Sacred Scripture contrary to what 2nd Peter 1:20-21 states:<br /><br />20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.<br /><br />Rather, I base it on the continuous Tradition of Holy Mother Church from the early Church Fathers in the first four centuries after Christ. Do we for a second imagine that St. Ignatius of Antioch (the man who was taught by St. John the Apostle) believed in the legitimacy of a plurality and diversity of religions when he refused to offer incense to Caesar and Caesar’s gods and goddesses, preferring instead to be eaten by lions in the Coliseum? He even said, “I am the wheat of God and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.” Would that man say as Pope Francis did, “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom?” I think NOT!<br /><br />Pray for Pope Francis, that the Holy Spirit will take the baseball bat of common sense and hit him straight across the head with it so he’ll wake up and fly straight.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-86834155902608916532019-02-20T17:18:00.000-05:002019-02-20T17:18:07.110-05:00Noe et Maria<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW7v3cw3acDAPWza1j8vGnq9KqJqMqJos4Vncckd2_wjH86lqBAZ93nO3ZLXOpd0nVfrVD9lqTsuUd7u319Hb3GQuCQ8ec8w_dEz5PUd_Vh5Iz7KHpfnrVZcTKs_IwmbUaQehMK6guan4/s1600/NOAH.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="682" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW7v3cw3acDAPWza1j8vGnq9KqJqMqJos4Vncckd2_wjH86lqBAZ93nO3ZLXOpd0nVfrVD9lqTsuUd7u319Hb3GQuCQ8ec8w_dEz5PUd_Vh5Iz7KHpfnrVZcTKs_IwmbUaQehMK6guan4/s320/NOAH.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br /><br />Yesterday's Old Testament reading for daily Mass was Genesis chapter 6, the beginning of the story of the patriarch Noah. There is an interesting parallel to be found between Noah and the Blessed Virgin Mary which I hadn’t previously noticed. Both are called “favored” or “full of grace.” In Genesis 6:8, the Greek Septuagint and Latin Vulgate describes Noah as having found grace (i.e., χάριν and gratia respectively). In Luke 1:28, the Greek original and the Latin Vulgate describes Mary as most favored or full of grace (i.e., κεχαριτωμένη and gratia plena respectively). Note in both cases the occurrence of the Greek that root word χαρι (grace). You can easily see it in χάριν used to describe Noah and in right after the κε and before the τωμένη in κεχαριτωμένη used to describe Mary.<br /><br /><div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoBqBvkPFS51nlsCo6y5DfJGTikPWGDDGoXwAkOTnterN-A3vINrXCv9JYag-w94WIKofX9oC56k7_lu9Txt9LsnPdYrXO3IvHe5ZXmV0Ta6qsfHaobqniEo1ZAj8JQyCQd6RtzFAMd1c/s1600/Mary+Pregnant.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoBqBvkPFS51nlsCo6y5DfJGTikPWGDDGoXwAkOTnterN-A3vINrXCv9JYag-w94WIKofX9oC56k7_lu9Txt9LsnPdYrXO3IvHe5ZXmV0Ta6qsfHaobqniEo1ZAj8JQyCQd6RtzFAMd1c/s320/Mary+Pregnant.jpg" width="160" /></a>Now why were both Noah and Mary found with grace before the Lord God? Because in the face of being given what was humanly impossible (e.g., prepare for a world-wide flood and conceive a child without having known a man), both Noah and Mary said YES to God. The first built an Ark (to rescue people and animals), and the second became an Ark (the Ark of the New Covenant). The first provided the means of saving humanity from a planetary flood, and the second provided the Christ Child who would save humanity from its sins.</div>
<div>
<br />So Noah found grace with God and Mary was full of grace. Here is a comparison of the Greek, Latin and English texts. Gaudeatis magna cum laeitita!<br /><br />GENESIS 6:8<br /><br />GREEK SEPTUAGINT<br /><br />Νωε δὲ εὗρεν χάριν ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ<br /><br />LATIN<br /><br />Noë vero invenit gratiam coram Domino<br /><br />ENGLISH<br /><br />Noah found grace before Lord the God.<br /><br />LUKE 1:28<br /><br />GREEK<br /><br />καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν, Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.<br /><br />LATIN<br /><br />Et ingressus ad eam dixit: “Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.”<br /><br />ENGLISH<br /><br />And [the angel] having come to her said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord with you.”</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-18605154862330203612019-02-15T12:24:00.003-05:002019-02-15T12:24:25.175-05:00Oecologia et SanitasTHE ENVIRONMENT AND SANITY<br />Wednesday, February 13, 2019<br /> <br />Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br /> <br />On Wednesday evening, February 13, 2019, the priest at my parish (Father Kirby) gave a talk entitled, “The Environment and Sanity.” In this talk Father discussed the following:<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a7.htm">Hope (CCC 1817-1821)</a><a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm">Natural Law (CCC 1954-1960)</a><a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p4.htm">Creation (CCC 279-314)</a><a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm">Stewardship (CCC 2415-2418)</a> <br />My notes on this talk follow each relevant section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that Father used in his explanation.<br /> <br />EXCERPT ON HOPE FROM THE CATECHISM<br /> <br />Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful." "The Holy Spirit…he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life."<br /> <br />The virtue of hope responds to the aspiration to happiness which God has placed in the heart of every man; it takes up the hopes that inspire men's activities and purifies them so as to order them to the Kingdom of heaven; it keeps man from discouragement; it sustains him during times of abandonment; it opens up his heart in expectation of eternal beatitude. Buoyed up by hope, he is preserved from selfishness and led to the happiness that flows from charity.<br /> <br />We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere "to the end" and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ.<br /> <br />NOTES ON HOPE<br /> <br />The virtue of hope is the most attacked one in this present age, and this results in much of the depression driving people into despair.<br /> <br />None of us have our salvation assured for Philippians 2:12 states, “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” But our hope is in the desire for heaven and eternal life as our happiness, not the things of this world.<br /> <br />The story of Pandora’s box is illustrative of how the ancients viewed hope. According to Hesiod, when Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus, the king of the gods, took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Prometheus' brother Epimetheus. Pandora opened a jar (i.e., box) left in his care containing sickness, death and many other unspecified evils which were then released into the world. Though she hastened to close the container, only one thing was left behind – usually translated as Hope, though for the Greeks it had the pessimistic meaning of "deceptive expectation." To them hope meant that an outcome cannot be changed for the better.<br /> <br />The Christian view is however very different. Romans 4:18-22 explains this:<br /> <br />18 In hope [Abraham] believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told, “So shall your descendants be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. 20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. 22 That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.”<br /> <br />And Hebrews 11:17-19 states:<br /> <br />17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” 19 He considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead; hence he did receive him back, and this was a symbol.<br /> <br />Pope Benedict XVI used as one of the underlying themes in his encyclical <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi.html">Spe et Salvi</a> the observation that most people have trouble with faith and hope because they have forgotten about heaven. In his discussion of the resurrection of the dead in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+15&version=RSVCE">1st Corinthian 15</a>, St. Paul said that if there no resurrection, then we are of all people the most pitiable.<br /> <br />Those who say that they have a bucket list of things to do prior to death are those without hope. To them all that exists is this material world and of all people they are truly the most hopeless. But 1st Corinthians 2:9 gives us as Christians our hope: “But, as it is written, ‘What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.’”<br /> <br />Yes, we must be stewards of the environment. But our destination is heaven. The environment will one day pass away.<br /> <br />EXCERPT ON NATURAL LAW FROM THE CATECHISM<br /> <br />Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie.<br /> <br />The "divine and natural" law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue.<br /> <br />This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature.<br /> <br />The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.<br /> <br />NOTES ON NATURAL LAW<br /> <br />Animals and angels do not bear God’s image, only we human do. Animals in fact are called the vestiges or footprint of God.<br /> <br />We – that is to say, humankind – participate with God by self-mastery through reason. Animals cannot, being subject to blind instinct. Likewise angels cannot, for they merely obey.<br /> <br />We – humankind – can tell the truth from a lie. However, in order to grow in truth we must submit to God. That’s why the Catechism states that the moral life hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him. Furthermore, natural law provides the precepts for a moral life which in turn are expressed in the Decalogue: the Ten Commandments:<br /> <br />I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no strange gods before Me.<br />Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.<br />Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.<br />Thou shalt honor thy father and mother.<br />Thou shalt not kill.<br />Thou shalt not commit adultery.<br />Thou shalt not steal.<br />Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.<br />Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.<br />Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.<br /> <br />Considering these things, the imposition of personhood on animals is cruel for they are irrational and incapable of the cognitive reasoning that typifies sentience. Such personhood descends from natural law, and natural law consists of both rights and duties, of which animals have neither.<br /> <br />By definition natural law is not a legislation passed into effect by government. It exists because of God. An attempt to codify such human rights from such natural law was made in the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf">1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a> drafted by a Catholic and actively supported by Eleanor Roosevelt. One of the fundamental rights recognized in this document was the right of personhood – the right to a name. In the Nazi concentration camps of WW II, names of prisoners were replaced by numbers. Nothing was more dehumanizing than to remove someone’s personhood and treat him as a mere animal or less.<br /> <br />Another violation of natural law that occurred under Nazism was the fact that concentration camp officers committed crimes against humanity, and later said, “I was order to do this.” It is a basic principle of natural law that we don’t violate our neighbor to save our own skin. If to save our neighbor we must be martyrs, then that is what God calls us to do.<br /> <br />Throughout all this the Church again and again cites reason. Contrarily, the Enlightenment of the 1700s was actual an “endarkment.” That period of time resulted in the French Revolution where in the name of science and logic, reason was overthrown in favor of emotion as hundreds of thousands (or more) of Catholic clergy and laity were executed under Maximillian Robespierre’s Reign of Terror.<br /> <br />Any sane person is reasonable with ordered emotions, but often people today are pathetic, ascribing to dogs the power of reason while themselves neglecting their own gift of reason. Such is pathos (πάθος) – the pathology of today’s culture. Pathos is an appeal to people’s emotions and elicits feelings that already reside in them without appealing to their God-given charism of reason and logic.<br /> <br />EXCERPT ON CREATION FROM THE CATECHISM<br /> <br />We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness.<br /> <br />To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of "subduing" the earth and having dominion over it. God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God's will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings. They then fully become "God's fellow workers" and co-workers for his kingdom<br /> <br />NOTES ON CREATION FROM THE CATECHISM<br /> <br />Before I begin with my notes on the creation portion of Father Kirby’s talk, links are provided below on the first two chapters in Genesis to give a correlation between science and Sacred Scripture. Apparent inconsistencies hyped up by fascist materialists have resulted in much false propaganda and disinformation. It is therefore important that the air of confusion and falsehood be cleared up first before proceeding. As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html">Fides et Ratio</a>, the Revelation by Faith and the Revelation by Science are two sides of the one coin that is Truth.<br /> <br />FINE TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE<br /><a href="https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/contendens-suptilis-universitatis.html">https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/contendens-suptilis-universitatis.html</a>Monday in the 5th Week of Ordinary Time<br />Genesis 1:1-19 – First through Fourth Days of Creation<br /> <br />DAYS OF CREATION<br /><a href="https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/days-of-creation-amici-americani.html">https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/days-of-creation-amici-americani.html</a>Tuesday in the 5th Week of Ordinary Time<br />Genesis 1:20-2:3 – Fifth through Seventh Days of Creation<br /> <br />CREATION OR EVOLUTION<br /><a href="https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/creatio-aut-evolutio.html">https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/creatio-aut-evolutio.html</a>Wednesday in the 5th Week of Ordinary Time<br />Genesis 1:20-2:3 – Creation of Man<br /> <br />MITOCHONDRIAL EVE<br /><a href="https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/heva-mitochondrialis.html">https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/02/heva-mitochondrialis.html</a>Thursday in the 5th Week of Ordinary Time<br />Genesis 2:18-25 – Creation of Woman<br /> <br />The world exists as an act of wisdom. Indeed, Father George LeMaitre (the astrophysicist who first formulated the theory that accurately described the origin of the universe) called his idea NOT the Big Bang (which denotes anarchy and confusion) but the Primeval Atom (which denotes order and reason). That is how God made the universe.<br /> <br />EXCERPT ON STEWARDSHIP FROM THE CATECHISM<br /> <br />The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.<br /> <br />Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory. Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.<br /> <br />God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.<br /> <br />It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.<br /> <br />NOTES ON STEWARSHIP FROM THE CATECHISM<br /> <br />Mankind is called to be a steward of the physical environment of the planet Earth. A steward is the leader of a household and he is governed by prudence.<br /> <br />The Church’s teaching on the environment derive from the Seventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” To arbitrarily and willfully damage or destroy the environment is to steal God’s gift from future generations of humankind. Therefore, we are called to respect creation made by God. Indeed, we cannot separate our treatment of creation from God’s moral imperative.<br /> <br />Now care of the environment must be tempered by the quality of life available to one’s neighbor. We must not destroy what does not need to be destroyed. However, we are not radical environmentalists.<br /> <br />The Church has no official teaching on climate change. Questions remain on whether or not there is climate change, how much the climate is changing, in what direction it’s changing, and what part of the change is caused by man. Pope Francis has issued his personal thoughts on the environment and climate change in his encyclical, “<a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">Laudato Si</a>.” His personal opinion is prudential and as good Catholics we are free to disagree. The important thing is to use our reasoning capabilities and not be governed by emotion.<br /> <br />Now animals are a natural part of the environment. As such the Catechism states that they may be used for food and clothing, and medical and scientific experimentation is a “morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving of human lives.” For example, while experimentation may be conducted on dogs to find a cure for epilepsy in humans, it is improper to give money to cure one’s pet dog of epilepsy when human children have epilepsy and are lacking medical care. Indeed, if more people treat the unborn as they treat their pet animals, then there would be no abortion.<br /> <br />Humankind is hardwired to worship no matter what. Take God away, and humans will worship the environment. St. Paul states in Romans 1:25, “….they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever!”<br /> <br />Today more and more we see a new barbarism in identity politics – one must be a member of a certain tribe or group, some protected class – to be worthy of equal rights and fair treatment. This is because of the abandonment of reason where the life of a speckled owl in a forest is more important than building a shopping center that will provide meaningful income for families to support themselves.<br /> <br />But there is a flip side to this. Sometimes a vast geographical area like the Amazon rain forest in Brazil must be protected at an international level because of its global effect on worldwide weather patterns. In cases like this the international community must work together to ensure that the people within the Amazon basin are not unfairly deprived of the life-saving infrastructure of modern science and technology.<br /> <br />Here I shall depart from my notes and point out to the reader that a large part in ensuring health and prosperity is access to low cost, pollution free energy that doesn’t devastate the environment as erection of a 1000 MWe wind farm or solar cell array covering hundreds of square miles would. I have written on this topic before. Please click here:<br /> <br />The Environment and Nuclear Energy<br /><a href="https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/01/oecologia-et-energia-nuclearis.html">https://prognosticis.blogspot.com/2019/01/oecologia-et-energia-nuclearis.html</a> <br />I encourage the reader to review this essay.<br /> <br />At the end of Father’s talk, one brave lady spoke up to explain that when she was pregnant with her fourth (I think) child, a modernist secularist approached her to ask her why she wasn’t doing something about her carbon footprint. I thought to myself when I heard that, “What asininity!” To place animal babies ahead of human babies is to sink to a new low in morality that St. Paul described in Romans 1:25 quoted above. (Side Note: I will also add my wager that the person who asked the woman that question about carbon footprint was more than likely an anti-nuclear environmentalist, and irony is that nuclear power is the ONLY baseload source of energy that can provide electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at a capacity factor of 92% without any carbon pollution.) Thankfully the woman who made the original point went on to say that she had a total of 12 (I think) children. God bless her! Let’s have children ahead of animals!<br /> <br />In conclusion, I was as always very impressed with Father Kirby’s talk. It is rare but very refreshing to hear actual Roman Catholic doctrine from a Roman Catholic cleric nowadays. Bravo to Father!Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-23968759517175504012019-02-15T10:19:00.003-05:002019-02-15T10:19:35.376-05:00Heva MitochondrialisMITOCHONDRIAL EVE<br /><br />Amici, Americani, Compatrioatae,<br /><br />As my siblings and my friends from the Pentecostal Church of my youth will recall, the apparent discrepancies between the scientific account of the origin of the universe and humankind, and the Biblical account of Creation bothered me a great deal as a teenager. When as an adult I became a Catholic and began unlocking the treasures of the Church over the past 2000 years – especially the early Church Fathers and all those Catholic clergy (like Father Georges LeMaitre) who were scientists – I came to discover that there is no conflict between real science and the teaching of Holy Mother Church found in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Her Magisterium. This post is a continuation along that theme and I hope it (along with other recent posts) helps the reader (whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant) in seeing and understanding the essential unity of science and our Christian Faith.<br /><br />The next Old Testament reading on Creation in the daily Divine Liturgy is Genesis 2:18-25, the account of the creation of Eve, wife of Adam and Mother of Humankind. This post will explain the scientific basis for the Genesis account. Much of what is provided below was prepared and delivered as an apologetics training course some 10 or so years ago.<br /><br />In 1987, geneticists in the journal Nature examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 147 people across all major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity's family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage. The other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.<br /><br />The geneticists concluded that every person on Earth can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200K years ago. Because one entire branch of human lineage is of African origin and the other contains African lineage as well, the study's authors concluded Africa is the place where this woman lived. The scientists named this common female ancestor Mitochondrial Eve.<br /><br />Another geneticist, Dr. Wesley Brown, in 1980 noticed that when the mtDNA of two humans is compared, the samples are much more similar than when the mtDNA of two other primates -- for example, two chimpanzees -- is compared. Brown found, in fact, that the mtDNA of two humans has only about half as many differences as the mtDNA of two other primates within the same species. This suggests that humans share a much more recent common ancestor<br /><br />Evolutionists maintain that the Mitochondrial Eve was not the first -- or only -- woman on Earth during the time she lived. Instead, this woman is simply the most recent person to whom all people can trace their genealogy. According to them, there were many women who came before her and many women who came after, but her life is the point from which all modern branches on humanity's family tree grew. If true, then why is she the only one to have successfully passed down her mtDNA?<br /><br />When the researchers in the 1987 study looked at samples taken from 147 different people and fetuses, they found 133 distinct sequences of mtDNA. After comparing the number of differences among the mtDNA samples within races, they found that Africans have the most diversity (that is, the most number of differences) of any single racial group. This would suggest that the mtDNA found in Africans is the oldest. Since it has had the most mutations, a process which takes time, it must be the oldest of lineages around today.<br /><br />The two distinct branches contained the mtDNA are found in the five main populations on the planet:<br /><br />1. African<br />2. Asian<br />3. European<br />4. Australian<br />5. New Guinean<br /><br />Researchers found that in the branch that was not exclusively African, racial populations often had more than one lineage. For example, one New Guinean lineage finds its closest relative in a lineage present in Asia, not New Guinea. All of the lineages and both of the two branches, however, can all be traced back to one theorized point: Mitochondrial Eve.<br /><br />So how did Eve end up being humanity's most recent common ancestor? We shall investigate that, as well as some arguments lodged against the Mitochondrial Eve theory. But first, what is DNA, what are mitochondria, and why do scientists use mtDNA to track lineage?<br /><br />Biologists have been aware of mitochondria since the 19th century. In the late 1970s the value of using the DNA within mitochondria to track ancient human history became clear. Mitochondrial DNA differs in a few key ways from nuclear DNA -- the variety of DNA located within the nucleus of each of one’s cells determines eye color, racial features, susceptibility to certain diseases and other defining characteristics. mtDNA, on the other hand, contains codes for making proteins and carrying out the other processes mitochondria undertake.<br /><br />The genes carried in the form of nuclear DNA are the result of a merger between mother's and father's DNA -- this merger is called recombination. mtDNA, however, is derived almost exclusively from the mother. This is because the egg of a female human contains lots of mtDNA, while male sperm contains just a bit of mitochondria. A function of a single mitochondrion is generating power for the cell containing it, and sperm use a few mitochondria in the tail to power their race towards the egg for fertilization. These mitochondria are destroyed after the sperm fertilizes the egg, and thus any mtDNA that could be passed on from the father's side is lost.<br /><br />This means that mtDNA is matrilineal -- only the mother's side survives from generation to generation. A mother who gives birth only to sons will see her mtDNA lineage lost. Examination of mtDNA so far has yielded only rare and unusual cases where paternal mtDNA survives and is passed onto the child. Mitochondria are also valuable to evolutionists because copies of the exact same mtDNA one has can be found in cells throughout one’s body. Within each cell, too, there may be thousands of copies of mtDNA. Conversely, the nuclear DNA in a cell usually contains just two copies. It is also easier to extract mtDNA than nuclear DNA, since it is found outside the fragile and more rapidly decaying nucleus of the cell.<br /><br />What all this adds up to is that a one’s mtDNA is the same as one’s mother's, since there is no recombination to form a third version, distinct from both one’s mother's and father's but a combination of both. This makes mtDNA much easier to track from an anthropological standpoint. Humans have been around for a long time. In the hundreds of thousands of years we've been walking the planet, our numbers have grown. How is it that only about 200K years ago a single woman became the great-grandmother of us all? Does NOT human history go further back than that? In the following text we will see how humanity may have come close to extinction, setting the stage for Mitochondrial Eve to leave her enduring legacy.<br /><br />It was estimated that Mitochondrial Eve lived about 200K years ago. With a margin of error included, she would have been alive between 500K and 50K years ago. Given that Eve is thought to have lived during a time when there were other women alive, how is it that all of us alive today descended from her alone? There are a couple explanations for how only Eve’s mtDNA alone could have survived. Most likely a combination of converging factors is responsible.<br /><br />The likeliest possibility is that an evolutionary bottleneck occurred among humankind while Eve was alive. This is a situation where a large majority of the members of species suddenly die out, bringing the species to the verge of extinction. This sudden decrease in numbers is NOT due to any kind of failure to adapt. Instead, it's more likely the result of a catastrophe of some sort, for example, the result of a comet hitting the Earth or a super volcano eruption. Afterward, just a few members remain to repopulate the group and continue to evolve. Bottlenecks are suspected to have taken place at different times in humanity’s history Thus, it is credible that an event like this could have taken place during Eve’s lifetime.<br /><br />A 1998 report concluded that about 70K years ago, humanity was reduced to only about 15K people on the whole planet. With very few people spread out across the planet, humankind was on the verge of extinction. The event that caused the near-loss of our species was an eruption of Mount Toba in Sumatra. This volcanic eruption was so immense that it lowered global temperatures, killed off the animals and plants that nourished humans, and spurred the coldest ice age the planet has seen, lasting 1,000 years.<br /><br />The Mitochondrial Eve theory evokes similar scenarios. IF the human population was reduced dramatically, AND there were NOT many women around to bear children, THEN the stage is set for one “Lucky Mother” to emerge as a most recent common ancestor. It is possible that after a few generations, the mtDNA of the other women died out. IF a woman produces only male offspring, THEN her mtDNA will NOT be passed along, since children do NOT receive mtDNA from their father. This means that while the woman’s sons will have her mtDNA, her grandchildren will NOT, and her line will be lost. It is possible that this was the cause of Eve emerging as the sole “Lucky Mother” who in essence gave birth to us all.<br /><br />Alternate Hypothesis - A reviewer of this presentation asked: Is it truly Eve we are talking about or is it not more likely that the "Lucky Woman" was Noah's wife? She fits the conditions described exactly...except the literal readers of the Bible would place her more in the 5,000 - 10,000 BC range. While the Bible states we have one common mother in Eve, the events that have occurred since then would seem to make it impossible to ascertain what she was like. Only Noah's wife, or the wives of his sons could be the focal point of our mtDNA since the Flood. And the Flood provides exactly the kind of cataclysmic event that would have created a bottleneck as described in your presentation.<br /><br />My answer to this alternate hypothesis is as follows: For mtDNA to be common in all humans, both Noah’s wife and the wives of Noah’s sons must have had common mtDNA. Given that the wives of Noah’s three sons were from parents other than Noah and Noah’s wife, this means the common mtDNA must have originated with a primordial Eve.<br /><br />Although talk of genetic mutations and DNA sequences makes it seem complex, at its core, tracking mtDNA is based on a deceptively simple notion: People whose ancestors were once closely related should have almost identical mtDNA. mtDNA can undergo mutations over time, but it takes time for these mutations to occur. Logically, the fewer there are, the less time has gone by since two families' ancestors diverged. Those people who have just a few differences in their mtDNA sequences would be more recently related than those sequences which bear many differences.<br /><br />Let us suppose your great-great-grandmother on your mom's side -- whom we'll call Mildred -- had a sister, whom we'll call Tillie. Both shared identical mtDNA which they received from their mother. But imagine that Tillie and Mildred had a terrible argument, and Tillie moved across the country, while Mildred's descendants -- including you -- stayed put. Tillie and Millie never spoke again. Both women gave birth to girls, and so their matrilineal mtDNA was passed on. But as the generations continued, the families of the two grew less and less aware of the existence of the other branch, until neither line was aware of the other. But the two lines are about to be inadvertently reunited. Researchers placed a national advertisement asking for test subjects for a study of recent human population trends using mtDNA for mapping. By coincidence, you and a distant cousin of yours on Tillie's side of the family both decide to volunteer.<br /><br />After they collect a DNA sample from you, the researchers compare your mtDNA to the sequences from the other candidates. Lo and behold -- they find that two volunteers are cousins. Comparing your mtDNA to your cousin's, the geneticists should be able to tell about how long ago Tillie and Mildred had their argument. If they checked the local populations of your area and your cousin's area, they should also be able to tell whether it was Tillie or Millie who migrated, by finding which population shared more of the mtDNA present in your family line. More people with the same mtDNA means that that sequence has been around longer. What's more, they can also conclude that since you and your cousin share similar mtDNA, you have a most common recent ancestor, the woman who is mother to Tillie and Mildred.<br /><br />Since it takes a while for mtDNA mutations to occur, it would be pretty difficult for these imagined geneticists to pin down you and your cousin with accuracy. But when this technique is extrapolated over a period spanning tens or hundreds of thousands of years, it becomes much more viable. Not everyone accepts the Mitochondrial Eve theory, however.<br /><br />Evolutionary mapping through the use of mtDNA is inexact. As mtDNA study continued after the late 1970s, scientists discovered a property known as heteroplasmy -- the presence of more than one sequence of mtDNA found in the same person. Even within a single person, there are differences between mtDNA that make comparing one person or group to another tricky. The 1987 study of the Mitochondrial Eve came under attack when it was pointed out that the "African" population the researchers sampled was actually made up almost entirely of African-Americans. Is it possible that in the few hundred years since Africans had been imported to the Americas against their will that African-Americans' mtDNA had mutated enough so as to render the sample useless? In the face of the criticism, researchers took an additional sample of Africans living in Africa, but found virtually the same results.<br /><br />Another problem with mtDNA study is the differences in the rate of mutation. If a particular sequence of mtDNA was concluded to develop a mutation in 1,000 years, then would two strains of mtDNA from the same lineage with two mutations have diverged about 2,000 years ago? This is how researchers decided Mitochondrial Eve was living around 200,000 years ago. The researchers assumed that mtDNA mutates at a consistent rate. However, the rate of mutation for mtDNA is uncertain and immeasurable. If we look at the rate of mutation among a whole group of organisms, say, all people alive today -- called the phylogenetic rate -- we might conclude that mtDNA mutates at a consistent rate. But if we look at a single family line within that larger group -- the pedigree rate – we will most likely find an entirely different rate of mutation.<br /><br />Since the "mutational clock" used by the researchers was called into question, they expanded the date for Eve's existence to between 500,000 and 50,000 years ago. Decades after the Mitochondrial Eve study was published, the results are still hotly debated. Are we all descended from a most recent common ancestor who lived 200,000 years ago? Can mtDNA even tell us precisely? These questions remain unanswered by science and frame the future work of evolutionary geneticists. But the 1987 study changed the way we think about ourselves as humans. It pointed out that somewhere down the line of history, we are all related.<br /><br />Genesis chapter2: The LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being. Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed. …The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it. The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." The LORD God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him." …So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken."<br /><br />Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam, and which, through generation, is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).<br /><br />The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states: "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390). Conclusion: If there is no Fall, then there is no Redemption.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-62989070216165427292019-02-15T10:16:00.003-05:002023-02-07T06:33:52.376-05:00Creatio aut EvolutioCREATION VS EVOLUTION<br /><br />Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br /><br />Previously the Old Testament reading in the daily Divine Liturgy was Genesis 1:1-19 where we talked about the Fine Tuning of the Universe. Then on the next day the Old Testament reading was Genesis 1:20-2:3 where we talked about Days of Creation. Following that is the Old Testament reading from Genesis 2:4-17 where we will talk about Creation vs Evolution. Finally the Old Testament reading will be Genesis 2:18-25 where we will talk about Mitochondrial Eve. Hopefully you, dear reader, will begin to see the unity of Science and Faith which Pope St. John Paul II explains in his encyclical, “Fides et Ratio,” which means (when translated) “Faith and Reason.” The following material for today’s discussion is derived from an apologetics training course that I gave some ten years ago entitled, “How the Church Deals with Evolution.” Yes, it’s long-winded and detailed with lots of science and lots of quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and from Papal Encyclicals (those prior to the current Pontiff), but truth cannot be distilled into a Facebook meme or Twitter soundbite. (PS, just wait till I get to Dr. High Ross’ work on the Book of Job.)<br /><br />Theory<br /><br />1. Definition: The analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.<br />2. A theory is a way of explaining one’s observations of facts and itself is NOT fact.<br />3. Examples<br />a. The Atomic Theory is an analysis on the nature of matter<br />b. The Special Theory of Relativity is an analysis of the structure of space-time<br />c. The General Theory of Relativity is an analysis of existence and action of gravitation<br />d. The Theory of Evolution is an analysis of the process of change in the inherited traits of organisms across of generations<br /><br />Fact<br /><br />1. Definition:<br />a. A thing done<br />b. The quality of being actual<br />c. Something that has actual existence<br />2. Examples:<br />a. Matter can be sub-divided into smaller particles<br />b. Objects approaching light speed get more massive<br />c. A dropped object falls<br />d. Organisms change over generations<br /><br />Evolution<br /><br />1. Definition:<br />a. A process of change in a certain direction<br />b. A process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state<br />2. Examples:<br />a. Domestication of wolf to dog<br />b. Adaptation of viruses and bacteria to medicine<br />c. Progression from ape to man<br /><br />Creation<br /><br />1. Definition:<br />a. The act of bringing the world into ordered existence<br />b. The act of making, inventing, producing<br />2. Examples:<br />a. Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Big Bang<br />b. Made, Invented or Produced: Cars, jets, trains, houses, etc.<br />3. St. Augustine: "[T]hough God formed man of the dust of the earth, yet the earth itself, and every earthly material, is absolutely created out of nothing; and man’s soul, too, God created out of nothing, and joined to the body, when he made man" (The City of God 14:11 [AD 419]).<br /><br />Three Basic Positions on Origin of the Cosmos, Life and Man:<br /><br />1. Special or Instantaneous Creation: a given thing did not develop, but was instantaneously and directly created by God<br />2. Developmental Creation or Theistic Evolution: a given thing did develop from a previous state or form, but that this process was under God’s guidance<br />3. Atheistic Evolution: a thing developed due to random forces alone<br /><br />Evolution answers HOW things originated, NOT WHY:<br /><br />1. Universe: Cosmological Evolution<br />2. Life: Biological Evolution<br />3. Man: Human Evolution<br /><br />Related to the question of how the universe, life, and man arose is the question of when they arose.<br /><br />1. Those who attribute the origin of all three to special creation hold that they arose at about the same time (e.g., 6 to 10 thousand years ago).<br />2. Those who attribute all three to atheistic evolution have a much longer time scale and generally hold:<br />a. The universe to be ten billion to twenty billion years old,<br />b. Life on earth to be about four billion years old, and<br />c. Modern man (the subspecies homo sapiens) to be about thirty thousand years old.<br />3. Those who believe in varieties of developmental creation hold dates used by either or both of the other two positions.<br /><br />Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican Council I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5). The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets were created at that time or whether they developed over time (e.g., in the aftermath of the Big Bang). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan. Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).<br /><br />Evidence of the Big Bang and Cosmological Evolution:<br /><br />1. Large Scale Homogeneity of the Universe indicates a common, central point of origin.<br />2. The Hubble Diagram: the further away objects are from one another, the greater the red shift in their spectrum, and this indicates the expansion of the universe from a common, central point.<br />3. Abundance of Light Elements: the ratios of hydrogen to helium are mathematically consistent with what would be expected on initial hydrogen fusion during and after the Big Bang.<br />4. Cosmic Microwave Background: the current temperature (2.725 Kelvin) of the universe as measured from background is consistent with what mathematics predicts would be the case 15 billion years after the Big Bang.<br />5. Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background are consistent with the hyper-inflation that occurred after the Big Bang.<br /><br />Father Georges LeMaitre and the Big Bang:<br /><br />1. Belgian Roman Catholic Priest<br />a. Lived from July 17, 1894 to June 20, 1966.<br />b. Professor of physics and astronomy at Universite Catholique de Louvain<br />c. Member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences<br />d. Member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and Arts of Belgium<br />2. Pioneer in applying Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to Cosmology.<br />3. He deduced the Big Bang decades before Hubble demonstrated its existence via the red shift in far away stars.<br />4. His work was the basis for Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis.<br />5. He died in 1966 shortly after learning of the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation which was the final conclusive demonstration of the validity of his “Primeval Atom” Theory.<br /><br />Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.<br /><br />Evidence of Biological Evolution:<br /><br />• Fossil Record and Radioactive Dating<br />• Genetics – Molecular Relatedness<br />• Anatomical Relatedness<br /><br />These could equally be considered evidence of special creation over long periods of time.<br /><br />Concerning human evolution, the Church allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions…take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it enquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter— [but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.<br /><br />Evidence of Human Evolution – same as Biological Evolution:<br /><br />• Fossil Record and Radioactive Dating<br />• Genetics – Molecular Relatedness<br />• Anatomical Relatedness<br /><br />These could equally be considered evidence of special creation over long periods of time.<br /><br />Conclusion:<br /><br />While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.<br /><br />Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared.<br /><br />The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but has NOT infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.<br /><br />Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence.<br /><br />"Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).<br /><br />The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).<br /><br />Age of the Universe: NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Project estimates the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old based on the decay and distribution of the background microwave radiation.<br /><br />Age of Earth: The age of Earth is about 4.55 billion years based on the radioactive decay of Pb-206 / 204 or Pb-208 / 204 in Earth’s crust.<br /><br />Age of Homo Sapiens: The age of humanity is about 30,000 years old, based on radioactive dating of fossils (K-40 / Ar-40 and C-14 / N-14).<br /><br />Radioactive Decay<br /><br />An object’s age can be measured by comparing the ratio of daughter isotopes to parent isotopes and calculating the elapsed time based on a mathematical equation from particle physics.<br /><br />Radioactive Decay Equation<br /><br />A(t) = [Ao] [e(-ln2(t/T)]<br /><br />Use this equation to determine the activity of a radioactive material at any given period of time.<br /><br />A(t) = the number of radioactive atoms at time (t)<br />Ao = the number of radioactive atoms at time zero (originally)<br />e = base of the natural log<br />ln2 = a constant (0.693)<br />t = the number of days of decay<br />T = the half-life in days of the radioactive material of interest<br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br />While there are many interpretations of the six days of Genesis 1, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account:<br /><br />1. Chronological Reading<br />2. Topical Reading.<br /><br />According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order and were standard 24-hour days.<br /><br />Some argue these may NOT have been standard days because the Hebrew word used for day (yom) may mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Gen. 2:4).<br /><br />However, the text in Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, then it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.<br /><br />Pope Pius XII warned us:<br /><br />"What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East." (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).<br /><br />This leads us to the possibility that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order. The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different aspects of the environment. In the second three days, God solves the emptiness problem by populating the sky, dry land and sea.<br /><br />Sequencing of the Days of Creation<br /><br />1. Giving form to the world in the first three days<br />a. On day one God separates day from night.<br />b. On day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between.<br />c. On day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land.<br />d. Thus the world has been given form.<br />2. Solving the world’s emptiness problem<br />a. The world is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days.<br />b. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.<br /><br />DAY 0<br />Formless Wasteland Darkness Covered the Abyss<br />No Space, No Time, No Matter, No Energy<br /><br />DAY 1<br />Separating Day from Night<br />Big Bang, Decoupling of Matter, Nucleosynthesis, Star and Galaxy Formation<br /><br />DAY 2<br />Separating the Waters Below from the Waters Above<br />Solar System / Planet Formation<br /><br />DAY 3<br />Separating Dry Land and Seas, Creation of Plants<br />Continent Formation, Evolution of Photosynthesis, Production of N2 / O2 Atmosphere<br /><br />DAY 4<br />Creation of Lights in the Sky<br />Breakup of Planetary Cloud Cover from O2 Formation via Photosynthesis.<br /><br />DAY 5<br />Creation of Sea Animals and Birds<br />Evolution of Aquatic Life and Dinosaurs (progenitors of birds)<br /><br />DAY 6<br />Creation of Animals and Man<br />Evolution of Mammals and Man<br /><br />DAY 7<br />God Rested<br />Start of Local Calendar Time<br /><br />The argument is that all of this is real history: it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis would have understood it as such. Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, then it still records God’s work—things God really did. The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338). It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.<br /><br />It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).<br /><br />Out of Africa Hypothesis<br /><br />Anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa around 60,000 years ago. These emigrants spread to the rest of the world, replacing other Homo species already there, such as Neanderthals and Homo Erectus. The hypothesis is derived from research in several disciplines, chiefly genetics, archaeology and linguistics. Examination of mitochondrial DNA in fact indicates that all women are descended from the same woman – Eve.<br /><br />In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated, "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam, and which, through generation, is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).<br /><br />The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states: "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390). Conclusion: If there is no Fall, then there is no Redemption.<br /><br />The Catholic Church has always taught that “No real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits…If nevertheless there is a disagreement….it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation;’ and that for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).<br /><br />As the Catechism puts it "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.<br /><br />Conclusion from the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous, Pages 53-54: “…we [the agnostic] had to fearlessly face the proposition that either God is everything or else He is nothing. God either is or He isn’t. What was our choice to be? ….Without knowing it, had we not been brought to where we stood by a certain kind of faith? Or did we not believe in our own reasoning? Did we not have confidence in our ability to think? What was that but a sort of faith? Yes, we had been faithful, abjectly faithful to the God of Reason. So, in one way or another, we discovered that faith had been involved all the time! Imagine life without faith! Were nothing left but pure reason, it wouldn't be life. But we believed in life-of course we did. We could not prove life in the sense that you can prove a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, yet, there it was. Could we still say the whole thing was nothing but a mass of electrons, created out of nothing, meaning nothing, whirling on to a destiny of nothingness? Or course we couldn’t. The electrons themselves seemed more intelligent than that. At least, so the chemist said. Hence, we saw that reason isn’t everything.”Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-74770447090930462932019-02-15T10:12:00.002-05:002019-02-15T10:13:15.820-05:00Diei CreationisDAYS OF CREATION<br />
<br />
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br />
<br />
The Old Testament reading in the daily Divine Liturgy for 02/12/2019 concludes the account of creation with Genesis 1:20-2:3. As I promised previously, this post provides a correlation between the six 24 hour days of Genesis with the actual multi-billion year age of the universe. Now first a note to my readers – traditional Catholics, as well as Pentecostal and Evangelical Protestants – who take a very literal view of the account of Genesis: you are correct but in a way that you do not suspect. First, however, in order to understand how you can be correct about a literal set of six 24 hour days of creation, and science can be correct about a multi-billion year age of the universe, you must understand something about physics: per Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, time is completely relative to the frame of reference of an observer. If an observer is near a large gravity well like a black hole, then time for him will pass more slowly as time in the external universe seems to speed up. Likewise as an observer approaches light speed, then time for him will pass more slowly as time in the external universe seems to speed up. We absolutely know for certain that this phenomenon is fact because we have seen it demonstrated in particle accelerators where radioactive nuclei are accelerated close to light speed and their decay time increases. Likewise we have to adjust communications between satellites in Earth orbit and cell phones on Earth’s surface to account for this time differential, else the GPS location feature of the cell phone would be exceedingly inaccurate. Therefore, 2nd Peter 3:8 is literally correct when it states, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” The passage of time for the Lord is different than the passage of time for us terrestrials. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a universe age of 13, 14 or 15 billion years to our terrestrial perspective is merely day 7 of creation for the Lord. Time as recorded in Genesis chapter 1 is given from the perspective of God and NOT from the perspective of us terrestrial observers looking backward to the Big Bang – the creation event where God said, “Let there be light.”<br />
<br />
You see, dear reader, if we measure time at the rate at which it had passed when the first particle of matter appeared (i.e., the proton) out of the Big Bang event when God created space and time, matter and energy, then we find a natural log relationship between this and the rate at which time currently passes in our present epoch on Earth. The first six days of creation described in Genesis are measured with respect to local time when protons coalesced out of the primordial Big Bang. This allows billions of years to transpire until the present with respect to current local time on Earth while preserving the veracity of the ancient Biblical record that the Universe was created in six 24 hour days. Said another way, the six days are told from the standpoint of Someone (i.e., God) at the beginning when protons first appeared out of the “soup” of quarks and leptons. That Someone, being outside space and time, saw the whole saga unfolding over a duration of six primordial 24 hour days as measured locally to the Big Bang.<br />
<br />
Remember that for pure energy (i.e., the photon, a particle of light) time is at a stand-still. Thus, time began to progress when the first particles of matter coalesced out of the Big Bang and that’s the time perspective of the Creator. As the density of the mass in the early universe decreased with the expansion that occurred after the Big Bang, the rate of the passage of time increased locally. The equation for this can be given as:<br />
<br />
A = [(-Ao/ln(2))*e^(-ln(2) * t)] / 365.25<br />
<br />
where:<br />
<br />
Ao = [ proton threshold temperature (1.0888E+13 Kelvin) ] / [ the current microwave background temperature (2.725 Kelvin) ].<br />
<br />
ln(2) = natural log of 2 or 0.693<br />
<br />
e = 2.71828<br />
<br />
t = the Genesis day<br />
<br />
A = the number of years into the past (will be a negative number)<br />
<br />
NOTE: We divide by 365.25 to convert days to years.<br />
<br />
Please see attached screen capture photos for a graph on the Age of the Universe and an associated data table.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEeRnjt4-6dWP-tY_HWmaQFBajh2x7atiy5GUYr78lM9x-ZElroenIGIzSKv2A03MQBXpLfQ2V1J6C7kcT9R_KVb2tnu-OnzDm1g3wp4c0R3a9zrk_X6y1sX56TykKoNchhKuwHtodEAE/s1600/Days+of+Creation+-+Graph.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="326" data-original-width="531" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEeRnjt4-6dWP-tY_HWmaQFBajh2x7atiy5GUYr78lM9x-ZElroenIGIzSKv2A03MQBXpLfQ2V1J6C7kcT9R_KVb2tnu-OnzDm1g3wp4c0R3a9zrk_X6y1sX56TykKoNchhKuwHtodEAE/s320/Days+of+Creation+-+Graph.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Days of Creation - Graph</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJxR5mT3zL5K6jOSuQh75sa4gYhVur_nCZ7c9fiDfs8kko6VVvJK2jAC4VFf-_OXAE2ETZnO3CgwgbWVoZtHRQspdnzWbQcTmqaf8B25UUAJuqXN-Qd5uTLg_U24jsBAcLQjYRkqo6X5I/s1600/Days+of+Creation+-+Data.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="425" data-original-width="1186" height="114" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJxR5mT3zL5K6jOSuQh75sa4gYhVur_nCZ7c9fiDfs8kko6VVvJK2jAC4VFf-_OXAE2ETZnO3CgwgbWVoZtHRQspdnzWbQcTmqaf8B25UUAJuqXN-Qd5uTLg_U24jsBAcLQjYRkqo6X5I/s320/Days+of+Creation+-+Data.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Days of Creation - Data</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
Dr. Gerald Schroeder explains this correlation in the following way at his web site and provides a correction to due universe inflation just after the Big Bang where the stretching of the fabric of space-time accounts for the difference between the calculated 15.6 billion year age of the universe and the observed 13.73 billion year age. We know from the Biblical record that this stretching occurred because both Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah 40:22 talk about the stretching of the heavens like a fabric. Therefore, what the good doctor writes below is reasonable – God created the 13.73 billion year old universe in six 24 hour days.<br />
<br />
Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 14 billion years of history and those years went by. But how would they be perceived from the Bible’s perspective of time? Looking forward from when the universe was very small – billions of times smaller – the Bible teaches that six days passed. In truth, they both are correct. What’s exciting about the last few years is that we now have quantified the data to know the relationship between the perception of time from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons (their nucleosynthesis), looking forward and our measure of the history of the universe. It’s not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same generalized number. The general relationship of the stretching of space between the era of proton anti-proton formation, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons when the first stable matter formed, and time today is a million million. That’s a 1 with 12 zeros after it. Space has stretched by a million million. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says “I’m sending you a pulse every second,” would we see a pulse every second? No. We’d see one every million million seconds. That’s the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe on the perception of time.<br />
<br />
The biblical text shows us (and the Talmud confirms) that the soul of Adam was created five and a half days after the big bang creation. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of just under 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billions of years old but from the biblical perspective those billions of years compress into five and a half, 24 hour days.<br />
<br />
The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the 15 billion years sequestered with them.<br />
<br />
Following a talk I gave at AZUSA Pacific University, February 2011, a participant noted that when calculating the expansion ratio of space (that is, the fraction by which space had stretched) from the era of proton formation to our current time, I had neglected to correct for the fact that the rate of universal expansion is actually increasing. The million million expansion ratio is gotten by calculating the averaged ratio of the temperature of space now (2.76 K) relative to the threshold temperature of proton anti-proton pair production that marks the start of the biblical clock. The correction for this increase in the rate of universal expansion is in the order of 10%. Had the expansion been constant [and not super-linear resulting from the increased expansion rate], the temperature of space would be, not the currently observed 2.76 K, but 3.03 K. Introducing this correction reduces the expansion factor of the million million ( that is, a trillion) cited above, by 10% to 900 billion. As discussed above, the biblical time prior to the creation of the soul of Adam is 5 and half days. Expanding those biblical pre-Adam five and a half, 24 hour days by the expansion factor, 900,000,000,000, (i.e., 900 billion) results in age of the universe as viewed from our perspective of 13.6 billon years.<br />
<br />
An exponential equation can be developed that details the number of years as measured from our perspective of time compressed within each of the five and half 24 hour days of Genesis Chapter One, taking each day as one “half life.” However rather than using the highly rounded off expansion factor of 900 billion, this equation uses the exact expansion factor (the ratio of the energy or temperature of space at the threshold energy of protons [10.9 x 1012 K ] to the “AZUSA” corrected current energy or temperature of space [3.03 K ]). The result gives an overall age of the universe of 13.9 billion years and also the number of those 13.9 billion years of cosmic history held compressed within each of the biblical five and a half, 24 hour days of Genesis prior to the creation of the human soul of Adam. Starting with Day One, the results are, approximately: 7; 3.5; 1.8; 0.9; 0.5; 0.2 billions of years compressed within each successive 24-hour biblical day. This is in close agreement with the NASA number of 13.7 billion years. Interestingly, several years ago an article in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Nature, used this identical approach to discuss the time from the beginning of the universe, but with a totally different agenda and so started its clock at the very creation which they projected as a singularity. The significance of this is that this respected science journal has given its stamp of approval for the methodology used here.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-78603502446284439792019-02-15T10:07:00.001-05:002019-03-20T10:29:08.376-04:00Contendens Suptilis UniversitatisAmici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br />
<br />
The Old Testament reading in the Divine Liturgy for 02/11/2019 is Genesis 1:1-19 – the first four days of creation during which God created:<br />
<br />
Light (Day 1)<br />
Firmament (Day 2)<br />
Land, Sea and Plants (Day 3)<br />
Lights in the Firmament (Day 4)<br />
<br />
Today I am going to write about the fine-tuning of the universe – yes, SCIENCE. Tomorrow I will write about the age of the universe (more science) – how the six 24 days in Genesis correlate to the 13.72 billion year age of the observable universe (yes, the Bible is 100% correct, and so is science – are you surprised?). There will be some math, so the reader will have to recall natural logarithms from high school. (PS, the language God used to create the universe is mathematics even as the language of God’s Church is Aramaic, Koine Greek and Latin – just saying 😁).<br />
<br />
Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a physicist and an Orthodox Jew, has written many articles about the Genesis account of creation. His article on the fine tuning of the universe may be found here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=49&fbclid=IwAR3imT0tofe_dV0aMxTu9xDzUyw7i__LM7AunTaHY_9Jz_wE9YvIDQZHRXI">http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=49</a><br />
<br />
The reason why this article struck me so was because of a certain fact about nuclear fusion which I had known from my days of Naval Nuclear Power School back in 1978, but which I had never put together with the creation event. Early stars formed from clouds of hydrogen and helium produced by the Big Bang to undergo fusion (I’ll discuss the Big Bang later – fear not, for it is proof positive of a Divine Creator, not atheistic evolution). When enough helium is produced by fusion of hydrogen, then that helium itself can undergo fusion to produce beryllium via what is called the triple alpha process:<br />
<br />
2He4 + 2He4 → 4Be8<br />
<br />
Once formed, that beryllium can undergo fusion with leftover helium to produce the carbon so essential to life:<br />
<br />
4Be8 + 2He4 → 6C12<br />
<br />
Finally the carbon can continue to react with leftover helium to form oxygen which we all need to breathe:<br />
<br />
6C12 + 2He4 → 8O16<br />
<br />
And then subsequent fusion reactions build up all the heavy elements up to uranium out of which asteroids, moons and planets are made. Now why is this so significant? Because of the extremely short half-life of 4Be8:<br />
<br />
6.7E-17 seconds<br />
<br />
This means that half the amount of beryllium-8 formed out of fusion in stars will decay back to helium and hydrogen in a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second, and after five half-lives, no beryllium would be left:<br />
<br />
33.5E-17 seconds<br />
<br />
All the beryllium would revert back to helium:<br />
<br />
4Be8 → 2He4 + 2He4<br />
<br />
Thus, if the half-life of beryllium were any shorter, then no heavy elements would form to be spread into the universe when the star goes supernova, and no plants, no moons, no asteroids would exist. And if the half-life were any longer, then too much beryllium-helium fusion would occur, and the star would collapse before it could go supernova and spread heavy elements into the universe; and in that scenario there would be no asteroids, moons or planets.<br />
<br />
This amount of fine tuning – the half-life of beryllium-8 must be exactly 6.7E-17 seconds (no shorter and no longer) – to result in the observable universe we inhabit surely points to a Divine Creator. And that’s not the only variable fine-tuned for the existence of the universe and life therein (I got the following list from the “Evidence for God” website):<br />
<br />
1. strong nuclear force constant<br />
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry<br />
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry<br />
<br />
2. weak nuclear force constant<br />
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible<br />
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible<br />
<br />
3. gravitational force constant<br />
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry<br />
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form<br />
<br />
4. electromagnetic force constant<br />
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission<br />
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry<br />
<br />
5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant<br />
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support<br />
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements<br />
<br />
6. ratio of electron to proton mass<br />
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry<br />
if smaller: same as above<br />
<br />
7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons<br />
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation<br />
if smaller: same as above<br />
<br />
8. expansion rate of the universe<br />
if larger: no galaxies would form<br />
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed<br />
<br />
9. entropy level of the universe<br />
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies<br />
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form<br />
<br />
10. mass density of the universe<br />
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form<br />
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements<br />
<br />
11. velocity of light<br />
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support<br />
<br />
12. age of the universe<br />
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy<br />
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed<br />
<br />
13. initial uniformity of radiation<br />
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed<br />
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space<br />
<br />
14. average distance between galaxies<br />
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material<br />
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit<br />
<br />
15. density of galaxy cluster<br />
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit<br />
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material<br />
<br />
16. average distance between stars<br />
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form<br />
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life<br />
<br />
17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun<br />
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields<br />
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun<br />
<br />
18. decay rate of protons<br />
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation<br />
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life<br />
<br />
19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio<br />
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life<br />
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life<br />
<br />
20. ground state energy level for 4He<br />
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life<br />
if smaller: same as above<br />
<br />
21. decay rate of 8Be<br />
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars<br />
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry<br />
<br />
22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass<br />
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements<br />
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes<br />
<br />
23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons<br />
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation<br />
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation<br />
<br />
24. polarity of the water molecule<br />
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life<br />
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result<br />
<br />
25. supernovae eruptions<br />
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet<br />
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form<br />
<br />
26. white dwarf binaries<br />
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry<br />
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life<br />
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production<br />
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry<br />
<br />
27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass<br />
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form<br />
if smaller: no galaxies would form<br />
<br />
28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe<br />
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible<br />
if smaller: same result<br />
<br />
29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe<br />
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable<br />
if larger: same result<br />
<br />
30. mass of the neutrino<br />
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form<br />
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense<br />
<br />
31. big bang ripples<br />
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly<br />
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form<br />
<br />
32. size of the relativistic dilation factor<br />
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly<br />
if larger: same result<br />
<br />
33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle<br />
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable<br />
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable<br />
<br />
34. cosmological constant<br />
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type starsUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-31024306949483826602019-01-29T18:45:00.004-05:002019-01-30T15:20:15.964-05:00Non Habes Quod RequiriturNON HABES QUOD REQUIRITUR <br />
YOU DON’T HAVE WHAT IT TAKES <br />
<br />
On Sunday, January 27, 2019, my wife wanted to attend service at the Protestant Evangelical Church in the southern part of our city. I actually am quite happy that we did attend for the message from the pulpit was appropriate and timely. My notes (with some side commentary) are provided below. The chosen Scripture passage was Hebrews 4:11-16: <br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A11-16&version=RSVCE">https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A11-16&version=RSVCE</a> <br />
<br />
INTRODUCTION <br />
<br />
The message of the culture is not the message of the Gospel. It is a false message to say that you can do anything you put your mind to do for you are not God. You are not omnipotent and you cannot do it by your own power. In Genesis 41:16, when asked to interpret his dream, “Joseph answered Pharaoh, ‘It is not in me; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer.’” <br />
<br />
In another respect God uses marriage to bring us to the end of ourselves because by our own effort without His help we cannot make the marriage relationship work, hence the modern divorce rate. <br />
<br />
The message in the Epistle to the Hebrews is that Jesus as our High Priest is superior to all. And St. Paul emphasizes in Ephesians 2:8, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God…” <br />
<br />
COME WHOLEHEARTEDLY TO THE FAMILY OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:11) <br />
<br />
In Hebrews 4:11, we “strive to enter that rest.” Rest is peace with God. But the use of the word strive seems contradictory. <br />
<br />
All are born in sin. David said in Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (This Psalm was written in repentance for the adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah her husband which David had committed). God required everything from David and in like manner God requires everything from us in order to receive everything from Him. We live by Faith in Christ, NOT in self. Therefore, we must strive – be diligent and come wholeheartedly into God’s family. 2nd Corinthians 13:5 states, “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” Seek out Godly counsel. Don’t bank on the supposition that you prayed a prayer. You must live the life. Examine yourself. <br />
<br />
It is here that I am going to diverge from my notes and give a more correct explanation of what the preacher was trying to say. He denied the salvific effect of baptism, treating it as a mere ordinance of the confirmation of one’s pre-existing salvation and not as a Sacrament. I think that he was trying to say that just because you’re baptized doesn’t mean you get an automatic ticket into Heaven. That’s true by itself. I agree with that. Baptism isn’t a free ticket where I can do whatever sin I want but I remain saved just because I was baptized. So I think this is more a matter of semantics. Let me explain and tie this into what the preacher went on to say. <br />
<br />
Jesus in Mark 16:16 says, “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved…” And 1st Peter 3:21 states, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, NOW SAVES YOU, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ….” However, James 2:17, 19 & 24 state, “So FAITH BY ITSELF, if it has no works, IS DEAD….Even the demons believe—and shudder…You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” <br />
<br />
Therefore, to be saved: (1) one must believe, AND (2) one must be baptized AND (3) one must put one’s faith and baptism into action by good works in obedience to glory of God. Salvation isn't just an event. It is a process of living.<br />
<br />
Thus, those three Scripture passages directly support what the preacher did say, that (for example) the Jews being God’s Chosen people was insufficient for their salvation. Obedience is the authentic mark of a follower of Christ – a willingness to die to self. That’s the second part of Hebrews 4:11, “….that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.” <br />
<br />
COME EXPECTANTLY TO THE WORD OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:12-13) <br />
<br />
God loves me and I must love Him. We must come back to God’s Word to let it shape us. “For the word of God is living and active…” This is the basic nature of God’s Word. 2nd Peter 1:20-21 states, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” <br />
<br />
God never has to make His rules better. His Word is living and God-breathed. In the same way, Genesis 2:7 says, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being…” Just as man became a living being by being God-breathed, so too the Word of God. <br />
<br />
The Word of God is active. The Greek word used here is ενεργός which goes into our English word energy. The Word is at work. <br />
<br />
The Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword. Ephesians 6:17 says, “And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Thus, the Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit. The written Word of God can be no less powerful than the words that Jesus Himself used to forgive sin and raise the dead. <br />
<br />
2nd Timothy 3:14-15 states, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” The Word of God teaches us and makes us wise unto salvation. <br />
<br />
2nd 3:1-17 states, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” The Word of God equips us for every good work. <br />
<br />
The Word of God pierces to the innermost being and cuts us surgically. <br />
<br />
Should we read God’s Word daily? YES! We all need to be daily cut in order to be continuously conformed to God’s image. The sword of the Spirit is life-changing. <br />
<br />
Matthew 4:4 states, “But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” This must start at childhood, for Deuteronomy 4:9 states, “Only take heed, and keep your soul diligently, lest you forget the things which your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children’s children…” The Word of God is more important than food, clothing, housing, work, etc. You don’t have what it takes without following what the Bible says. <br />
<br />
The preacher explained that he does expository – verse by verse – preaching in order to feed the people of God, and he cited Hebrews 5:11-14 which states: <br />
<br />
“About this we have much to say which is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” <br />
<br />
And Revelation 20:12 states, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done.” At this point the preacher speculated that one of the books to be opened would be the Bible. The Navarre Study Bible has a note on this. That note describes only the two sets of books mentioned in Rev 20:12, and states in part the following: <br />
<br />
“The author [of Revelation] then turns his attention to the resurrection, when all men will be judged according to their works. He describes this by using the metaphor of two books. One of these records the actions of men (as in Daniel 7:10 and other passages of the Old Testament, cf., e.g., Is 65:6; Jer 22:30). The second book contains the names of those predestined to eternal life (an idea inspired by Daniel 12:1; cf. also, e.g., Ex 32:32). This is a way of showing that man cannot attain salvation by his own efforts alone…” <br />
<br />
At this point the preacher expounded on the evil of abortion, describing abortion as a mess and as sin. The Bible states that life begins in the womb – Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” Pictures of baby formation at 12, 27 and 40 weeks were displayed on massive screens at the front of the Sanctuary. Psalm 139:13 states, “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.” However, in NY State it is now permissible to kill a baby at the moment of birth. Governor Andrew Cuomo signed such a bill into law. That is heinous and unspeakable. <br />
<br />
God uses His Word to point out our sins. We don’t have what it takes to get saved, to live day by day. <br />
<br />
COME CONFIDENTLY TO THE THRONE OF GOD (HEBREWS 4:14-16) <br />
<br />
We have an Advocate – Christ Jesus – to speak on our behalf. Nothing can deliver our deepest needs but Jesus. He never failed in His temptations and He won’t fail us in ours. We are able to pray because of Jesus and we are able to receive help because of Jesus. He is the Bread of Life (John 6:22-59). He is life itself (John 14:6). John Newton once said that no one can ask too much of Jesus. Therefore, let us come confidently to the Throne of Grace. <br />
<br />
Should we pray every day? YES! Just as we should read His Word every day. <br />
<br />
Romans 12:3 states, “For by the grace given to me I bid everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith which God has assigned him.” This shows that we can’t do it by ourselves but only by the measure of faith that God assigns us. Therefore, why don’t we come to the Word of God, the Throne of God? Maybe we’re lost, in which case we need to repent and convert. <br />
<br />
We cannot be with God and be separated from His Word, His Throne. <br />
<br />
PERSONAL COMMENT <br />
<br />
The respect that Protestant Evangelicals have for the written Word of God should be practiced by every Catholic and Orthodox person. I cannot emphasize that enough. We Catholics and Orthodox directly descended from the first century Christians gave the Bible to the world, and for us to NOT know what it says is absolutely shameful. But the Word of God isn’t just written.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The written Word is merely a reflection of the Divine Word (Jesus Christ) Who created all of existence and became incarnate of a Virgin in order to die on a Cross for our sins; he descended into hell, rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the Father from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. When we are baptized, we are baptized into His Body the Church of which He the crucified and risen Lord is the Head exactly as St. Paul describes it. When we partake of the Holy Eucharist, we eat that Word as His flesh and drink His blood exactly as the Bread of Life Discourse in John chapter 6 describes it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Reading the Bible is absolutely necessary, but the Holy Spirit through the very real power of the Sacraments makes its power alive within us. Jesus said in John 6:53-58, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” <br />
<br />
The Eucharist – not the Bible – is the source and summit of our Faith. In fact, there was no Bible (as we know it today) before the late AD 300s when the Church at two different councils decided on what books would be in the Bible and what would not be. Before that time the only thing that Christians had were the Church, Sacred Tradition and scattered collections of Scared Books. That’s why St. Paul says in 1st Timothy 3:15, “…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” And in 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 he says, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” <br />
<br />
I was very pleased and blessed with the overall sermon, especially that the subject of abortion was directly and forthrightly dealt with (sadly unlike Catholic Parishes which are running scared under the priestly sex abuse scandal and lack of leadership from the current Pontiff). And I like being stimulated to think on these things. Furthermore, I have nothing but encouragement to offer this Protestant preacher. But I always go back to how the early Church Fathers in the first four centuries AD viewed Scriptures. They were the closest to the Apostles, and I would urge any preacher - Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant - to read how the Church Fathers viewed and interpreted Sacred Scripture.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-32084058147085225022019-01-13T19:21:00.000-05:002019-01-13T19:21:01.757-05:00Immigratio et Bonum Commune<b>TALK ON IMMIGRATION BY MY PARISH PRIEST</b><br /><br />Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br /><br />On the evening of January 10, 2018 (Wednesday), Father gave a talk on Immigration and the Common Good at our Parish. The following are my notes on that presentation.<br /><br />When we consider issues like immigration, we must do so with the sobriety that comes with sound theology. It is all too easy to become overwhelmed with sentiment.<br /><br /><b>PRUDENCE</b><br /><br />Faith, hope and love are the primary virtues instilled by the Sacrament of Baptism. After these comes the virtue of prudence given in article 1806 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.<br /><br />1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going." "Keep sane and sober for your prayers." Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.<br /><br />Jesus gave two examples of the virtue of prudence in Luke 14:28-32:<br /><br />28 For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? 29 Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, 30 saying, ‘This man began to build, and was not able to finish.’ 31 Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? 32 And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace.<br /><br /><b>HUMAN SOLIDARITY</b><br /><br />Human solidarity builds a civilization of love. We have been given to each other. This is exemplified in the principle of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37. We as Christians are obliged to give out of our extra means to other in need, when we are employers, we are duty-bound to pay a just wage. Human solidarity is discussed in articles 1939 through 1941 of the Catechism.<br /><br />1939 The principle of solidarity, also articulated in terms of "friendship" or "social charity," is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood.<br /><br />An error, "today abundantly widespread, is disregard for the law of human solidarity and charity, dictated and imposed both by our common origin and by the equality in rational nature of all men, whatever nation they belong to. This law is sealed by the sacrifice of redemption offered by Jesus Christ on the altar of the Cross to his heavenly Father, on behalf of sinful humanity."<br /><br />1940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.<br /><br />1941 Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this.<br /><br /><b>SUBSIDIARITY</b><br /><br />The twin of solidarity is subsidiarity. The lowest level of public authority should take care of the need because the lowest level is closest to our neighbor and as such understands what the need really is. Subsidiarity is opposed to socialism and collectivism which are antithetical to the right to private property. The Church is always cautious of government involvement. The government is not the solution to everything.<br /><br />The Founders of the United States instituted a government based on subsidiarity. The individual sovereign states keep the Federal government in check, and individual counties within a state keep the state government in check.<br /><br />Subsidiarity is discussed in articles 1883 through 1885 of the Catechism:<br /><br />1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."<br /><br />1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.<br /><br />1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.<br /><br /><b>CIVIL AUTHORITY</b><br /><br />Christianity views authority as a blessing in providing social order whereas the West typically views authority as a necessary evil to prevent anarchy and citizens killing each other. In Christianity we obey lawful authority so that we can grow in virtue. Laws are given for our own good. For example, why is a certain road designated with a 35 mph speed limit even though we see we can drive on it at 55 mph? Well, we may not the reasons why that speed limit was selected. Is there a deaf child living in the area? Are there unsafe curves up ahead that we cannot see? Is there construction going on? Civil authorities in that particular area who are mothers and fathers had to select a speed limit based on protecting both driver and residents. Therefore, we are supposed to honor all those in authority because all authority comes from God. Romans 13:1-7 states:<br /><br />1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.<br /><br />1st Peter 2:13-17<br /><br />13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution,[b] whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.<br /><br />John 19:10-11 states:<br /><br />10 Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” 11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”<br /><br />Like Pontius Pilate, the Nazis and Communists received their authority from God, but they abused that authority and as history records suffered the consequences. Political authority is obliged to respect human rights, and people have a right to migrate.<br /><br />Because civil authority is a representative of God (Romans 13:2), they are stewards of His gifts. Thus, Sirach 10:1-5 states:<br /><br />1 A wise magistrate will educate his people,<br />and the rule of an understanding man will be well ordered.<br />2 Like the magistrate of the people, so are his officials;<br />and like the ruler of the city, so are all its inhabitants.<br />3 An undisciplined king will ruin his people,<br />but a city will grow through the understanding of its rulers.<br />4 The government of the earth is in the hands of the Lord,<br />and over it he will raise up the right man for the time.<br />5 The success of a man is in the hands of the Lord,<br />and he confers his honor upon the person of the scribe.<br /><br />We the citizens have a right and a duty to voice just criticism of what is harmful to the dignity of persons and the good of the community based on the principles of Truth, Justice, Solidarity and Freedom. Note that charity and sentimentality do not appear in that list, and that truth leads the list. But we must still exercise submission to authority. This is based on the ancient Roman principle of pietas which means responsibility, sense of duty; loyalty; tenderness, goodness; pity; piety. A civilized person owes pietas to God, Republic and Family. This means that we must vote, pay taxes (Romans 13:7) and defend the homeland.<br /><br />If civil authority does not violate goodness, then we must obey even when we disagree. If there are no violations of human rights and moral goodness, then obedience is required. We must not be given over to sloppy theology.<br /><br />Civil authority is discussed is articles 2234 through 2240 of the Catechism<br /><br />Duties of civil authorities<br /><br />2235 Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant."41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.<br /><br />2236 The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.<br /><br />2237 Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged.<br /><br />The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be granted according to the requirements of the common good. They cannot be suspended by public authorities without legitimate and proportionate reasons. Political rights are meant to be exercised for the common good of the nation and the human community.<br /><br />The duties of citizens<br /><br />2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution. . . . Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God."44 Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.<br /><br />2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.<br /><br />2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:<br /><br />Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.<br /><br />[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.<br /><br />The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."<br /><br /><b>IMMIGRATION PROPER</b><br /><br />More prosperous nations to the extent of their ability are obliged to welcome the foreigner. But the number of immigrants welcomed and the process of administering immigration are both determined by civil authority. Public authority must respect the right of the immigrant. This is based on the Biblical notion of hospitality. But the right to immigrate to subject to juridical conditions. Based on the principle of solidarity, civil authority should be generous to our neighbors, but based on the principle of subsidiarity civil authority must be protective of the citizenry. Civil authority has a responsibility for safety, the common good and economic well-being, and has a duty to say, “Not here,” “Not now,” or “Not in this way.” This stems from moral theology where human rights are accompanied by human duties.<br /><br />The immigrant must respect the country into which he immigrates. Immigrants must not create colonies of the countries of their origin in their new country. They must integrate and respect the new country’s laws such as paying taxes.<br /><br />We as citizens may voice opposition to a certain immigration policy, but ultimately we must obey. Legal immigration is encouraged and illegal immigration is prohibited.<br /><br />U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is NOT the Gestapo, a hyperbole that a bishop in Texas unfairly used. ICE is simply doing its job in enforcing the law. Either the immigrant enters the country legally or is subject to penalty. Likewise someone harboring an illegal immigrant is subject to penalty. This is nothing like harboring persecuted Jews to hide from the Nazis.<br /><br />What if a family has entered the country illegally but has remained here for an extended period of time? Then the Church argues for compassionate accommodation. But we don’t know if the people to be accommodated are actually a family or not. Ultimately civil authority decides whether or not to provide accommodation.<br /><br />Likewise what if a child was born to illegal immigrants in this country and was raised for years here, never knowing the country of his parents’ origin? Again we ask for compassionate accommodation, but ultimately civil authority decides.<br /><br />Immigration proper is discussed in article 2241 of the Catechism:<br /><br />2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.<br /><br />Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-17814430891665200752019-01-13T18:59:00.001-05:002019-01-30T17:40:33.692-05:00Oecologia et Energia NuclearisAmici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br />
<br />
The priest at our parish is giving a series of talks on major issues of our time. One of those talks scheduled for mid-February concerns the environment. I sent the following letter to the priest since this topic is near and dear to my heart.<br />
<br />
Dear Father,<br />
<br />
Thank you for the excellent Masses this past week, and the great homilies therein. Evoking the lesson of the prophet Hosea and his faithless wife Gomer in Friday evening’s homily was especially noteworthy. Additionally, the celebration of the Eucharist Ad Orientem was positively beautiful. I am also happy to learn that you will be delivering a series of instructional talks on major issues of our time on Wednesday evenings over the next two months. I look forward to attending. One of the topics caught my specific interest. It was related to the environment. Being a 40+ year nuclear energy professional, this topic is of course near and dear to my heart. So below I am presenting a short distillation of the environmentally positive aspects of nuclear energy. Of course, as a priest you should neither support nor oppose any particular technical methodology of good stewardship of God’s creation – that over which He has given us dominion. And I suspect your topic will likely not touch on the technical aspects of what I present below. In fact, you may already be aware of much of this. But I fully expect so-called environmentalists to be as critical of nuclear energy (if not more so) as they are of carbon-emitting fossil energy (though their reflexive anti-nuclearism is slowly changing). And while I am no climate change activist (I do NOT adhere to or otherwise believe in the fiction of anthropogenic global warming), anyone with normal intelligence can see that indiscriminately dumping billions of tons of fossil fuel pollution into the environment year in and year out is an untested experiment which inevitably will have unanticipated and undesirable consequences. Don’t pollute isn’t just good theology. It’s common sense – one doesn’t poop in one’s backyard (sorry for the visualization, but I am a submarine sailor). J <br />
<br />
DISCLAIMER 1: this paper is NO criticism of anything you have said or done (quite the contrary, you’re one of the best priests I know). But it is a long winded explanation based on my 40+ years of training and experience as a nuclear energy professional. So please forgive me for having “diarrhea of the keyboard” (humor – Ha! Ha!). And forgive any typographical errors.<br />
<br />
DISCLAIMER 2: I have freely “plagiarized” from various sources in the discussion below (yes, I know I am long-winded, but I can’t distill those 40+ years of training and experience into a Facebook sound bite or a Twitter meme, so you may want to read the rest of this when you have time). I have include screen capture diagrams and have identified the source where I have “plagiarized” (I don’t know everything and I rely heavily on sources like the US NRC, NEI, IAEA, etc. – people who do know more than me). I cover the following:<br />
<br />
Fuel Comparison <br />
Pollution <br />
Land Use <br />
Capacity Factor <br />
Mortality Rate per Terawatt Hour <br />
Accidents (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima) <br />
Spent Fuel <br />
Radiation Hormesis <br />
<br />
The only thing I can add to these sources is the following: I have worked in nuclear power for 40+ years. I have stood watch in an enclosed metal tube right next to a 158 MWth nuclear reactor while 1000 feet beneath the ocean’s surface (obviously it’s called a submarine). I have held uranium pellets (unirradiated of course) in my hands and have had my nose mere inches away from newly manufactured uranium fuel rods (again unirradiated). I have stood above spent fuel pools full of irradiated fuel rods, I have worked atop the head of a reactor pressure vessel at a 1000 MWe reactor plant, I have dismantled and installed instrumentation on reactor plant components in radiologically controlled areas, etc. ad nausaeam. If radiation were as deadly as environmentalists say, then I would be dead by now. But the good Lord has (for some reason unknown to me) kept me alive (in spite of my best efforts to the contrary). Nuclear power is the safest, most environmentally benign form of power generation, even including solar, wind and all the rest of the so-called renewables. My life is proof of that because if I had been working in coal, oil, gas, wind or solar, then I would be dead (long story for a different letter).<br />
<br />
<b>FUEL COMPARISON</b><br />
<br />
According to the European Nuclear Society, “With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235. Related to one kilogram, uranium-235 contains two to three million times the energy equivalent of oil or coal. The illustration[s] show how much coal, oil or natural uranium is required for a certain quantity of electricity. Thus, 1 kg natural uranium - following a corresponding enrichment and used for power generation in light water reactors - corresponds to nearly 10,000 kg of mineral oil or 14,000 kg of coal and enables the generation of 45,000 kWh of electricity.”<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioqoWktu3z1_QOxEDN1S3wfDUHmXXOXu_oV6n6UA_J2_ET0c83NU9ybiJ63j3peF7nrMUowxoQFbmsbhi1Ix-i5slDFyxFiejiogz3pSQxNP4yLQhMGf8cBg_J5vx4ayL3CcYKEsjhITM/s1600/Fuel+Density+Log+Scales.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioqoWktu3z1_QOxEDN1S3wfDUHmXXOXu_oV6n6UA_J2_ET0c83NU9ybiJ63j3peF7nrMUowxoQFbmsbhi1Ix-i5slDFyxFiejiogz3pSQxNP4yLQhMGf8cBg_J5vx4ayL3CcYKEsjhITM/s320/Fuel+Density+Log+Scales.png" /></a> <br />
<br />
<b>POLLUTION</b><br />
<br />
“The World Nuclear Association carried out a review of over twenty studies assessing the greenhouse gas emissions produced by different forms of electricity generation. The results summarized in the chart below show that generating electricity from fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions far higher than when using nuclear or renewable generation.”<br />
<br />
“In 2011 the world's nuclear power plants supplied 2518 TWh (billion kWh) of electricity. The following table shows the additional emissions that would have been produced if fossil fuels had been used to generate the same amount of electricity.”<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPGyTC8PabwYLr8kTpSVfkvjrSTrx6ZCZr-oMm6FALeMS48qUs5xpm8BKTcM6KZWE9Cgkf_JE_owCKkb9ohaHU1cTaRGPqoHCUC4bxurPqRtYn6JvrSLAEdADUcNcMh9KGLQ8NgjqiSsw/s1600/Green+House+Gas+Emissions+Bar+Chart.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPGyTC8PabwYLr8kTpSVfkvjrSTrx6ZCZr-oMm6FALeMS48qUs5xpm8BKTcM6KZWE9Cgkf_JE_owCKkb9ohaHU1cTaRGPqoHCUC4bxurPqRtYn6JvrSLAEdADUcNcMh9KGLQ8NgjqiSsw/s320/Green+House+Gas+Emissions+Bar+Chart.png" /></a> <br />
<br />
NOTA BENE: nuclear power’s life cycle carbon emissions come from initial construction and from periodic testing of the emergency diesel generators. These emissions are orders of magnitude smaller than fossil fuel emissions. Read also the following essay from the late Dr. Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburg: “Environmental Problems with Coal, Oil and Gas.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter3.html">http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter3.html</a><br />
<br />
<b>LAND USE</b><br />
<br />
A company (for which I once worked) did a study some time ago to compare “…how much land would be needed to produce 1,800 Megawatts of solar or wind energy compared to the amount of land currently in use at the Arkansas Nuclear One Station.” This study states:<br />
<br />
Assuming the wind and sun were able to generate electricity at a 90 percent capacity factor (of course the sun cannot shine 22 hours, or 90 percent of each day), land requirements necessary to generate 1,800 MW of electricity, the equivalent of our nuclear facility, would be as follows:<br />
<br />
Modern Wind Power<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Power Output: Above Average Wind Turbine Generates2.5 Megawatts/turbine</li>
<li>Number of 2.5 MW Turbines Needed to Generate 1,800 Megawatts:720</li>
<li>Average Acres Per Megawatt: 60</li>
<li>Land Use: 108,000 acres (169 square miles)</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
Modern Solar Power<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Power Output:1 Megawatt per 7.4 acres of photovoltaic solar panels</li>
<li>Land Use:13,320 acres (21 square miles)</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
The bottom line is that a massive amount of land area must be torn up for so-called renewable energy and that has an environmentally harmful impact. Why such large land use? Because sunlight and wind are diffuse and highly variable sources of energy. Such is NOT the case for nuclear power.<br />
<br />
<b>CAPACITY FACTOR</b><br />
<br />
The following graph comes from the Office of Nuclear Energy in the US Department of Energy:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvDOzbTTSH_YeWBz2MksU6cEkgQf1y9VjL6BGr-akN6RGJD5skTy-DvNYFjPNNOrnutCHt1tCOjbQlj20NH9IzzPoPI72rINo8JFVcMAPu_2RAlDYvCfKVsTS7IisWOv9lQaBSm0qEI7A/s1600/Capacity+Factors.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvDOzbTTSH_YeWBz2MksU6cEkgQf1y9VjL6BGr-akN6RGJD5skTy-DvNYFjPNNOrnutCHt1tCOjbQlj20NH9IzzPoPI72rINo8JFVcMAPu_2RAlDYvCfKVsTS7IisWOv9lQaBSm0qEI7A/s320/Capacity+Factors.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
“Nuclear power plants are typically used more often because they require less maintenance and are designed to operate for longer stretches before refueling (typically every 1.5 or 2 years). Natural gas and coal capacity factors are generally lower due to routine maintenance and / or refueling at these facilities. Renewable plants are considered intermittent or variable sources and are mostly limited by a lack of fuel (i.e. wind, sun, or water). As a result, these plants need a backup power source such as large-scale storage (not currently available at grid-scale) — or they can be paired with a reliable baseload power like nuclear energy.”<br />
<br />
“A typical nuclear reactor produces 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity. That doesn’t mean you can simply replace it with a 1 gigawatt coal or renewable plant. Based on the capacity factors above, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants (each of 1 GW size) to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid.”<br />
<br />
The bottom line is this: if solar and wind were so great, then why don’t we still bake bricks in the sun as the ancient Sumerians did, and why don’t we sail across the sea in sailing ships as the Vikings did? Solar and wind have capacity factors of less than 30% and always require polluting fossil energy backup as spinning reserve for the 70% of the time that they can’t generate electricity. Every renewable energy plant is a methane gas power plant, and they pollute.<br />
<br />
<b>MORTALITY RATE PER TERAWATT HOUR</b><br />
<br />
Nuclear energy has the lowest mortality rate per terawatt hour of electrical power generation. The following chart comes from Next Big Energy Future and is a summary of data from the International Energy Agency. Nuclear has 0.04 fatalities per terawatt hour (even including Fukushima and Chernobyl and TMI and Windscale) compared to solar at 0.1, wind at 0.15, gas at 20, oil at 52 and coal (USA) at 10.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN2vTCrUIIBfT7F140OAJKNoD9x8e5hePIoVEsakSGfkKKK5XQ0Matv7-Zk1Z5eC5KCzPQlAE-68SfI9t4e6reLJU4fyrkxsMmjnfKoSSY5kAFalwulaPM9qv_DEnLlZ4IfK7PHcMthTU/s1600/Mortality+Rate+per+Energy+Source.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgN2vTCrUIIBfT7F140OAJKNoD9x8e5hePIoVEsakSGfkKKK5XQ0Matv7-Zk1Z5eC5KCzPQlAE-68SfI9t4e6reLJU4fyrkxsMmjnfKoSSY5kAFalwulaPM9qv_DEnLlZ4IfK7PHcMthTU/s320/Mortality+Rate+per+Energy+Source.jpg" /></a><br />
<br />
<b>ACCIDENTS</b><br />
<br />
There have been three big accidents during my professional nuclear career:<br />
<br />
TMI <br />
Chernobyl <br />
Fukushima <br />
<br />
You can read about the TMI accident here:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html">https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html</a>.<br />
<br />
In the TMI accident the operators did not believe their indications and incorrectly secured the safety injection pumps. If they had done what they were supposed to do, then the accident would not have been nearly as severe as it was. That said, not one member of the public was injured or died from the TMI event. And the amount of radioactivity that was released in the form of noble gases (argon, krypton and xenon) had no significant impact on background radiation levels to which local residents are exposed with or without nuclear power.<br />
<br />
You can read about the Chernobyl accident here:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html">https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html</a>.<br />
<br />
Read also Dr. Bernard Cohen’s essay, “The Chernobyl Accident – Can It Happen Here?”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html">http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html</a> .<br />
<br />
Regarding the Chernobyl accident, this reactor was a mad atheist communist design: water cooled, graphite moderated reactors are inherently unstable by the laws of physics (positive void coefficient of reactivity). I won’t go into details here, but this design – RBMK (Реактор Большой Мощности Канальный or High Power Channel-type Reactor) – could never be licensed in the West. Yes, scores of people died. That’s what communism does. This was a communist problem, NOT a nuclear power problem. The fools there did a test outside of procedure, overrode automatic reactor protection, and then the God-ordained Laws of Physics took over. I can explain more but the explanation requires some rudimentary knowledge of nuclear physics which is beyond the scope of this discussion. Bottom line: obey God’s Law, whether divine or physical, because you won’t like the consequences if you don’t.<br />
<br />
You can read about the Fukushima accident here:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/japan-events.html">https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/japan-events.html</a>.<br />
<br />
In the Fukushima accident, for decades TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company) ignored advice that it was given by General Electric (GE) and the rest of the West. You see, when the earthquake happened off Japan’s east coast in March, 20011, the six reactors at Fukushima were placed in safe shutdown right away. The emergency diesel generators were started to keep vital safety-related equipment running. But the diesels were essentially on the beach and exposed to the tsunami which of course hit. This flooded the diesel intakes and the safety-related cooling water equipment eventually de-energized when backup batteries died. Then the inevitable happened: physics. The Japanese had to learn that God’s Law is immutable, and they learned it the hard way. If TEPCO hadn’t been so cheap and had built its diesels above the 35 foot tsunami line as GE told them to, then the accident would never have happened. Again, the issue isn’t nuclear power. The issue is taking stupid risks and expecting that God is going to exempt you from the Laws of Physics. That’s not what will happen – or in this case, happened. Nevertheless, not one person in the public died from the Fukushima accident (compared to the thousands who died from a near dam failure and from explosions at petrochemical installations in the Chiba Prefecture), and less than a half dozen died on site, all due to industrial accidents from recovery operations, not any radiological event.<br />
<br />
<b>SPENT FUEL AND WEAPONS PROLIFERATION</b><br />
<br />
Currently designed light water reactors in the West (Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors) typically use only 5% of the available energy content in the fuel. The reason why is the low enrichment of U-235 in the fuel and the accumulation of fission product poisons as the core operates over a few year’s time. We store spent (or more properly used) fuel for eventual geological repository, hence the never ending fight over Yucca Mountain. Why did we do that? Because first Gerald Ford then his successor Jimmy Carter enacted a policy of no reprocessing on unfounded fears of the proliferation of plutonium for weapons use. But that’s ridiculous. Why? Because the only isotope of plutonium that is usable in bombs is 92+% pure Pu-239 and spent fuel from light water reactors has too much non-fissile Pu-240 mixed in. Any bomb made from such material would fizzle out. It wouldn’t be a militarily useful weapon (as the North Koreans found out when they exploded several duds). Sadly sometimes Presidents (Republican and Democrat) make stupid decisions, and this was one (though Jimmy Carter, a former nuclear trained submarine officer, should have known better; he was one of Admiral Rickover’s few failures). Bottom line: reactor fuel cannot be used for a bomb because a bomb requires 92+% enriched U-235 or Pu-239, and reactor fuel is enriched to less than 5%. <br />
<br />
In the case of Candu heavy water reactors in Canada, the Canadians don’t enrich their fuel at all. They use natural uranium and heavy water as the neutron moderator. Their reactors do produce some plutonium, but there’s so much Pu-240 mixed with the Pu-239 that it can’t be used for a bomb.<br />
<br />
So now we have enough spent fuel from 100 reactors in the US to fill a football field to a depth of some scores of feet (compare that to the multi-million ton coal ash accident Duke Energy spilled from one coal fired power plant into the river system in North Carolina). And we plan to send used fuel to Yucca Mountain. But 95% of its energy content remains. Why don’t we use it? We could build fast neutron burner reactors like GE-Hitachi’s PRISM sodium cooled reactor, or something like a Carlo Rubbia Energy Amplifier to consume all the long lived actinides that present the long-term radiation hazard. There are plenty of other designs too: Oak Ridge’s molten salt thorium reactor from the 1960s, General Atomics high temperature helium cooled reactor, Westinghouse’s DaVinci lead cooled reactor, etc. With any of these we could obviate the need for Yucca Mountain because fast neutron burner reactors leave behind "ash" that decays in 600 years, not a million years. Compare that to heavy metal pollution in coal ash from coal fired power plants which never ever decays away – BTW, coal fired generation releases far more radioactivity than nuclear because coal contains naturally occurring uranium, thorium and radium that’s dumped will-nilly into the environment in the coal ash:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/</a><br />
<br />
We don’t have a spent fuel problem. We have a political problem of greed. Not reprocessing spent fuel means we leave ourselves reliant on fossil fuel and that enriches fossil fuel purveyors and the politicians who receive tax revenue therefrom.<br />
<b><br />RADIATION HORMESIS</b><br />
<br />
The International Atomic Energy Agency has a paper on radiation hormesis here:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/35/034/35034260.pdf">https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/35/034/35034260.pdf</a>.<br />
<br />
“Hormesis is defined as the stimulating effect of low doses of agents that cause an inhibiting effect at high doses…..The theory of radiation hormesis states that low doses of ionizing radiation are not only harmless, but they have beneficial effects by stimulating the immune system and repair mechanisms.”<br />
<br />
Dr. Bernard Cohen maintained that the current no linear threshold theory of radiation exposure (which asserts that any radiation exposure is harmful) is erroneous. His essay on “How Dangerous is Radiation?” is noteworthy: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html">http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html</a>.<br />
<br />
Read also Atomic Insights’ article on radiation hormesis:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://atomicinsights.com/radiation-hormesis-a-profound-truth-that-might-induce-a-few-more-converts-to-support-nuclear-energy/">https://atomicinsights.com/radiation-hormesis-a-profound-truth-that-might-induce-a-few-more-converts-to-support-nuclear-energy/</a>. <br />
<br />
The bottom line is this: we are exposed to radiation all the time: cosmic radiation, radiation from soil and ricks, radiation from foods like bananas naturally containing radioactive potassium, etc. If radiation were as dangerous as environmentalists assert, then we should all be dead.<br />
<br />
I will stop for now. There is so much to say and explain and I have continued for nine pages (and perhaps have bored you to tears if you managed to make it this far). So that’s long enough. I hope that some of this information may be of some small use to you. I however repeat that as a priest you must maintain objectivity and be “agnostic” (dare I use that word?) with regard to energy sources and technical methods of environmental stewardship. But I can personally assure you based on my 40+
years of training and experience that you won’t die from a reactor accident at
the nearby nuclear power plants south of the greater metro area or ones north of that area.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-27662262587655567042018-11-19T11:08:00.001-05:002018-11-19T11:32:23.507-05:00Tempora Finis<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
The night before yesterday I returned from a business trip on the left coast of the United States. I was there for a little more than a week and had the opportunity to attend Mass at one of the local parishes in the area where I was staying.
Obviously yesterday I returned to Mass at my hometown Parish. I may as well have stayed on the left coast given the message that issued forth from a substitute priest who admitted from the pulpit to being a product of the 1960s.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
Now the <a href="http://usccb.org/bible/readings/111818.cfm" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
Daily Scripture Readings</a> for the 33<sup original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">rd</sup> Sunday in Ordinary Time included
<a href="http://usccb.org/bible/readings/bible/Daniel/12:1" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">Daniel 12:1-3</a> and
<a href="http://usccb.org/bible/readings/bible/mark/13:24" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">Mark 13:24-32</a>, both of which have an eschatological (or end-times) theme. The visiting priest started off his homily innocently enough, explaining that Fundamentalist Christians often take a literal
view of almost all of Sacred Scripture without giving sufficient allowance to the fact that the Bible is actually a collection of many different books written by authors of varied experiences over millennia, and as such has literary genres that employ a wide variety
of techniques such as parables, allegories, hyperboles, metaphors, similes, etc. He used the example of non-literal meaning by citing a typical sports news report on the television or internet that the Tigers slaughtered the Gamecocks. Would a reader a thousand years in the
future assume that a pride of tigers actually slaughtered a flock of chickens in a sports arena? So this point is correct.
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
But then the priest went far afield when he claimed that Jesus own words that heaven and earth will pass away does not mean that earth will be destroyed because God loves the earth (and us) so much that He would never destroy it (and by
extension punish us). This obviously is in direct conflict with what 2<sup original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">nd</sup> Peter <a href="calendar:T1:3:10" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">3:10</a>-13 states:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
10 But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth and the works which are in it, shall be burnt up. 11 Seeing then that
all these things are to be dissolved, what manner of people ought you to be in holy conversation and godliness? 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of the Lord, by which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall
melt with the burning heat? 13 But we look for new heavens and a new earth according to his promises, in which justice dwelleth.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
And the priest ignored precisely what Revelation 21:1 states:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. For the first heaven and the first earth was gone, and the sea is now no more.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
Now I do agree with the emphasis placed on Mark <a href="calendar:T1:13:32" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">13:32</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
The Lord could return <a href="calendar:T5:today" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">today</a>, <a href="calendar:T5:tomorrow" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">tomorrow</a>, next week, next month, next year or a thousand years from now. No man knows. And any one of us could die <a href="calendar:T5:tonight" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">tonight</a>, making the timing of the Lord’s return a moot point as we enter our Particular Judgment.
But the disregard given to the prophetic aspect of Christ’s own words was (while not surprising since it came from a priest of the 1960s), very disappointing and depressing. We can disagree about various interpretations of events described in <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark+13&version=DRA" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">Mark chapter 13</a> and its corollaries in the other two synoptic Gospels (<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+24&version=DRA" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">Matthew 24</a> and
<a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+21&version=DRA" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">Luke 21</a>). For example, some parts of Jesus’ prophecy obviously were fulfilled when Roman General Titus destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem, but others remain yet to be fulfilled. This
disagreement among modern commentators is why I default to what the Church Fathers wrote, in this case St. John Chrysostom who wrote about these things in Homilies
<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200175.htm" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">75</a>, <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200176.htm" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
76</a> and <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200177.htm" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">77</a> on the Gospel of St. Matthew. I really wish that before priests begin to give a homily or sermon, they would at least read what the early Church Fathers said instead of “winging” it with
post-Vatican II nonsense.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-41729949286509608192018-11-09T06:52:00.000-05:002018-11-09T06:53:17.837-05:00Purgatorium<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7BDMVDTlPzbWZ-vmKjpkVLCPGrckKE0CmOvxS1y-5BgWWb2M951oZbwdv1zFDBSjml5vP9mt_bXuSK6rLPOy7Loz8UoX3ZZLHFYqi_u7q_r55wkST6UHdIn4XaqU56u5zPzc8N7ZhYlI/s1600/20181109_050925%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7BDMVDTlPzbWZ-vmKjpkVLCPGrckKE0CmOvxS1y-5BgWWb2M951oZbwdv1zFDBSjml5vP9mt_bXuSK6rLPOy7Loz8UoX3ZZLHFYqi_u7q_r55wkST6UHdIn4XaqU56u5zPzc8N7ZhYlI/s320/20181109_050925%255B1%255D.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpGHMS76PL5S16ngttbx4z6hZoR8pK6ukopt06U4RsIxH51WHoxEJHTv0fjbcuHdXJH4yw3F7M382PJb8N4nwBe41tnvfhgNsWZnzFST00SCFcjoEgnKWtqnVgs5LT8elSYjfyMX4l5-M/s1600/20181109_050954%255B1%255D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpGHMS76PL5S16ngttbx4z6hZoR8pK6ukopt06U4RsIxH51WHoxEJHTv0fjbcuHdXJH4yw3F7M382PJb8N4nwBe41tnvfhgNsWZnzFST00SCFcjoEgnKWtqnVgs5LT8elSYjfyMX4l5-M/s320/20181109_050954%255B1%255D.jpg" width="240" /></a>One of the things that is so frustrating about so-called adherents to the doctrine of Sola Scripture is their cherry picking on what they base their man-made theology and their ignoring what is inconvenient to their man-made theology. I really don't understand this cognitive dissonance. The passage of Sacred Scripture between verses 11 and 16 of 1st Corinthians chapter within <a href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/bible/1Corinthians/3:9">today's Epistle reading</a> in the Divine Liturgy is a case in point:<br />
<br />
<i>12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work.14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.</i><br />
<br />
It's obvious that this is a reference to Purgatory which is explained by articles 1030 through 1032 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:<br />
<br />
<i>1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.<br /><br />1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:<br /><br />As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.<br /><br />1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." [<a href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/2mc/12:46">2nd Maccabees 12:46</a>] From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:<br /><br />Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice [<a href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/job/1:5">Job 1:5</a>], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.</i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm">St. John Chrysostom</a> (<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075a.htm">Doctor of the Church</a>, born at <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01570a.htm">Antioch</a>, AD 347; died at Commana in <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12234c.htm">Pontus</a>, 14 September, AD 407) goes on to explain this further in his <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220141.htm">41st homily on 1st Corinthians</a>:</div>
<div>
<br />
<i>Let us then give them aid and perform commemoration for them. For if the children of Job were purged by the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13309a.htm">sacrifice</a> of their father, why do you <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm">doubt</a> that when we too offer for the departed, some consolation arises to them? Since God is wont to grant the petitions of those who ask for others. And this <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm">Paul</a> signified saying, that in a manifold Person your gift towards us bestowed by many may be acknowledged with thanksgiving on your behalf. <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/bible/2co001.htm#verse11">2 Corinthians 1:11</a> Let us not then be weary in giving aid to the departed, both by offering on their behalf and obtaining <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm">prayers</a> for them: for the common Expiation of the world is even before us. Therefore with boldness do we then intreat for the whole world, and name their names with those of <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm">martyrs</a>, of confessors, of <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm">priests</a>. For in <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm">truth</a> one body are we all, though some members are more <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06585a.htm">glorious</a> than others; and it is possible from every source to gather pardon for them, from our <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12345b.htm">prayers</a>, from our gifts in their behalf, from those whose names are named with theirs. Why therefore do you grieve? Why mourn, when it is in your power to gather so much pardon for the departed?</i></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In his encyclical <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi.html">Spe Salvi</a> Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI explains that the duration of time in Purgatory is not of a terrestrial nature, that is, subject to the laws of physical space and time:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<i>It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ...</i><br />
<div>
<i><br /></i></div>
<div>
<i>...if “Purgatory” is simply purification through fire in the encounter with the Lord, Judge and Saviour, how can a third person intervene, even if he or she is particularly close to the other? When we ask such a question, we should recall that no man is an island, entire of itself. Our lives are involved with one another, through innumerable interactions they are linked together. No one lives alone. No one sins alone. No one is saved alone. The lives of others continually spill over into mine: in what I think, say, do and achieve. And conversely, my life spills over into that of others: for better and for worse. So my prayer for another is not something extraneous to that person, something external, not even after death. In the interconnectedness of Being, my gratitude to the other—my prayer for him—can play a small part in his purification. And for that there is no need to convert earthly time into God's time: in the communion of souls simple terrestrial time is superseded. </i><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For Protestants who may not understand, everyone who goes to Purgatory after death eventually ends up in Heaven after purgation is completed. No one who goes to Purgatory after death ever goes to Hell, and no one in Hell ever escapes to go to either Purgatory or Heaven. And our prayers for those in purgatory are a spiritual act of mercy. Lastly, the doctrine of Purgatory is entirely Biblical as the discussion above demonstrates - those people who are "saved" but in an imperfect state of being marred by the effects of sin will be cleansed by fire, but in a non-terrestrial, spiritual sense where the passage of time does not have the meaning as it does in physical space and time.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-45745889399597210532018-11-07T07:58:00.000-05:002018-11-07T07:58:01.775-05:00Meae Cogitationes de Electione Spatii Medii<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
The mid-term election results are summarized here:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-voters-carry-republicans-victory-senate-house-teeters-edge-041422472.html" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">Democrats take control of the House, but Trump voters bolster Republicans in the Senate</a><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
My thoughts on this mid-term election are simple:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
The American people were disgusted with the slander and character assassination leveled by Democratic Senators at Brett Kavanagh during his confirmation hearings to SCOTUS, and with their manipulation of women to falsely accuse him of rape.
Similarly, the American people are appalled at the childish temper tantrums of leftists when they don’t get their way, and the constant barrage of hatred and anger against the President by the news media. Thus, the GOP has held onto control of the US Senate.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
The American people are equally disgusted with the bombast, demagoguery, vulgarity and insensitivity which daily emanates from the President via his Twitter account and his rallies. He matches word for word, action for action the insanity
of the liberal progressive feminist left instead of behaving with the modesty, moderation and equanimity expected of the world’s most powerful leader. Thus, the Democrat Party regained control of the US House of Representatives.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
Let us pray:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
MOST gracious God, we humbly beseech thee, as for the people of these United States in general, so especially for their Senate and Representatives in Congress assembled; that thou wouldest be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations,
to the advancement of thy glory, the good of thy Church, the safety, honour, and welfare of thy people; that all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion
and piety, may be establish among us for all generations. These and all other necessaries, for them, for us, and thy whole Church, we humbly beg in the Name and mediation of Jesus Christ, our most blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-46559706817765080252018-11-06T07:17:00.001-05:002018-11-06T15:23:30.300-05:00Concio LXII Sancti Augustini<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
<a href="calendar:T5:Today" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">Today</a>’s Gospel reading in the Holy Mass is Luke <a href="calendar:T1:14:15" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">14:15</a>-24, the Parable of the Large Banquet. A person dining with Jesus says, “Blessed is the one who will dine in the Kingdom of God.” Jesus then gives the story of a great dinner to which
a man invited many. But when the time came for people to attend the banquet, excuse after excuse was given.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
The first said to him,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
'I have purchased a field and must go to examine it;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
I ask you, consider me excused.'<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
And another said, 'I have purchased five yoke of oxen<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
and am on my way to evaluate them;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
I ask you, consider me excused.'<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
And another said, 'I have just married a woman,<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
and therefore I cannot come.' <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
So the master of the house in a rage demanded that the poor, crippled, blind and lame be invited instead. Who however were those declining to come to the feast? St. Augustine tells us in his
<a href="https://kg.vkk.nl/english/organizations/lcc.gb/lcis/scriptures/fathers/doctors/augustinofhippo/sermons/sermon62.html" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
62<sup original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">nd</sup> sermon delivered at the Basilica Restitua</a>:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
(1) The man who had to examine a field that he had just purchased is the person subjected to the pride of life. The importance of what he does for himself supersedes the importance of attending the great feast of his master.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
(2) The man who had just purchased five yoke of oxen is the person who subjected to the lust of the eyes, for the five yoke of oxen represent the five senses: (a) two eyes, (b) two ears, (c) two nostrils, (d) tongue and palate, and (e)
skin inside and out. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
(3) The man who had just married a woman is the person subjected to the lust of the flesh, for instead of bringing his new wife to the banquet, he must go home to satisfy his conjugal desires.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
Here we see what prevents us from sitting at the Eucharistic Table of our Blessed Lord:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
The Pride of Life<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
The Lust of the Eyes<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
The Lust of the Flesh.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" original_font_attr="-1" original_line_height_attr="">
Everyone is invited. Not everyone will however dine with our Lord and Savior.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-2668203732617400572018-10-23T07:15:00.001-04:002018-10-23T07:15:58.521-04:00Consequens Inobedientiae<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0m3sKQn5wRe8SzdteRFJ8MYoGREAVRfsE5DrauGB4mwfr2Wepc6jVsRloUifrtfXQ35jQNQGAWLR39AooeZK5to5b6WWbh6g-fv5U19PseqUqxorgTOrBg7MpYvo6pTiai9vwjgEWOuw/s1600/Mordecai-does-not-Bow-Down-to-Haman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="648" data-original-width="1000" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0m3sKQn5wRe8SzdteRFJ8MYoGREAVRfsE5DrauGB4mwfr2Wepc6jVsRloUifrtfXQ35jQNQGAWLR39AooeZK5to5b6WWbh6g-fv5U19PseqUqxorgTOrBg7MpYvo6pTiai9vwjgEWOuw/s320/Mordecai-does-not-Bow-Down-to-Haman.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mordecai does not bow to Haman</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Amici, Americani, Compatrioate,<br />
<br />
Last night's Scripture reading within the Liturgy of the Hours was from Esther chapter 3 where Haman, a newly appointed official to the court of Persian King Ataxerxes, conspired to commit genocide against the entire Jewish people because Mordecai, a Jew in the king's court, would not bow in obeisance to him. As the reader may recall, Esther (Mordecai's niece and the young woman whom King Ataxerxes appointed to replace Vashti as Queen to reign from 479 to 465 BC) would act to prevent this genocide (which is the subject of the book named after her). But in this enmity between Mordecai and Haman there is a great lesson, for Haman was Agagite (3:1) and Mordecai was the great grandson of Kish (of the tribe of Benjamin) (2:5) who had been King Saul's father. And from that we have history.<br />
<br />
In Exodus 17:8-16 (a little later than 1450 BC), right after Moses struck the rock in the wilderness from which sprung water to quench the thirst of the wandering Israelites, a people called the Amalekites attacked. When Moses raised his hands over the battlefield, the Israelites prevailed. When due to weariness his arms dropped, the enemy prevailed. So Aaron and Hur held up Moses' arms and the victory went to Israel; the Amalekites were defeated. But they did not forget this incident and great hatred rose between the the two nations.<br />
<br />
In 1st Samuel 15, the prophet Samuel told King Saul (1078 to 1010 BC) to finally eradicate the Amalekites - every man, woman, child, infant and beast - for what had happened during the sojourn of the Israelites in the Sinai desert. King Saul carried out only part of the task, saving as spoils the best of what the Amalekites had instead of destroying everything, and sparing the life of the Amalekite king, a man by the name of Agag (hence was Haman in the Persian court later on called an Agagite for he was a descendant of Agag). As a result of King Saul's disobedience, the kingdom of Israel was ripped from him as he ripped a part of Samuel's garment as Samuel went to leave.<br />
<br />
Finally when the people of Judah were deported to Babylon, the last remaining descendant of Amalekite King Agag and the last remaining descendant of the line of Kish (father of King Saul), Mordecai, meet and they hate each other. If King Saul had carried out the Lord's command, then he likely would not have lost the kingdom and there would have been no Amalekite descendants, and all the train of events leading up to and including Haman's plot for genocide would not have occurred. But King Saul saved the best of the spoils of war for himself (using the excuse that he was going to sacrifice the spoils to Samuel's Lord).<br />
<br />
You see, the attempt to wipe out all Jews from the face of the Earth occurred a thousand years before Haman resurrected that plot. And God (about five hundred years after the initial attempt and five hundred years before Haman's conspiracy) told King Saul to take care of this problem and Saul did not. The consequences for Saul's disobedience were not however relegated to him along but followed the Jewish people into captivity a half millennium later. Yet God in His eternal wisdom foresaw what would happen and put Esther in the right place at the right time to foul Haman's plans and bring final defeat onto the Amalekites. In spite of our disobedience God will always have the final victory, and from this the Chosen People were preserved for the eventual birth of the Messiah, the Savior of the World.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3961395368227482717.post-27649954870602259012018-10-21T18:44:00.001-04:002018-10-21T19:44:07.225-04:00Prex et Meditatio - Gradus Undecimus<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrtSiIBwJB2giGhAXi-eFMr2F9IFGTXXCNbBDBAr6b2Ij4MVvPMK9EkA1PGqg3g7MWZ7TyVCaLojNDMrIo4edK8FT_8E8ozrO0oWOkIKUlc8z5UFs-051mhw8pYR7LWnYVsmAkGB9HmQM/s1600/Lord%2527s+Prayer+Latin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="532" data-original-width="400" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrtSiIBwJB2giGhAXi-eFMr2F9IFGTXXCNbBDBAr6b2Ij4MVvPMK9EkA1PGqg3g7MWZ7TyVCaLojNDMrIo4edK8FT_8E8ozrO0oWOkIKUlc8z5UFs-051mhw8pYR7LWnYVsmAkGB9HmQM/s320/Lord%2527s+Prayer+Latin.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
Amici, Americani, Compatiotae,<br />
<br />
Today at Holy Mass <a href="http://frkirby.com/">Father Kirby</a> at <a href="http://gracewepray.org/">Our Lady of Grace</a> gave a homily on prayer, and much of what he said reminded me of what my AA sponsor had told me some three decades ago. We are not supposed to pray for ourselves and what we want. God isn't a slot machine or a sugar daddy. Rather, what Father explained in his homily was very much like the way in which the 11th step in Alcoholics Anonymous is written:<br />
<br />
<i>Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for the knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.</i><br />
<br />
Father gave the example of that great Patriarch Abraham who in his prayers to God made known his complaints. Father explained that when bad things happen to us, we don't complain to our enemies or to strangers. Rather, we complain to our closest friends for understanding and sympathy, and that is exactly what Abraham did. He was a friend of God and he made known to God his trials and troubles. Maybe that's all we have to offer right now, but if we pray consistently, then God can turn our complaints into thanksgiving.<br />
<br />
That reminds me of something else early in sobriety. I would often complain to my sponsor about this, that and the other thing. I would ask him why all this "shit" was happening to me. Then he would say, "Be thankful that God cares about you so much that He is giving you all that <b><u><span style="color: red;">S</span></u></b>pecialized <b><u><span style="color: red;">H</span></u></b>igh <b><u><span style="color: red;">I</span></u></b>ntensity <b><u><span style="color: red;">T</span></u></b>raining that you so desperately need. Now get on your knees in prayer and put some gratitude in your attitude. You didn't drink or drug today."<br />
<br />
Father was far more diplomatic that my AA sponsor, and exhorted all of us in the congregation to begin small and spend perhaps just five minutes a day in prayer and make it a habit. Yes, while Father didn't directly speak about these, there are always the standard traditional prayers of the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy and others. All of those are invaluable and should be regularly practiced. Lord knows that they have kept me sober through thick and thin when the proverbial poop hit the fan. But do I ever really talk with God as Abraham did? Or am I just mouthing the words in those rote prayers and not paying attention to what they really mean? Father ended of course with this excerpt from the Lord's Prayer:<br />
<br />
<i>Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra.<br />Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.</i><br />
<br />
That's the whole point of the 11th step in AA - not my will, not what I want because when I got what I wanted, I invariably got drunk. Rather, it's about what God wants and being grateful for that even if I may not like it.<br />
<br />
UPDATE: I just finished the readings from the Liturgy of the Hours, and lo and behold, look at what I found:<br />
<table class="each" style="background-color: white; color: black; margin-top: 2em; width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr><th align="right">A letter to Proba by St Augustine</th></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table style="background-color: white; color: black; width: 100%px;"><tbody>
<tr><th colspan="2">Let us exercise our desire in prayer</th></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="p" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="p" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;">
Why in our fear of not praying as we should, do we turn to so many things, to find what we should pray for? Why do we not say instead, in the words of the psalm: <i>I have asked one thing from the Lord, this is what I will seek: to dwell in the Lord’s house all the days of my life, to see the graciousness of the Lord, and to visit his temple?</i> There, the days do not come and go in succession, and the beginning of one day does not mean the end of another; all days are one, simultaneously and without end, and the life lived out in these days has itself no end.</div>
<div class="p" style="background-color: white; margin: 0px; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="pi" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
So that we might obtain this life of happiness, he who is true life itself taught us to pray, not in many words as though speaking longer could gain us a hearing. After all, we pray to one who, as the Lord himself tells us, knows what we need before we ask for it.</div>
<div class="pi" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
<br /></div>
<div class="pi" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
Why he should ask us to pray, when he knows what we need before we ask him, may perplex us if we do not realise that our Lord and God does not want to know what we want (for he cannot fail to know it), but wants us rather to exercise our desire through our prayers, so that we may be able to receive what he is preparing to give us. His gift is very great indeed, but our capacity is too small and limited to receive it. That is why we are told: <i>Enlarge your desires, do not bear the yoke with unbelievers.</i></div>
<div class="pi" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div class="pi" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
The deeper our faith, the stronger our hope, the greater our desire, the larger will be our capacity to receive that gift, which is very great indeed. <i>No eye has seen it;</i> it has no colour. <i>No ear has heard it;</i> it has no sound. <i>It has not entered man’s heart;</i> man’s heart must enter into it.</div>
<div class="pi" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
<br /></div>
<div class="pi" style="background-color: white; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
In this faith, hope and love we pray always with unwearied desire. However, at set times and seasons we also pray to God in words, so that by these signs we may instruct ourselves and mark the progress we have made in our desire, and spur ourselves on to deepen it. The more fervent the desire, the more worthy will be its fruit. When the Apostle tells us: <i>Pray without ceasing,</i> he means this: Desire unceasingly that life of happiness which is nothing if not eternal, and ask it of him who alone is able to give it.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0