Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apologetics. Show all posts

Friday, February 10, 2017

Serpens in Gardino

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Why do I believe in the record of Creation and Original Sin in Genesis? Because without it none of Sacred Scripture would make any sense. There would be no purpose in Jesus having come into the world. There would be no resurrection of the dead. All of life would be completely pointless. Thank God, however, that that is not the case. Therefore, in emphasizing the need to accept the account of original sin given by Moses, Pope Pius XII writes the following in paragraph 37 of his encyclical, Humani Generis:

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 that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent 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 propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Therefore Genesis 3:1-8 in today's Scripture readings is of particular importance. Here the serpent tempts Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and from there comes all of humanity's sin. Verse 6 tells us that she and her husband Adam succumbed to temptation:

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.

This is explained further in 1st John 2:16.

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.

Comparing the two passages of Sacred Scripture we see the following:

  • The Lust of the Flesh: Eve saw the tree was good for food
  • The Lust of the Eyes: Eve saw the tree was a delight to the eyes
  • The Pride of Life: Eve saw the tree was desirable to make one wise

Jesus was tempted in the same as recorded in Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13.

  • The Lust of the Flesh: The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.”
  • The Lust of the Eyes: And the devil took him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it shall all be yours.”
  • The Pride of Life: And he took him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle 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 give his angels charge of you, to guard you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

But unlike the first woman Eve, the second Adam (as St. Paul calls him in his epistles) passes the test.

  • Jesus Response to the Lust of the Flesh: And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”
  • Jesus Response to the Lust of the Eyes: And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’”
  • Jesus Response to the Pride of Life: And Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”

Jesus got those response from Sacred Scripture:

  • Deuteronomy 8:3 - He therefore let you be afflicted with hunger, and then fed you with manna, a food unknown to you and your ancestors, so you might know that it is not by bread alone that people live, but by all that comes forth from the mouth of the LORD.
  • Deuteronomy 6:13 - The LORD, your God, shall you fear; him shall you serve,* and by his name shall you swear.
  • Deuteronomy 6:16 - You shall not put the LORD, your God, to the test, as you did at Massah.

Here we see how the Old Testament from the very beginning in the record of Creation and Original Sin is one continuous account to Jesus the Atonement for our sin.

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned — sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. Romans 5:12-14
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22
So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 1 Corinthians 15:42-29

Monday, January 23, 2017

Iob: Miseria et Familia

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

Once again I had the opportunity to attend a service at the Weddington United Methodist Church this last Sunday where the Rev. Dr. Terry Moore gave the sermon. But before I begin discussing that, the one thing I would like to note is what I see on entering the sanctuary at that facility. Directly in front and above the podium area is a large stain glass window showing Jesus with outstretched arms flanked by the Greek letters Alpha on the right and Omega on the left:

Sanctuary at Weddington UMC
I am pleased to see that a depiction of Jesus Christ is front and center. Now true, like most Protestant ecclesial communities, there is sadly no Crucifix nor any Tabernacle where the consecrated hosts - Jesus Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity - are kept. And also true, the choir and musical instruments figure prominently. But at least one sees the Reverend dressed in the robes befitting a Christian cleric and the Choir in like apparel, and at least something of basic Christianity is readily and prominently visible instead of this:

A Baptist Rock 'n Roll Theatre
But enough of such comparisons. The point of this blog post is Job: Trouble and Family.The sermon that Rev. Dr. Moore gave was 31 minutes long (it's too bad that most of today's Catholics can't even sit through a 10 minute homily, let alone a 31 minute sermon; one wonder how they would fare at listening to a homily given by one of the early Latin or Greek Church Fathers who were known to go on for an hour or more). The reader can listen to the sermon by left clicking his mouse cursor on the aforementioned hyperlinked text. While I took notes, I am not going to reproduce them here. Suffice it to say that the minister spoke from Job 2:8-10 using the Contemporary English Version:

8 Then Job sat on the ash-heap to show his sorrow. And while he was scraping his sores with a broken piece of pottery, 9 his wife asked, “Why do you still trust God? Why don’t you curse him and die?” 10 Job replied, “Don’t talk like a fool! If we accept blessings from God, we must accept trouble as well.” In all that happened, Job never once said anything against God.

Of course, I prefer the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition for the English and the Nova Vulgata Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio for the Latin:

8 And he took a potsherd with which to scrape himself, and sat among the ashes. 9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God, and die.” 10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips
8 Qui testa saniem radebat, sedens in sterquilinio. 9 Dixit autem illi uxor sua: “ Adhuctu permanes in simplicitate tua? Benedic Deo et morere ”. 10 Qui ait ad illam: “ Quasi una de stultis mulieribus locuta es! Si bona suscepimus de manu Dei, mala quare non suscipiamus? ”. In omnibus his non peccavit Iob labiis suis.

Job's Wife
The minister then offered what I initially thought was a very unique explanation for the statement - curse God and die - which Job's wife made to her husband. Basically, the minister said that Job's wife had also lost her family - her sons and daughters - and her possessions and home when God had permitted Satan to attack him. And she was seeing her husband being tormented by skin boils into abject misery. Surely this affected her feelings too, and for that reason she gave in to human nature and said what she said.

Then I did some research and discovered that what this pastor was saying had been said before by modern-day feminist theologians (no offense intended against the pastor). Today's Christian Woman has an article entitled, "The Most Misunderstood Woman in the Bible." Please, care lector, do read it after you have listen to the minister's sermon. You will find the similarity of phrases and sentences between what was written in 2011 and what was preached in 2017. Now there's nothing wrong with using one's research in preparing a sermon; but my only point is this - viewing Job's wife as being misunderstood is not an idea new in modern theology, but it is an idea new to ancient Christian tradition as the following discussion will explain.

Now concerning the wife, both the article and the sermon claim that "Augustine labeled her 'the devil's accomplice,' Calvin called her 'a diabolical fury,'" and that such titles are unfitting and unfair given the loss which the wife suffered, and given the fact that she stuck out this whole terrible ordeal right past Job chapter 42, so she was demonstrably loyal.

But let us recall what Jesus said to St. Peter in Matthew chapter 16. St. Peter had declared Jesus the Christ and Jesus said to him, "Thou art Rock and upon this Rock I shall build my Church...." Then a few verses later Jesus foretells His death and resurrection, to which St. Peter declares, "God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you!" At that point Jesus turns and says, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men." So if Jesus after calling St. Peter the Rock upon whom He will build His Church also calls him Satan for having forbidden the Lord's impending torture and death on the Cross, then why is it so unfair and unthinkable that St. Augustine should describe Job's wife as adiutrix diaboli after she advised Job to do precisely what Satan told God in Job 2:4-5 that he could make Job do?

Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But put forth thy hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.

No, mei amici, we should not buy the liberal progressive feminist exoneration of Job's wife just as Christ Himself did not buy St. Peter's admonition that He should not go through His passion and death. I do fully and completely agree with Rev. Dr. Moore that Job's wife suffered mightily in losing everything. Heaven forbid that that should happen to any of us (me included). I also agree with him that she remained with Job right through the end. May we (especially me) therefore remain loyal and steadfast to our Beloved regardless the tragedy. But when she said to Job what Satan had previously told God he could make Job do, at that moment she was NO different than St. Peter when he admonished our Lord that He should NOT go to His passion and death. And that is the problem I had as I listen to the sermon on Sunday. I am NOT criticizing Rev. Dr. Moore (he was trying very hard to explain something very difficult to the unlearned such as I), but this idea new in ancient Christian tradition that Job's wife has been maligned (especially by St. Augustine) was nagging at me all day long.

So while everything which the pastor said about being prepared in one's relationship before crisis hits is very, very true (and he with humility admitted that he would likely behave similarly to Job's wife in such a crisis), the central point of Sacred Scripture - the Cross - which Luke 14:25-32 talks about I thought was missing from Sunday's sermon:

25 Now great multitudes accompanied him; and he turned and said to them, 26 “If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple. 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. 33 So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

St. John Chrysostom
In summary, therefore, let us consider what St. John Chrysostom (AD 347-407), Doctor of the Church, Bishop of Constantinople, says about Job's wife in sections 4 and 5 within Homily 28 on 1st Corinthians (I always prefer the Patriarchs of the early Church over today's feminist theology - again, no offense to Rev. Dr. Moore). St. Chrysostom (golden tongue in Greek) was rather long winded, but truth cannot always be distilled into a mere sound bite or Facebook meme. And besides, St. Chrysostom is one of my favorites!

4. Hearing therefore all these things, let us both take great care of the poor, and restrain our appetite, and rid ourselves of drunkenness, and be careful worthily to partake of the Mysteries; and whatsoever we suffer, let us not take it bitterly, neither for ourselves nor for others; as when untimely death happen or long diseases. For this is deliverance from punishment, this is correction, this is most excellent admonition. Who says this? He that has Christ speaking in him.
But nevertheless even after this many of our women are so foolishly disposed as even to go beyond the unbelievers in the excess of their grief. And some do this blinded by their passion, but others for ostentation, and to avoid the censures of them that are without: who most of all are deprived of excuse, to my mind. For, lest such a one accuse me, says she, let God be my accuser: lest men more senseless than the brute beasts condemn me, let the law of the King of all be trampled under foot. Why, how many thunderbolts do not these sayings deserve?
Again; If any one invite you to a funeral supper after your affliction there is no one to say any thing against it, because there is a law of men which enjoins such things: but when God by His law forbids your mourning, all thus contradict it. Does not Job come into your mind, O woman? Rememberest thou not his words at the misfortune of his children, which adorned that holy head more than ten thousand crowns, and made proclamation louder than many trumpets? Do you make no account of the greatness of his misfortunes, of that unprecedented shipwreck, and that strange and portentous tragedy? For thou possibly hast lost one, or a second, or third: but he so many sons and daughters: and he that had many children suddenly became childless. And not even by degrees were his bowels wasted away: but at one sweep all the fruit of his body was snatched from him. Nor was it by the common law of nature, when they had come to old age, but by a death both untimely and violent: and all together, and when he was not present nor sitting by them, that at least by hearing their last words he might have some consolation for so bitter an end of theirs: but contrary to all expectation and without his knowing any thing of what took place, they were all at once overwhelmed, and their house became their grave and their snare.
And not only their untimely death, but many things besides there were to grieve him; such as their being all in the flower of their age, all virtuous and loving, all together, that not one of either sex was left, that it befell them not by the common law of nature, that it came after so great a loss, that when he was unconscious of any sin on his own part or on theirs, he suffered these things. For each of these circumstances is enough even by itself to disturb the mind: but when we find them even concurring together, imagine the height of those waves, how great the excess of that storm. And what in particular is greater and worse than his bereavement, he did not even know wherefore all these things happened. On this account then, having no cause to assign for the misfortune, he ascends to the good pleasure of God, and says, The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away: as it pleased the Lord, even so it happened; blessed be the name of the Lord for ever. Job 2:21 And these things he said, when he saw himself who had followed after all virtue in the last extremity; but evil men and impostors, prospering, luxurious, revelling on all sides. And he uttered no such word as it is likely that some of the weaker sort would have uttered, Was it for this that I brought up my children and trained them with all exactness? For this did I open my house to all that passed by, that after those many courses run in behalf of the needy, the naked, the orphans, I might receive this recompense? But instead of these, he offered up those words better than all sacrifice, saying, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there. If however he rent his clothes and shaved his head, marvel not. For he was a father and a loving father: and it was meet that both the compassion of his nature should be shown, and also the self-command of his spirit. Whereas, had he not done this, perhaps one would have thought this self-command to be of mere insensibility. Therefore he indicates both his natural affection and the exactness of his piety, and in his grief he was not overthrown.
5. Yea, and when his trial proceeded further, he is again adorned with other crowns on account of his reply to his wife, saying, If we have received good at the hand of the Lord, shall we not endure evil? Job 2:10 For in fact his wife was by this time the only one left, all his having been clean destroyed, both his children and his possessions and his very body, and she reserved to tempt and to ensnare him. And this indeed was the reason why the devil did not destroy her with the children, nor asked her death, because he expected that she would contribute much towards the ensnaring of that holy man. Therefore he left her as a kind of implement, and a formidable one, for himself. For if even out of paradise, says he, I cast mankind by her means, much more shall I be able to trip him up on the dunghill.
And observe his craft. He did not apply this stratagem when the oxen or the asses or the camels were lost, nor even when the house fell and the children were buried under it, but so long looking on the combatant, he suffers her to be silent and quiet. But when the fountain of worms gushed forth, when the skin began to putrify and drop off, and the flesh wasting away to emit most offensive discharge, and the hand of the devil was wearing him out with sharper pain than gridirons and furnaces and any flame, consuming on every side and eating away his body more grievously than any wild beast, and when a long time had been spent in this misery ; then he brings her to him, seasoned and worn down. Whereas if she had approached him at the beginning of his misfortune, neither would she have found him so unnerved, nor would she have had it in her power so to swell out and exaggerate the misfortune by her words. But now when she saw him through the length of time thirsting for release, and desiring the termination of what pressed on him vehemently then does she come upon him. For to show that he was quite worn down, and by this time had become unable even to draw breath, yea, and desired even to die, hear what he says; For I would I could lay hands on myself, or could request another and he should do it for me; And observe, I pray, the wickedness of his wife, from what topic she at once begins: namely, from the length of time, saying, How long will you hold out ?
Now, if often even when there were no realities words alone have prevailed to unman a person, consider what it was likely he then should feel, when, besides these words, the things themselves also were galling him; and what, as it should seem, was worst of all, it was a wife also who spoke thus, and a wife who had sunk down utterly and was giving herself up, and on this account was seeking to cast him also into desperation. However, that we may see more clearly the engine which was brought against that adamantine wall, let us listen to the very words. What then are these? How long will you hold out? Saying, Lo! I wait a short time longer, expecting the hope of my salvation. Nay, says she, the time has exposed the folly of your words, while it is protracted, yet shows no mode of escape. And these things she said, not only thrusting him into desperation, but also reproaching and jesting upon him.
For he, ever consoling her as she pressed upon him, and putting her off, would speak as follows: Wait a little longer, and there will soon be an end of these things. Reproaching him therefore, she speaks: Will you now again say the same thing? For a long time has now run by, and no end of these things has appeared. And observe her malice, that she makes no mention of the oxen, the sheep or the camels, as knowing that he was not very much vexed about these; but she goes at once to nature, and reminds him of his children. For on their death she saw him both rending his clothes and shaving off his hair. And she said not, your children are dead, but very pathetically, your memorial is perished from the earth, the thing for which your children were desirable. For if, even now after that the resurrection has been made known children are longed for because they preserve the memory of the departed; much more then. Wherefore also her curse becomes from that consideration more bitter. For in that case, he that cursed, said not, Let his children be utterly rooted out, but, his memorial from the earth. Your sons and your daughters. Thus whereas she said, the memorial, she again accurately makes mention of either sex. But if you, says she, carest not for these, at least consider what is mine. The pains of my womb, and labors which I have endured in vain with sorrow. Now what she means is this: I, who endured the more, am wronged for your sake, and having undergone the toils I am deprived of the fruits.
And see how she neither makes express mention of his loss of property, nor is silent about it and hurries by; but in that point of view in which it also might be most pathetically narrated, in that she covertly refers to it. For when she says, I too am a vagabond and a slave, going about from place to place, from house to house, she both hints at the loss and indicates her great distress: these expressions being such as even to enhance that misfortune. For I come to the doors of others, says she; nor do I beg only, but am a wanderer also and serve a strange and unusual servitude, going round everywhere and carrying about the tokens of my calamity, and teaching all men of my woes; which is most piteous of all, to change house after house. And she stayed not even at these lamentations, but proceeded to say, Waiting for the sun when it will set, and I shall rest from my miseries and the pains that encompass me, by which I am now straitened. Thus, that which is sweet to others, says she, to behold the light, this to me is grievous: but the night and the darkness is a desirable thing. For this only gives me rest from my toils, this becomes a comfort to my miseries. But speak somewhat against the Lord, and die. Perceivest thou here too her crafty wickedness? How she did not even in the act of advising at once introduce the deadly counsel, but having first pitifully related her misfortunes and having drawn out the tragedy at length, she couches in a few words what she would recommend, and does not even declare it plainly, but throwing a shade over that, she holds out to him the deliverance which he greatly longed for, and promises death, the thing which he then most of all desired.
And mark from this also the malice of the devil: that because he knew the longing of Job towards God, he suffers not his wife to accuse God, lest he should at once turn away from her as an enemy. For this cause she no where mentions Him, but the actual calamities she is continually harping on.
And do thou, besides what has been said, add the circumstance that it was a woman who gave this counsel, a wonderful orator to beguile the heedless. Many at least even without external accidents have been cast down by the counsel of woman alone.

Friday, January 20, 2017

Dolor

Amici, Americani, Compatiotae,

This post is a followup from a previous one - Cum Res Malae Populo Bono Accidunt - earlier this week.I had the opportunity to listen to a sermon given by a Methodist minister on Job 1:1-12. Overall the sermon was rather well delivered. But I was struck by hearing the minister state that Job was one of his least favorite books because of the issue of suffering and the manner in which the Book of Job specifically and the Old Testament in general deals with it. Repeatedly the minister asked with respect to God punishing the disobedient out of His divine anger, "Is that the God we really have?" The answer is yes. Now that said, Job's suffering was clearly NOT punishment for past sins because the beginning of the first chapter in that book makes it clear that God gave Satan permission to afflict Job when Satan challenged God as to Job's faithfulness - that it was due solely to the fact that God has prospered Job. But God answers the challenge because He foreknew that in spite of affliction Job would remain loyal. Therefore, when the Protestant Pastor ascribed suffering to simple random accidents (basing that on what Rabbi Kushner concluded in his book "When Bad Things Happen to Good People"), I frankly felt the explanation unsatisfying and incomplete. While things that happen to us often seem like accidents, there are no accidents with God for He knows everything from beginning to end. Nothing happens without the concurrence of His sovereign will. Sometimes we talk about being in compliance with God's perfect will, and sometimes we talk about God's permissive will, but whatever the case may be, it is God's will that gets fulfilled and we can either comply with that will in our suffering, or wail and bemoan our fate, rebelling against God. Job did the former.

Lactantius
I did some additional research into this issue, and a friend on Facebook provided me with some supplemental information. I therefore encourage the reader to study these intently in the light of the Church's 2000 years of Sacred Tradition:

Reconciling Man's Free Will with God's Sovereignty by Jim McCrea

Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence by Father Jean Baptiste Saint-Jure (1588-1657)

On the Anger of God and Of the Manner in Which the Persecuted Died by Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (4th century AD)

De Fuga in Persecutione by Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus


Tertullian

The entire manner in which the Church Fathers viewed suffering and persecution is remarkably different that the manner in which we post modern people view it. If we say that we want to return to the New Testament Church, then we must think as the men thought  who were taught by the Apostles. Here is a taste from Tertullian. Note that he discusses persecution which proceeds from God. To the extent that God permitted Satan to persecute Job, was not Job's persecution then permitted by God, and if yes, then do not the words of Tertullian below apply? See the difference between Tertullian's point of view and that of today's modern Protestant cleric (or even the typical Catholic Novus Ordo Spirit of Vatican II cleric):

Well, then, if it is evident from whom persecution proceeds, we are able at once to satisfy your doubts, and to decide from these introductory remarks alone, that men should not flee in it. For if persecution proceeds from God, in no way will it be our duty to flee from what has God as its author; a twofold reason opposing; for what proceeds from God ought not on the one hand to be avoided, and it cannot be evaded on the other. It ought not to be avoided, because it is good; for everything must be good on which God has cast His eye. And with this idea has perhaps this statement been made in Genesis, And God saw because it is good; not that He would have been ignorant of its goodness unless He had seen it, but to indicate by this expression that it was good because it was viewed by God. There are many events indeed happening by the will of God, and happening to somebody's harm. Yet for all that, a thing is therefore good because it is of God, as divine, as reasonable; for what is divine, and not reasonable and good? What is good, yet not divine? But if to the universal apprehension of mankind this seems to be the case, in judging, man's faculty of apprehension does not predetermine the nature of things, but the nature of things his power of apprehension. For every several nature is a certain definite reality, and it lays it on the perceptive power to perceive it just as it exists. Now, if that which comes from God is good indeed in its natural state (for there is nothing from God which is not good, because it is divine, and reasonable), but seems evil only to the human faculty, all will be right in regard to the former; with the latter the fault will lie. In its real nature a very good thing is chastity, and so is truth, and righteousness; and yet they are distasteful to many. Is perhaps the real nature on this account sacrificed to the sense of perception? Thus persecution in its own nature too is good, because it is a divine and reasonable appointment; but those to whom it comes as a punishment do not feel it to be pleasant. You see that as proceeding from Him, even that evil has a reasonable ground, when one in persecution is cast out of a state of salvation, just as you see that you have a reasonable ground for the good also, when one by persecution has his salvation made more secure. Unless, as it depends on the Lord, one either perishes irrationally, or is irrationally saved, he will not be able to speak of persecution as an evil, which, while it is under the direction of reason, is, even in respect of its evil, good. So, if persecution is in every way a good, because it has a natural basis, we on valid grounds lay it down, that what is good ought not to be shunned by us, because it is a sin to refuse what is good; besides that, what has been looked upon by God can no longer indeed be avoided, proceeding as it does from God, from whose will escape will not be possible. Therefore those who think that they should flee, either reproach God with doing what is evil, if they flee from persecution as an evil (for no one avoids what is good); or they count themselves stronger than God: so they think, who imagine it possible to escape when it is God's pleasure that such events should occur.

Sunday, December 20, 2015

Miracula: Est Adsensio in Supernaturale Inrationabilis?

Amici, Americani, Compatriotae,

To the reader's attention is directed the following video from the Veritas Forum - Miracles: Is Belief in the Supernatural Irrational? Also to the reader's attention is directed supplementary reading - Fides et Ratio by Pope St John Paul II. The fact of the matter is that there is no one more irrational than the dialectical materialist atheist (except perhaps the demonically possessed Islamic Jihadist), and no one more sane than he who has surrendered his will and his life to the care of God Almighty.