A reference to the Messiah in Judges is applied to Obama. Poll at side.
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/09/04/artwork-portrays-obama-jesus
Wednesday, 5 September 2012
I have trouble with this. Does anyone else? Poll.
A reference to the Messiah in Judges is applied to Obama. Poll at side.
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/09/04/artwork-portrays-obama-jesus
Venerable Fulton J. Sheen on Love and Joy in Receiving Holy Communion
The basis of this plea for communion is Love, for Love by its very nature tends to unity. Love of citizens one for another begets the unity of the state. Love of man and woman begets the unity of two in one flesh. The love of God for man therefore calls for a unity based upon the Incarnation, namely, the unity of all men in the Body and Blood of Christ. In order, therefore, that God might seal His love for us, He gave us to Himself in Holy Communion, so that as He and His human nature taken from the womb of the Blessed Mother were one in the unity of His Person, so He and we taken from the womb of humanity might be one in the unity of the Mystical Body of Christ. Hence, we use the word "receive" when speaking of communion with our Lord in the Eucharist, for literally we do "receive" Divine Life, just as really and truly as a babe receives the life of its mother. All life is sustained by communion with a higher life. If the plants could speak they would say to the moisture and sunlight, "Unless you enter into communion with me, become possessed of my higher laws and powers, you shall not have life in you."
If the animals could speak, they would say to the plants: "Unless you enter into communion with me, you shall not have my higher life in you." We say to all lower creation: "Unless you enter into communion with me, you shall not share in my human life."
Why then should not our Lord say to us: "Unless you enter into communion with Me, you shall not have life in you"? The lower is transformed into the higher, plants into animals, animals into man, and man, in a more exalted way, becomes "divinized," if I may use that expression, through and through by the life of Christ. Communion then is first of all the receiving of Divine Life, a life to which we are no more entitled than marble is entitled to blooming. It is a pure gift of an all-merciful God who so loved us that He willed to be united with us, not in the bonds of flesh, but in the ineffable bonds of the Spirit where love knows no satiety, but only rapture and joy.
Gramsci and the Democratic Party: three
Gramsci noted how to bury religious and spiritual views of history and culture. He noted that language was key in the revolution. The more I read him, the more cynical he seems to me. He claims to have hope, but his hope is in a process. His hope is merely based on idealism. Does this sound like someone who is in power?
We are all conformists of some conformism or other, always man-in-the-mass or collective man. The question is this: of what historical type is the conformism, the mass humanity to which one belongs? When one’s conception of the world is not critical and coherent but disjointed and episodic, one belongs simultaneously to a multiplicity of mass human groups.
Note 1. With regard to the historical role played by the fatalistic conception of the philosophy of praxis one might perhaps prepare its funeral oration, emphasizing its usefulness for a certain period of history, but precisely for this reason underlining the need to bury it with all due honours. Its role could really be compared with that of the theory of predestination and grace for the beginnings of the modern world, a theory which found its culmination in classical German philosophy and in its conception of freedom as the consciousness of necessity. It has been a replacement in the popular consciousness for the cry of “tis God’s will’, although even on this primitive, elementary plane it was the beginnings of a more modern and fertile conception than that contained in the expression ‘tis God’s will’ or in the theory of grace. Is it possible that ‘formally’ a new conception can present itself in a guise other than the crude, unsophisticated version of the populace? And yet the historian, with the benefit of all necessary perspective, manages to establish and to understand the fact that the beginnings of a new world, rough and jagged though they always are, are better than the passing away of the world in its death-throes and the swan-song that it produces. [...]SPN, 323-43 (Q11§12), 1932
In other words, create a completely new philosophy ignoring, indeed, burying the old ones. Creative a political philosophy based on a new concept of history, which is a mad combination of political messianism and pragmatism.
Does this sound like something you have heard in the past few days?
We are all conformists of some conformism or other, always man-in-the-mass or collective man. The question is this: of what historical type is the conformism, the mass humanity to which one belongs? When one’s conception of the world is not critical and coherent but disjointed and episodic, one belongs simultaneously to a multiplicity of mass human groups.
Note 1. With regard to the historical role played by the fatalistic conception of the philosophy of praxis one might perhaps prepare its funeral oration, emphasizing its usefulness for a certain period of history, but precisely for this reason underlining the need to bury it with all due honours. Its role could really be compared with that of the theory of predestination and grace for the beginnings of the modern world, a theory which found its culmination in classical German philosophy and in its conception of freedom as the consciousness of necessity. It has been a replacement in the popular consciousness for the cry of “tis God’s will’, although even on this primitive, elementary plane it was the beginnings of a more modern and fertile conception than that contained in the expression ‘tis God’s will’ or in the theory of grace. Is it possible that ‘formally’ a new conception can present itself in a guise other than the crude, unsophisticated version of the populace? And yet the historian, with the benefit of all necessary perspective, manages to establish and to understand the fact that the beginnings of a new world, rough and jagged though they always are, are better than the passing away of the world in its death-throes and the swan-song that it produces. [...]SPN, 323-43 (Q11§12), 1932
In other words, create a completely new philosophy ignoring, indeed, burying the old ones. Creative a political philosophy based on a new concept of history, which is a mad combination of political messianism and pragmatism.
Does this sound like something you have heard in the past few days?
A Tree and a House of Hearts
XIV.  As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ; That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new. I, like an usurp'd town, to another due, Labour to admit you, but O, to no end. Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend, But is captived, and proves weak or untrue. Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain, But am betroth'd unto your enemy ; Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again, Take me to you, imprison me, for I, Except you enthrall me, never shall be free, Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me. |
We had an Eastern Christmas, that is, a bit late. And, for several years, almost 35, I had many strange and wonderful heart ornaments from all over the world. Everyone knew I was "Mrs. Christmas" and decorated profusely, as this is one of my favourite times of the year. I had many ornaments from Germany and Czechoslovakia. My favourites were those my mother had made as potpourries, and my second favourites were created by an artist in Iowa, made out of wood and wire, with different designs on each.
Every year until 2010, I made many new ornaments by hand. I have made bread-dough ornaments, metal ornaments, cardboard ornaments, ornaments from material, and many other kinds using things from nature. Every year, our tree was slightly different. My last tree with my small family had about 400 ornaments on it. They now hang on other trees. My last tree with myself was pink, yes a pink tree with gold ornaments. I went retro for one year. Again, many of the ornaments were hearts. Many were made by me. I finally gave away my glue guns in 2011 to a young family. But, the memories of joy will stay with me always.
Before I left America, I made a tree for my parents with lights and ornaments all on the inside of a cone, wire gold tree, so that it would easy for them to put it away, as they are older.
The heart adjusts.
.jpg)
In our Catholic tradition, we have many devotions to the Sacred Heart. But, Mother Marie Adele Garnier, foundress of the Tyburn Benedictines, was given a great grace of insight into the Heart of Jesus. In her spirituality, given to her by Christ in mystical experiences, she saw that the Heart of Jesus was the Eucharist. Through the Eucharistic Adoration, she called her nuns to see the Heart of Christ in the community. She was called to be one of those special souls espoused to Christ in a Mystical Marriage. For her, daily Communion was a renewal of her "marriage vows" through the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus.
We are all called to union. How? There is only one way.
.jpg)
For Mother Marie Adele Garnier, at the Eucharist, in Adoration, her heart of fire was given fuel from the union of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
.jpg)
By the way, these are not photos of my ornaments, although some are similar. I do not have those photos on my computer here. God made the clouds and wonderful heart leaves. Look around you for hearts. These are everywhere to remind us of God's Love for us and our love for Him.
In the midst of all the political turmoil and difficulties of this week, I wanted to return to the heart of all things. Be holy, be perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect. Christ said that and the way to the Father is through Christ. Open your heart and pray I can open mine to the wonders of Love, Who is a Person.
Gramsci and the Democratic Party: two
Here are some points from Gramsci on how to teach the proletariat to change so that the old ways of religion and culture, including natural law, as thrown out. My comments are in bold, large, not italic. Listen to what is being said at the DNC and compare.
1. Never to tire of repeating its own arguments (though offering literary variation of form): repetition is the best didactic means for working on the popular mentality.
Keep saying the same thing. Keep up racism talk and speeches of division. Keep up saying change and hope. Blur distinctions and deny or ignore natural law philosophy.
2. To work incessantly to raise the intellectual level of ever-growing strata of the populace, in other words, to give a personality to the amorphous mass element. This means working to produce elites of intellectuals of a new type which arise directly out of the masses, but remain in contact with them to become, as it were, the whalebone in the corset.
This second necessity, if satisfied, is what really modifies the ‘ideological panorama’ of the age. But these elites cannot be formed or developed without a hierarchy of authority and intellectual competence growing up within them. The culmination of this process can be a great individual philosopher. But he must be capable of re-living concretely the demands of the massive ideological community and of understanding that this cannot have the flexibility of movement proper to an individual brain, and must succeed in giving formal elaboration to the collective doctrine in the most relevant fashion, and the one most suited to the modes of thought of a collective thinker.
Keep talking about government, not the people. Keep the focus on group, not the individual. Do not speak of individual or religious rights, but civil rights, as if these are the same.
It is evident that this kind of mass construction cannot just happen ‘arbitrarily’, around any ideology, simply because of the formally constructive will of a personality or a group which puts it forward solely on the basis of its own fanatical philosophical or religious convictions. Mass adhesion or non-adhesion to an ideology is the real critical test of the rationality and historicity of modes of thinking. Any arbitrary constructions are pretty rapidly eliminated by historical competition, even if sometimes, through a combination of immediately favourable circumstances, they manage to enjoy popularity of a kind; whereas constructions which respond to the demands of a complex organic period of history always impose themselves and prevail in the end, even though they may pass through several intermediary phases during which they manage to affirm themselves only in more or less bizarre and heterogeneous combinations.SPN, 323-43 (Q11§12), 1932
Push revisionist history, revisionist law, revisionist relativism as morality and these will be accepted.
Gramsci and the Democratic Party: one
At last, it is very clear to more than us philosophical types, that the Marxist agenda has taken over the Democratic Party. Faith in politics and intellectual democracy has taken the place of Faith in God and religion.
Read Gramsci here and look at the boldface parts.
That the mechanicist conception has been a religion of the subaltern is shown by an analysis of the development of the Christian religion. Over a certain period of history in certain specific historical conditions religion has been and continues to be a ‘necessity’, a necessary form taken by the will of the popular masses and a specific way of rationalizing the world and real life, which provided the general framework for real practical activity. This quotation from an article in La Civilta Cattolica ('Individualismo pagano e individualismo cristiano': issue of 5 March 1932) seems to me to express very well this function of Christianity:
Faith in a secure future, in the immortality of the soul destined to beatitude, in the certainty of arriving at eternal joy, was the force behind the labour for intense inner perfection and spiritual elevation. True Christian individualism found here the impulse that led it to victory. All the strength of the Christian was gathered around this noble end. Free from the flux of speculation which weakens the soul with doubt, and illuminated by immortal principles, man felt his hopes reborn; sure that a superior force was supporting him in the struggle against Evil, he did violence to himself and conquered the world.
But here again it is naive Christianity that is being referred to: not Jesuitized Christianity, which has become a pure narcotic for the popular masses.
The position of Calvinism, however, with its iron conception of predestination and grace, which produces a vast expansion of the spirit of initiative (or becomes the form of this movement) is even more revealing and significant. (On this question see: Max Weber, L'etica protestante e lo spirito del capitalismo; published in Nuovi Studi, volume for 1931 et seq. and Groethuysen’s book on the religious origins of the bourgeoisie in France [Origines de l'espirit bourgeois en France, Vol. 1. L'Eglise et la bourgeoisie, Paris, 1927].)
What are the influential factors in the process of diffusion (which is also one of a substitution of the old conception, and, very often, of combining old and new), how do they act, and to what extent? Is it the rational form in which the new conception is expounded and presented? Or is it the authority (in so far as this is recognized and appreciated, if only generically) of the expositor and the thinkers and experts whom the expositor calls in in his support? Or the fact of belonging to the same organization as the man who upholds the new conception (assuming, that is, that one has entered the organization for other reasons than that of already sharing the new conception)?
In reality these elements will vary according to social groups and the cultural level of the groups in question. But the enquiry has a particular interest in relation to the popular masses, who are slower to change their conceptions, or who never change them in the sense of accepting them in their ‘pure’ form, but always and only as a more or less heterogeneous and bizarre combination. The rational and logically coherent form, the exhaustive reasoning which neglects no argument, positive or negative, of any significance, has a certain importance, but is far from being decisive. It can be decisive, but in a secondary way, when the person in question is already in a state of intellectual crisis, wavering between the old and the new, when he has lost his faith in the old and has not yet come down in favour of the new, etc.
One could say this about the authority of thinkers and experts: it is very important among the people, but the fact remains that every conception has its thinkers and experts to put forward, and authority does not belong to one side; further, with every thinker it is possible to make distinctions, to cast doubt on whether he really said such and such a thing, etc.
One can conclude that the process of diffusion of new conceptions takes place for political (that is, in the last analysis, social) reasons; but that the formal element, that of logical coherence, the element of authority and the organizational elements have a very important function in this process immediately after the general orientation has been reached, whether by single individuals or groups of a certain size. From this we must conclude, however, that in the masses as such, philosophy can only be experienced as a faith.
Imagine the intellectual position of the man of the people: he has formed his own opinions, convictions, criteria of discrimination, standards of conduct. Anyone with a superior intellectual formation with a point of view opposed to his can put forward arguments better than he and really tear him to pieces logically and so on. But should the man of the people change his opinions just because of this? Just because he cannot impose himself in a bout of argument? In that case he might find himself having to change every day, or every time he meets an ideological adversary who is his intellectual superior. On what elements, therefore, can his philosophy be founded? and in particular his philosophy in the form which has the greatest importance for his standards of conduct?
The most important element is undoubtedly one whose character is determined not by reason but by faith. But faith in whom, or in what? In particular in the social group to which he belongs, in so far as in a diffuse way it thinks as he does. The man of the people thinks that so many like-thinking people can’t be wrong, not so radically, as the man he is arguing against would like him to believe; he thinks that, while he himself, admittedly, is not able to uphold and develop his arguments as well as the opponent, in his group there is someone who could do this and could certainly argue better than the particular man he has against him; and he remembers, indeed, hearing expounded, discursively, coherently, in a way that left him convinced, the reasons behind his faith. He has no concrete memory of the reasons and could not repeat them, but he knows that reasons exist, because he has heard them expounded, and was convinced by them. The fact of having once suddenly seen the light and been convinced is the permanent reason for his reasons persisting, even if the arguments in its favour cannot be readily produced.
Read Gramsci here and look at the boldface parts.
That the mechanicist conception has been a religion of the subaltern is shown by an analysis of the development of the Christian religion. Over a certain period of history in certain specific historical conditions religion has been and continues to be a ‘necessity’, a necessary form taken by the will of the popular masses and a specific way of rationalizing the world and real life, which provided the general framework for real practical activity. This quotation from an article in La Civilta Cattolica ('Individualismo pagano e individualismo cristiano': issue of 5 March 1932) seems to me to express very well this function of Christianity:
Faith in a secure future, in the immortality of the soul destined to beatitude, in the certainty of arriving at eternal joy, was the force behind the labour for intense inner perfection and spiritual elevation. True Christian individualism found here the impulse that led it to victory. All the strength of the Christian was gathered around this noble end. Free from the flux of speculation which weakens the soul with doubt, and illuminated by immortal principles, man felt his hopes reborn; sure that a superior force was supporting him in the struggle against Evil, he did violence to himself and conquered the world.
But here again it is naive Christianity that is being referred to: not Jesuitized Christianity, which has become a pure narcotic for the popular masses.
The position of Calvinism, however, with its iron conception of predestination and grace, which produces a vast expansion of the spirit of initiative (or becomes the form of this movement) is even more revealing and significant. (On this question see: Max Weber, L'etica protestante e lo spirito del capitalismo; published in Nuovi Studi, volume for 1931 et seq. and Groethuysen’s book on the religious origins of the bourgeoisie in France [Origines de l'espirit bourgeois en France, Vol. 1. L'Eglise et la bourgeoisie, Paris, 1927].)
What are the influential factors in the process of diffusion (which is also one of a substitution of the old conception, and, very often, of combining old and new), how do they act, and to what extent? Is it the rational form in which the new conception is expounded and presented? Or is it the authority (in so far as this is recognized and appreciated, if only generically) of the expositor and the thinkers and experts whom the expositor calls in in his support? Or the fact of belonging to the same organization as the man who upholds the new conception (assuming, that is, that one has entered the organization for other reasons than that of already sharing the new conception)?
In reality these elements will vary according to social groups and the cultural level of the groups in question. But the enquiry has a particular interest in relation to the popular masses, who are slower to change their conceptions, or who never change them in the sense of accepting them in their ‘pure’ form, but always and only as a more or less heterogeneous and bizarre combination. The rational and logically coherent form, the exhaustive reasoning which neglects no argument, positive or negative, of any significance, has a certain importance, but is far from being decisive. It can be decisive, but in a secondary way, when the person in question is already in a state of intellectual crisis, wavering between the old and the new, when he has lost his faith in the old and has not yet come down in favour of the new, etc.
One could say this about the authority of thinkers and experts: it is very important among the people, but the fact remains that every conception has its thinkers and experts to put forward, and authority does not belong to one side; further, with every thinker it is possible to make distinctions, to cast doubt on whether he really said such and such a thing, etc.
One can conclude that the process of diffusion of new conceptions takes place for political (that is, in the last analysis, social) reasons; but that the formal element, that of logical coherence, the element of authority and the organizational elements have a very important function in this process immediately after the general orientation has been reached, whether by single individuals or groups of a certain size. From this we must conclude, however, that in the masses as such, philosophy can only be experienced as a faith.
Imagine the intellectual position of the man of the people: he has formed his own opinions, convictions, criteria of discrimination, standards of conduct. Anyone with a superior intellectual formation with a point of view opposed to his can put forward arguments better than he and really tear him to pieces logically and so on. But should the man of the people change his opinions just because of this? Just because he cannot impose himself in a bout of argument? In that case he might find himself having to change every day, or every time he meets an ideological adversary who is his intellectual superior. On what elements, therefore, can his philosophy be founded? and in particular his philosophy in the form which has the greatest importance for his standards of conduct?
The most important element is undoubtedly one whose character is determined not by reason but by faith. But faith in whom, or in what? In particular in the social group to which he belongs, in so far as in a diffuse way it thinks as he does. The man of the people thinks that so many like-thinking people can’t be wrong, not so radically, as the man he is arguing against would like him to believe; he thinks that, while he himself, admittedly, is not able to uphold and develop his arguments as well as the opponent, in his group there is someone who could do this and could certainly argue better than the particular man he has against him; and he remembers, indeed, hearing expounded, discursively, coherently, in a way that left him convinced, the reasons behind his faith. He has no concrete memory of the reasons and could not repeat them, but he knows that reasons exist, because he has heard them expounded, and was convinced by them. The fact of having once suddenly seen the light and been convinced is the permanent reason for his reasons persisting, even if the arguments in its favour cannot be readily produced.
More from Venerable Fulton J. Sheen on the Mass..
When we assist at the Mass we are not just individuals of the earth or solitary units, but living parts of a great spiritual order in which the Infinite penetrates and enfolds the finite, the Eternal breaks into the temporal, and the Spiritual clothes itself in the garments of materiality. Nothing more solemn exists on the face of God's earth than the awe-inspiring moment of Consecration; for the Mass is not a prayer, nor a hymn, nor something said – it is a Divine Act with which we come in contact at a given moment of time.
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
Blasphemy and Dangerous
Playing at the DNC Convention. This is horrible. Government? WE belong to? No. Government is the servant of the people and of God. What about the family as the root of all society? This is socialist propaganda not so pure, but simple.
But guess who said this in 1919? Gramsci. Are you surprised? A society does not exist if not in a State, which is the source and the end of all law and of all duty, which is the guarantee of permanence and of the success of every social activity. The proletarian revolution is such when it gives life to a typically proletarian State, keeper of proletarian law, which develops its essential functions as emanation of proletarian life and power. L'Ordine Nuovo, 7 June 1919;
I belong to God.
Record post day for Supertradmum
Twelve.
Laicite and the problem with ethics in France
Convince me.
From the article we can see the dilemma. Part of the problem is that Hollande wants to get rid of all private schools. Yes, I heard him in France when he was campaigning. Really, he said that.
“In France we talk a lot about values like liberté, egalité and fraternité,” Labaquere told FRANCE 24. “But these values can be achieved by a school helping children to grow and develop their personalities and by allowing them to express themselves."
"It shouldn’t be done simply be writing a set of moral codes on the blackboard and forcing pupils to learn them off by heart.”
Philosopher and specialist in secularism, Henri Pena Ruiz is also concerned that teaching secular morality in schools may well undermine the fundamental principal of laïcité and the reasons why France chose to separate its church from the state.
“We can’t just replace Christian instruction with Republican instruction for there is no point just aping religious indoctrination with secularist indoctrination,” Ruiz told Le Journal du Dimanche.
Parent groups have also expressed reservations about schools taking on the task of teaching morality to pupils.
“This should not encroach upon the role of the parents,” warned Valérie Marty of the Federation of State School Parents (PEEP). “Researchers looking into this must clearly define the roles of each side.”
Hollande is behind this. He thinks is totally secular and humanistic terms. In his campaign, he said that. “A good school is one that teaches “dignity, respect, consideration and personal reflection.”
HOW?
Here is the philosophy of secularization as expressed from the viewpoint of the French from the article online.
The word laïcité, roughly translated as secularism, has no exact equivalent in English. It refers to a core principle of the French Republic, which had its origins in the French Revolution and was consecrated by a 1905 law separating church and state. The law protects the right to freedom of worship, but rules that religion should play no role in government or public institutions, particularly state schools. The principle of laïcité enjoys broad backing across France’s political spectrum and is passionately defended when the position of religion in French society arises. In 2004 a controversial law was passed banning the wearing of religious symbols, including muslim veils, in schools. This led some to portray France’s reinforement of laïcité simply as an attack on the influence of Islam in the country. Many Muslims in France supported the law however.
|
POTUS is Anti-Woman
Obamacare is anti-woman. And, not just in the reproductive rights area is there a problem. I am a breast-cancer survivor. I survived because I had a mammogram paid for by my private health insurance at the time. I would have never found the cancer myself because of where it was. I was 61. I was working full-time. Thankfully, it was caught, and I am on medication for several years with a 95% chance of no-cancer returning. I am grateful.
However, Obamacare has created a health system where yearly check-ups are not going to be recommended for women over 50. This is outrageous, and only one of the stringent cut-backs for women which we shall see in years to come.
Ageism is an evil. But, Obamacare must make cuts and has a philosophy favouring the young. However, I consider myself youngish. I am middle-aged, not old. I am very capable of work. I am capable of many years of energy and health. Yet, Obamacare stifles my age-group and for a reason.
The program can only afford to let us babyboomers die. Sorry, that is the truth. Euthanasia by default.... If POTUS stays in power and Obamacare is not rescinded, the death philosophy of the State will take over many areas which people do not expect. Wake up, America.
Take a look at this:
However, Obamacare has created a health system where yearly check-ups are not going to be recommended for women over 50. This is outrageous, and only one of the stringent cut-backs for women which we shall see in years to come.
Ageism is an evil. But, Obamacare must make cuts and has a philosophy favouring the young. However, I consider myself youngish. I am middle-aged, not old. I am very capable of work. I am capable of many years of energy and health. Yet, Obamacare stifles my age-group and for a reason.
The program can only afford to let us babyboomers die. Sorry, that is the truth. Euthanasia by default.... If POTUS stays in power and Obamacare is not rescinded, the death philosophy of the State will take over many areas which people do not expect. Wake up, America.
Take a look at this:
 |
| The Martyrdom of Saint Agatha', Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, c.1756, oil on canvas, Staatliche Museen, Berlin, Germany |
In 2010, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a federal advisory panel, made the recommendation that screening mammography for breast cancer should no longer be recommended for women under age 50. Where was the indignation from Ms. Fluke and the Democrats over this decision and how is this any less of an assault on women's health? Under Obamacare, this advisory board will be replaced by an official department; one of the 159 new agencies created by the new healthcare law. This central planning committee will make decisions about women's health behind closed doors and this board is answerable only to the new healthcare czar, the Secretary of Health & Human Services.
September, the Month of Our Lady of Sorrows
A book, a website and a saint on the Mass as Calvary
.jpg) |
| From Amazon |
Recently, because I was looking up something for someone on another blog, I quoted Venerable Fulton J. Sheen's famous book on the Mass,Calvary and the I am delighted to share with you that it is online.
What follows are a few gems from this book.
What is important at this point is that we take the proper mental attitude toward the Mass, and remember this important fact, that the Sacrifice of the Cross is not something which happened nineteen hundred years ago. It is still happening. It is not something past like the signing of the Declaration of Independence; it is an abiding drama on which the curtain has not yet rung down. Let it not be believed that it happened a long time ago, and therefore no more concerns us than anything else in the past. Calvary belongs to all times and to all places.
That is why, when our Blessed Lord ascended the heights of Calvary, He was fittingly stripped of His garments: He would save the world without the trappings of a passing world. His garments belonged to time, for they localized Him, and fixed Him as a dweller in Galilee. Now that He was shorn of them and utterly dispossessed of earthly things, He belonged not to Galilee, not to a Roman province, but to the world. He became the universal poor man of the world, belonging to no one people, but to all men.
"He offered the Victim to be immolated; we offer it as immolated of old. We offer the eternal Victim of the Cross, once made and forever enduring.... The Mass is a sacrifice because it is our oblation of the Victim once immolated, even as the Supper was the oblation of the Victim to be immolated." ibid. p. 239-240.
The Mass is not only a commemoration; it is a living representation of the sacrifice of the cross. "In this Divine Sacrifice which takes place at the Mass is contained and immolated, in an unbloody manner, the same Christ that was offered once for all in blood upon the Cross . . . It is one and the same Victim, one and the same High Priest, who made the offering through the ministry of His priests today, after having offered Himself upon the cross yesterday; only the manner of the oblation is different" (Council of Trent. Sess. 22).
To express further the universality of the Redemption, the cross was erected at the crossroads of civilization, at a central point between the three great cultures of Jerusalem, Rome, and Athens, in whose names He was crucified. The cross was thus placarded before the eyes of men, to arrest the careless, to appeal to the thoughtless, to arouse the worldly. It was the one inescapable fact that the cultures and civilizations of His day could not resist. It is also the one inescapable fact of our day which we cannot resist.
The figures at the Cross were symbols of all who crucify. We were there in our representatives. What we are doing now to the Mystical Christ, they were doing in our names to the historical Christ. If we are envious of the good, we were there in the Scribes and Pharisees. If we are fearful of losing some temporal advantage by embracing Divine Truth and Love, we were there in Pilate. If we trust in material forces and seek to conquer through the world instead of through the spirit, we were there in Herod. And so the story goes on for the typical sins of the world. They all blind us to the fact that He is God. There was therefore a kind of inevitability about the Crucifixion. Men who were free to sin were also free to crucify.
As long as there is sin in the world the Crucifixion is a reality. As the poet has put it:
"I saw the son of man go by,
Crowned with a crown of thorns.
'Was it not finished Lord,' said I,
'And all the anguish borne?'
"He turned on me His awful eyes;
'Hast Thou not understood?
So every soul is a Calvary
And every sin a rood.'"
...as the moment of consecration arrives, the priest in obedience to the words of our Lord, "Do this for a commemoration of me," takes bread in his hands and says "This is my body"; and then over the chalice of wine says, "This is the chalice of my blood of the new and eternal testament." He does not consecrate the bread and wine together, but separately.
The separate consecration of the bread and wine is a symbolic representation of the separation of body and blood, and since the Crucifixion entailed that very mystery, Calvary is thus renewed on our altar. But Christ, as has been said, is not alone on our altar; we are with Him. Hence the words of consecration have a double sense; the primary signification of the words is: "This is the Body of Christ; this is the Blood of Christ;" but the secondary signification is "This is my body; this is my blood."
Patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Church Speaks of Hypocrisy of the EU Regarding Christians in the Middle East
 |
| Thanks Wiki for photo |
I am not surprised by this. The EU nations are bending over backwards to accommodate Muslim culture and sharia law. Meanwhile, Christians are being harassed, marginalized, and murdered. Even the Catholic Church in America is too silent about these atrocities. Why? Because no one really cares...
Beirut Patriarch: EU Doesn't Care About the Fate of Christians in the Middle East," by Jurgen Liminski for Aid to the Church via AINA, via JihadWatch: August 27:
The west's attitude to the Syrian conflict was described as "hypocrisy" and sharply criticised by the Patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Church in Beirut, Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III. "For many governments it's merely a matter of economic interests. They don't really care about the fate of the Christians in the Middle East. Otherwise they would advocate equality before the law and the observance of human rights for all, including in those countries where the so-called Arab Spring has not taken place", the Beirut Patriarch claims in an interview with the international Catholic charity "Aid to the Church in Need". It's primarily a matter of safeguarding freedom of conscience and religion for all. But this equality before the law does not exist. "It is this that seriously threatens our survival throughout the region", the head of the Syriac Catholic Church stressed.
Below we publish the interview with His Beatitude Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III., Patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Church in the Middle East and one of the seven Patriarchs in this region.Interview with His Beatitude Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III., Patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Church in the Middle East and one of the seven Patriarchs in this region. The Syriac Catholic Church is one of the 18 faith communities in Lebanon recognised in the Lebanese constitution. The interview was conducted by Jürgen Liminski.Q) Your Beatitude, we hear a lot about the situation of the Christian refugees and the tensions in Lebanon. That's one side of the picture. The other is the political aspect of the Christian presence in Lebanon and in the Middle East. Is this presence at risk?A) Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III.: "The situation of the Christians in Lebanon differs fundamentally from that of the Christians in the other countries of the Middle East. The constitution recognises 18 official religious communities, eleven of which are Christian. But the main concern everywhere is that of human rights. There's no lack of money and also no lack of vocations. We are being put under pressure by those who wish to recognise only one single religion. We Christians do not demand any special rights; we only want the same rights as everybody else. We want freedom of conscience, we want freedom of religious worship, and we also want freedom for those who don't believe anything. This equality before the law does not exist. It is this that seriously threatens our survival throughout the region."Q) If only it were merely a matter of legal questions, that would be tolerable. But what is the practical situation?A) Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III.: "No. The legal questions determine our practical life. They are the framework for human dignity. Our young people don't want to beg for the right to work and live in their own country. In Iraq they ask me: What should we do? Where are we still safe? And it terms of practical living it's like this: When a young man, a Christian, falls in love with a Muslim woman and she loves him, he has to become a Muslim in order to marry her. Where is the freedom of faith there? Another example: We now have a family from Iran here and they want to be baptised. But in doing this they are risking their lives. Where is the freedom of religion there? Islam does not tolerate a change of faith. There is a similar situation in Turkey. There you can see what follows when freedom only exists on paper. The goods of Christians have been confiscated and many churches have been destroyed. But the Christians were in Asia Minor before the Muslims. Rights are also officially recognised in Iraq, but nobody protects them, nobody does anything against the persecution of Christians. And now Syria. Our presence is also under threat there."Q) Are you on Assad's side?A) Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III.: "We're on nobody's side. I repeat: We only want the same rights as everybody else. If anything, we're on the side of the Syrian people. But if one doesn't speak out against Assad nowadays it's taken to mean that one's on his side. Do you know who they all are on the other side and whether these forces will recognise civil rights and the Charter of the United Nations?"Q) Is the European Union wrong in supporting the rebels?A) Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III.: "Permit me to speak quite frankly. There's a lot of hypocrisy in all this. For many governments it's merely a matter of economic interests. They don't really care about the fate of the Christians in the Middle East. Otherwise they would advocate equality before the law and the observance of human rights for all, including in those countries where the so-called Arab Spring has not taken place. More than a year ago we said that the Arab Spring would result in chaos and civil war. This is not a matter of taking sides for or against Assad or some other potentate in the region. It's a matter of equal rights for all. It's a matter of the primacy of human rights and not the primacy of one religion. Integration and living side-by-side are only possible if this primacy is respected. I said it to the government in Paris and I'll say it to you: Fundamental Islam does not want a dialogue on equal terms in the long run. If the EU were serious about its human rights principles they would openly take up the cause of the future of younger generations in the region. Let's put it like this: there's a lot of economic opportunism around."Q) Is it any different in the Middle East?A) Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III.: "No. The refugees who are turning up now are telling us: We trust only the Church. They come mainly from the large towns, Aleppo, Homs and Damascus. That's where they are in danger. Most of them want to move on to America, Greece, Australia or Europe. Especially the middle class who still have some reserves. They're looking for countries where they are equal before the law."
Because of my single friends, I write this...Wait and trust
Now, I want to share with my single young friends a few hints on relationships, which I have learned the hard way and from having good counsellors in my life.
Firstly, love is always in the will. One can decide to marry someone or not. We can choose, and decide to love them. What is called "falling into love" is an interesting but dangerous situation which can cloud the intellect as well as the soul. Real love is in the will.
We fall in love with people who deep down remind us of our mothers and fathers. If our father was a Protector, we shall project that onto a man. Likewise, if our father was a Peter Pan, we shall do the same. As one can see, this is not necessarily a good thing, in the second case. If we have not had a real parent, we keep looking for a parent instead of a mate. This is disastrous.
We all need to know ourselves and have a concept of self-identity. It is only when we know ourselves and can see another person as they truly are that we can love them selflessly.
Otherwise, (and this is the second point), we are like Narcissus staring into the pond, and falling in love with himself; we are only loving ourselves as we project our needs and desires onto someone else. Narcissus loved and became obsessed with himself. Echo fell in love with him, but died and faded away waiting for him to respond to her. Do not do that. Do not wait around and die for a Narcissus.
What Narcissus needed was not a vision of himself in the pool, but a person to mirror himself back to him as he really was. He needed objectivity and truth.
I see young people not pursuing life or relationships because they are afraid. They do not want to see themselves are they really are. They lack the awareness, especially if they are Catholic and baptised, that God dwells in them and that they are loved. The Indwelling of the Trinity changes us. We share in God's Life. We are not alone. We are not god, God is God.
A good partner for life would encourage God in you. He or she would want you to be all you could be in God. A good man will lead you to God and a good woman will lead you to God.
But, one must take chances and choose life. Not to choose is death. Stagnation and staring at one's self is death. When one falls in love, it could be a chance to get out of one's self. One must be wise, and go slowly.
However, that immediate, explosive type of love can be a beginning, if we are open to the other person as that person really is.
The same goes with men. Too often, I have had men fall in love with some idea of a woman instead of me. Thankfully, I can figure this out. A man cannot seek his mother and a woman cannot seek her father, even though that might be part of the initial attraction. They should be seeking an equal mate. That is truly exciting.
We are only loving our baby relationship with our parent in the other case. Part of the problem is that couples isolate themselves too readily. In my youth, all the young people courted within plain view of the community. Everybody's aunt and uncle had opinions on the couple. This is good. Isolation creates distortions. I suggest watching Big Fat Greek Wedding. Except for the stupid fornication bit, the ideas are good and universal. Families should be involved in courting, especially with the young.
To love the other is a great challenge, but it is truly a worthy and heightened experience. When we can separate ourselves from the other and see him or her as they really are, and sacrifice for the good of that person, that is real love. How wonderful it is to die to self and realize that you are really loving someone in God. This brings more life and more love into the relationship.
One must be a real person, with what I call the Core of Being in order to love and accept love. If one is incomplete in one's self, one cannot truly love another without help. Now, marriage is healing and can help in these disadvantages, but only to a point. If the two people involved are willing to see each other as each one really is, what a gift.
 |
| Thanks wikimedia commons |
But, be open. Love does not happen or grow in a closed heart.
The Churches of Vilnius
I am sorry that I could not get to Vilnius this Autumn. I had an invitation from a friend of mine who described the City of Churches to me. Here are a few of the photos online of this amazing place. St. Casimir is the patron saint of the nation, and a king. His feast day is March 4th, the day my little sister entered heaven at the age of almost one.
 |
| Thanks Wiki for this photo |
Lithuania was one of the last European countries to be Christianized from paganism,which did not disappear until the 17th century in some places. Lithuania has a fascinating history involving the Teutonic Knights, whose castle and monastery at Marienburg, now in Poland, is seen here. Sigh, there are just not enough hours in the day to see all the wonderful things in the world....
Coffee Made by An Expert
OK, ladies, this is the artistry of a twenty-four year old Traditional Catholic man studying in medical school, who is praying for a Traditional Catholic wife. Take heart. Great guys are out there!
On Blackbirds and Bird Mimics
Being a great birdwatcher for over 40 years and memorizing songs and calls of birds in various countries, I have known for some time that certain birds mimic artificial man-made sounds. But, to hear an English Blackbird, which is a Thrush related to the American Robin, chirping away on the hour like an digital alarm clock was uncanny today.
It kept up the sound just like those small, travel alarms with the chirping noise. At first, I thought is was an alarm, and then realized it was the Blackbird outside my London window.
Animals are amazing and birds imitate sounds for various reasons. One is that these animals create territorial rights by singing or calling, and if there are artificial sounds in the area, those can become part of the territory markings.
Some birds are more likely to mimic than others. Like the Blackbird, the Starling is a great bird for mimicry.
Here, there is a CD of mimics which one can buy. I would love to have this, but not now, as I am travelling soon. I shall just pay attention to my surroundings and listen.
It kept up the sound just like those small, travel alarms with the chirping noise. At first, I thought is was an alarm, and then realized it was the Blackbird outside my London window.
Animals are amazing and birds imitate sounds for various reasons. One is that these animals create territorial rights by singing or calling, and if there are artificial sounds in the area, those can become part of the territory markings.
Some birds are more likely to mimic than others. Like the Blackbird, the Starling is a great bird for mimicry.
Here, there is a CD of mimics which one can buy. I would love to have this, but not now, as I am travelling soon. I shall just pay attention to my surroundings and listen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)