|
|
|---|
"And the tears and the sweat only mocked my desperation"
This song says Memorial Day to me, especially in these times when have so many who have served so faithfully and honorably coming back bearing so much. Let's help them.
"A lot of people died over there and a lot of people got real screwed up." Love ya brothers. Hang tough and stick together, like you learned to do under adverse conditions. Above all, thanks.
To everyone else, please take a minute to bow your heads a give thanks for those who have given so much. Behind all the cheerleading, there is a heavy human cost. Happy Memorial Day!
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda - Mitch Daniels "I could have beaten Obama"
Politico: Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has taken himself out of the running for president, but he says he believes he could have defeated President Barack Obama for a second term.
“Yes, I think so,” Daniels said when asked whether he could have beaten Obama on ABC’s “This Week.” “I mean no one can know.”
Daniels said that his decision to not run was based on his family’s desire for privacy and security, which he said would inevitably have been lost in a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.
“We've got young women, three of them that have been married not too long,” Daniels said. “They're looking forward to building lives, starting families and this was just a - a disruption that - that they were very, very leery of. And who wouldn't understand that?”Is it just me or does this sound like cheap talk? Honestly, I could not imagine Mitch Daniels beating Obama in 2012. As I have said time and time again on this blog, Obama and the left are going to tear into the GOP nominee with every dirty trick in the book. Does anyone really believe that wimpy Mitch Daniels would have been able to overcome that?
Via: Memeorandum
Via: Politico
Video: Sarah Palin at Rolling Thunder
From the New York Times we learn that media was could not get enough of Palin.
Ms. Palin climbed aboard a chopper, assisted by a member of the Rolling Thunder staff, but was unable to move because there were so many members of the press snapping photos. Organizers eventually brought in police, also on motorcycles, to clear a path.Not bad for someone who was declared politically dead after the media's attempt to blood libel her a few months ago. Even that ingrate John McCain, who has been rather stingy with his praise for Sarah, had to admit today that Palin could beat Obama.
On visuals alone, Palin has already beaten Obama. Compare and contrast:
If I were Obama's handlers, I would start looking into ways to "butch him up" for 2012 ... just in case.
Associated Press has an awesome slide show of images from the Rolling Thunder event. Check them out here.
Via: Memeorandum
Video h/t: Gateway Pundit and Weasel Zippers
Via: The New York Times
Via: The Hill
Virtue acquisition in the hurly-burly is the work of Another
Much like yesterday, which is probably due to the on-going cold and rainy weather, I am in an overly introspective mood, which is always a danger, making me somewhat hyper-sensitive. So, it is funny that someone would e-mail me today asking my help with getting his mind around Husserl's edetic reduction, specifically asking me to provide an example of it. So, I used an example provided by the Norwegian philosopher, Dagfinn Føllesdal, taken from his useful article, Husserl’s Reductions and the Role They Play in His Phenomenology. Well, this required the unpacking of two other terms employed by Husserl, namely noema and hyle. On my understanding, it is by means of the noetic that Husserl tries to get at the essence of an idea.
Many of Husserl's students, certainly Martin Heidegger, eschewed the very concept of the essence of ideas. Heidegger viewed it as a hangover from traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics that it was his philosophical project to destroy. Anyway, I will be the first to admit, as I was this morning to my correspondent, that even though I had the unique advantage of studying largely continental philosophy, it has been a long time since I have done any serious philosophical work, especially given that I have devoted whatever academic time and energy I have had to completing my thesis on the value of married permanent deacons to the church's pastoral ministry, which has left no time to any serious philosophical reading.
With these caveats, I spent the better part of an hour thinking about and trying to explain these two terms in the context of Føllesdal's example of perceiving dice before typing my reply. What did I get back? A complaint about Husserl's writing ability and an accusation of being dismissive of the question! I suppose I could get angry, which was my immediate reaction, but taking a breath and giving it a moment's thought helped me to see that a sigh and a prayer are a more appropriate response for me today. Even after many years, it is still difficult for me to see just what Christ is getting at by means of these kinds of encounters. I guess that is why I am a "practicing" Christian. Who knows, maybe someday before I die I'll get it right for His sake?
In this instance, I think patience and forebearance are in play, but also not letting myself be taken by flattery out of pride. I suppose the really honest answer was, "Sorry, I don't think I can clarify that for you," even given that the honest answer could more realistically taken as dismissive. I have been praying that my life will become simpler, more centered at home with fewer distractions. This shows me something that must change, which is also the work of Another, albeit one that requires me to act on my desire. After all, simplicity requires humility, n'est-ce pas?
Many of Husserl's students, certainly Martin Heidegger, eschewed the very concept of the essence of ideas. Heidegger viewed it as a hangover from traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics that it was his philosophical project to destroy. Anyway, I will be the first to admit, as I was this morning to my correspondent, that even though I had the unique advantage of studying largely continental philosophy, it has been a long time since I have done any serious philosophical work, especially given that I have devoted whatever academic time and energy I have had to completing my thesis on the value of married permanent deacons to the church's pastoral ministry, which has left no time to any serious philosophical reading.
Edmund Husserl
With these caveats, I spent the better part of an hour thinking about and trying to explain these two terms in the context of Føllesdal's example of perceiving dice before typing my reply. What did I get back? A complaint about Husserl's writing ability and an accusation of being dismissive of the question! I suppose I could get angry, which was my immediate reaction, but taking a breath and giving it a moment's thought helped me to see that a sigh and a prayer are a more appropriate response for me today. Even after many years, it is still difficult for me to see just what Christ is getting at by means of these kinds of encounters. I guess that is why I am a "practicing" Christian. Who knows, maybe someday before I die I'll get it right for His sake?
In this instance, I think patience and forebearance are in play, but also not letting myself be taken by flattery out of pride. I suppose the really honest answer was, "Sorry, I don't think I can clarify that for you," even given that the honest answer could more realistically taken as dismissive. I have been praying that my life will become simpler, more centered at home with fewer distractions. This shows me something that must change, which is also the work of Another, albeit one that requires me to act on my desire. After all, simplicity requires humility, n'est-ce pas?
St. Philip, deacon and evangelist
Reading: Acts 8:5-17 (not chopping up the section as the lectionary does)
Another Sunday and another reading from the Acts of the Apostles about those whom we revere as the first deacons. Today we read about Philip, the deacon who went to Samaria and preached the Gospel. Of the seven men who on whose heads the apostles laid hands, setting them apart for service, that is, diakonia, in the sixth chapter of Acts, (i.e., Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, Nicolaus), we only ever hear again about Stephen and Philip. It is interesting that Philip, who's ministry, like Stephen's, was not limited to serving at table, but seems to have revolved around him being something of a charismatic evangelist. He healed the sick, cast out demons, and apparently baptized, but he needed to go to Jerusalem and retrieve Peter and John to come and perform an ordinance that can only be likened to the sacrament of confirmation.
Philip is an interesting figure precisely because he was an evangelist. Fleeing the persecution of the nascent Christian Church unleashed in Jerusalem with the martyrdom of Stephen, Philip, along with his four daughters, relocated to Samaria. His four daughters are referenced in Acts 21. As he began to preach the Gospel, to heal the lame, and to cast out demons, he became the rival of a local miracle-worker, Simon. In his First Apology (chaps 26 and 56), St. Justin Martyr calls Simon "a magician," which for a Christian is a pejorative appellation, and notes that he was later revered in Rome as a god.
I like very much what commentator Loveday Alexander, writing The Oxford Bible Commentary says about Philip's challenge to Simon Magus:
Thus Philip went down to (the) city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them. With one accord, the crowds paid attention to what was said by Philip when they heard it and saw the signs he was doing. For unclean spirits, crying out in a loud voice, came out of many possessed people, and many paralyzed and crippled people were cured. There was great joy in that city. A man named Simon used to practice magic 4 in the city and astounded the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great. All of them, from the least to the greatest, paid attention to him, saying, "This man is the 'Power of God' that is called 'Great.'" They paid attention to him because he had astounded them by his magic for a long time, but once they began to believe Philip as he preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, men and women alike were baptized. Even Simon himself believed and, after being baptized, became devoted to Philip; and when he saw the signs and mighty deeds that were occurring, he was astounded. Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them and they received the holy Spirit.
Another Sunday and another reading from the Acts of the Apostles about those whom we revere as the first deacons. Today we read about Philip, the deacon who went to Samaria and preached the Gospel. Of the seven men who on whose heads the apostles laid hands, setting them apart for service, that is, diakonia, in the sixth chapter of Acts, (i.e., Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, Nicolaus), we only ever hear again about Stephen and Philip. It is interesting that Philip, who's ministry, like Stephen's, was not limited to serving at table, but seems to have revolved around him being something of a charismatic evangelist. He healed the sick, cast out demons, and apparently baptized, but he needed to go to Jerusalem and retrieve Peter and John to come and perform an ordinance that can only be likened to the sacrament of confirmation.
Philip is an interesting figure precisely because he was an evangelist. Fleeing the persecution of the nascent Christian Church unleashed in Jerusalem with the martyrdom of Stephen, Philip, along with his four daughters, relocated to Samaria. His four daughters are referenced in Acts 21. As he began to preach the Gospel, to heal the lame, and to cast out demons, he became the rival of a local miracle-worker, Simon. In his First Apology (chaps 26 and 56), St. Justin Martyr calls Simon "a magician," which for a Christian is a pejorative appellation, and notes that he was later revered in Rome as a god.
I like very much what commentator Loveday Alexander, writing The Oxford Bible Commentary says about Philip's challenge to Simon Magus:
the magician's powers may be real, but they fade into insignificance beside the powers of the gospel. The preaching of the word brings about not just a nine days' wonder, but belief and baptism, i.e., intellectual conviction and entry into a new community. The fact that the magician himself is impressed by Philip (v. 13) simply serves to highlight the gospel's power... (pg. 1038)
St. Philip, holy deacon and evangelist, pray for us
Did Anthony Weiner tweet a pic of his wiener?
Big Government: Hacked or hung?
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9″) finds himself in a late night online pickle.
This evening a photo surfaced on Congressman Weiner’s yfrog account and in his verified Twittertimeline of a man in his underwear with an erection. The photo was reportedly sent to a woman on Twitter. We’ve protected her name and her account, which was at one time verified to be active but has since been deleted after the photo in question was deleted. Coincidentally, the rest of the photos in the congressman’s alleged yfrog account were also deleted around 11 p.m. eastern.[...]
Weiner, who married Hillary Clinton’s longtime assistant, Huma Abedin, last year, has been Tweeting about hockey this evening. Confusion reigns online as puzzled Weiner followers wonder what occurred to Weiner’s timeline.
The photo, stored at Weiner’s alleged yfrog account, is connected to his verified Twitter account. Were his yfrog and Twitter accounts hacked as well?If you want to see the picture in question click here.
Anthony Weiner is a major jerk, but if he is already cheating on his new drop dead gorgeous wife, he is a brain dead major jerk. This is where all those years of being a jerk is going to come back and bite Weiner in the butt. I can hardly wait for his next match up with Megyn Kelly, she will be merciless.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: Big Government
Via: The Gothamist
Rick Perry 2012?
Austin American-Statesman: Gov. Rick Perry today gave his strongest indication yet that he may run for president.
“I’m going to think about it” after the legislative session ends Monday, Perry said. He added, “But I think about a lot of things.”
For years, Perry has said that he would not run for president and that he had no interest in the job. He has often said that he has said no to the presidential question in as many ways as he could.
But he and his advisers have inched closer to saying he may run all week, following the announcement that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels would not enter the GOP field. A couple of days ago, he told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News that a run was tempting.
Many conservatives have called on Perry to enter a field which could have room for a social and fiscal conservative with Perry’s energy and charisma. And, intentionally or not, the governor has set himself up for a run over the last couple of years, making a Texas/Washington contrast the focus of his 2010 re-election and writing a book called “Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington. [MORE]I think Rick Perry getting into the 2012 would sure make things exciting. He would certainly outshine all of the establishment bore snores. I can almost see Perry calling out Mitt Romney on his crazy mixed and muddled message on healthcare reform.
I can also see Rick Perry causing trouble for conservatives like Palin and Cain. Perry is every bit as charming, charismatic and dynamic as Palin and Cain. Plus his three terms as governor from a state leading is job creation certainly trumps both their records.
The downside for Perry would be winning the general election. It would be all to easy for the left to come up with themes of Perry as the crazed Texas cowboy secessionist (given Washington's extremely poor performance of late, secession may not be the crazy idea it use to be). Granted, the left tried this theme with George W. Bush and it went no where, but in 2012 Obama needs distractions and Perry's secession stuff might be too much of a distraction.
At any rate, I say Rick Perry should jump in just to bring some much needed excitement to a thus far dull election.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: Austin American-Statesman
Καθολικός διάκονος: looking ahead by looking back
I was looking back over my recent posts this morning and started to chuckle at myself because they are so heavy, which is not a bad thing, especially in the blogosphere, which, by its nature, consists largely of undigested information and links to links. Since I blog wholly as a sideline and do not in any way rely on it for income or anything else, I am quite free to post on what I will, when I will it. Despite this, I try not to make blogging exclusively a matter of my will.
I am sure that I do not personally know everyone who frequents these webpages, but I am blessed to know many who do. I love the fact that I spend more time discussing what I post in person and even on Facebook with readers than in the comboxes here at Καθολικός διάκονος. Blogging is a bold endeavor. Anyone on whom this fact is lost is not fit to blog as a Christian. As in all things, it is important to use whatever makeshift platform we construct in this virtual Hyde Park in a responsible and humble manner.
19 July 2011 will mark the fifth anniversary for me of blogging on pretty much a daily basis. 16 August 2011 will mark six years since I began to blog. When I think about everything that has happened in my life over this period of time, the losses, the gains, the achievements, the disappointments, the triumphs and defeats, I am astounded. In fact, what is prompting these reflections this morning is that yesterday I substantially completed my master's degree thesis (known at my school as IPR, that is, Integrated Pastoral Research paper), Married Permanent Deacons: Ressourcement & Aggiornamento, and the imminent birth of another child. I have been working on graduate studies since Spring of 2007. I would be remiss not to note that by virtue of my blog I have been privileged to contribute an article on the diaconate to America magazine and to be picked up as an occasional contributor to Il Sussidiario. I would be even more remiss if I did not make note of how many wonderful friends I have that I would not even know were it not for blogging. All of this is humbling because, at least from where I sit, it is the work of Another.
Initially, I named my blog Scott Dodge for Nobody, which was a take on an old KRCL radio program that I loved, Tom Waits for Nobody, and, to a lesser degree, as a shout-out to my favorite book about Pater Tom, by his poet friend, Ron Seitz, entitled A Song for Nobody: A Memory Vision of Thomas Merton.
While I certainly hope and pray that my blog remains "a public cyberspace in which I seek to foster Christian discipleship in the late modern milieu in the diakonia of koinonia," I also hope and pray that blogging will continue to be a vehicle of personal growth and maturity, helping me to achieve my only goal in life, which is growing "to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13- ESV).
I am sure that I do not personally know everyone who frequents these webpages, but I am blessed to know many who do. I love the fact that I spend more time discussing what I post in person and even on Facebook with readers than in the comboxes here at Καθολικός διάκονος. Blogging is a bold endeavor. Anyone on whom this fact is lost is not fit to blog as a Christian. As in all things, it is important to use whatever makeshift platform we construct in this virtual Hyde Park in a responsible and humble manner.
19 July 2011 will mark the fifth anniversary for me of blogging on pretty much a daily basis. 16 August 2011 will mark six years since I began to blog. When I think about everything that has happened in my life over this period of time, the losses, the gains, the achievements, the disappointments, the triumphs and defeats, I am astounded. In fact, what is prompting these reflections this morning is that yesterday I substantially completed my master's degree thesis (known at my school as IPR, that is, Integrated Pastoral Research paper), Married Permanent Deacons: Ressourcement & Aggiornamento, and the imminent birth of another child. I have been working on graduate studies since Spring of 2007. I would be remiss not to note that by virtue of my blog I have been privileged to contribute an article on the diaconate to America magazine and to be picked up as an occasional contributor to Il Sussidiario. I would be even more remiss if I did not make note of how many wonderful friends I have that I would not even know were it not for blogging. All of this is humbling because, at least from where I sit, it is the work of Another.
Midnight Mass, Iraq, Christmas 2005, with Fr. Dave Fitzpatrick
Initially, I named my blog Scott Dodge for Nobody, which was a take on an old KRCL radio program that I loved, Tom Waits for Nobody, and, to a lesser degree, as a shout-out to my favorite book about Pater Tom, by his poet friend, Ron Seitz, entitled A Song for Nobody: A Memory Vision of Thomas Merton.
While I certainly hope and pray that my blog remains "a public cyberspace in which I seek to foster Christian discipleship in the late modern milieu in the diakonia of koinonia," I also hope and pray that blogging will continue to be a vehicle of personal growth and maturity, helping me to achieve my only goal in life, which is growing "to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph. 4:13- ESV).
Rudy Giuliani tops CNN poll- Huh?
Washington (CNN) - Call it a sign of how unsettled the GOP presidential field remains: Two of the three people at the top of new national poll in the battle for the Republican nomination may not even run for the White House. And a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also suggests that there is not a lot of enthusiasm about any of the major candidates.
According to the poll, which was released Friday, 16 percent of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say they would most likely support Rudy Giuliani as their party's nominee. One point behind, at 15 percent is Mitt Romney, with Sarah Palin coming in at 13 percent. [MORE]
I find this poll rather surprising. Rudy Giuliani? Really? Perhaps the people polled think that since Giuliani turned New York City around, he might just be the man to turn America around.
Believe it or not, in 2008 Giuliani was my first choice (Thompson second and finally had to settle for Mitt). I picked him because I knew he would fight the War on Terror with gusto and he has no problem with making the biggest liberal crybabies twist in the wind. But that was 2008. The world is quite different now. I cannot see myself rolling the dice on anything but a true fiscal conservative. he
In the end, I don't see Rudy getting a campaign together and going for the gold off of this poll. The stakes are much higher that 2008 and the problems Rudy faced with the conservative base are even greater today.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: CNN
Mitt Romney to make it official- will announce candidacy next week
CNN: (CNN)–Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will formally announce his intentions to seek the GOP nomination for president in 2012 next Thursday, a campaign spokesperson tells CNN.
And the soon-to-be-announced candidate confirmed it himself on Twitter late Wednesday.
“Making it official next week at the Scamman Farm in New Hampshire,” he tweeted.
New Hampshire is a critical state for Romney, who also announced his presidential exploratory committee in April from the first-in-the-nation primary state.
He suffered a loss there during his previous run for president in 2008 to John McCain, who went on to win the Republican presidential nomination. But he’s banking on a boost from the crucial state to propel him through the primary season. [MORE]If anyone is surprised by this, you have not been paying attention. Romney was going to run in 2012 come hell or high water. For this reason, I think Romney and many of the establishment favorites are poor choices. I get the impression that these men want to run for president simply because their resumes dictate it and not because they truly have a vision that is right for America at the right time.
Mitt Romney's time was 2008. Despite his organizational advantage he was unable to dispatch either John McCain or Mike Huckabee. This time around Romney, with a huge money advantage, is still going to struggle because he is a man out of time. The Republican grassroots are looking for a rock ribbed constitutional fiscal conservative with kick ass street fighter skills. Cookie cutter pedigreed politicos of yore simply will not do and Mittens fits the cookie cutter bill to a tee.
Even the establishment is wobbly on Mittens. Why else do you think they are constantly bringing up other losers like Mitch Daniels and now Jon Huntsman? It is because deep down inside the establishment knows that Romney will struggle against the likes of straight talking sharp shooting conservatives like Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Case in point, this major announcement by the supposed front runner was buried by news of Palin's bus tour.
My prediction is that Romney will have a very poor showing in New Hampshire and the establishment will abandon him in droves for either Huntsman, Pawlenty or whomever the RINO of the month is.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: CNN
Via: Politico
The ever growing signs of Palin 2012
First there were subtle steps like hiring a new chief of staff, trips abroad and the beefing up of SarahPAC. But these last two weeks Sarah Palin has been making some rather serious moves showing she is going to make a run in 2012. First, there has been a change in Palin's tone. Starting with her admission that she has a fire in her belly for 2012 and then her goal to make sure Obama is not reelected in 2012.
The subtly is gone and now Palin is making some rather bold and obvious moves. First there was the purchase of a home in Arizona (an essential move given Alaska's logistic and climatic challenges). Then came the announcement that there will be a movie highlighting her career as governor, that will premiere in Iowa no less. Finally today we learn that Palin will embark on a national bus tour.
Our nation is at a critical turning point. As we look to the future, we are propelled by America's past. It's imperative that we connect with our founders, our patriots, our challenges and victories to clearly see our way forward. A good way to do this is to appreciate the significance of our nation's historic sites, patriotic events and diverse cultures, which we'll do in the coming weeks on our "One Nation" tour.'
We'll celebrate the good things that bring Americans together; those things that will give us the needed strength to meet the heady challenges ahead. I’ve said many times that America doesn’t need a "fundamental transformation," instead we need a restoration of all that is good and strong and free in America! So, together let’s prepare ourselves for the days ahead by reminding ourselves who we are and what Americans stand for.
We'll celebrate the meaning of our nation's blueprints, our Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, which are the threads that weave our past into the fabric necessary for the survival of American exceptionalism. Our founders declared "we were born the heirs of freedom", and despite our difficulties and disagreements, we remain one nation under God in freedom, indivisible. Through visits to historical sites and patriotic events, we'll share the importance of America's foundation.
We encourage you to support the pro-America events we'll be privileged to participate in during these coming weeks. Discover the ties that bind Americans, our history, our traditions, and the exceptional nature of our country!
Follow the One Nation tour at www.SarahPAC.com
-Sarah PalinWhile there are explanations for all her actions other than a run for the White House, the cumulative effect says otherwise. Recent polls by both Gallup and CNN show Palin moving the top of the list just behind Mitt Romney. To me this indicates that Republicans who may have once been dissuaded from Palin are beginning to realize that she is what we are looking for in 2012. For those in doubt about whether or not Palin can beat Obama in the general election, remember that Palin, saddled with a hapless and hopeless John McCain, was able to pull ahead in the polls against Obama at the height of his Hopey Changey magic. In 2012 Palin will not have McCain's dead weight and Obama's magic is completely gone. Something to thing about.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: LA Times
Via: Gallup
Via: Real Clear Politics Video
Via: Conservatives 4 Palin
Via: Conservatives 4 Palin
Via: SarahPAC
Via: CNN
"through the forebearance of God"
Along with everything else, I am also re-reading the book of the prophet Jeremiah. How easy it is to forget the timeless value of God's prophets, who speak as clearly to us today as they did to those to whom they were initially called to prophesy. As I mentioned in a recent post, over the past few years I have taken to reading devotionally from the King James Version of the Bible, the version I am using to make my way through Jeremiah. So, on this Friday, which is a day of penance, these words from the sixth chapter (verses 26-30) seem appropriate, especially when paired with the verses from the third chapter of Romans I posted below:
In its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), the Second Vatican Council taught that "God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it" (par. 16).
Therefore, it helps us to put things into perspective when we realize that, ultimately, God poured all the wrath Jeremiah spoke about onto His Christ- Jesus, His beloved Son (see also John 3:16):
O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us. I have set thee for a tower and a fortress among my people, that thou mayest know and try their way. They are all grievous revolters, walking with slanders: they are brass and iron; they are all corrupters. The bellows are burned, the lead is consumed of the fire; the founder melteth in vain: for the wicked are not plucked away. Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them.
Ancient Israel being taken captive
In its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), the Second Vatican Council taught that "God, the inspirer and author of both Testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. For, though Christ established the new covenant in His blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up into the proclamation of the Gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament (see Matt. 5:17; Luke 24:27; Rom. 16:25-26; 2 Cor. 14:16) and in turn shed light on it and explain it" (par. 16).
Therefore, it helps us to put things into perspective when we realize that, ultimately, God poured all the wrath Jeremiah spoke about onto His Christ- Jesus, His beloved Son (see also John 3:16):
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.(verses 23-26)
Being practical people, Americans ask, Why does it matter?
Since I posted a musical traditio earlier this week in honor of Mr. Zimmerman's birthday, today I am posting a textual traditio. It bears reminding both of my readers that traditio refers both to what is passed on from generation to generation as well as the act, the how of handing it on. While it is too early to tell whether blogs will from a legitimate part of preserving the patrimony of faith in Christ as handed on from the apostles, I will proceed today anyway with something by Pope Benedict XVI:
During Lent I posted something by A.W. Tozer from his book The Pursuit of God (you can read in its entirety on-line) on this same verse, which is my "life verse." Not too many Catholics have such verses (it is more of an Evangelical thing), but Romans 12:1 is mine. The value of this verse is consitently reinforced by my on-going engagement with Don Gius and my recent serious re-engagement with the works of Bonhoeffer, neither of whom had any patience with passive following. After all, faith, which can only ever really be faith in Christ, is not merely swapping one set of preconceptions for another, which move reduces it to an ideology, something I see all the time, even within the ekklesia.
The mystery of the Cross does not simply confront us; rather, it draws us in and gives a new value to our life.
This existential aspect of the new concept of worship and sacrifice appears with particular clarity in the twelfth chapter of the Letter to the Romans: "I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship [word-like] worship" (v.1) The idea of worshipping God in the manner of the word (logikê latreía) is taken up here, and it means the offering of one's whole existence to God, in which, so to speak, the whole person becomes "word-like", "godlike". In the process, the physical dimension is emphasized: it is our physical existence that must be penetrated by the word and must become a gift to God (Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week- From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection 236)
During Lent I posted something by A.W. Tozer from his book The Pursuit of God (you can read in its entirety on-line) on this same verse, which is my "life verse." Not too many Catholics have such verses (it is more of an Evangelical thing), but Romans 12:1 is mine. The value of this verse is consitently reinforced by my on-going engagement with Don Gius and my recent serious re-engagement with the works of Bonhoeffer, neither of whom had any patience with passive following. After all, faith, which can only ever really be faith in Christ, is not merely swapping one set of preconceptions for another, which move reduces it to an ideology, something I see all the time, even within the ekklesia.
Power, ideology, "superior slogans," and thinking in light of the Cross
Building on some remarks by Eugene Ionesco on ideology and the power of slogans I ran across a few days ago, which arose in the context of him discussing his dislike for those he termed demi-intellectuals, namely his observation that such people are quick to "adopt slogans and are imprisoned by power." Hence, "they are people who don't really think," but who only think they think, when all they do is adopt the slogans of whatever power is ascendant. "They succumb to superior slogans," he said.
One person of Ionesco's time who truly and deeply thought and was never taken by slogan, except to resist them, was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who wrote in his Ethics:
One person of Ionesco's time who truly and deeply thought and was never taken by slogan, except to resist them, was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who wrote in his Ethics:
In a world where success is the measure and justification of all things the figure of Him who was sentenced and crucified remains a stranger and is at best the object of pity. The world will allow itself to be subdued only by success. It is not ideas or opinions which decide, but deeds. Success alone justifies wrongs done... With a frankness and off-handedness which no other earthly power could permit itself, history appeals in its own cause to the dictum that the end justifies the means... The figure of the Crucified invalidates all thought which takes success for its standard (extract from Mataxes book on Bonhoeffer, pg 363)
Histórias da Casa Branca: O dilema dos republicanos
Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann e Tim Pawlenty: os antigos governadores podem protagonizar a luta final pela nomeação republicana; a congressista do Minnesota pode aproveitar as quedas de Donald Trump, Sarah Palin e Mike Huckabee para agarrar o apoio da ala dura
O dilema dos republicanos
Por Germano Almeida
A eliminação de Osama Bin Laden foi interpretada por muitos como o passaporte de Barack Obama para a reeleição.
Se é verdade que o sucesso da operação que levou à morte do mentor do 11 de Setembro ficará como uma das principais marcas do primeiro mandato do 44.º Presidente dos Estados Unidos da América, a resposta certa sobre as verdadeiras hipóteses de Obama assegurar a reeleição estará muito mais no que vier a acontecer no campo republicano.
A corrida às presidenciais norte-americanas é muito longa e imprevisível. A um ano e meio das eleições gerais, achar que a subida de popularidade obtida por Obama no pós-operação que levou à morte de Bin Laden será o factor decisivo é, no mínimo, lançar os dados fora do tempo.
Até lá, muito irá acontecer. E a componente económica, que continua a ter contornos muito pouco previsíveis, deve pesar mais.
Trunfo mais consistente para se identificar uma clara tendência rumo à reeleição de Obama tem a ver com a falta de qualidade política das hipóteses que têm aparecido no campo opositor.
Esqueçam Trump e Sarah
Até há algumas semanas, os conservadores andaram entretidos com dois possíveis candidatos que tinham tudo para agitar os media, mas que seriam a receita quase certa para um rotundo fracasso do Partido Republicano, nas aspirações do GOP de remover Obama da Casa Branca já em 2012: Donald Trump e Sarah Palin.
O multimilionário levou ao limite a sua bizarra cruzada em relação ao local de nascimento do Presidente. De pouco valeu o facto de Obama já ter garantido, na eleição de 2008, que as suspeitas de que não seria born in America eram disparatadas.
Dando uma inusitada força mediática ao estranho movimento dos ‘birthers’ (um grupo que se organizou nos últimos dois anos, com o único intento de tentar provar algo que, simplesmente, não corresponde à realidade), Donald Trump tanto insistiu nessa mentira que levou Obama a mostrar o óbvio: de forma discreta, mas clara, o Presidente divulgou o seu certificado de nascimento, que sem margem para qualquer dúvida refere que Barack nasceu em Honolulu, no Hawai – o 50.º estado dos EUA.
Num daqueles passes de mágica em que Obama é mestre, a disparatada polémica do seu local de nascimento acabou por proporcionar-lhe um momento de clara vantagem sobre Trump, quando, em pleno jantar dos correspondentes da Casa Branca – um dos momentos-chave do ano político na América – o Presidente fez uma piada sobre o facto, mostrando um vídeo que mostrava, em desenhos animados, paisagens africanas: «Este é o meu vídeo de nascimento», lançou Obama, divertido. «E caso a Fox News não tenha percebido, isto era uma piada…»
Barack não se ficou por aqui e, com Donald Trump presente na sala, de ar indisfarçavelmente constrangido, mostrou outra imagem: «Este será o aspecto da Casa Branca, se Donald Trump for eleito». No vídeo aparece uma montagem da casa oficial do Presidente dos EUA, com um letreiro em tons berrantes e um estilo de gosto duvidoso. Foi a gargalhada na plateia – e terá sido o momento da decisão de Donald Trump. Dias depois, o multimilionário anunciou: «Não vou avançar com uma candidatura à Presidência».
Sarah Palin, a outra peça out of the box do campo republicano, ainda não se decidiu – mas os sinais começam a apontar para que também não avance.
A ex-governadora do Alasca, escolhida por John McCain para vice do ticket presidencial republicano em 2008, conseguiu mobilizar as hostes conservadoras até Novembro do ano passado – altura em que o Tea Party deu um empurrão decisivo à vitória dos republicanos nas eleições intercalares para o Congresso.
Mas, nos últimos meses, os dados da equação mudaram muito. A falta de preparação política de Sarah tem vindo ao de cima – e as suas dificuldades em disputar o centro político com Obama estão a ser espelhadas nas sondagens.
Com números desanimadores nas pesquisas, o entusiasmo em redor de Palin está a arrefecer – e pode comprometer as aspirações da hockey mom do Alasca de vir a avançar com uma candidatura presidencial para 2012.
Outro nome forte da ala dura dos republicanos que já garantiu que não vai a jogo é Mike Huckabee. O antigo pastor baptista, ex-governador do Arkansas, surpreendeu tudo e todos ao anunciar, recentemente, que não será candidato – apesar de as sondagens o terem posto, até há poucas semanas, como um dos três nomes mais bem colocados para obter a nomeação republicana.
Mike, que nas primárias republicanas de 2008 obteve fortes vitórias nos estados do Sul, deixa assim em aberto o campo conservador para outros dois candidatos que, tudo indica, irão disputar o eleitorado mais à Direita: Newt Gingrich, 67 anos (antigo speaker do Congresso, líder da Revolução Republicana dos anos 90) e Michelle Bachmann, 56 anos, congressista do Minnesota e candidata preferida dos movimentos ligados ao Tea Party.
Romney, Pawlenty, Christie, Huntsman ou uma surpresa?
Sem Trump, Huckabee e, provavelmente, Palin na jogada – e com Gingrich e Michelle Bachmann já a posicionarem-se como prováveis representantes da ala dura – a corrida republicana começa, digamos, a normalizar-se, depois de mais de um ano marcado por um estranho impasse.
O fenómeno do Tea Party, extremamente mobilizador mas pouco consistente -- e mesmo nada abrangente para quem pretende disputar uma eleição presidencial --, parecia ofuscar os candidatos do Partido Republicano que mais condições poderiam reunir numa disputa presidencial com Barack Obama.
Depois do ruído e do entusiasmo fácil pós-midterms (dois factores que talvez expliquem um certo atraso no arranque da corrida pela nomeação republicana), os principais líderes republicanos começam, agora, a ter o seu espaço.
E as sondagens, finalmente, vão mostrando uma tendência mais ligada ao que poderá acontecer depois do Verão, altura em que as coisas deverão começar a clarificar-se no campo republicano.
Dos candidatos que já anunciaram a intenção de avançar, há dois nomes com claras hipóteses de lutar pela nomeação: Mitt Romney, 64 anos, antigo governador do Massachussets e terceiro classificado nas primárias de 2008, e Tim Pawlenty, 50 anos, ex-governador do Minnesota e que chegou a estar na shortlist de John McCain para a vice-presidência republicana, em 2008.
Embora ainda não tenham confirmado as respectivas candidaturas, apontaria outros dois nomes que julgo que poderem vir a disputar a nomeação: o antigo governador do Utah, e embaixador dos EUA na China até ao passado dia 30 de Abril, Jon Huntsman, 51 anos, e o governador da Nova Jérsia, Chris Christie, 62 anos.
Huntsman poderia ter tudo para ser o candidato ideal contra Obama: é um republicano moderado, com capacidade para penetrar no eleitorado democrata em caso de dificuldades económicas em 2012, e dispõe de bons apoios na máquina republicana, sobretudo entre os governadores de estados.
Mas tem um grande problema: está conotado com a Administração Obama, pelo simples facto de a ter servido até há poucas semanas, como embaixador norte-americano em Pequim.
Não tão moderado, mas claramente enquadrável na zona mais clássica do Partido Republicano, Mitch Daniels poderia ser um candidato forte: é do Indiana, um estado importante em eleições presidenciais, e poderia aproveitar a não candidatura de Haley Barbour para vir a ganhar apoios de peso junto do mainstream republicano. Mas Mitch anunciou, esta semana, que não vai avançar – talvez por força das sondagens que lhe dão números muito escassos.
Já na corrida, mas sem quaisquer hipóteses de nomeação, estão Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul e Rick Santorum.
No meio de algumas certezas e, sobretudo, muitas dúvidas do campo republicano, há um dado que se mantém coerente, na linha de rumo para se perceber a disputa presidencial norte-americana de 2012: Barack Obama continua à frente em todas as sondagens, liderando todos os cenários.
Mas é preciso saber esperar: é que a corrida, oficialmente, ainda nem sequer começou…
Times change, even if just second-to-second
Mr. Zimmerman (a.k.a. Bob Dylan) turns 70 today. Happy birthday Bob. You're a rare man of integrity, as well as great song-and-dance man. So, at the recommendation of my dear friend Kim, who more than shares my enthusiasm for the music of Dylan, and in a mid-week traditio in honor of this auspicious (suspicious?) occasion, an eternal truth, a song that certainly exhibits an eschatological dimension:
T(w)oo absurd(ists)
John Sanidopoulos, author of the Orthodox blog Mystagogy, continues to surprise me with many and varied stories about how beautiful our Lord truly is, how He calls us by name in many and varied ways. For Western Christians and, I imagine, even for Eastern Christians living in the West, religion becomes empty, formal, ritualistic. Dr. Graham once said of Christians in the comfortable West that "Some people have just enough religion to inoculate themselves against the real thing." The "real thing" being Jesus Christ, who comes to us by means of the Holy Spirit. One effect of this is that many who go to church spend a lot of time and waste a lot of energy trying to accomodate the Gospel to the spirit of the age. As Peter Hitchens sagely observed, "If you marry the spirit of the age, you will pretty soon be bereaved or divorced. For that spirit doesn't wait around in the same place for long." By contrast the Gospel and its truth are everlasting.
Today Sanidopoulos wrote about the playwright Eugene Ionesco, who along with Samuel Beckett, about whom I have written plenty, including my article for Il Sussidiario, Samuel Beckett: Life in Two Dimensions a few years back, was "one of the foremost playwrights of the Theatre of the Absurd."
Unlike the unbelieving Beckett, whose Waiting for Godot remains a never-ending paean to meaninglessness, Ionesco was a committed believer, even a disciple of the Lord Jesus. It all began with a visit to Mount Athos in his twenties. I urge you to check out Eugene Ionesco and the Elder on Mount Athos.
I even posted a video on Beckett as a Friday traditio a few years back. You can compare that with the videos posted by Sanidopoulos featuring Ionesco. If you only watch one of the two clips, watch the second clip. If you're even more impatient, go to 3:51 of the second clip and watch until the end. Ionesco's insights more than repay the time.
Today Sanidopoulos wrote about the playwright Eugene Ionesco, who along with Samuel Beckett, about whom I have written plenty, including my article for Il Sussidiario, Samuel Beckett: Life in Two Dimensions a few years back, was "one of the foremost playwrights of the Theatre of the Absurd."
Samuel Beckett
Unlike the unbelieving Beckett, whose Waiting for Godot remains a never-ending paean to meaninglessness, Ionesco was a committed believer, even a disciple of the Lord Jesus. It all began with a visit to Mount Athos in his twenties. I urge you to check out Eugene Ionesco and the Elder on Mount Athos.
Eugene Ionesco
I even posted a video on Beckett as a Friday traditio a few years back. You can compare that with the videos posted by Sanidopoulos featuring Ionesco. If you only watch one of the two clips, watch the second clip. If you're even more impatient, go to 3:51 of the second clip and watch until the end. Ionesco's insights more than repay the time.
Deacon Sunday?
Reading: Acts 6:1-7
Examining Acts 6:1-6 serves a dual purpose. First, it shows the difficulty in drawing straight lines from current ecclesial praxis back to the apostolic church. Secondly, it demonstrates the often ambiguous nature of the word “deacon” in all its forms as it is used by New Testament authors, showing that most frequently it refers to an activity, not to a specific office, or order of ministry, in the church. Two of the three usages of various forms of the word “deacon” in these verses of Acts indirectly refer to the seven. The first use of diakonia implies what service they are to be set apart for, namely insuring an equal distribution of food daily among the widows of the community, a community that held all things in common, thus they were set apart primarily as peace-makers and bridge-builders within the community. Closely bound up with the first appearance of diakonia is the word diakonein that the twelve use to describe the very service for which the seven are set apart by the laying on of hands. It also bears noting that despite distinguishing being in charge of the daily distribution, which apparently included something like waiting tables, from the diakonia of the word, which, along with having adequate time to pray, is why the twelve wanted to be free from those duties, especially in light of the dispute that arose, we shortly read that "Stephen, filled with grace and power" began "working great wonders and signs among the people" and launching into an extended sermon that constitutes part of the authentic Christian proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 6:9). So, while this and subsequent references to the seven men, only two of whom, Stephen and Philip, we read more about in Acts, do not refer to them as deacons, it is easy to understand why they represent the biblical basis for this order of ministry.
As the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, “It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the Holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. The word of God continued to spread, and the number of the disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly; even a large group of priests were becoming obedient to the faith.
Examining Acts 6:1-6 serves a dual purpose. First, it shows the difficulty in drawing straight lines from current ecclesial praxis back to the apostolic church. Secondly, it demonstrates the often ambiguous nature of the word “deacon” in all its forms as it is used by New Testament authors, showing that most frequently it refers to an activity, not to a specific office, or order of ministry, in the church. Two of the three usages of various forms of the word “deacon” in these verses of Acts indirectly refer to the seven. The first use of diakonia implies what service they are to be set apart for, namely insuring an equal distribution of food daily among the widows of the community, a community that held all things in common, thus they were set apart primarily as peace-makers and bridge-builders within the community. Closely bound up with the first appearance of diakonia is the word diakonein that the twelve use to describe the very service for which the seven are set apart by the laying on of hands. It also bears noting that despite distinguishing being in charge of the daily distribution, which apparently included something like waiting tables, from the diakonia of the word, which, along with having adequate time to pray, is why the twelve wanted to be free from those duties, especially in light of the dispute that arose, we shortly read that "Stephen, filled with grace and power" began "working great wonders and signs among the people" and launching into an extended sermon that constitutes part of the authentic Christian proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 6:9). So, while this and subsequent references to the seven men, only two of whom, Stephen and Philip, we read more about in Acts, do not refer to them as deacons, it is easy to understand why they represent the biblical basis for this order of ministry.
Wise replies
I don't engage in a lot of apologetics on these pages. I am inclined to be more of an intellectual street-fighter than any kind of intellectual, which means that I enjoy good old-fashioned apologetics more than I should. Maintaining a blog over the past several years has really helped me to acquire the virtue of prudence and taught me how to better balance that with fortitude. So, I ask your indulgence in allowing two more brief apologetical observations about Harold Camping's second claim that the Rapture is neigh (he made the first in 1994). First, just like with The Da'Vinci Code phenomenon, it is enough of a pastoral concern that it requires a response. It also provides what we have glibly come to refer to as a teaching moment. We can not only teach those who are Christian sounder methods of engaging Scripture, but we can help those who think like we're all like Harold Camping see that faith and reason are not only consonant, but resonant, even symphonic.
The second observation is that any respondent to Camping's claim must know not only what Camping is claiming (i.e., the Rapture, a demonstrably un-biblical doctrine that we reject, will occur today), but how he arrived at his conclusion. To wit: he does not claim that God revealed the date to him. This gives him wiggle room vis-á-vis Matthew 24:36. He claims to have deduced it along these lines:
It helps when giving a pastoral reply, even to something as outlandish as Camping's claim, to go to the trouble to know that to which you are responding. In other words, replies must be convincing. If those to whom your reply is directed listen to you and they have a basic knowledge not only of what someone is claiming, but the basis on which their claim is made, and they can clearly discern that you only address the what and ignore the how, then your reply may have the opposite effect and lead some to conclude that there is no reply.
In our rush to refute Camping, let us be mindful that it is an article of our Catholic faith, a dogmatic belief, that Christ will return to judge the world. So, again, like the wise virgins, we need to be prepared precisely because we do not know the hour or the day, coming as it will like a thief in the night. This is what St. Paul meant when he wrote to the Romans, "the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires" (13:11-14).
P.S.
For those who are wondering, the equation above is a cheesy take on the popular bumper sticker 1Cross+3Nails=4GVN. I found it on another blog. The point is that the the value of one nail is mathematically calculated and expressed (i.e., 3S). It's a geeky-poor attempt at the whole faith and reason supposition.
The second observation is that any respondent to Camping's claim must know not only what Camping is claiming (i.e., the Rapture, a demonstrably un-biblical doctrine that we reject, will occur today), but how he arrived at his conclusion. To wit: he does not claim that God revealed the date to him. This gives him wiggle room vis-á-vis Matthew 24:36. He claims to have deduced it along these lines:
The fact is, we know that the year [of Noah's Flood] was 4990 B.C. Seven thousand years after 4990 B.C. is A.D. 2011. Remember that when we compute the passage of time between an Old Testament event and a New Testament event, we must add the two calendar dates together and subtract 1. We subtract 1 because there is no year 0. Thus, 4,990 + 2,011 = 7,001, and 7,001 – 1 = 7,000 years.
A better equation
It helps when giving a pastoral reply, even to something as outlandish as Camping's claim, to go to the trouble to know that to which you are responding. In other words, replies must be convincing. If those to whom your reply is directed listen to you and they have a basic knowledge not only of what someone is claiming, but the basis on which their claim is made, and they can clearly discern that you only address the what and ignore the how, then your reply may have the opposite effect and lead some to conclude that there is no reply.
In our rush to refute Camping, let us be mindful that it is an article of our Catholic faith, a dogmatic belief, that Christ will return to judge the world. So, again, like the wise virgins, we need to be prepared precisely because we do not know the hour or the day, coming as it will like a thief in the night. This is what St. Paul meant when he wrote to the Romans, "the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires" (13:11-14).
P.S.
For those who are wondering, the equation above is a cheesy take on the popular bumper sticker 1Cross+3Nails=4GVN. I found it on another blog. The point is that the the value of one nail is mathematically calculated and expressed (i.e., 3S). It's a geeky-poor attempt at the whole faith and reason supposition.
End-times mania
It is important to note with all of the end-time mania going around that, like most heretical stances, Harold Camping’s prediction of the parousia is nothing new. Such people have been around since at least the time St. Paul. The apostle wrote his first letter to the Thessalonians, which is probably the first book of the New Testament to be written, to quell just these kinds of predictions. Let's not forget that Scripture itself warns us against claiming such knowledge (see Matthew 24:36). Also of use is Supplement 1763 to the Angelic Doctor's great Summa Theologiæ. This part of the supplement is where St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, "Whether the time of the future judgment is unknown?"
In keeping with his method, Aquinas sets forth several objections, which he proceeds to answer one-by-one, but not before stating the contrary and offering an answer. To the contrary, he writes that "[i]t is written (Mark 13:32): 'Of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.' The Son, however, is said not to know in so far as He does not impart the knowledge to us.
"Further, it is written (1 Thess. 5:2): 'The day of the Lord shall so come as a thief in the night.' Therefore seemingly, as the coming of a thief in the night is altogether uncertain, the day of the last judgment is altogether uncertain."
He then answers "that, God is the cause of things by His knowledge [*Cf. FP, Question [14], Article [8]]. Now He communicates both these things to His creatures, since He both endows some with the power of action on others whereof they are the cause, and bestows on some the knowledge of things. But in both cases He reserves something to Himself, for He operates certain things wherein no creature co-operates with Him, and again He knows certain things which are unknown to any mere creature. Now this should apply to none more than to those things which are subject to the Divine power alone, and in which no creature co-operates with Him. Such is the end of the world when the day of judgment will come. For the world will come to an end by no created cause, even as it derived its existence immediately from God. Wherefore the knowledge of the end of the world is fittingly reserved to God. Indeed our Lord seems to assign this very reason when He said (Acts 1:7): 'It is not for you to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own power,' as though He were to say, 'which are reserved to His power alone.'"
Let's also turn to Objection 3 and Reply to Objection 3 to clarify matters:
Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor 10:11): "It is on us ['These things . . . are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come'] that the ends of the world are come," and (1 John 2:18): 'Little children, it is the last hour,' etc. Since then it is a long time since these things were said, it would seem that now at least we can know that the last judgment is nigh."
Reply to Objection 3: "The statement, 'It is the last hour' and similar expressions that are to be found in Scripture do not enable us to know the exact length of time. For they are not intended to indicate a short length of time, but to signify the last state of the world, which is the last age of all, and it is not stated definitely how long this will last. Thus neither is fixed duration appointed to old age, which is the last age of man, since sometimes it is seen to last as long as or even longer than all the previous ages, as Augustine remarks (Qq. 83, qu. lviii). Hence also the Apostle (2 Thess. 2:2) disclaims the false signification which some had given to his words, by believing that the day of the Lord was already at hand."
As to the whole pre-millenarian dispensationalist view that posits the Rapture, it is very thin biblical gruel, indeed. Let's turn to St. Jerome for a commentary on Matthew 24:40-42:
Indeed, dear friends in Christ, we pray the prayer of the Church from the beginning, "Maranatha," which means something like, "Come, Lord" Jesus (Rev. 22:20). Each time we attend Mass we acknowledge that we joyfully await His glorious return, not knowing the hour or the day, but, like the wise virgins, keeping our lamps trimmed and burning (Matt. 25:1-13). I love the part of the baptismal liturgy for children when the candle, lit from the Paschal candle, is given with these words: "Parents and Godparents, this light is entrusted to you to be kept burning brightly. This child of yours has been enlightened by Christ. S/He s to walk always as a child of the light. May s/he keep the flame of faith alive in his/her heart. When the Lord comes, may he (she) go out to meet him with all the saints in the heavenly kingdom."
It's easy to be ironic and smug about all of this, but given the confusion in the world and in the Church, especially the many who have taken Camping's prediction seriously and who will suffer as a result, the issue deserves at least some sober treatment.
In keeping with his method, Aquinas sets forth several objections, which he proceeds to answer one-by-one, but not before stating the contrary and offering an answer. To the contrary, he writes that "[i]t is written (Mark 13:32): 'Of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.' The Son, however, is said not to know in so far as He does not impart the knowledge to us.
"Further, it is written (1 Thess. 5:2): 'The day of the Lord shall so come as a thief in the night.' Therefore seemingly, as the coming of a thief in the night is altogether uncertain, the day of the last judgment is altogether uncertain."
He then answers "that, God is the cause of things by His knowledge [*Cf. FP, Question [14], Article [8]]. Now He communicates both these things to His creatures, since He both endows some with the power of action on others whereof they are the cause, and bestows on some the knowledge of things. But in both cases He reserves something to Himself, for He operates certain things wherein no creature co-operates with Him, and again He knows certain things which are unknown to any mere creature. Now this should apply to none more than to those things which are subject to the Divine power alone, and in which no creature co-operates with Him. Such is the end of the world when the day of judgment will come. For the world will come to an end by no created cause, even as it derived its existence immediately from God. Wherefore the knowledge of the end of the world is fittingly reserved to God. Indeed our Lord seems to assign this very reason when He said (Acts 1:7): 'It is not for you to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own power,' as though He were to say, 'which are reserved to His power alone.'"
Let's also turn to Objection 3 and Reply to Objection 3 to clarify matters:
Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor 10:11): "It is on us ['These things . . . are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come'] that the ends of the world are come," and (1 John 2:18): 'Little children, it is the last hour,' etc. Since then it is a long time since these things were said, it would seem that now at least we can know that the last judgment is nigh."
Reply to Objection 3: "The statement, 'It is the last hour' and similar expressions that are to be found in Scripture do not enable us to know the exact length of time. For they are not intended to indicate a short length of time, but to signify the last state of the world, which is the last age of all, and it is not stated definitely how long this will last. Thus neither is fixed duration appointed to old age, which is the last age of man, since sometimes it is seen to last as long as or even longer than all the previous ages, as Augustine remarks (Qq. 83, qu. lviii). Hence also the Apostle (2 Thess. 2:2) disclaims the false signification which some had given to his words, by believing that the day of the Lord was already at hand."
As to the whole pre-millenarian dispensationalist view that posits the Rapture, it is very thin biblical gruel, indeed. Let's turn to St. Jerome for a commentary on Matthew 24:40-42:
"'Two men in one field' shall be found performing the same labour, sowing corn together, but not reaping the same fruit of their labour. The two 'grinding together' we may understand either of the Synagogue and the Church, which seem to grind together in the Law, and to make of the same Scriptures meal of the commandments of God; or of other heresies, which out of both or one Testament, seem to grind meal of their own doctrines."These reflections are not given to be definitive or complete, but just to show how the church deals with the passages of Scripture that Harold Camping is so badly abusing. I also want to refute the kind of biblical literalism that claims to know things like the day, month, and year of the flood and to make arthmetical predictions based such falsities by showing how, even from the time of St. Jerome (4th-5th centuries), we approach and interpret the sacred texts.
Indeed, dear friends in Christ, we pray the prayer of the Church from the beginning, "Maranatha," which means something like, "Come, Lord" Jesus (Rev. 22:20). Each time we attend Mass we acknowledge that we joyfully await His glorious return, not knowing the hour or the day, but, like the wise virgins, keeping our lamps trimmed and burning (Matt. 25:1-13). I love the part of the baptismal liturgy for children when the candle, lit from the Paschal candle, is given with these words: "Parents and Godparents, this light is entrusted to you to be kept burning brightly. This child of yours has been enlightened by Christ. S/He s to walk always as a child of the light. May s/he keep the flame of faith alive in his/her heart. When the Lord comes, may he (she) go out to meet him with all the saints in the heavenly kingdom."
It's easy to be ironic and smug about all of this, but given the confusion in the world and in the Church, especially the many who have taken Camping's prediction seriously and who will suffer as a result, the issue deserves at least some sober treatment.
"'Cause the man from Mars won't eat up bars when the TV's on"
Since, according to Harold Camping, tomorrow is the Rapture, I thought a nice traditio would be Blondie's classic- Rapture. I am certainly no pre-millennial dispensationalist, but even should Rapture occur tomorrow, I am quite certain I will still be here for the seven years of tribulation, etc.
Newt Gingrich - A Loser By Any Other Name
If you ever wanted to know how to lose a presidential campaign before it has even begun, look no further than Newt Gingrich. The GOP primaries have not even begun and Newt Gingrich has basically imploded before he has even started to seriously campaign.
Before even announcing his candidacy Gingrich inflicted several wounds upon himself. First, there was that nonsense about shrugging off conservative purists. Then there was his pig headed support of uber RINO Dede Scozzafava. Finally, the was his asinine excuse for his infidelity.
If that was not enough to sink his ship, Newt has decided that more damage was in order and has now inflicted his most fatal wound with his brain dead comment about Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare being social engineering.
After hearing this absolute foolishness, conservatives were swift and brutal in their rebuke of Newt and rightfully so. Newt's statement is just the kind of thing that Obama will use to defend his pitiful record on failing to tame the deficit. The backlash against Newt seems unabated. Even Paul Ryan gave Newt a slap. Newt exacerbates the problem by trying to backpedal and apologize.
Newt made this mistake because he is still working off the 2008 play book. In that play book, slapping the principled members of your party to gain traction with fickle independents was the way to go. However in 2011, fickle independents are not driving the bus, sound commonsense fiscally conservative principles are.
Newt is a loser plain and simple. Watching Newt trying to spin and spin and spin his way out of his self inflicted wound should send shivers down every Republican's back. This is because this is exactly how Newt would handle himself against the onslaught Obama and the left have in store for whomever the GOP nominee will be. It is a losing position because any candidate who has to take the time to spin their own words, isn't spending time hammering Obama and getting out the conservative message. Since Newt is now stuck in this spinning position, his candidacy is effectively dead.
When that gay rights activist doused Newt with glitter, he really should have used dirt, because Newt's presidential hopes are dead and buried.
Via: The Right Scoop
Via: The Blaze
Via: The Last Tradition
Via: The Atlantic
Before even announcing his candidacy Gingrich inflicted several wounds upon himself. First, there was that nonsense about shrugging off conservative purists. Then there was his pig headed support of uber RINO Dede Scozzafava. Finally, the was his asinine excuse for his infidelity.
If that was not enough to sink his ship, Newt has decided that more damage was in order and has now inflicted his most fatal wound with his brain dead comment about Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare being social engineering.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
After hearing this absolute foolishness, conservatives were swift and brutal in their rebuke of Newt and rightfully so. Newt's statement is just the kind of thing that Obama will use to defend his pitiful record on failing to tame the deficit. The backlash against Newt seems unabated. Even Paul Ryan gave Newt a slap. Newt exacerbates the problem by trying to backpedal and apologize.
Newt made this mistake because he is still working off the 2008 play book. In that play book, slapping the principled members of your party to gain traction with fickle independents was the way to go. However in 2011, fickle independents are not driving the bus, sound commonsense fiscally conservative principles are.
Newt is a loser plain and simple. Watching Newt trying to spin and spin and spin his way out of his self inflicted wound should send shivers down every Republican's back. This is because this is exactly how Newt would handle himself against the onslaught Obama and the left have in store for whomever the GOP nominee will be. It is a losing position because any candidate who has to take the time to spin their own words, isn't spending time hammering Obama and getting out the conservative message. Since Newt is now stuck in this spinning position, his candidacy is effectively dead.
When that gay rights activist doused Newt with glitter, he really should have used dirt, because Newt's presidential hopes are dead and buried.
Via: The Right Scoop
Via: The Blaze
Via: The Last Tradition
Via: The Atlantic
Those who "survived the time of great distress"
Back May 2007 I ended my homily for the Fourth Sunday of Easter with the following words:
In an interview, translated by and posted on the Russian Orthodox website, Orthodoxy and the World, you get a sense of Fr.Daniel, of his evangelical spirit and generous response to God's call on his life, which, for him, meant giving up his life. This Spirit-filled servant of God did not shrink away from preaching to and evangelizing among Muslims. It was very likely this outspoken evangelism that led to his death. Fr. Daniel succinctly laid out the criteria for giving witness (martyr meaning "witness"), "if you wish to tell another about the power of God, you should first feel the power of God yourself."
Fr. Titus (a.k.a. the Byzantine Rambler) wrote in a nice remembrance of Fr. Daniel: "It is beyond doubt that Father Daniel lived in and for Christ. He and only He was the centre and meaning of his life. His daily confession of the faith and his sincere wish to bring people to the Truth was perceived by many as something foolish, not serious, something inappropriate for reputable people."
The apostle wrote about this meant: "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor. 1:22-25). The italicized words are the Greek word that transliterates as skandalon. As you can see, this is the etymological origin of our English word "scandal."
Like the child heroine of Flannery O’Connor’s story, The Temple of the Holy Ghost, who says, "I could never be a saint but I think I could be a martyr if they killed me quick," it is the lukewarm Christian "who allots himself a measure that seems appropriate to him and considers anyone who gives more to be a professional saint." "It is important to realize," writes von Balthasar, "that the genuine saint never sees his offer to God as something beyond the norm, as a work beyond what is required." One may believe that the era of the saints is over, but it is always the era of saints until Christ returns in glory, when "the Lamb who is in the center of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to springs of life-giving water, and . . . will wipe away every tear" (Rev 7:17) as they, like St. Gianna Molla, having "survived the time of great distress," join the white-robed multitude.This is merely a lead-in to the first time I am writing about a Russian Orthodox priest who was martyred in his church in Moscow 19 November 2009 by a masked gunman, who asked for him by name and then shot him in the head and chest when he responded: Fr. Daniel Sysoyev. I have no illusions that Catholic/Orthodox ecumenical dialogue with Fr. Daniel would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, which is no small thing. However, I see him as a martyr, as a saint. I believe that he will eventually be venerated as such among Orthodox Christians. This process is underway as John Sanidopoulos chronicled over on Mystagogy.
In an interview, translated by and posted on the Russian Orthodox website, Orthodoxy and the World, you get a sense of Fr.Daniel, of his evangelical spirit and generous response to God's call on his life, which, for him, meant giving up his life. This Spirit-filled servant of God did not shrink away from preaching to and evangelizing among Muslims. It was very likely this outspoken evangelism that led to his death. Fr. Daniel succinctly laid out the criteria for giving witness (martyr meaning "witness"), "if you wish to tell another about the power of God, you should first feel the power of God yourself."
Fr. Titus (a.k.a. the Byzantine Rambler) wrote in a nice remembrance of Fr. Daniel: "It is beyond doubt that Father Daniel lived in and for Christ. He and only He was the centre and meaning of his life. His daily confession of the faith and his sincere wish to bring people to the Truth was perceived by many as something foolish, not serious, something inappropriate for reputable people."
The apostle wrote about this meant: "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor. 1:22-25). The italicized words are the Greek word that transliterates as skandalon. As you can see, this is the etymological origin of our English word "scandal."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)