But I say unto you...
Friday, September 29, 2006
More impressions from Burnett
Burnett expresses the need for a judicary as the court of last appeal, and that judiciary, in the civil arena, is by definition, infallible, as there is no recourse beyond it. Although it is admitted that the supreme judiciary can err, it is a judicial infallibility by the very fact that there is no further recourse after its decision is rendered.
Now this applies to the laws of this world, but what of the laws of God? There is a whole exploration of the fact that all civil law, in order to even be law, must be derived from the law of God (ie: the natural law). Thus, if a judiciary must be infallible in judging acts (the external forum) alone without regard to belief or assent (the internal forum), then the laws of God, which require both belief and assent as well as acts (internal and external forum), it is even more essential and necessary to have a judiciary posessing actual infallibility, empowered and capable to construe the Divine Law, as the consequences in this realm are of such a higher order than in the merely civil realm.
The thesis, which Burnett wishes us to consider, is: would God create a system inferior to the systems of merely human construction?
Let’s see if I can paraphrase Burnett and get his point across.
Suppose God, the Supreme Lawgiver, had created a system which did not include a judiciary as the final court of appeal, capable of construing the intent of His Law. Then, when appearing before the tribunal of the final Judge for the disposition of one’s life, to the charge of violation, the individual would answer, “How did I know I was supposed to do this, and not do that? Where was I supposed to find out?” To the retort, “from the plain words of scripture,” the defendant again could honestly answer, “Plain to you perhaps, because it was you who wrote it, but to me, an unlearned man who cannot even read the law in the language of promulgation, there is nothing plain at all about it. In fact, there are many learned men as well who claim it is plain, yet cannot come to agreement about the meaning of that which is supposed to be plain. So therefore I have done whatever I thought was right, since you left me without sure guidance.”
Now this applies to the laws of this world, but what of the laws of God? There is a whole exploration of the fact that all civil law, in order to even be law, must be derived from the law of God (ie: the natural law). Thus, if a judiciary must be infallible in judging acts (the external forum) alone without regard to belief or assent (the internal forum), then the laws of God, which require both belief and assent as well as acts (internal and external forum), it is even more essential and necessary to have a judiciary posessing actual infallibility, empowered and capable to construe the Divine Law, as the consequences in this realm are of such a higher order than in the merely civil realm.
The thesis, which Burnett wishes us to consider, is: would God create a system inferior to the systems of merely human construction?
Let’s see if I can paraphrase Burnett and get his point across.
Suppose God, the Supreme Lawgiver, had created a system which did not include a judiciary as the final court of appeal, capable of construing the intent of His Law. Then, when appearing before the tribunal of the final Judge for the disposition of one’s life, to the charge of violation, the individual would answer, “How did I know I was supposed to do this, and not do that? Where was I supposed to find out?” To the retort, “from the plain words of scripture,” the defendant again could honestly answer, “Plain to you perhaps, because it was you who wrote it, but to me, an unlearned man who cannot even read the law in the language of promulgation, there is nothing plain at all about it. In fact, there are many learned men as well who claim it is plain, yet cannot come to agreement about the meaning of that which is supposed to be plain. So therefore I have done whatever I thought was right, since you left me without sure guidance.”
HPR Review of The True Church
Homiletic and Pastoral Review has placed their review of "THE TRUE CHURCH" online at
http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/bk_burnett.htm
http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/bk_burnett.htm
Burnett’s keen legal mind presents these New Testament truths with forceful logic. Brownson was right when he described The True Church as worth more than all the gold taken out of California.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Burnett's rules of scriptural interpretation
OK, finished transcribing them. Thanks due to Dominic Colvert, Solas Press, for permission!
Here are the rules
Here are the rules
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
A proper method of inquiry
I've received the publisher's permission to post the portions from Burnett's book, THE TRUE CHURCH (see post below), that establish the rules of biblical inquiry.
"The investigation of truth, the art of ascertaining that which is unknown from that which is known," says the profound and philosophic Starkie, "has occupied the attention and constituted the pleasure as well as the business of the reflecting part of mankind in every civilized age and country."
I've only started, but you can read the introduction and first rule here
"The investigation of truth, the art of ascertaining that which is unknown from that which is known," says the profound and philosophic Starkie, "has occupied the attention and constituted the pleasure as well as the business of the reflecting part of mankind in every civilized age and country."
I've only started, but you can read the introduction and first rule here
Friday, September 22, 2006
Tradition
More from Burnett...
Did Jesus condemn "traditions of men?" Many protestants throw this charge at the Church, that it substitutes the "traditions of men" for the word of God. So, what gives here?
Jesus condemned specific traditions of men (Mt 15) that He said "make null the commandments of God." Herein lies the source of confusion, and my hat is off to Burnett for making this abundantly clear; may God grant me the grace to pass it along to you.
If I wish to destroy the tradition of the income tax, I must attack the income tax in general. If, however I attack the income tax exemption of the investment tax credit, I actually am attacking a particular, and thus affirming the general! If I argue thusly, I argue agains my own stated purpose. This is a immemorial standard of law familiar to legal minds, pity the rest of us.
Thus, when Jesus attacked specific traditions of men that make null the commandments of God, he affirms tradition of men in general.
Here's the kicker. If he were condemning all traditions, the pharisees and the rest of the Jewish community could have justly called Him a hypocrite, as he erected His own traditions and bound His followers to them (Mt 28:19-20).
Did Jesus condemn "traditions of men?" Many protestants throw this charge at the Church, that it substitutes the "traditions of men" for the word of God. So, what gives here?
Jesus condemned specific traditions of men (Mt 15) that He said "make null the commandments of God." Herein lies the source of confusion, and my hat is off to Burnett for making this abundantly clear; may God grant me the grace to pass it along to you.
If I wish to destroy the tradition of the income tax, I must attack the income tax in general. If, however I attack the income tax exemption of the investment tax credit, I actually am attacking a particular, and thus affirming the general! If I argue thusly, I argue agains my own stated purpose. This is a immemorial standard of law familiar to legal minds, pity the rest of us.
Thus, when Jesus attacked specific traditions of men that make null the commandments of God, he affirms tradition of men in general.
Here's the kicker. If he were condemning all traditions, the pharisees and the rest of the Jewish community could have justly called Him a hypocrite, as he erected His own traditions and bound His followers to them (Mt 28:19-20).
The whole law
Synopsis of thought from Burnett's "The True Church"
Nowhere in the bible is it recorded that Jesus commanded a written code to be produced. On the contrary, he commissioned his apostles to transmit an oral tradition:
28:19. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost.
28:20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even
to the consummation of the world.
For one code to be replaced by another requires no less authority, than that of the Lawgiver. Thus it was proper for Jesus to suspend portions of the Old Law, and institute a new one (hence Mt. 28:20). That this new code was delivered orally and spread orally, prior to the writing of the books of the bible, no one will dispute. Hence the first Christians were bound by a law delivered by oral tradition, as St. Paul severally testifies.
Now if it was the lawgiver's intention to entirely replace the law as orally proclaimed and transmitted, with one that was entirely written, it must be done with the authority of the lawgiver Himself, and be promulgated clearly so that there will be no confusion. Yet this evidence is entirely lacking in the biblical and historical record; if one code is to replace another entirely, we must be informed of such by the Lawgiver.
Nowhere in the bible is it recorded that Jesus commanded a written code to be produced. On the contrary, he commissioned his apostles to transmit an oral tradition:
28:19. Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost.
28:20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even
to the consummation of the world.
For one code to be replaced by another requires no less authority, than that of the Lawgiver. Thus it was proper for Jesus to suspend portions of the Old Law, and institute a new one (hence Mt. 28:20). That this new code was delivered orally and spread orally, prior to the writing of the books of the bible, no one will dispute. Hence the first Christians were bound by a law delivered by oral tradition, as St. Paul severally testifies.
Now if it was the lawgiver's intention to entirely replace the law as orally proclaimed and transmitted, with one that was entirely written, it must be done with the authority of the lawgiver Himself, and be promulgated clearly so that there will be no confusion. Yet this evidence is entirely lacking in the biblical and historical record; if one code is to replace another entirely, we must be informed of such by the Lawgiver.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Upcoming retreat
There will be a retreat on Saturday, October 7, at the Dominican Chapter House in Homedale, Idaho. It will run from 10AM to 4PM, and close with (newly ordained Fr.) Carlos Enrique Camargo Porras' first mass at Our Lady of the Valley, Caldwell.
The theme of this retreat will be meditation on the Beatitudes, which have been part of our study curriculum this last year. We will alternate between readings from Divine Intimacy, by Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalene, O.C.D., with periods of reflection/meditation. The readings deal with the connection between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the beatitudes.
Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament will also be available during the retreat.
For a map and directions, click here
You have heard it said...
The theme of this retreat will be meditation on the Beatitudes, which have been part of our study curriculum this last year. We will alternate between readings from Divine Intimacy, by Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalene, O.C.D., with periods of reflection/meditation. The readings deal with the connection between the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the beatitudes.
Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament will also be available during the retreat.
For a map and directions, click here
You have heard it said...
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Food for thought: Law
Burnett states that the Law stands in relation to the Lawgiver, irrespective of the mode of promulgation. Now a lawyer is versed in this, but this comes as a new articulation of what we all have lived with, but most have never heard explicitly stated.
Because law must cover the general, and deal with the particular (ie: exceptions, extension, etc), a twofold system exists. Written law (statuatory) contains the general case, while the unwritten (as with common law) resides in the record of decision. All must be used together to arrive at a just extension in each new case of particular fact, each is delivered from the lawgiver.
The French, after the revolution, attempted to throw out accumulated body received decisions, and only have simple statutes. The folly of this, Burnett observes, is that within 20 years the French had an additional 50 volumns of law, and by 1828, over 100! As GKC says, when you throw out God, you don't get freedom; you don't even get anarchy. You get the little laws. One is inclined to observe that our propensity for regulation is an unfortunate following in these footsteps.
If you have trouble following what I've just written, then I highly recommend Burnett's book; he's far more articulate!
Jumping ahead of Burnett's thought, it seems clear to me that what he's on to is that God as Lawgiver, delivered not only statute law, but a record of decision; and there is a long record of it in Holy Scripture. We see this record of decision in the work of Judges, Prophets, our Lord, and the Apostles. Yet the protestant wishes to apply as statute the scriptures, without the authoritative application of the record of decision, a record existing unbroken to this day. In this he makes himself judge of the law.
The twofold system Burnett discusses makes more sense to me when I recall that the basis of law is the articulation of the natural law, and as such, it's particulars are constant; hence a statute, or what is received through common law, have one and the same source, of which the first cause is God Himself.
Because law must cover the general, and deal with the particular (ie: exceptions, extension, etc), a twofold system exists. Written law (statuatory) contains the general case, while the unwritten (as with common law) resides in the record of decision. All must be used together to arrive at a just extension in each new case of particular fact, each is delivered from the lawgiver.
The French, after the revolution, attempted to throw out accumulated body received decisions, and only have simple statutes. The folly of this, Burnett observes, is that within 20 years the French had an additional 50 volumns of law, and by 1828, over 100! As GKC says, when you throw out God, you don't get freedom; you don't even get anarchy. You get the little laws. One is inclined to observe that our propensity for regulation is an unfortunate following in these footsteps.
If you have trouble following what I've just written, then I highly recommend Burnett's book; he's far more articulate!
Jumping ahead of Burnett's thought, it seems clear to me that what he's on to is that God as Lawgiver, delivered not only statute law, but a record of decision; and there is a long record of it in Holy Scripture. We see this record of decision in the work of Judges, Prophets, our Lord, and the Apostles. Yet the protestant wishes to apply as statute the scriptures, without the authoritative application of the record of decision, a record existing unbroken to this day. In this he makes himself judge of the law.
The twofold system Burnett discusses makes more sense to me when I recall that the basis of law is the articulation of the natural law, and as such, it's particulars are constant; hence a statute, or what is received through common law, have one and the same source, of which the first cause is God Himself.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Book Recommend!
Received a new book last night, and from the little bit I've read so far, it is an amazing book!
THE TRUE CHURCH: THE PATH WHICH LED A PROTESTANT LAWYER TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. By Peter H. Burnett (Solas Press, PO Box 4066, Antioch CA, 2004
It's a reprint from an 1860 account of the conversion of California's first governor. Examining the evidence, he came to the conclusion that the supreme lawgiver, in fulfilling the old covenant, had been reduced to below the level of a civil legislator by protestantism. Burnett has chapters on all the protestant controversies.
THE TRUE CHURCH: THE PATH WHICH LED A PROTESTANT LAWYER TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. By Peter H. Burnett (Solas Press, PO Box 4066, Antioch CA, 2004
It's a reprint from an 1860 account of the conversion of California's first governor. Examining the evidence, he came to the conclusion that the supreme lawgiver, in fulfilling the old covenant, had been reduced to below the level of a civil legislator by protestantism. Burnett has chapters on all the protestant controversies.
About The True Church
Peter H. Burnett’s The True Church is a model for ecumenical dialog. He was in turn an unbeliever, a Deist, a Disciple of Christ, and a Catholic. He thus does not assume any particular faith in his reader. Burnett adopts the practice of treating evidence like figures in the jurisprudential tradition such as William Blackstone, Thomas Starkie, and James Kent. On this rigorous basis he develops positions on the truth of Christianity and uniqueness of the Catholic Church. In the process, he meets the arguments of a group of notable believers and un-believers. As the occasion demands, he marshalls sources such as Hugo Grotius, David Hume and Samuel Johnson, as well as a vast array of Divines.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Benedict XVI on the Liturgy of the Hours
On Aug 31 the pope spoke to the priests of the dioces of Albano, where he made these comments on the recitation of the Liturgy of the Hours (Breviary).
English language article on the pope's discussion is found at http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=81622&eng=y
As Dominican laity, we also live under a rule that includes the recitation of the Divine Office. May we unite our liturgical prayers with those of all priests, religious, and laity, that our interior lives will blossom for the conversion of our neighbors, to the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
1. ON THE RECITATION OF THE BREVIARY
The interior life is essential to our service as priests [...] It is the mark of a pastor that he be a man of prayer, that he stand before the Lord praying for others, even taking the place of others who perhaps do not know how to pray, don’t want to pray, don’t find the time to pray. [...] The Church gives us, almost imposes upon us – but always as a good mother – free time for God, with the two practices that are part of our duties: celebrating Holy Mass and reciting the Breviary. But more than reciting, carrying this out as a listening to the word that the Lord offers us in the Liturgy of the Hours.
We must interiorize this word, be attentive to what the Lord is saying to us with this word, then listen to the comment from the Fathers of the Church or from the [Second Vatican] Council in the second reading of the Office of Readings, and pray with that great invocation that is the Psalms, through which we take our place within the prayer of all ages. The people of the Old Testament pray with us, and we pray with them. We pray with the Lord, who is the real subject of the Psalms. We pray with the Church of all ages. [...]
Today we had [in the Breviary] that marvelous commentary from Saint Columban on Christ as the spring of living water from which we drink. [...] The people are thirsty. And they try to respond to this with various amusements. But they know well that these amusements are not the living water that they need. The Lord is the spring of living water. [...] So let us seek to drink it in prayer, in the celebration of the Holy Mass, in reading: let us seek to drink from this spring, that it may become a fountain within us. And we will be able to respond better to the thirst of the people of today.
English language article on the pope's discussion is found at http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=81622&eng=y
As Dominican laity, we also live under a rule that includes the recitation of the Divine Office. May we unite our liturgical prayers with those of all priests, religious, and laity, that our interior lives will blossom for the conversion of our neighbors, to the glory of God and the salvation of souls.
Dominican tradition: the Salve Regina
When Fran Griffin visited in the fall of 2005, she made the observation that our chapter should learn to chant the Salve Regina, in the Dominican tradition, at the end of our chapter meetings. To this end she later sent a CD. There is now a web page (click here) with this version and one from the central province, as well as an image of the sheet music in Gregorian notation. Listen and gain familiarity, we will be learning this!
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Another take on "private judgement"
An interesting discussion at the PONTIFICATIONS blog that also continues the subject I recently discussed regarding private judgement.
Sitting in the Ruins
by Alvin Kimel
The claim of the Catholic Church to be the Church offends. Her demand to surrender one’s private judgment to her infallible teaching authority scandalizes. Yet every sinner needs to make this surrender, this submission of mind and heart. Only by this surrender are we saved from our ideas of who God is, from our ideas of what Church is, from our ideas of what salvation is, from our ideas of what truth is. The Catholic Church saves us from our ideas and gives us the reality of God and his salvation.
In a very real sense, Protestantism cannot save humanity because Protestantism is private judgment. Please do not misunderstand. I am not suggesting that God is not present and active in powerful, saving ways in Protestant Christianity. I could not suggest that without denying my own salvation. I am not denying the millions of souls who have been saved through the witness of committed Protestant believers and preachers. I am not denying the liberating work and presence of the Holy Spirit in Protestant congregations. But the fact remains that no Protestant is ever asked to surrender his judgment to an infallible living authority. No Protestant is ever asked to believe in the Church. Even the most patristic Anglican retains the right to adjudicate between the competing testimonies of Scripture, tradition, and reason. Even the most devout fundamentalist retains the right to his private interpretation of Scripture.
New blog link!
Newly received member Anita Moore has a blog!
You'll want to bookmark V for Victory! and keep up to date on Anita's entries
Nice blog, Anita!
You'll want to bookmark V for Victory! and keep up to date on Anita's entries
Nice blog, Anita!
Friday, September 01, 2006
Love and suffering
From "Man, the Saint" by J. Urteaga Loidi (1959)
Love, and you will suffer much. I wish you - and you know how much I love you - pain and suffering. Love and suffering are two bright stars that will show you the way. On your left you will leave all the other loves that are petty or dirty; on your right you will leave despair. Prayer ant the Cross show you a new way, a solid foundation on which to base your life.
Love, and you will suffer much. I wish you - and you know how much I love you - pain and suffering. Love and suffering are two bright stars that will show you the way. On your left you will leave all the other loves that are petty or dirty; on your right you will leave despair. Prayer ant the Cross show you a new way, a solid foundation on which to base your life.
Do you still believe the lie of Satan?
Perhaps without knowing it, you do.
It is John Paul II's assertion (DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM) that most Christians still believe the lie of Satan to Eve, not really knowing what the lie is; missing it entirely. It is not "you will be like God" for we are made in the image of the invisible God, it is not "you will not die" because they did die after eating. No it was...
"knowning good and evil" - in other words, having the last word, deciding for oneself, being the final arbiter who submits to no man. I connect this to the sola scripturist for such an individual interprets scripture based on his knowledge and the written word, but reserves the final judgement to himself, believing he has the divine assistance to do so, and the divine assurance that he is right. Suffice to say, the evidence is clear; as there can be only one truth, not many, then the evidence is against the claim of the sola scripturist, in the following analysis.
if a sola scripturist is guided by the Holy Spirit, by definition he will agree with all others who are guided by the Holy Spirit with respect to the meaning of scripture. If he does not on a particular item, then it means one of two things: that either one and/or the other holder of differing positions is in error, or disagreement is permissible because it is a non-essential. In both cases, he has admitted that he is not being guided by the Holy Spirit, who only guides to truth.
The criteria for identifying essentials would be agreement, the evidence for non-essentials would be disagreement. No sola-scripturist camp can be disregarded in this division, since all claim the same premise. In the final analysis, virtually every established belief of Christiandom falls here, because there is a camp somewhere which rejects each and every bit of the faith. Jesus' divinity falls, the Trinity falls, the virgin birth falls, the resurection falls, it all goes away. There is one item of agreement. No Catholic Church & no pope.
Since all disagreeing parties claim the exact same justification for being right, then the inescapable conclusion is that there is no way to know if you are actually being directly guided by the Holy Spirit in your individual understanding of scripture. The result is that protestantism based on sola-scriptura and it's derivations provides no sure path to salvation; litterally there is nothing that can be known with certainty with regard to what is necessary for our eternal salvation.
pretty sad. What kind of faith is summed up only by a negative assertion?
Satan always wraps a lie in a vernier of truth, because the soul of man is drawn to truth, a reality which God built into us.
It is John Paul II's assertion (DOMINUM ET VIVIFICANTEM) that most Christians still believe the lie of Satan to Eve, not really knowing what the lie is; missing it entirely. It is not "you will be like God" for we are made in the image of the invisible God, it is not "you will not die" because they did die after eating. No it was...
"knowning good and evil" - in other words, having the last word, deciding for oneself, being the final arbiter who submits to no man. I connect this to the sola scripturist for such an individual interprets scripture based on his knowledge and the written word, but reserves the final judgement to himself, believing he has the divine assistance to do so, and the divine assurance that he is right. Suffice to say, the evidence is clear; as there can be only one truth, not many, then the evidence is against the claim of the sola scripturist, in the following analysis.
if a sola scripturist is guided by the Holy Spirit, by definition he will agree with all others who are guided by the Holy Spirit with respect to the meaning of scripture. If he does not on a particular item, then it means one of two things: that either one and/or the other holder of differing positions is in error, or disagreement is permissible because it is a non-essential. In both cases, he has admitted that he is not being guided by the Holy Spirit, who only guides to truth.
The criteria for identifying essentials would be agreement, the evidence for non-essentials would be disagreement. No sola-scripturist camp can be disregarded in this division, since all claim the same premise. In the final analysis, virtually every established belief of Christiandom falls here, because there is a camp somewhere which rejects each and every bit of the faith. Jesus' divinity falls, the Trinity falls, the virgin birth falls, the resurection falls, it all goes away. There is one item of agreement. No Catholic Church & no pope.
Since all disagreeing parties claim the exact same justification for being right, then the inescapable conclusion is that there is no way to know if you are actually being directly guided by the Holy Spirit in your individual understanding of scripture. The result is that protestantism based on sola-scriptura and it's derivations provides no sure path to salvation; litterally there is nothing that can be known with certainty with regard to what is necessary for our eternal salvation.
pretty sad. What kind of faith is summed up only by a negative assertion?
Satan always wraps a lie in a vernier of truth, because the soul of man is drawn to truth, a reality which God built into us.
To hunger and thirst for justice
from Divine Intimacy, an exellent reminder of what this means in the beatitudes:
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice Mt 5:6.
Hunger and thirst indicate imperious needs which cannot be suppressed, it is a question of life and death. As food and drink are absolutely essential to the life of the body, so justice is absolutely necessary for a life of virtue, and its duties are so compelling that no motive can exempt us from fulfilling them. If an act of charity for the neighbor should impose on us great inconvenience or cause us serious har, we would not be obliged to do it, but the same inconvenience or harm chould not excuse us from fulfilling a duty of justice.
It is thus appropriate to speak of hunger and thirst for justice, not in the sense of vindicating rights, but in the sense of cultivating in ourselves such a lively desire and imperious need for justice in all our relations with others, that we do not feel satisfied until we have completely fulfilled all the duties stemming from this virtue.
In other words, if you haven't noticed, the hungering for justice spoken of in the beatitude which makes one blessed is not the desire to see others act in justice, but the overwhelming desire to act with justice yourself.
Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice Mt 5:6.
Hunger and thirst indicate imperious needs which cannot be suppressed, it is a question of life and death. As food and drink are absolutely essential to the life of the body, so justice is absolutely necessary for a life of virtue, and its duties are so compelling that no motive can exempt us from fulfilling them. If an act of charity for the neighbor should impose on us great inconvenience or cause us serious har, we would not be obliged to do it, but the same inconvenience or harm chould not excuse us from fulfilling a duty of justice.
It is thus appropriate to speak of hunger and thirst for justice, not in the sense of vindicating rights, but in the sense of cultivating in ourselves such a lively desire and imperious need for justice in all our relations with others, that we do not feel satisfied until we have completely fulfilled all the duties stemming from this virtue.
In other words, if you haven't noticed, the hungering for justice spoken of in the beatitude which makes one blessed is not the desire to see others act in justice, but the overwhelming desire to act with justice yourself.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
From today's gospel:
[Mt 23-26] Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." When the disciples heard this they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?" But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
I've heard that "the eye of the needle" was a gate through which the camel had to be unloaded in order to pass, and that the hearers would have understood this. But if they understood it this way, why the astonishment, who then can be saved?
perhaps it is a double entendre, because he doesn't say, "the eye of the needle" (the gate in question) but "the eye of a needle" (a very small thing indeed!)
I've heard that "the eye of the needle" was a gate through which the camel had to be unloaded in order to pass, and that the hearers would have understood this. But if they understood it this way, why the astonishment, who then can be saved?
perhaps it is a double entendre, because he doesn't say, "the eye of the needle" (the gate in question) but "the eye of a needle" (a very small thing indeed!)
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Permissable disagreement on non-essentials
The protestant doctrine of "permissable disagreement on non-essentials" is an admission that their interpretation of Holy Scripture, on these issues, is not guided by the Holy Spirit, but is personal. If the claim is made that the interpretation of non-essentials is of the Holy Spirit, then they are claiming that the Holy Spirit does not teach the truth, but is self-contradictory. Either the Holy Spirit teaches the truth, which is singular and non-contradictory, or their interpretation is personal and not of the Holy Spirit.
Rather a huge admission!
I will assume a protestant believes he is guided by the Holy Spirit in essentials, while admitteding he is not guided by the Holy Spirit in non-essentials. Because the Holy Spirit teaches only truth, it would follow that all who turn to the scriptures and are guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding them, must come to the same conclusion, otherwise it is their own opinion, rather than the meaning of the word of God.
Now, because protestant A's non-essential always seems to be protestant B's essential, we need to filter out and discover what all protestants believe in common, to see what they all agree to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. It will not do to exclude groups who disagree on their own "essential" because the others are also following the same rule of faith. Therefore, to me, the outsider, all claims have equal validity.
The only doctrinal issue of faith that I observe that seems to be universally held by all protestants, is the rejection of the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church. Thus, since all protestants agree on this, it would follow that this is the only essential article of faith for protestant Christianity (what is remarkable about this is it is a denial of an article of faith, a negation, rather than an affirmation of anything!).
Yet, by the same rule of faith, to be fair to the outsider looking in, we have to set against this the members of the Catholic Church who do accept this authority. Thus, it logically follows that either this is also a non-essential, and therefore there are no essentials, or it is an essential.
If it is an essential, here are the two choices in how we decide which answer is true.
A. God has given us an authority that can answer infallibly all questions pertaining to what is necessary for our salvation in His Name, or
B. God has left us on or own, with nothing that can be known with certainty of what is necessary for our salvation.
I think the choice is clear!
Rather a huge admission!
I will assume a protestant believes he is guided by the Holy Spirit in essentials, while admitteding he is not guided by the Holy Spirit in non-essentials. Because the Holy Spirit teaches only truth, it would follow that all who turn to the scriptures and are guided by the Holy Spirit in understanding them, must come to the same conclusion, otherwise it is their own opinion, rather than the meaning of the word of God.
Now, because protestant A's non-essential always seems to be protestant B's essential, we need to filter out and discover what all protestants believe in common, to see what they all agree to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. It will not do to exclude groups who disagree on their own "essential" because the others are also following the same rule of faith. Therefore, to me, the outsider, all claims have equal validity.
The only doctrinal issue of faith that I observe that seems to be universally held by all protestants, is the rejection of the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church. Thus, since all protestants agree on this, it would follow that this is the only essential article of faith for protestant Christianity (what is remarkable about this is it is a denial of an article of faith, a negation, rather than an affirmation of anything!).
Yet, by the same rule of faith, to be fair to the outsider looking in, we have to set against this the members of the Catholic Church who do accept this authority. Thus, it logically follows that either this is also a non-essential, and therefore there are no essentials, or it is an essential.
If it is an essential, here are the two choices in how we decide which answer is true.
A. God has given us an authority that can answer infallibly all questions pertaining to what is necessary for our salvation in His Name, or
B. God has left us on or own, with nothing that can be known with certainty of what is necessary for our salvation.
I think the choice is clear!
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Happy feast day of St. Dominic!
In honor of Holy Preaching, here is a delightful article by a Catholic layman.
(follow the link to read the rest!)
How Do Catholics Hear the Gospel? (Gary Michuta)
I was a Catholic once, said the lady a few yards from me in the parking lot. Now I'm a Christian and you can be one as well. She proceeded to hand a tract to a gentleman standing next to the opened trunk of his car. I couldn't help it.
Excuse me, I said to the lady but could I, too have a tract? The lady's face beamed. Are you saved?, she asked. Of course I am; I'm a believing Catholic, I retorted. She looked at me as if I had bad breath or something.
She continued: I was just telling this gentleman that I too was a Catholic - a Catholic for thirty-some years in fact. Now I've found Christ and I'm trying to tell everyone I know about salvation through Christ.
Wow, that's really something! May I ask why you left the Church? I could tell that, by asking this question, my new acquaintance was getting excited. After all, she had probably been snubbed by dozens of people and now she has someone that she can "witness" to Christ. I didn't mind much either, but I tried not to show it.
You see, she said, I was born Catholic. I attended Mass every week, received the Sacraments and graduated from a Catholic school. Not once did I ever hear the gospel proclaimed. Not once! It was after the birth of my first child that a good friend of mine shared the gospel with me and I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior and became a Christian. Now I belong to a Bible-believing church and I'm sharing the gospel with whomever will listen.
This shocked me. You mean you belonged to the Catholic Church for over forty years and you never heard the gospel?, I said. She was getting more excited. Yes, I never once heard the gospel of salvation preached or taught or even mentioned in the Church. If you don't preach the gospel, excuse my bluntness, but you're simply not Christian. I scratched my head and said, that's strange. I've been a Catholic all my life and I bet I hear the gospel ever week at Church. Her smile quickly faded into a look of curiosity. Maybe, I'm missing something, I continued. Tell me what you mean by the gospel?
The lady reached back into her purse to pull out a little tract and said, This tracts explains the simple gospel of salvation. It can be broken down into four easy steps.
First, we acknowledge that we are all sinners in need of God's forgiveness.
Secondly, we recognize that only God can save us.
The third step is that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins and to bring us to God.
And the fourth and final step is that each individual accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior to be saved.
I thought for a couple of seconds and said, If I could demonstrate to you that Catholics hear the gospel every Sunday, would you agree to take a closer look at the Catholic Church? Now, she knew she had me over a barrel. Prove it, she said. I excused myself for a second and ran to my car to grab a Missal.
(follow the link to read the rest!)
Thursday, August 03, 2006
The Burial Crypt of the Pasteur Institute, Paris
This is from the Notre Dame student blog
Shrine of the Holy Whapping
read the rest at the blog site!
Shrine of the Holy Whapping
A common bit of modern hagiographic folkore, the exact circumstances of which I have been unable to trace, reports that on one day about a hundred years ago, a young brash scientist on his way to a conference shared a train compartment with a quiet old man who looked to be an example of that type once so common in France, that of the wealthy peasant. He noticed the old gentleman was telling the beads of a rosary, and proceeded to hector him, asking him why he bothered with such outdated things in an age of scientific progress.
The old man asked, "What is this science? Perhaps you can explain it to me." He was clearly moved, and had tears in his eyes. The young student, slightly embarassed by the reaction he'd brought about, said he would send him some pamphlets to explain the subject to him, if he'd just give him his address. The old man's stop had come up, and he was about to step out. The old man rummaged around in his coat and pulled out a business card, and just as he left the compartment, the young man realized it read, "Louis Pasteur, Director of the Institute of Scientific Research, Paris."
Whether or not this story is true--and it certainly could be, given Louis Pasteur's very genuine faith--it's a matter of historic record that the great man died with a rosary in his hand, after having had the life of St. Vincent de Paul read aloud to him. The saint was one of his heroes, and an inspiration for his own scientific work, that it might benefit the lives of children as the saint's own charity had.
read the rest at the blog site!
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
“When doubts and errors are spread...”
Remarkable document from Spain:
For excerpts click here:
From the pastoral instruction “Theology and secularization in Spain,” March 30, 2006
2. They are not few who, in the shadow of a nonexistent Council, in terms of both letter and spirit, have sown agitation and disquiet in the hearts of many of the faithful.
13. From the denial of one aspect of the profession of faith, one passes to the total loss of the faith itself, in that by selecting some aspects and refuting others one does not respect the testimony of God, but rather human reasoning. When one alters the profession of faith, the entire Christian life is compromised by this.
For excerpts click here:
Monday, July 31, 2006
Second annual Magdalene Retreat
The Second Annual Magdalene Retreat was a blessing. Here are some samplings from the retreat that will show its inspiration.
Here is the Prior, Mark Gross, OPL, giving his presentation--cup in hand and a thoughtful and prayer-provoking point being made. After each presentation, the retreatants prayed silently. You can see below the agenda for each separate part of the retreat in contemplation of St. Margaret Magdalene and her true relationship with Christ. Mark was the Retreat Master and the retreat was held at the Chapterhouse in Homedale.
Here are a few of the retreatants doing what many Dominicans do well, talk and eat! God bless them all!
Retreat attendees at the second annual Magdalene Retreat, Homedale, Idaho, Saturday, 22 July 2006.
Here is the Prior, Mark Gross, OPL, giving his presentation--cup in hand and a thoughtful and prayer-provoking point being made. After each presentation, the retreatants prayed silently. You can see below the agenda for each separate part of the retreat in contemplation of St. Margaret Magdalene and her true relationship with Christ. Mark was the Retreat Master and the retreat was held at the Chapterhouse in Homedale.
Here are a few of the retreatants doing what many Dominicans do well, talk and eat! God bless them all!
Retreat attendees at the second annual Magdalene Retreat, Homedale, Idaho, Saturday, 22 July 2006.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Thank you!
I would like to thank the men of the St. John's Tuesday morning prayer group for volunteering to help with the concrete work!
We will meet at 6:30AM at St. John's and go to Homedale. It should be quick to finish the job with so many willing hands. May God be praised! You have melted my heart.
For a map and directions, click here
In 1913, my great-grandfather lived in Portland OR. He was known as "The gimp Gross" - Now I seem to be growing into a family tradition! I am very grateful to have volunteers to do what I can really no longer do.
After prayer group I went home and read the Divine Office, which today includes Psalm 102. Here is what I read:
Yes, the time appointed has come, for your servants love (Zion's) very stones, and are moved with pity even for her dust.
Considering for next Sunday, we discussed the miracle of the loaves and fishes, where we see Jesus moved with compassion, we can in the psalm relate that the very stones of Zion are the hearts of men, for dust we are and to dust we must return. Aware of the great mercy the Lord has shown us, we learn to show mercy for our neighbor who is loved by God who desires his friendship, as once he desired ours.
Then he will turn to the prayers of the helpless; he will not despise their prayers.
Since my help comes from the Lord, truly the most helpless are those who do not know the Lord! Yet God has made us in his image, and part of that image is to seek the good. And it is true that God seeks us before we seek him, for his grace is totally gratuitous, not merited on our part. Thus the prayer of the helpless can in one sense be thought of as the yearning of the heart of good will seeking the good (ie: God), even though the name of God is unknown. The desire for God is innate, because he put it in every heart.
Let this be written for ages to come that a people yet unborn may praise the Lord;
A people unborn is the unregenerate soul, who has not yet entered the saving waters of baptism. Unborn today, even blaspheming the Lord today, many will yet enter the saving waters and then praise the name of the Lord. Oh joy of the saints and angels of heaven, that a soul be converted!
That he might hear the groans of the prisoners and free those condemned to die.
Due to original sin, we are all born under a death sentence, prisoners to a material life under the lordship of Satan, the prince of the world. In our original ignorance we strain against this while simultaneously embracing it. But our Lord knows our weakness, and has pity on us, and helps us to receive our Savior so that we can escape that death that is eternal.
He has broken my strength in mid-course, he has shortened the days of my life.
The Lord gives, the Lord takes away. Thanks be to God.
Long ago you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain.
We remember when we hear "earth," that we are but dust; and in a sense, the heavens are where God's will is done, and can be thought of as the saints who do God's will. The earth (this mortal coil) perishes, but the heavens (once regenerated, our union with God) will live forever.
God bless,
Mark
We will meet at 6:30AM at St. John's and go to Homedale. It should be quick to finish the job with so many willing hands. May God be praised! You have melted my heart.
For a map and directions, click here
In 1913, my great-grandfather lived in Portland OR. He was known as "The gimp Gross" - Now I seem to be growing into a family tradition! I am very grateful to have volunteers to do what I can really no longer do.
After prayer group I went home and read the Divine Office, which today includes Psalm 102. Here is what I read:
Yes, the time appointed has come, for your servants love (Zion's) very stones, and are moved with pity even for her dust.
Considering for next Sunday, we discussed the miracle of the loaves and fishes, where we see Jesus moved with compassion, we can in the psalm relate that the very stones of Zion are the hearts of men, for dust we are and to dust we must return. Aware of the great mercy the Lord has shown us, we learn to show mercy for our neighbor who is loved by God who desires his friendship, as once he desired ours.
Then he will turn to the prayers of the helpless; he will not despise their prayers.
Since my help comes from the Lord, truly the most helpless are those who do not know the Lord! Yet God has made us in his image, and part of that image is to seek the good. And it is true that God seeks us before we seek him, for his grace is totally gratuitous, not merited on our part. Thus the prayer of the helpless can in one sense be thought of as the yearning of the heart of good will seeking the good (ie: God), even though the name of God is unknown. The desire for God is innate, because he put it in every heart.
Let this be written for ages to come that a people yet unborn may praise the Lord;
A people unborn is the unregenerate soul, who has not yet entered the saving waters of baptism. Unborn today, even blaspheming the Lord today, many will yet enter the saving waters and then praise the name of the Lord. Oh joy of the saints and angels of heaven, that a soul be converted!
That he might hear the groans of the prisoners and free those condemned to die.
Due to original sin, we are all born under a death sentence, prisoners to a material life under the lordship of Satan, the prince of the world. In our original ignorance we strain against this while simultaneously embracing it. But our Lord knows our weakness, and has pity on us, and helps us to receive our Savior so that we can escape that death that is eternal.
He has broken my strength in mid-course, he has shortened the days of my life.
The Lord gives, the Lord takes away. Thanks be to God.
Long ago you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain.
We remember when we hear "earth," that we are but dust; and in a sense, the heavens are where God's will is done, and can be thought of as the saints who do God's will. The earth (this mortal coil) perishes, but the heavens (once regenerated, our union with God) will live forever.
God bless,
Mark
Monday, July 24, 2006
Where did Ecclesiasticus 9:10-13 go?
For our retreat on Mary Magdalene, we used the chapter from Ven Louis of Granada in his Summa of the Christian Life, found here, which contains the following:
OK, for Ecclus 9:10-13, in the Douay-Rheims, translating the Latin Vulgate we find:
Your NAB or RSV has verse 9:10ff to match the DR verse 9:14ff
If anyone knows why these specific verses have been removed, I'd like to know!
O wisdom of God! One of the vilest things in the world is an evil woman, of whom Ecclesiasticus says that she "shall be trodden upon as dung in the way" [Ecclus. 9:10].
OK, for Ecclus 9:10-13, in the Douay-Rheims, translating the Latin Vulgate we find:
9:10. Every woman that is a harlot, shall be trodden upon as dung in the way.
9:11. Many by admiring the beauty of another man's wife, have become reprobate, for her conversation burneth as fire.
9:12. Sit not at all with another man's wife, nor repose upon the bed with her:
9:13. And strive not with her over wine, lest thy heart decline towards her and by thy blood thou fall into destruction.
Your NAB or RSV has verse 9:10ff to match the DR verse 9:14ff
If anyone knows why these specific verses have been removed, I'd like to know!
Monday, July 17, 2006
MAGDALENE RETREAT, SATURDAY, JULY 22, 2006 9:00 A.M.
The Dominicans are holding a contemplative Retreat this coming feast day of St. Mary Magdalene, as we consider her life in words and in prayer, and the true role--as contrasted to the fable role--she played in the life of Jesus Christ.
As a member of the Chapter, we honor Gwen Gross McGarvey, OPL, as she took the name of St. Mary Magdalene as her religious name when she was professed into the Order of Preachers perpetually on September 18, 2003, and the Retreat is dedicated to her, as she died on July 17, 2004. God rest her soul.
The Magdalene Retreat will held this coming Saturday, 22 July 2006 at the Chapterhouse in Homedale, Idaho.
The Magdalene Retreat will held this coming Saturday, 22 July 2006 at the Chapterhouse in Homedale, Idaho.
Dresser of sycamores?
From Mike Turner OPL:
Today's first reading contained a line that was just a bit too obscure
for me to leave alone. Amos is being scolded by the priest at Bethel.
"Off with you, visionary, flee to the land of Judah!" And in Amos
7:14, Amos responds, "I was no prophet, nor have I belonged to a
company of prophets; I was a shepherd and a dresser of sycamores."
Douay Rheims says, "I am a herdsman plucking wild figs."
Strong's Concordance says, "...herdman and a gatherer of sycomore fruit."
Our Polish Bible says that he was a cutter of fruits.
The sycamore tree of Egypt is a relative of the mulberry and produces
figs. In order to bear fruit, the flowers actually need to be visited
by a wasp, which lays an egg there. But the egg causes the fruit to
be bitter, unless the young fruit is cut open and exposed to air.
It appears that this would have been a form of agricultural work --
cut the young fruit so that it will mature into tasty figs.
Here is one of several web sites that describe the marvels of the sycamore.
http://www.kinfonet.org/community/centres/sycamore/Tree.html
Enjoy!
Today's first reading contained a line that was just a bit too obscure
for me to leave alone. Amos is being scolded by the priest at Bethel.
"Off with you, visionary, flee to the land of Judah!" And in Amos
7:14, Amos responds, "I was no prophet, nor have I belonged to a
company of prophets; I was a shepherd and a dresser of sycamores."
Douay Rheims says, "I am a herdsman plucking wild figs."
Strong's Concordance says, "...herdman and a gatherer of sycomore fruit."
Our Polish Bible says that he was a cutter of fruits.
The sycamore tree of Egypt is a relative of the mulberry and produces
figs. In order to bear fruit, the flowers actually need to be visited
by a wasp, which lays an egg there. But the egg causes the fruit to
be bitter, unless the young fruit is cut open and exposed to air.
It appears that this would have been a form of agricultural work --
cut the young fruit so that it will mature into tasty figs.
Here is one of several web sites that describe the marvels of the sycamore.
http://www.kinfonet.org/community/centres/sycamore/Tree.html
Enjoy!
Thursday, July 13, 2006
MAGDALENE RETREAT, SATURDAY, 22 JULY 2006
See details here:
http://www.dominicanidaho.org/Homedale/retreat_magdalene_06_07_22.htm
Lunch will be provided. There is no charge for the Retreat.
Do you need a ride? Are you able to give someone a ride to the RETREAT? If so, call John Keenan, OPL at 208,375.2532. Leave a message. He will help get a ride or use your name to give someone else a ride to the MAGDALENE RETREAT. Thank you.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Second annual Mary Magdalene Retreat
The lay Order of Preachers in Idaho is holding its annual MAGDALENE RETREAT this coming Saturday, July 22, 2006 at the Chapterhouse in Homedale, Idaho. It starts at 9:00 a.m. We will have Mass, contemplative prayer, and share meals together. Please join us as we consider the life of St. Mary Magdalene and her true role in the life of Christ. You can see the details at the following site, and even find a map to the Chapterhouse at:
If you need more information, please call John Keenan, OPL at (208)375-2532.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
