Family Life

Sacrifices of Joy

sacrifices_of_joy

“I will offer sacrifices of joy…”
Psalm 27:6

These He will accept.  These will be worthy offerings.

-by Rev. Gregory Smith, O. Carm.

“There is no quality quite so fundamental to the Christian character as the spirit of sacrifice.

From its birth in the Christian life each soul is pledged to a life of violence. The life of Christ comes to us as the spoil of conflict — Mors et vita duello conflixere mirando/Death and Life contended in a spectacular battle, –Victimae Paschali Laudes — as the fruit of the most awful violence ever wreaked upon human nature. This is the life into which we have been baptized. “Do you not know that all we who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death?”

Conflict, warfare; not peace, but the sword; a kingdom that suffers the assault of violence; self-denial, drinking of a chalice of pain — in composite it is the Cross that casts its bright shadow over the whole of the Christian life. In selfishness, to reject the selflessness of the Cross is to reject the happiness at its most abundant source for “by the wood of the Cross came joy into the whole world.” In any walk of life the sign of success as Christ sees success is the sign of the Cross. A share in the victory and in the Victor’s spoils won on the Cross is granted to every Christian who will match, not counting the cost in niggardliness, the generosity of Him Who paid in precious price the last drops of His blood. This is the way of the Christian life for priests and religious, for married and single, for youth and adult; an inescapable way, than which there is no higher way above nor safer way below; it is the highway of the holy Cross, the path of sacrifice.

Holy Orders and Matrimony

The priest, essentially a man of sacrifice, comes into the holy place to cast himself prostrate in the sanctuary, while all the people pray to all the saints for him that he may become a worthy servant of the altar for the building up of the body of the Lord. The virgin, woman of selflessness, makes by the altar the vow that binds her to the service of one Love. Her love song of praise will be her daily sacrifice: “Offer to God praise as your sacrifice.”

It is but right then that man and woman about to enter upon the life of Christian marriage make their vows by the altar. Marriage for the Christian is quite different from any other marriage. “This is a great mystery — I mean in reference to Christ and to the Church.” The first glory of Christian marriage is that it is the sacramental image of the union of Christ with His spouse, the Church, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without blemish, “born from the side of our Saviour on the cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living.” (Mystici Corporis).

Since it is on the Cross that Christian marriage finds its supreme significance, it is but fitting that man and woman should enter into the holiest place in the world to stand by the altar of sacrifice, there to vow that they will give themselves to one another and to Christ in their children. Here the Church, sacrificial spouse of the great High Priest, suggests that they be reminded that they are dedicating themselves to a life of painful giving which only the alchemy of love can transmute to pleasure. “Sacrifice is usually difficult and irksome. Only love can make it easy; and perfect love can make it a joy. We are willing to give in proportion as we love. And where love is perfect, the sacrifice is complete.” Having said so much, the ritual instruction places the measureless love of the Cross as the standard of Christian married love: “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

Marry to Give Not to Get

Not for more delightful getting do Christians marry, but rather for more fruitful giving. Since Christ entered His creation to be found among us as One Who served, every Christian vocation entails a deliberate entry into the service of God, in the person of His Son, Whom we see not only in Himself, but also in “the members of His body, made from His flesh and from His bones.”

The vocation of Christian marriage, precisely because it is Christian marriage, can never be a narrowing experience that restricts the view or contracts the interests of man and wife, each wrapped up in the other. Rather, Christian marriage, because it is primarily concerned with the community, widens the vision of two individuals to embrace the good of the whole of God’s family, and calls them with sacramental power to exercise their noble functions in the Mystical Body of Christ.

“The Sacrament of matrimony, in which the parties become ministers of grace to each other, ensures the regular numerical increase of the Christian community, and, what is more important, the proper and religious education of the offspring, the lack of which would constitute a grave menace to the Mystical Body.” (Mystici Corporis)

With husbands loving their wives as Christ loves the Church; with wives subject to their husbands as the Church is subject to Christ, both are charged with implementing in their common life their daily petition to the Father: “Thy kingdom come!” No less than, and in a measure, because grace can only build on nature, before the priesthood those who enter the holy state of Christian marriage are thereby constituted servants of God and ministers to His Church.

To give all to one another in loving devotion; to sacrifice everything, that in their homes as in the smallest cells of the Body of the Lord the life of the Head might flourish; to be faithful stewards of the God’s treasures born of their flesh in the full knowledge that they are God’s children first and only He can make them precious; to give all and not to count the cost of giving — this is the way to sanctity, the only success in Christian marriage.

Practical Suggestions

…Married life is a veritable school of sacrifice; the Christian home a training ground of discipline. Wherever people live together in any sort of common life, there are bound to be differences of opinion and clashes of personality. This is as true in every home as it was true among the apostles. So must father and mother bear with each other and both of them with the children, the faults of each contributing to the sanctifications of all. Bearing with patience, correcting where parental correction is demanded — firmly and with kindness, and over and over again with patience — this is the daily school of sacrifice that is family life.

Return to the Altar

…To the altar by which it was established the Christian family ever returns to re-enkindle its ideals and to refresh its spirit [Ed. THROUGH GRACE!!!]

Crucifix, Hub of Home

… in the Catholic home it is the Cross of Christ which is the ever present reminder of the spirit of this house…Wise those parents who build their homes upon the solid foundation of the altar, for though rains fall and floods come and winds blow, their homes will not fall because they are founded on rock, and the rock is Christ. ”

Flesh_of_my_Flesh

Love,
Matthew

Theology

The Argument from Desire

-by Fr Robert Barron

“One of the classical demonstrations of God’s existence is the so-called argument from desire. It can be stated in a very succinct manner as follows. Every innate or natural desire corresponds to some objective state of affairs that fulfills it. Now we all have an innate or natural desire for ultimate fulfillment, ultimate joy, which nothing in this world can possibly satisfy. Therefore there must exist objectively a supernatural condition that grounds perfect fulfillment and happiness, which people generally refer to as “God.”

I have found in my work as an apologist and evangelist that this demonstration, even more than the cosmological arguments, tends to be dismissed out of hand by skeptics. They observe, mockingly, that wishing something doesn’t make it so, and they are eager to specify that remark with examples: I may want to have a billion dollars, but the wish doesn’t make the money appear; I wish I could fly, but my desire doesn’t prove that I have wings, etc.

This rather cavalier rejection of a venerable demonstration is a consequence, I believe, of the pervasive influence of Ludwig Feuerbach and Sigmund Freud, both of whom opined that religion amounts to a pathetic project of wish-fulfillment. Since we want perfect justice and wisdom so badly, and since the world cannot possibly provide those goods, we invent a fantasy world in which they obtain.

Both Feuerbach and Freud accordingly felt that it was high time that the human race shake off these infantile illusions and come to grips with reality as it is. In Feuerbach’s famous phrase: “The no to God is the yes to man.” The same idea is contained implicitly in the aphorism of Feuerbach’s best-known disciple, Karl Marx: “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”

In the wake of this criticism, can the argument from desire still stand?

I think it can, but we have to probe a bit behind its deceptively simple surface if we are to grasp its cogency. The first premise of the demonstration hinges on a distinction between natural or innate desires and desires of a more artificial or contrived variety. Examples of the first type include the desire for food, for sex, for companionship, for beauty, and for knowledge; while examples of second type include the longing for a fashionable suit of clothes, for a fast car, for Shangri-La, or to fly through the air like a bird. Precisely because desires of the second category are externally motivated or psychologically contrived, they don’t prove anything regarding the objective existence of their objects: some of them exist and some of them don’t.

But desires of the first type do indeed correspond to, and infallibly indicate, the existence of the states of affairs that will fulfill them: hunger points to the objective existence of food, thirst to the objective existence of drink, sexual longing to the objective existence of the sexual act, etc. And this is much more than a set of correspondences that simply happen to be the case; the correlation is born of the real participation of the desire in its object. The phenomenon of hunger is unthinkable apart from food, since the stomach is “built” for food; the phenomenon of sexual desire is unthinkable apart from the reality of sex, since the dynamics of that desire are ordered toward the sexual act. By its very structure, the mind already participates in truth.

So what kind of desire is the desire for perfect fulfillment? Since it cannot be met by any value within the world, it must be a longing for truth, goodness, beauty, and being in their properly unconditioned form. But the unconditioned, by definition, must transcend any limit that we might set to it. It cannot, therefore, be merely subjective, for such a characterization would render it not truly unconditioned. And this gives the lie to any attempt—Feuerbachian, Freudian, Marxist or otherwise—to write off the object of this desire as a wish-fulfilling fantasy, as a projection of subjectivity. In a word, the longing for God participates in God, much as hunger participates in food. And thus, precisely in the measure that the desire under consideration is an innate and natural desire, it does indeed prove the existence of its proper object.

One of the best proponents of this argument in the last century was C.S. Lewis. In point of fact, Lewis made it the cornerstone of his religious philosophy and the still-point around which much of his fiction turned. What particularly intrigued Lewis was the sweetly awful quality of this desire for something that can never find its fulfillment in any worldly reality, a desire that, at the same time, frustrates and fascinates us.

This unique ache of the soul he called “joy.” In the Narnia stories, Aslan the lion stands for the object of this desire for the unconditioned. When the good mare Hwin confronts the lion for the first time, she says, “Please, you are so beautiful. You may eat me if you like. I would sooner be eaten by you than fed by anyone else.” To understand the meaning of that utterance is to grasp the point of the argument from desire.”

Love,
Matthew

Heresy, Theology

The Heresy of Deism, the Enlightenment, & the Trinity

Official_Presidential_portrait_of_Thomas_Jefferson_(by_Rembrandt_Peale,_1800)

-“Thomas Jefferson”, by Rembrandt Peale, 1800, official Presidential portrait, my favorite image of the sage of Monticello

“The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs… In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.”
-letter to James Smith discussing Jefferson’s hate of the doctrine of the Christian trinity, December 8 1822

As an alumnus of the University of Virginia, I am torn as a Catholic when it comes to its founder’s theology.  I really do not like Mr. Jefferson’s, as he is called on grounds, theology.  It does not ring true for me, nor many others, I confidently suspect, but it is a bellwether of Enlightenment thinking in which the USA was founded, for woe or weal, and does serve as an excellent example of Deism.

Deism/Theism

Deism combines the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe.  The Trinity is only known through Scriptural revelation, hence the Deist’s denial of this divinely revealed truth.

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world but rather allows it to function according to the laws of nature.

Fides et Ratio

Catholic “Fides et Ratio”, Faith and Reason, holds that both faith, natural and revealed, should not contradict reason.  If there is an apparent contradiction, there is a requirement to go deeper in our theology or our science to more profoundly understand, and that the two systems of thought will come into alignment and congruity once again, for a time, until another apparent contradiction offers us the opportunity to go further still.

Truth is known through a combination of faith and reason. The absence of either one will diminish man’s ability to know himself, the world and God. Human reason seeks the truth, but the ultimate truth about the meaning of life cannot be found by reason alone.

To the Deist/Theist, only reason may or need be applied, the over-emphasis of reason over every other consideration.  The motivation was to move beyond the perceived “superstitious” Middle Ages.  Revelation is not a primary font, nor is historical Christianity, hence, heresy.

Trinity

“God is love.” (Jn 3:16)  It is antithetical, we know, that (the Father’s) love should remain unreciprocated.  So we know there must be a beloved (the Son).  Because there is this great love between the divine lover and the divine beloved, it is so great, it is so intense, another person is “generated” (the Holy Spirit), hence the Trinity, known from Revelation, not from reason.  Sounds like a family to me.

“My Venerable Brother Bishops, Health and the Apostolic Blessing. Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth — in a word, to know himself — so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).” –JPII, Fides et Ratio

Pope St John Paul II
Crossing the Threshold of Hope

“In prayer, then, the true protagonist is God. The protagonist is Christ, who constantly frees creation from slavery to corruption and leads it toward liberty, for the glory of the children of God. The protagonist is the Holy Spirit, who “comes to the aid of our weakness.” We begin to pray, believing that it is our own initiative that compels us to do so. Instead, we learn that it is always God’s initiative within us, just as Saint Paul has written. This initiative restores in us our true humanity; it restores in us our unique dignity. Yes, we are brought into the higher dignity of the children of God, the children of God who are the hope of all creation.

One can and must pray in many different ways, as the Bible teaches through a multitude of examples. The Book of Psalms is irreplaceable. We must pray with “inexpressible groanings” in order to enter into rhythm with the Spirit’s own entreaties. To obtain forgiveness one must implore, becoming part of the loud cries of Christ the Redeemer (cf. Heb 5:7). Through all of this one must proclaim glory. Prayer is always an opus gloriae (a work, a labor, of glory). Man is the priest of all creation. Christ conferred upon him this dignity and vocation. Creation completes its opus gloriae both by being what it is and by its duty to become what should be.”

Love,
Matthew

Sacraments

mint, dill, cumin, gnats…

“Learn to do thy part and leave the rest to heaven.” -Bl. John Henry Newman

Mt 23:23-24

-from the New St Thomas Institute blog:

May 29, 2015 at 10:07 pm #12091
dominicanshield
Caleb Payne
Member
“I need some help. 1st, I’m tired of being scandalized. 2nd, I’m not sure I completely understand why there is an apparent disconnect between Catholic belief and Catholic practice, especially in the liturgy. Maybe I’m missing something, someone help.

I’ll make the story short. Three teens from our parish driving on the highway, freak accident, two dead, one in hospital. Tragic, very tragic. Two were in my confirmation class. One was just baptized, confirmed, and received into the Church after a year of RCIA. Funeral Mass. Huge, never seen the church so packed. Many high school students. Liturgy begins. It is apparent that most there do not know what to do, so priest gives brief directions (i.e. kneel, stand, etc.). Liturgy of the Eucharist. Communion. I begin to notice that many people are going up. Many are standing in front of the Eucharistic ministers grabbing the hosts, nibbling on them, spitting them out, shrugging their shoulders…they clearly have no clue what they are doing. I also notice that some large groups do not go forward, even after the ushers pass them, so then the ushers go up to them and prompt them to please go forward to receive Communion. To make a long story short the majority of the people went up for Communion, but it was clear that the majority of people there were not Catholic. I was very saddened by this. The teen we celebrated waited one year until she was Baptized, Confirmed and received her first Communion, and yet here the message was any one can go forward. To top it off, my daughter, who was altar serving, says to my wife that she could tell many clearly did not know what they were doing and even related one incident in which someone asked the deacon, “what am I supposed to do with this?” and He just replied, “Eat it.”

So very concerned, I approached our priest this morning after Mass. I acknowledged how tragic the deaths were, and then I asked him this question, “could we possibly say during the next funeral Mass (which was this afternoon for the second teen who had died and was just as big), ‘now those who are Catholic may come forward for Holy Communion’?” He of course understood what I referring to, but said that he does not feel anything should be said. He said he has heard both extremes, priests clearly saying anyone is welcome…which he acknowledged is wrong, and other priests saying things like I suggested but which he felt was too harsh. He said he didn’t want to write off my concern and said he would think about it, maybe possibly another avenue, but he was clear he would not say anything. So, long story short the same thing happened this afternoon. Pretty much anyone and everyone came forward for Communion (and there was maybe 800-1000 people there, half high school kids).

And the silence is killing me. The silence. And people are starving for Truth. But they are like clouds without rain.

And there have been omissions from the order of the Mass, portions which are supposed to be there are not sometimes. Maybe I don’t completely understand the rubrics. Omissions. In the liturgy, in the homilies. I mean a Gospel is read, and the main point of it is completely glossed over, or completely omitted in the homily.

Please pray.

Now my question: This is an issue that cannot be solved over night and a lot of people are probably going to have different opinions on how to go about it. But in a situation where it is clearly obvious that there is a significant portion of Mass attendees who are not Catholic, whose responsibility is it make sure they are informed on what they should or should not do? The priest? The deacon? The Eucharist ministers? The ushers? What should be done?”

May 29, 2015 at 10:38 pm #12092

fosterscott
Foster Scott
Member
“Ultimate responsibility in the parish falls on the parish priest. You should write to your bishop to let him know what’s going on. First recount the facts and only the facts. Then let him know why it bothers you that the priest denies people the information they need to know whether they are in a state of grace to take communion.

The Church is an army. The priests are its officers, and the laity must respect the office of the priests, just as Jesus told the people to respect the office of the Pharisees in his own day. Unfortunately, only a priest can directly solve the problem, but you can help by denying the Parish your money and tithing elsewhere, and by informing the Bishop. You also might consider attending a different Parish.”

May 30, 2015 at 12:16 am #12093
mattmp
Matthew M
Member
“Peace, Caleb. Peace. Let God be God. Refrain, as a healthy, holy mortification from straining anything less than a camel. Mt 23:24.”

May 30, 2015 at 9:35 am #12095
johnk
John K
Member
“Mathew I appreciate what you are saying, but I believe this is a huge camel. It shows great disrespect to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. I don’t think God will hold those young people accountable, because they partook in ignorance, but I think the priest is endangering his own soul by treating the Eucharist in such a shoddy fashion. I would definitely go to the bishop. It’s not something to do out of anger but out of charity both for the priest and those partaking who shouldn’t be.”

May 30, 2015 at 10:08 am #12096
mattmp
Matthew M
Member
“John K, I appreciate what you are saying. I have learned the wisdom of beginning everything in life with, “YOU are God, and I am not!” It puts everything into perspective and right proportion, I have found, and informs me, I trust through the Holy Spirit, how much I should react and to what degree. I think the example presented is a time for welcome, compassion, and mercy, dear God hopefully not for a scene which leaves a bitter taste in the mouths, literally, of those so said ingnorati. I would let Jesus worry about who is worthy to receive and who receives worthily Himself. I, for my part, place my efforts at listening to Him ever more intently. “Speak, Lord. Your servant is listening.” 1 Sam 3:10.

I would caution, gently, about rushing to conclusion on the priest’s intention, motivation, or thought process with regards to this event, before sentencing. Even priests, in the real world, have to choose greater and lesser priorities. I doubt it ruins Jesus’ day. He’s God. Let God be God. Peace, blessings, and prayers, always.”

May 30, 2015 at 10:57 am #12097
johnk
John K
Member
“Mathew where are Mark and Luke?

I am not sentencing anyone. Nor do I think that explaining Holy Communion is meant only for Catholics needs to be done in a harsh or unkind manner.

I am not attempting to play God. I am simply going by what has been taught by sacred scripture, the tradition of the Church and by the magisterium. I am also pointing out that this is no light matter. The Blessed Eucharist is the holiest thing in the world. St. Paul warns about receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner, going so far as to say they eat and drink damnation to themselves.

As I said above, I don’t believe God is going to condemn people who partake unknowingly. However it is clearly a major responsibility of a priest to try to prevent people from receiving unworthily. For example, if there were a person who was excommunicated for teaching heresy and refusing to submit to the Church’s teaching, a priest who saw him approach to receive the Eucharist, would be obligated to refuse him.

The Eucharist is holy. There’s clear Church teaching on who can and cannot receive. This is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Son of God. It is to be treated with the utmost respect and administered properly, not just given to people who don’t even realize what it is.”

May 30, 2015 at 12:46 pm #12099
fosterscott
Foster Scott
Member
“Is there anything in canon law governing what the priest should say and do in this scenario?”

May 30, 2015 at 2:26 pm #12100
mary
Mary
Member
“This happens all too often, and the priest, by saying nothing, brings condemnation on those who receive unworthily. If they truly don’t know any better, than THEY are not at fault.

But that priest….may God have mercy on him, not only for his disrespect for our Eucharistic Lord, but also for allowing others to receive unworthily, and just as badly, scandalizing the Faithful by this public act.

I hope you persist in raising this issue. It will bring you a lot of grief from the Church of Nice folks, but you are in the right here.

May God have mercy on us all for the abominations done against Him.”

May 30, 2015 at 2:49 pm #12101
johnk
John K
Member
“Here’s an article discussing canon law. It is focused on whether socalled pro-choice politicians should be admitted to communion:

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/burkcompol.htm”

May 30, 2015 at 2:59 pm #12103

mattmp
Matthew M
Member
“Foster, very fair question. I think you might find this article helpful. I think it is balanced, and I have a profound respect for Catholic Answers: http://www.catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/non-catholics-in-the-communion-line
I would also recommend an examen of conscience, in a healthy, holy, and joyful way to guard against the grave sin of scrupulosity. I have written about it here on my blog: https://soul-candy.info/2015/02/scrupulosity/. Above all, avoid Catholics who too, too much resemble scribes and Pharisees with their mint, their dill, their cumin, and their gnats. His peace and grace.”

FOR THE LAST TIME, CATHOLICS!!!!, and sadly yet, I so know how much it won’t be, IT IS NOT A PRIZE OR A WEAPON!!!!  It IS medicine for the sick of heart and soul.  Mk 2:17

Mt 9:13

A New Serenity Prayer

God, grant me the serenity
to accept the people I cannot change,
which is pretty much everyone,
since I’m clearly not you, God.
At least not the last time I checked.

And while you’re at it, God,
please give me the courage
to change what I need to change about myself,
which is frankly a lot, since, once again,
I’m not you, which means I’m not perfect.
It’s better for me to focus on changing myself
than to worry about changing other people,
who, as you’ll no doubt remember me saying,
I can’t change anyway.

Finally, give me the wisdom to just shut up
whenever I think that I’m clearly smarter
than everyone else in the room,
that no one knows what they’re talking about except me,
or that I alone have all the answers.

Basically, God,
grant me the wisdom
to remember that I’m
not You.

Amen.
-Rev. James Martin, SJ

I am always concerned when Catholics start sounding pharisaical. While not throwing pearls before swine is appropriate, the Eucharist is neither a prize nor a weapon, nor ever should be. It is medicine, for the sick of heart and soul.

I am trying to recall the Gospel story where the sinner approaches Jesus and He says, “Get behind Me!!! YOU ARE NOT WORTHY!!!” Oh, yeah. Now, I remember. It wasn’t the prostitutes, the tax collectors, or the pagans He said this to. It was the first Pope, the first Bishops, the religious leaders. Yeah, that’s right. Now, I remember. The self-righteous, those are they who are unworthy to receive Him. Yep. Perfect.

Love,
Matthew

Scripture

Psalm 82

Lucas-Cranach-the-Elder-Adam-and-Eve

-“Adam & Eve”, 1528, Lucas Cranach the Elder, oil on panel, 172 cm × 124 cm (68 in × 49 in), Art Institute of Chicago, Illinois, USA.

You may recall I enjoy offering a riddle when the Garden of Eden comes up in conversation.  “What was Adam/Eve’s sin?”  “They ate the apple!”, I expect.  That was the act; but, rather it was their desire to pervert the naturally ordered relationship between Creator and creature.  They desired “to become like God, knowing good from evil” (Gen 3:4) as the serpent deceived them to believe they would be if they disobeyed God.

In every sin, we lie to ourselves, the serpent is within, not without, always deceiving ourselves somehow ‘this evil is good’.  See, we can understand good from evil, but still we are blind, even though we say we see (Jn 9:41); the definition of a lie.  In truth, imho, all sin is exactly that, the fundamental desire, acknowledged or not, eventually or never, to pervert the naturally ordered relationship between Creator and creature.  Always has.  Always will.

“1 God presides in the great assembly;
He renders judgment among the “gods”:
2 How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.”
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are Your inheritance.”

alanpiper

-by Br Alan Piper, OP

“In verse 6, “you are ‘gods'”, the saying sounds like something from the ancient philosopher Protagoras, who declared that man is the measure of all things. It might also have been uttered by that late-modern anti-prophet, Friedrich Nietzsche, who augured that a race of supermen would overthrow the old order and establish a radically new system of values. The saying also bears a resemblance to the first of Satan’s dealings with men: “God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God” (Gen 3:5).

In fact, the saying “You are gods” comes from the Psalms. It would have been studied by scribes and sung in synagogues for centuries before it was quoted by Jesus, as reported in the middle of the last Gospel (Jn 10:34). And yet, until Jesus, its import was not fully understood.

In John 10, Jesus’ opponents accuse him of usurping the place of God. In effect, he responds by asking them to reconsider just how much God may love the world. The Scriptures teach that the ministers of God’s word possess divine qualities (Ex 21:6). In the Book of Exodus, God says to Moses: “See, I make you as God to Pharoah” (Ex 7:1). Is it so unlikely then that God would come closer to his people, such that a man who had worked great wonders could say, “I am the Son of God”? It is as if Jesus’ opponents were objecting to Him, “God is great!” And He were to respond, “You do not know how great God is.”

From the beginning God created man to have a special relationship to Himself. He created him “in the image and likeness of God,” which means, among other things, that God made man the steward of the earth and a kind of representative of God in the visible realm. It means also that man was capable of a certain closeness with God, an intimacy that the Scriptures signal by God’s careful molding of man from the dust, His breathing into his nostrils the breath-of-life, and His walking among them in the garden “in the cool of the day” (Gen 3:8).

But man listened to the Devil and tried to be a god apart from God. In a limited, twisted sense, Satan told the truth: man became his own little god, outside the garden, in the tearful valley of the shadow of death. (Ed. See what we have done to ourselves!  What misery!  What suffering!  What abomination!  Being apart from God.)  But God wished to bring man back to Himself. Just as in the beginning He had made man in his image, so in the fullness of time he made Himself in the image of man—that is, He became man in Christ—so that men might be united to the God-man and so be made gods in God. This is what it means to enjoy sanctifying grace, nothing less than to participate in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4).

The Devil has no power to make us into true gods, nor can human beings achieve divinity apart from the One Who is per se divine. And yet Satan continues to urge us: “your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.” But the malice of Satan is not greater than the charity of God. Jesus is God’s perfect counter-offer, nothing less than the offering of Himself.  ”

(Ed. the only possible response, the only rational reply then, is to offer ourselves back to Him in return and justice, humbly, of our own free will, as one lover offers themselves to their beloved.  We were not meant for death, but for life (Rom 5:12).  And so, it shall be.)

Love,
Matthew

May, Saints

May 27 – St Augustine of Canterbury, OSB, (~530-604 AD), Archbishop of Canterbury, Apostle to the English

Westminster_Cathedral_Non_Angli_sed_Angeli_si_Christiani
-Westminster Cathedral

“Non Angli, sed angeli” – “They are not Angles, but angels”, an aphorism, summarizing words reported to have been spoken by Pope Gregory I, the Great, when he first encountered pale-skinned English boys at a slave market, inquiring as to who they were and where such people come from.  This sparking his dispatch of St. Augustine of Canterbury to England to convert the English, according to Bede.

He said: “Well named, for they have angelic faces and ought to be co-heirs with the angels in heaven.” Discovering that their province was Deira, he went on to add that they would be rescued de ira, “from the wrath”, and that their king was named Aella, Alleluia, he said.

joachimkenneyop
-by Br Joachim Kenney, OP

“Most Catholics have heard of St. Augustine: bishop, Father and Doctor of the Church, philosopher, author of the magnificent Confessions and countless other writings. Few, however, have heard of the other St. Augustine, Apostle of the English and Archbishop of Canterbury, whom the Church celebrates today. In 596 AD, he was sent by Pope Gregory the Great to bring the Gospel to the people of England. The island had been Christianized earlier, when it was under Roman control, but much of it had subsequently been overrun by the pagan Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.

Augustine, as is typical of missionaries, exemplified the virtue of fortitude. Fortitude has two chief characteristics. First and most fundamentally, fortitude consists in enduring obstacles and dangers in the pursuit of some great good. The classic example of fortitude among the pre-Christian philosophers was courage on the battlefield. To withstand the fear of death in fighting for the common good was to endure the greatest threat man can face and to do so in the most noble way. With the rise of Christianity, martyrdom became the epitome of fortitude. Martyrdom involves disregarding the fear of death, even in the face of injustice, for the sake of God and truth.

Augustine had been a monk in Rome when Gregory called upon him to lead an evangelizing mission of monks to England. Early on in the journey someone related the fierceness of the foreign tribes and the strangeness of their customs to Augustine’s small band. In great fear, the other monks induced Augustine to return to Pope Gregory and beg him to relieve them of their mission. Gregory, however, was zealous for the conversion of the English. He sent Augustine back to the group bearing a gentle but firm exhortation to persevere in the work and endowed him with the authority of abbot over them. Augustine, enduring whatever fears and grumbling may have still been coming from his monks as well as the dangers of a long journey, led them to the shores of the Kingdom of Kent in the southeast corner of England. The king there, Ethelbert, was married to Bertha, a Frankish Christian, and they hoped the king would be amenable to their preaching.

Britain_peoples_circa_600

-British isles, ~600 AD

The second chief aspect of fortitude is well-ordered attacking. The brave man, whenever he is able to reasonably do so, will attack whatever obstacles or evils stand between him and the good. St. Augustine was faced with the superstition of the pagan people he encountered and the hostility of their priests. He attacked it by his preaching and example. When King Ethelbert first received the missionaries, he did so in an open field for fear that if they were in a house the monks would be able to cast a spell on him. After praying to God, Augustine calmly approached and, as the Venerable Bede relates, “preached the word of life to the king and his court.” The king was not immediately converted, but gave the monks a house in his capital of Canterbury and permission to preach throughout his kingdom. Bede says that Augustine and his companions lived as the primitive church did, sharing all things in common to the great edification of the people around them. Through much prayer, work, and sacrifice, they gradually won many English from their paganism to Christ, even King Ethelbert. St. Augustine died about 607 AD, but the church he had founded perdured and spread until the whole island was once again Christian.

Like St. Augustine of Canterbury, we’re faced today with the demise of a once Christian society. If you’re tempted on occasion to despair in the face of the obstacles posed by secularism, just call on St. Augustine for the grace to have the fortitude of a missionary in preaching the “word of life.””

st__augustine_of_canterbury_icon_by_theophilia-d83cvgb

Love,
Matthew

Grace, Pelagianism, Theology

Grace & Catholicism – #nuffsaid

grace (2)

FredNoltie
-by Fred Noltie

“It is not news to say that many Protestants claim that the Catholic Church teaches a form of salvation by merit in contrast to their own belief in salvation by grace. This claim about the Church’s teaching is of course false, as we have observed many times at this blog. A long time ago I wrote on the same subject, and it seems like a good idea to rehearse the main points I made at that time (along with, perhaps, some additions).

That about covers the gamut, I think, but it is hardly the last word from the Church on the subject. The much-maligned Council of Trent has a thing or two to say as well. By way of summary: “…it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ’s sake” (Decree on Justification, chapter IX). Furthermore, the entire seventh chapter (see previous link) of the Decree enumerates the various causes of our justification. As anyone can see, none of them are human efforts; all of them are divine.

This hardly seems necessary since Protestants have been resorting to the “legalism” canard since the sixteenth century, but for the sake of completeness it’s worth observing that the Church today still affirms salvation by grace alone.

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God. (CCC 1996)

And: “Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him” (CCC 153).

And: “Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit” (CCC 154).

Our Protestant brothers’ claim is obviously based upon a deficit of information about the actual facts, which makes the claim invalid.”

Love,
Matthew

Theology

Concupiscence

concupiscence

NicoleCoxHeadshot-620x350

-by Nicole Cox

“As a mom of a two year old girl, I’ve become aware of the struggles of “normal” toddler behavior. One of the more frustrating aspects of the toddler psychological profile is the tendency to heed the parent’s command for a brief two seconds before recommencing the undesirable behavior. It’s a little game to them, though they don’t even know it. Listen to Mommy. But wait, it’s more fun to do what she asked me not to do. I’ll do that instead. Now I’m in trouble. Listen to Mommy. Rinse and repeat. Obviously, it’s a game they win. I mean, not that the parents don’t try to win, but almost any adult who’s interacted with a young toddler knows that a battle of the wills doesn’t get anyone anywhere. So we try, again and again to stop the naughtiness, only to have it rear its ugly head the moment we turn our backs (or not; the toddler knows no shame).

I realized, while pushing down the anger and frustration over my daughter’s inability to control herself once again this weekend, that spiritually speaking, I’m very much like a toddler.

“That’s wrong. It will hurt you,” says God.

“Ok, I’ll stop,” I reply.

Two hours, two minutes, or two days later…guess what? There I go again. The same sin, the same struggle, the same lack of self-control. And I’m an adult, fully rational, and very well-formed. My daughter is still learning to correctly identify primary colors. I’m fairly certain that God doesn’t rant and rave or even huff in disgust when I (again) do what He’s expressly asked me not to do, for my own good. And at the same time, He doesn’t lower the standards just because I’m not exactly meeting them.

I can read parenting advice books and blogs until the cows come home, but there’s a pretty great blueprint of how to discipline that’s been around since the world began. I can find it in the grace of Christ’s forgiveness in the confessional, and in the story of redemption played out over and over in the Bible. Hopefully, I can remember it better the next time my toddler scratches the baby, throws food on the floor, and so forth. The path to perfection is a gentle slope, and we’re all a bit like toddlers, stumbling our way up it to the merciful Father.”

His Grace is THE answer!!!  Pray for it!  Wait for it!  Ask for it!  Beg for it!  It will, it does come.  I have felt it, and been suddenly surprised at growing strength to resist temptation.  Strength I did not, do not possess, without Him (Jn 15:5).  I promise.  I do.

Love,
Matthew

New Evangelization

New Wineskins & Acedia/Sloth

henri

“Now the works of the flesh are obvious:
immorality, impurity, lust, idolatry,
sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy,
outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness,
dissensions, factions, occasions of envy,
drinking bouts, orgies, and the like.
I warn you, as I warned you before,
that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
patience, kindness, generosity,
faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.”
-Gal 5:19-23

luke-doherty

-by Br Luke Doherty, OP

“In the months following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the multiplication of Christ’s followers was achieved through the work of God’s grace and the Holy Spirit. Those old wineskins: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Roman empire, the pagan religions, were not what the new wine of Christianity was to be kept in. In the Baptism of new Christian followers, there was no distinction between Jewish, gentile, pagan or other religious background. All were converted to the one true faith, receiving the Holy Spirit in the words of Baptism. The ultimate transformation of that tragic day on Calvary where the Son of God was brutally murdered, to a joyful resurrection in the fifty days after Easter, is marked by Pentecost. Pentecost, where the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and all of the world, was a practical event, the culmination of the resurrection of Christ, where death and sin are overcome. Not even the scheming of the Pharisees, Sadducees and human governance at the time could stop the ‘Jesus movement’.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, insight, counsel, power, knowledge and fear of the Lord. These gifts enable all of us to grow in virtue, and indeed carry on the work which Jesus proclaimed, as recorded in the Gospels. The work of the Holy Spirit gives Christians the power to expose and resist evil in the world, as well as the power to forgive and make the world holy. No matter what smoke and mirrors the devil might put up, we have received the Holy Spirit through our Baptism and we are strengthened through the grace of God when we confess our sins and attend the Holy Mass.

I have heard Catholics say they often wish the Mass was more like the ‘pentecostal’ churches in the United States, where choirs belt out cheerful hymns and the liturgy is filled with zeal. No matter how boring the Catholic Mass might feel in some parishes, the great error would be to think the Holy Spirit is somehow ignoring these congregations! We are strengthened in our faith by regular attendance at Mass, and by receiving the sacraments. Our mission as Christians would falter if we give in to the sin of acedia/sloth, that is a state of not caring about one’s condition in the world. Acedia/sloth can lead to a state of being unable to perform one’s duties in life, a spiritual sorrow which becomes a mortal sin when reason consents to flight from the Divine Good. In other words, a state where we do not care that we do not care. The sinful element is also when something prevails over the work of the Holy Spirit, particularly when the rewards are slow to appear (e.g. scientific research, long term marriages, religious life). We can reflect today on Pentecost Sunday, as a time to revitalize our lives and stamp out the mortal sin of acedia/sloth in our lives, in our parishes and in the work we do.”

“Receive the Holy Spirit.
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them,
and whose sins you retain are retained.”
-Jn 20: 22-23

Love,
Matthew

Family Life, Marriage, Sacraments

Sacrament = Catholic Marriage

till_death

There are different types of “unions”, apparently, to varying permanence, apparently, with different meanings, apparently.

-by Marc Barnes

“The indissolubility of marriage is not natural. I could not agree more with Dan Savage when, in the great American tradition of offering unsolicited advice, he told heterosexuals that this till-death-do-us-apart stuff is an impossible expectation. Indissolubility, by his view, cannot be a norm. Perpetuity can only be a preference. If we could “acknowledge the drawbacks of monogamy around boredom, despair, lack of variety, sexual death and being taken for granted,” instead of mindlessly pumping a deflated, Disney-born mystique of forever-and-ever, we’d be closer to an honest and natural marriage contract.

“Inseparability,” which makes Savage grimace so, does not belong to marriage considered as a civil institution — state-permitted divorce and remarriage assure us of the fact. “Inseparability” does not even belong to marriage as a natural institution. Aquinas argues that “‘offspring’ and ‘fidelity’ pertain to matrimony as directed to an office of human nature” (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 49, a. 3) but not indissolubility, and this seems to hold — if a man divorces his wife, remarries, and begins a new family, nothing in the order of nature could argue that he is still husband to his first wife.

The bizarre promise of “forever” made by two beings who have no assurance of “forever” could only have been instituted by an equally bizarre faith. It was neither nature, nor the State, nor even the Old Law of the Jewish people that so radically defined marriage. Typically, it was Jesus. He argued that soluble marriage was a human tradition, “traditional marriage” at its finest, and that under His New Law the following divine ordinance applied: “What God has joined let no man tear asunder” (Mark 10:9).

Augustine follows this up, arguing for the inherently sacramental, God-given character of indissolubility: “In the sacrament it is provided that the marriage bond should not be broken, and that a husband and wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring.” And Aquinas again:

“Inseparability, which is denoted by “sacrament,” regards the very sacrament considered in itself, since from the very fact that by the marriage compact man and wife give to one another power the one over the other in perpetuity, it follows that they cannot be put asunder. Hence there is no matrimony without inseparability, whereas there is matrimony without “faith” and “offspring,” because the existence of a thing does not depend on its use; and in this sense “sacrament” is more essential to matrimony than “faith” and “offspring” (q. 49, a. 3).

It is easy to miss the revolution slipped into the thomistic shuffle. The condition of inseparability in marriage comes from the divinely instituted nature of the thing, and it is this condition which, in a certain sense, is most essential to marriage. One can be married without children, one can even be married and unfaithful, but one cannot be married and separable. Thus “inseparability, which pertains to sacrament, is placed in the definition of marriage, while offspring and faith are not. Therefore among the other goods sacrament is the most essential to matrimony” (49, a. 3).

Maybe it’s his Catholic upbringing shining through the sex-column cliches, but Savage is absolutely correct — indissolubility is far from natural. It is supernatural. The sacrament of Holy Matrimony is a radical shift in the tradition of marriage that cannot be defended on purely human terms. If we think we can treat marriage as a purely civil and social institution and retain what is essentially sacramental, attempting to magic up from the order of nature what is born in the order of grace, we’ll end up disappointed with just how difficult “forever” really is.

Now there is something wonderful here, and it confuses the issue. When Christ said “what God has joined let no man tear asunder,” he said it in the context of restoring an original institution, arguing against a culture of divorce and remarriage that “in the beginning it was not so.” Thus, in a certain sense, we can say that indissolubility belongs to marriage by nature, insofar as it was, prior to the Fall of Man, the “natural” state of marriage. It is true what Pope Paul VI says, that “although the sacramental element may be absent from a marriage as is the case among unbelievers, still in such a marriage, inasmuch as it is a true marriage there must remain and indeed there does remain that perpetual bond which by divine right is so bound up with matrimony from its first institution that it is not subject to any civil power” (Casti Connubi, 34). But it seems to me that the fact that indissolubility belongs to unbelieving, non-sacramental marriages, far from arguing that indissolubility is of nature or of law, argues that unbelievers, in some way, partake in the order of grace. “From God comes the very institution of marriage, the ends for which it was instituted, the laws that govern it, the blessings that flow from it” (Casti Connubi, 9), and if our marriage is indissoluble, and we retain the character of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ even if we divorce and remarry, even if we claim by law and nature to have shuffled them off, it is because we have entered an institution that neither civil laws nor nature can dissolve, whether we meant to enter into marriage as a “divine institution” or not.

The married Catholic is unique because he has the capacity to know that what he does is not of man, but of God, and that in his marriage what is natural is perfected by what is divine. I say he has the capacity, because American Catholics tend to have a lame notion of Holy Matrimony as a kind of “Catholic version” of marriage, as if we replace judges for priests, drink more at the reception and voila, the sacrament! But our own tradition, which no one reads, makes it clear that the sacrament, while it does “add on” to what we might call “natural marriage,” is an addition that transforms and perfects what it is added to. The difference the sacrament makes is simple, but it only becomes clear to the Christian: Man and woman become more than themselves — they become signs of Christ’s marriage to his Church. To marry is to have one’s earthly fidelity and fecundity shot through by divine mysteries like rising sun through stained-glass, revealing to oneself and to the world the colors, contours, and splendor of Christ’s love for mankind. It is for this reason that the sacrament adds the terrifying condition of inseparability to marriage — Christ does not love us conditionally, or for a time, but forever. So with what foolishness we consider Holy Matrimony “basically the same” as marriage considered as a civil or natural institution! Holy Matrimony is different, and it’s high time we investigated the difference such a sacrament makes.

Love,
Matthew

Summa Catechetica, "Neque enim quaero intelligere ut credam, sed credo ut intelligam." – St Anselm, "“Si comprehendus, non est Deus.” -St Augustine, "Let your religion be less of a theory, and more of a love affair." -G.K. Chesterton, "As the reading of bad books fills the mind with worldly and poisonous sentiments; so, on the other hand, the reading of pious works fills the soul with holy thoughts and good desires." -St. Alphonsus Liguori, "And above all, be on your guard not to want to get anything done by force, because God has given free will to everyone and wants to force no one, but only proposes, invites and counsels." –St. Angela Merici, “Yet such are the pity and compassion of this Lord of ours, so desirous is He that we should seek Him and enjoy His company, that in one way or another He never ceases calling us to Him . . . God here speaks to souls through words uttered by pious people, by sermons or good books, and in many other such ways.” —St. Teresa of Avila, "I want a laity, not arrogant, not rash in speech, not disputatious, but men and women who know their religion, who enter into it, who know just where they stand, who know what they hold and what they do not, and who know their creed so well that they can give an account of it, who know so much of history that they can defend it. I want an intelligent, well-instructed laity… I wish you to enlarge your knowledge, to cultivate your reason, to get an insight into the relation of truth to truth, to learn to view things as they are, to understand how faith and reason stand to each other, what are the bases and principles of Catholicism, and where lie the main inconsistences and absurdities of the Protestant theory.” (St. John Henry Newman, “Duties of Catholics Towards the Protestant View,” Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England), "We cannot always have access to a spiritual Father for counsel in our actions and in our doubts, but reading will abundantly supply his place by giving us directions to escape the illusions of the devil and of our own self-love, and at the same time to submit to the divine will.” —St. Alphonsus Ligouri, "The harm that comes to souls from the lack of reading holy books makes me shudder . . . What power spiritual reading has to lead to a change of course, and to make even worldly people enter into the way of perfection." –St. Padre Pio, "Screens may grab our attention, but books change our lives!" – Word on Fire, "Reading has made many saints!" -St Josemaría Escrivá, "Do you pray? You speak to the Bridegroom. Do you read? He speaks to you." —St. Jerome, from his Letter 22 to Eustochium, "Encounter, not confrontation; attraction, not promotion; dialogue, not debate." -cf Pope Francis, "God here speaks to souls through…good books“ – St Teresa of Avila, Interior Castle, "You will not see anyone who is really striving after his advancement who is not given to spiritual reading. And as to him who neglects it, the fact will soon be observed by his progress.” -St Athanasius, "To convert someone, go and take them by the hand and guide them." -St Thomas Aquinas, OP. 1 saint ruins ALL the cynicism in Hell & on Earth. “When we pray we talk to God; when we read God talks to us…All spiritual growth comes from reading and reflection.” -St Isidore of Seville, “Also in some meditations today I earnestly asked our Lord to watch over my compositions that they might do me no harm through the enmity or imprudence of any man or my own; that He would have them as His own and employ or not employ them as He should see fit. And this I believe is heard.” -GM Hopkins, SJ, "Only God knows the good that can come about by reading one good Catholic book." — St. John Bosco, "Why don't you try explaining it to them?" – cf St Peter Canisius, SJ, Doctor of the Church, Doctor of the Catechism, "Already I was coming to appreciate that often apologetics consists of offering theological eye glasses of varying prescriptions to an inquirer. Only one prescription will give him clear sight; all the others will give him at best indistinct sight. What you want him to see—some particular truth of the Faith—will remain fuzzy to him until you come across theological eye glasses that precisely compensate for his particular defect of vision." -Karl Keating, "The more perfectly we know God, the more perfectly we love Him." -St Thomas Aquinas, OP, ST, I-II,67,6 ad 3, “But always when I was without a book, my soul would at once become disturbed, and my thoughts wandered." —St. Teresa of Avila, "Let those who think I have said too little and those who think I have said too much, forgive me; and let those who think I have said just enough thank God with me." –St. Augustine, "Without good books and spiritual reading, it will be morally impossible to save our souls." —St. Alphonsus Liguori "Never read books you aren't sure about. . . even supposing that these bad books are very well written from a literary point of view. Let me ask you this: Would you drink something you knew was poisoned just because it was offered to you in a golden cup?" -St. John Bosco " To teach in order to lead others to faith is the task of every preacher and of each believer." —St. Thomas Aquinas, OP. "Prayer purifies us, reading instructs us. Both are good when both are possible. Otherwise, prayer is better than reading." –St. Isidore of Seville “The aid of spiritual books is for you a necessity.… You, who are in the midst of battle, must protect yourself with the buckler of holy thoughts drawn from good books.” -St. John Chrysostom