Thursday, September 22, 2011
Two "Million" Initiatives
Last minute news: I want to use every means to inform prayerful people about two separate initiatves in two widely separated places that I believe are linked by Divine spiritual Providence. One is an initiative to pray one million Rosaries by Filippinos and the other to have one million Europeans present a Pro-life legal initiative to European entities. Please pray for the success of both works of mercy. To read more, see www.zenit.org. 8/31/11 for the article on Filipinos ready to pray one million rosaries. 9/14 for the news about Pro-lifers attempt to use the Lisbon Treaty. PRAY.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
GOODBYE
In January 2002 my family started a web magazine titled "Aretheos.com". A few years ago it was downsized to the present blog site. It does not seem appropriate to pursue this occasional site at this time. We hope you pray and follow the Church's teachings.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Stephen Hawking's Mistake (Part Two)
Not believing in anything truly non-material (spiritual) Hawking says that there is "no heaven for broken computers" and that he is not "afraid of the dark".
We are just autonomous (self-operating) computers according to this view.
Look at your computer. You're operating it - the computer is not self-aware.
Oh, our self-awareness is just the critical mass of the self-referential qualities of our brain's software? Right, and the universe popped itself into existence.
Back in the 1980's I used to make the intellectual mistake of trying to point out the immaterial side of our minds by using images as an example. I would say that if anyone, even employing the finest techniques, were to dissect our brain they would not find an image. That analysis was flawed. If you dissect a photograph or a monitor you will not find an image either. The image requires the entire "system".
But that leads us to this realization: Close your eyes and bring up an image. Who is looking at it? Now go another step. Recall an abstract axiom of geometry. Who is comprehending the idea? Or even finer: who is bringing up or who is recalling?
Look at yourself looking at your computer, Mr. Hawking. Cause and effect ad infinitum is nonsense. If there is an infinite series of universes or an infinite regression of self-reference then neither the universe nor self-awareness would come into being.
God took the clay (shaped the earth) and gave us the breath of life, an immortal soul. As in the previous post the word "God" is Aristotle's humble "uncaused cause". Human logic cannot go beyond that position.
Of course, if the uncaused cause caused a universe with creatures capable of asking these questions, capable of communication, might there be revelation? I see you and know you exist but I won't know you until you reveal yourself.
We are just autonomous (self-operating) computers according to this view.
Look at your computer. You're operating it - the computer is not self-aware.
Oh, our self-awareness is just the critical mass of the self-referential qualities of our brain's software? Right, and the universe popped itself into existence.
Back in the 1980's I used to make the intellectual mistake of trying to point out the immaterial side of our minds by using images as an example. I would say that if anyone, even employing the finest techniques, were to dissect our brain they would not find an image. That analysis was flawed. If you dissect a photograph or a monitor you will not find an image either. The image requires the entire "system".
But that leads us to this realization: Close your eyes and bring up an image. Who is looking at it? Now go another step. Recall an abstract axiom of geometry. Who is comprehending the idea? Or even finer: who is bringing up or who is recalling?
Look at yourself looking at your computer, Mr. Hawking. Cause and effect ad infinitum is nonsense. If there is an infinite series of universes or an infinite regression of self-reference then neither the universe nor self-awareness would come into being.
God took the clay (shaped the earth) and gave us the breath of life, an immortal soul. As in the previous post the word "God" is Aristotle's humble "uncaused cause". Human logic cannot go beyond that position.
Of course, if the uncaused cause caused a universe with creatures capable of asking these questions, capable of communication, might there be revelation? I see you and know you exist but I won't know you until you reveal yourself.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Stephen Hawking's Mistake
Since "A Brief History of Time" was published Stephan Hawking has declared that there is no need for God the Creator. His most recent comments reaffirm this opinion. The law of gravity shows that "spontaneous creation" is possible. As an additional indication that a personal Creator is absurd he points to the discovery of extrasolar planets. Mankind's place in the Universe is not unique or special.
And where did the law of gravity or, as he put it in Brief History, the properties of zero come from? The complete scientific view of the physical universe today is not the collection of either observed mass or dark mass but space and time itself.
In other words, to return to a Biblical metaphor, energy and mass are contained within the "bowl" of space-time. When Hawking and other physicists say that the universe is the result of the law of gravity or string theory "branes" colliding they are incorrectly referring only to the contents of the bowl. Experiments do seem to show "virtual" particles arising in a vacuum. But a man-made vacuum cannot eliminate the very structure of Space. Space-time is a thing. It may be a property of this thing to perhaps "spark" a particle.
A critic correctly said that Hawking did not answer the question of why anything exists and continued on to state this was a matter of faith. I beg to differ. It is a matter of empirical physical scientists not being properly trained in classical philosophy. Hawking sees "spontaneous creation" within the container of space-time. He fails to ask the question again, "What is the cause of space-time?". Aristotle was not a man of religious faith. At this point he simply has the necessary scientific humility to say that there must be an "uncaused cause".
And those extrasolar planets? How great God is!
And where did the law of gravity or, as he put it in Brief History, the properties of zero come from? The complete scientific view of the physical universe today is not the collection of either observed mass or dark mass but space and time itself.
In other words, to return to a Biblical metaphor, energy and mass are contained within the "bowl" of space-time. When Hawking and other physicists say that the universe is the result of the law of gravity or string theory "branes" colliding they are incorrectly referring only to the contents of the bowl. Experiments do seem to show "virtual" particles arising in a vacuum. But a man-made vacuum cannot eliminate the very structure of Space. Space-time is a thing. It may be a property of this thing to perhaps "spark" a particle.
A critic correctly said that Hawking did not answer the question of why anything exists and continued on to state this was a matter of faith. I beg to differ. It is a matter of empirical physical scientists not being properly trained in classical philosophy. Hawking sees "spontaneous creation" within the container of space-time. He fails to ask the question again, "What is the cause of space-time?". Aristotle was not a man of religious faith. At this point he simply has the necessary scientific humility to say that there must be an "uncaused cause".
And those extrasolar planets? How great God is!
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Night and Sunrise
As the moon begged
the life-giving water closer,
they were yet sleeping
and I was wondering:
If night never was,
would we ever see
the sky of other suns?
The boat gently sways
in the cradle of the sea
as we see the edge
of the sun; again
our planet has turned
untold times in uncounted
circles around this star,
which rotates with the wheel
of a galaxy curving the universe
in the Thought of God,
Who stands on shore cooking
fish for his brothers' morning.
(John 21:1-14)
As the moon begged
the life-giving water closer,
they were yet sleeping
and I was wondering:
If night never was,
would we ever see
the sky of other suns?
The boat gently sways
in the cradle of the sea
as we see the edge
of the sun; again
our planet has turned
untold times in uncounted
circles around this star,
which rotates with the wheel
of a galaxy curving the universe
in the Thought of God,
Who stands on shore cooking
fish for his brothers' morning.
(John 21:1-14)
Concerning Traditionalists
As I write this, I pray that God will allow me to speak with fraternal charity. I ask that you pray the same.
There is so much to touch upon that I must use the walking stick of chronology, public and personal, to help me. Be patient as I often seem to wander.
In 1956 the Sacred Congregation of Rites allowed English to be used in certain ceremonies during Holy Week. Additionally, the U.S. Bishops received permission to have English as predominant in the administration of the sacraments. (Living Our Faith, Book Three, 1958, p. 120) At the same time in 1958 the same Sacred Congregation authorized the Latin Dialogue Mass. (My first communion missal) Let it be remembered that the faithful had no response in a low Mass before this. (Recently two newly ordained Latin rite priests wanted to learn more of the Mass in Latin. Attending Mass they knelt on kneelers in the sanctuary and recited the responses. The priest after Mass told them they were not really allowed to recite any response!) Also well before 1958 the Eastern Churches, such as my own Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, changed from traditional liturgical languages to the vernacular.
Archbishop Lefebrve in Europe and Fr. Gommar De Pauw in America were the first two dissenters from the implementation of the recommendations of the Second Vatican Council. Yet they had both accepted in 1958 the election of Pope John XXIII, a man devoted since childhood to the Rosary and the Priesthood. Read “The Journal of a Soul”. Both accepted the Pope's calling of the Council. Both attended the Council and were officials of that Council. Both accepted the election of Pope Paul VI and continued their official presence at all sessions of the Council. Both by their acts are witnesses on behalf of the legitimacy of the Popes and council after 1958.
Padre Pio, Sister Lucy of Fatima and Mother Theresa of Calcutta also accepted and supported the Magisterium of the Church during and after this same time. And, please, no evil detraction, malicious gossip or baseless conspiracy fairytales will hide the historical fact that these above mentioned five refute by their official acts the people who want to make 1958 the end of the papacy or magesterium.
So what did happened as a result of Vatican II? The word “reaction” is key. In a response to a comment on the previous post I did not show that the actual teaching of the Council caused any real problem. I stated that the reaction to the Council by some was to invent a false zeitgeist to cover their overthrowing of Church discipline. Let me propose a case of proper spiritual direction and wrongful results: Imagine a priest who is the spiritual director of a younger cleric in 1935. The young priest seems exhausted mentally and scrupulously confesses in Penance the smallest incidents. The confessor-director while dispensing penance and absolution in administering the sacrament also gives pastoral advice to his young penitent. He tells him to remember that Tanquerey said that “done for the love of God to recreate was love”. (The Spiritual Life; Tanquerey; 1930; p.175.) “Go out and go to a ballgame with some friends. Have a beer and a hot dog! I hear those Yankees are coming to town! [Remember St. Paul's advice to Timothy about a little wine for the stomach.] Now lets pretend that a few days later Fr. Confessor happens to meet Fr. Young Cleric at the same baseball game. Hello! How are you! But he notices that the younger man looks flushed after finishing his (perhaps literally) first beer and is ordering another. Fr. Confessor had assumed in Confession that the young cleric had been as socially mature as himself at that age. Fr. Confessor is conflicted. He cannot bring up Confession. He hesitates to interfer and throw his charge into confusion and greater moral compulsion. The young cleric turns out to be much more immature than the older man could have imagined and is prone to alcoholism. Does this outcome make the original administration of Penance invalid? Does it show that Tanquerey in 1930 was a heretic? Of course not. What it shows is that good spiritual direction was not capable of being followed by one so mentally immature.
Even as a relatively untrained adolescent in the late sixties and early seventies I could not accept Fr. De Pauw's original contention that a previous Pope had taken the keys of St. Peter away from his successors and frozen (even the adding of St. Joseph to the Canon before Vatican II was a crime against God some traditionalists claim!) the Latin liturgy for all of history. In fact this notion was so lacking in credibility that it was used by some to try and silence those who were struggling for better vernacular translations.
Now back to the Magisterium. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the office or function in the Body of Christ of Teacher. This office is held by the successors of St. Peter and the Apostles. While ( as explained implicitly by the previous post on the local churches) an individual magister might become a heretic, indefectibility means that the whole office of Magisterium cannot defect. Yet this is the direct statement of one of these Traditionalist sectarians. You might as well say, for instance, that the sacrament of Matrimony in 1938 up and left the Body of Christ. If you really believe that the Church founded by Christ cannot fail, you cannot state that any integral part of the Church has defected. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, ibi Deus. The original founders of Traditionalism knew where Peter was and they all obeyed his call to Council.
[A personal example of how the documents of the Council said one thing boldly and the ignorant and the rebellious made up a fairytale (idol in fact) to suit themselves: my local pastor wrote in the Sunday church bulletin that using the terms “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” was a “pre-Vatican II” idea. I responded to this egregious comment with a letter asking him if the entire Counciliar document “Constitution on Divine Revelation”, which offers a wonderful teaching on nothing but the relation of Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture, was also “pre-Vatican II”. He, of course, had no answer.]
In the mid 1970's I was sitting in the seminary library of St. Joseph's Dunwoodie. A layman was using the facility and we struck up a conversation. He was the cardiac surgeon Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy. He invited me to his family home in Connecticut. I learned of his conversion from Brahmanism to the Catholic Church. He was deeply concerned about spiritual life. Unfortunately, brahmans are trained to strictly preserve every word of a human tradition. When the vernacular Mass was introduced, Coomaraswamy was offended and became a Traditionalist. But he was also a friend of Mother Theresa. He had written her of his problems with the new rite and she had sent back a letter which I read. She included a response from an Indian Catholic priest to all of his objections. Coomaraswamy did not accept this answer. Thinking about this afterwards gave me the basic insight that has guided my understanding of sectarian Traditionalism since. Arguing with a Traditionalist about Sacred Tradition is essentially the same as arguing with a “bible Christian” about Scripture. If you use either source of Revelation in your conversation it is to no avail – they both will counter with their own citations. The Protestant and the Neo-protestant Traditionalist both reject the authority of a living Magisterium. For the faithful Catholic, it is the Magisterium that preserves and interprets equally Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. At that time I composed a letter to Coomaraswamy but, to my lasting regret, never sent it. I thought: If he won't listen to Mother Theresa and her priest, why would he he listen to a mere seminarian? I learned about 25 years later that Dr. Coomaraswamy became a noted writer for one of the Traditionalist sects.
In our concrete situation I would say that all this means that a Catholic cannot usurp jurisdiction and pass sentence of heresy on the teaching of the Popes and Fathers of the Council. They cannot declare, “ Our objective reading (according to us, of course) of the missal of Pius VI clearly shows that no one is allowed to change the Latin rite”. You may substitute any of their unjust findings for the above. What we may say is, “I accept your authority to call for the use of the vernacular in the Latin Rite but the way you put this into practice was too rushed and authoritarian. You then let the spirit of liturgical renewal become an excuse for wholesale abandonment of discipline.” It took the entire Papacy of John Paul II to begin restoring respect for public order in the churches.
A last personal note. In my twenties I really did not take the documents of Vatican II all that seriously. They seemed to me a collection of well-meaning flowery sermons. But as I came to a greater appreciation for the Catholic understanding of Scripture as a result of attacks I have returned to these documents and grown in appreciation. Yes, error has no rights. People do. We must not be tempted by Satan to try to force people to violate their religious conscience. The need for this simple reminder from Vatican II was seen throughout the religious wars, the threat against Jews of exile if they did not convert in Spain, etc.. Unlike Moslems, we Catholics are not called to construct a society which is a prison for members of other faiths. As to our brothers and sisters in Christian baptism, just yelling at them about their errors will not go far. Perhaps we should read Pope Pius XII's “Mystical Body” more carefully. To be a member of the Mystical Body we must be baptized and not deliberately reject the faith or any teaching of the Church or be excommunicated. This may be a problem for the likes of Luther or Calvin but not for those who received sacramental baptism, baptism of desire or blood and who, like Traditionalists, because of an invincibly erroneous conscience have not deliberately and openly separated themselves from the faith of the Nicene Creed. Respect for religious liberty ( in the actual Counciliar documented context of always preaching the need for the full Catholic Faith) and ecumenical respect for assemblies of Christians ( in the same Vatican II documented context) is exactly what our times call for. The Holy Spirit in these documents has prepared the Catholic people for the greatest battle of the 21st Century: the growing attack of the worshippers of Secular Dehumanism. He wants us to be like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He calls us to true martyrdom – not making martyrs of others.
Again, I may seem to have been drawn into an argument of particulars with the Traditionalists. But this article is really addressed to those having to deal with these poor, hurt and understandably at times scandalized fellow Christians. Do not argue this or that document. The Church's Magisterium is the inspired guide to Sacred Tradition. Keep praying that they will be struck like Saul on the road to Damascus and realize this.
There is so much to touch upon that I must use the walking stick of chronology, public and personal, to help me. Be patient as I often seem to wander.
In 1956 the Sacred Congregation of Rites allowed English to be used in certain ceremonies during Holy Week. Additionally, the U.S. Bishops received permission to have English as predominant in the administration of the sacraments. (Living Our Faith, Book Three, 1958, p. 120) At the same time in 1958 the same Sacred Congregation authorized the Latin Dialogue Mass. (My first communion missal) Let it be remembered that the faithful had no response in a low Mass before this. (Recently two newly ordained Latin rite priests wanted to learn more of the Mass in Latin. Attending Mass they knelt on kneelers in the sanctuary and recited the responses. The priest after Mass told them they were not really allowed to recite any response!) Also well before 1958 the Eastern Churches, such as my own Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, changed from traditional liturgical languages to the vernacular.
Archbishop Lefebrve in Europe and Fr. Gommar De Pauw in America were the first two dissenters from the implementation of the recommendations of the Second Vatican Council. Yet they had both accepted in 1958 the election of Pope John XXIII, a man devoted since childhood to the Rosary and the Priesthood. Read “The Journal of a Soul”. Both accepted the Pope's calling of the Council. Both attended the Council and were officials of that Council. Both accepted the election of Pope Paul VI and continued their official presence at all sessions of the Council. Both by their acts are witnesses on behalf of the legitimacy of the Popes and council after 1958.
Padre Pio, Sister Lucy of Fatima and Mother Theresa of Calcutta also accepted and supported the Magisterium of the Church during and after this same time. And, please, no evil detraction, malicious gossip or baseless conspiracy fairytales will hide the historical fact that these above mentioned five refute by their official acts the people who want to make 1958 the end of the papacy or magesterium.
So what did happened as a result of Vatican II? The word “reaction” is key. In a response to a comment on the previous post I did not show that the actual teaching of the Council caused any real problem. I stated that the reaction to the Council by some was to invent a false zeitgeist to cover their overthrowing of Church discipline. Let me propose a case of proper spiritual direction and wrongful results: Imagine a priest who is the spiritual director of a younger cleric in 1935. The young priest seems exhausted mentally and scrupulously confesses in Penance the smallest incidents. The confessor-director while dispensing penance and absolution in administering the sacrament also gives pastoral advice to his young penitent. He tells him to remember that Tanquerey said that “done for the love of God to recreate was love”. (The Spiritual Life; Tanquerey; 1930; p.175.) “Go out and go to a ballgame with some friends. Have a beer and a hot dog! I hear those Yankees are coming to town! [Remember St. Paul's advice to Timothy about a little wine for the stomach.] Now lets pretend that a few days later Fr. Confessor happens to meet Fr. Young Cleric at the same baseball game. Hello! How are you! But he notices that the younger man looks flushed after finishing his (perhaps literally) first beer and is ordering another. Fr. Confessor had assumed in Confession that the young cleric had been as socially mature as himself at that age. Fr. Confessor is conflicted. He cannot bring up Confession. He hesitates to interfer and throw his charge into confusion and greater moral compulsion. The young cleric turns out to be much more immature than the older man could have imagined and is prone to alcoholism. Does this outcome make the original administration of Penance invalid? Does it show that Tanquerey in 1930 was a heretic? Of course not. What it shows is that good spiritual direction was not capable of being followed by one so mentally immature.
Even as a relatively untrained adolescent in the late sixties and early seventies I could not accept Fr. De Pauw's original contention that a previous Pope had taken the keys of St. Peter away from his successors and frozen (even the adding of St. Joseph to the Canon before Vatican II was a crime against God some traditionalists claim!) the Latin liturgy for all of history. In fact this notion was so lacking in credibility that it was used by some to try and silence those who were struggling for better vernacular translations.
Now back to the Magisterium. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the office or function in the Body of Christ of Teacher. This office is held by the successors of St. Peter and the Apostles. While ( as explained implicitly by the previous post on the local churches) an individual magister might become a heretic, indefectibility means that the whole office of Magisterium cannot defect. Yet this is the direct statement of one of these Traditionalist sectarians. You might as well say, for instance, that the sacrament of Matrimony in 1938 up and left the Body of Christ. If you really believe that the Church founded by Christ cannot fail, you cannot state that any integral part of the Church has defected. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, ibi Deus. The original founders of Traditionalism knew where Peter was and they all obeyed his call to Council.
[A personal example of how the documents of the Council said one thing boldly and the ignorant and the rebellious made up a fairytale (idol in fact) to suit themselves: my local pastor wrote in the Sunday church bulletin that using the terms “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture” was a “pre-Vatican II” idea. I responded to this egregious comment with a letter asking him if the entire Counciliar document “Constitution on Divine Revelation”, which offers a wonderful teaching on nothing but the relation of Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture, was also “pre-Vatican II”. He, of course, had no answer.]
In the mid 1970's I was sitting in the seminary library of St. Joseph's Dunwoodie. A layman was using the facility and we struck up a conversation. He was the cardiac surgeon Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy. He invited me to his family home in Connecticut. I learned of his conversion from Brahmanism to the Catholic Church. He was deeply concerned about spiritual life. Unfortunately, brahmans are trained to strictly preserve every word of a human tradition. When the vernacular Mass was introduced, Coomaraswamy was offended and became a Traditionalist. But he was also a friend of Mother Theresa. He had written her of his problems with the new rite and she had sent back a letter which I read. She included a response from an Indian Catholic priest to all of his objections. Coomaraswamy did not accept this answer. Thinking about this afterwards gave me the basic insight that has guided my understanding of sectarian Traditionalism since. Arguing with a Traditionalist about Sacred Tradition is essentially the same as arguing with a “bible Christian” about Scripture. If you use either source of Revelation in your conversation it is to no avail – they both will counter with their own citations. The Protestant and the Neo-protestant Traditionalist both reject the authority of a living Magisterium. For the faithful Catholic, it is the Magisterium that preserves and interprets equally Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. At that time I composed a letter to Coomaraswamy but, to my lasting regret, never sent it. I thought: If he won't listen to Mother Theresa and her priest, why would he he listen to a mere seminarian? I learned about 25 years later that Dr. Coomaraswamy became a noted writer for one of the Traditionalist sects.
In our concrete situation I would say that all this means that a Catholic cannot usurp jurisdiction and pass sentence of heresy on the teaching of the Popes and Fathers of the Council. They cannot declare, “ Our objective reading (according to us, of course) of the missal of Pius VI clearly shows that no one is allowed to change the Latin rite”. You may substitute any of their unjust findings for the above. What we may say is, “I accept your authority to call for the use of the vernacular in the Latin Rite but the way you put this into practice was too rushed and authoritarian. You then let the spirit of liturgical renewal become an excuse for wholesale abandonment of discipline.” It took the entire Papacy of John Paul II to begin restoring respect for public order in the churches.
A last personal note. In my twenties I really did not take the documents of Vatican II all that seriously. They seemed to me a collection of well-meaning flowery sermons. But as I came to a greater appreciation for the Catholic understanding of Scripture as a result of attacks I have returned to these documents and grown in appreciation. Yes, error has no rights. People do. We must not be tempted by Satan to try to force people to violate their religious conscience. The need for this simple reminder from Vatican II was seen throughout the religious wars, the threat against Jews of exile if they did not convert in Spain, etc.. Unlike Moslems, we Catholics are not called to construct a society which is a prison for members of other faiths. As to our brothers and sisters in Christian baptism, just yelling at them about their errors will not go far. Perhaps we should read Pope Pius XII's “Mystical Body” more carefully. To be a member of the Mystical Body we must be baptized and not deliberately reject the faith or any teaching of the Church or be excommunicated. This may be a problem for the likes of Luther or Calvin but not for those who received sacramental baptism, baptism of desire or blood and who, like Traditionalists, because of an invincibly erroneous conscience have not deliberately and openly separated themselves from the faith of the Nicene Creed. Respect for religious liberty ( in the actual Counciliar documented context of always preaching the need for the full Catholic Faith) and ecumenical respect for assemblies of Christians ( in the same Vatican II documented context) is exactly what our times call for. The Holy Spirit in these documents has prepared the Catholic people for the greatest battle of the 21st Century: the growing attack of the worshippers of Secular Dehumanism. He wants us to be like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He calls us to true martyrdom – not making martyrs of others.
Again, I may seem to have been drawn into an argument of particulars with the Traditionalists. But this article is really addressed to those having to deal with these poor, hurt and understandably at times scandalized fellow Christians. Do not argue this or that document. The Church's Magisterium is the inspired guide to Sacred Tradition. Keep praying that they will be struck like Saul on the road to Damascus and realize this.
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Golden Lampstands
The Golden Lampstands
ONE: The Apocalypse or Book of Revelation shows us the proper way to view the churches and the Church. Our Lord Jesus reveals hinself as intimately aware of the detailed virtues and faults of the seven local churches listed in the early chapters (Apoc. 1:17-3:22). He acknowledges their good but chastises them for their evils. He encourages them to be steadfast in virtue and to promptly repent from sin.
So we have a complete picture of the local assemblies or churches of His people being good but also containing serious evil that must be immediately addressed. Yet in this same book of Scripture we have the description of the Church as the woman glorified by the sun, the moon and the stars (ch. 12) and as the spotless Bride (ch. 21).
TWO: In St. John's first vision in the Apocalypse (ch. 1) Jesus is standing amid seven gold lampstands holding seven stars in his hand. The Scripture itself explains that the golden lampstands are the seven churches to whom the revelation is addressed and the stars are their angels.
Before the Book of Revelation we encounter the exact same Greek word for “lampstand” in Mark 4:21, Matthew 5:15, and (twice!) in Luke 8:16 and 11:33. Each usage concerns revealing – revealing good deeds or someone's goodness. While the Gospel of John does not seem to use the word for lampstand, the whole gospel speaks about light versus darkness: John 1:4-5 and 3:19 are important examples. In John the wicked love darkness to hide their evil deeds.
THREE: Jesus is within the lampstands. He is the light, the local churches display the light. Our Lord in the passages mentioned above says that we do not have a lamp to hide it but to put it on a stand for light. The Apocalypse is clearly using this imagery with the churches and our Lord. And please note: these “ecclesias” are not random slices of the Christian people located in some civic population center. Their identity should be seen as it is examplified in the rest of the New Testament – centered around the bishop and presbyters.
FOUR: Jesus speaks to the seven churches and details how they have responded to grace and how they have fallen to temptation. He reveals their spiritual condition – all are golden lampstands with angels in Heaven but they also obscure the light by falsehood, sin and mediocrity. Jesus says: “But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of my mouth.”(Rev. 3:16).
FIVE: Is it not extraordinary to our ordinary idea of the Church and the New Testament to realize that Sacred Scripture ends with Jesus' criticism of the various local churches? There is a tendency in churchmen with Holy Orders to attempt to hide their human limitations, mistakes, errors in administering the sacraments, pastoral bad judgment and sins by only emphasizing the holiness of the Church universal and our faithful obligation to love her and reverance her deacons, priests and bishops.
Every deacon, priest, bishop and pope is a sinner. They can be terrible sinners. They are often more in need of repentance and the sacraments than others in different callings. Does that imply a lessening of respect for them and their office? No – it means that we try to love and honor them as we would a parent. We honor our origin in the Church by honoring those we call “father”. But we honor the Church by following our Catholic moral and doctrinal training as officially given and interpreted by the Magesterium. We dishonor the Church when we passively go along with “pastoral” activity contrary to that training.
SIX: Enlightened by the Catholic Faith we can clearly see the development by the Church of her understanding of doctrine. As a case in point, simply read the Acts of the Apostles on the question of admitting and how to admit gentiles. But in viewing the wonderful increase in faith and numbers what is sometimes obscured is what was mentioned in FIVE – the human mistakes and sins of even New Testament Christians. During the gospels, did the Apostles understand and accept all that Jesus did and said? Throughout the Acts, did not the Church realize the fuller implications of Christ's redeeming act
(Acts 10:34 – 11:26; 15:1-29)? Was there not fraud (Acts 5:1-11)? Was there not jealousy (6:1-2)? Clerical ambition (8:17-24)? Disagreement and division between saints (15:36-41)? Fear about churchmen abusing authority (20:28-35)? Is not every epistle concerned with some falsehood, disorder or sin in individuals and the local church?
SEVEN: Yet, in spite of sin, there is the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Acts 21:2). We individual sinners and groups of sinners assembled in local churches can attempt to hide the light under a bushel basket but the Body of Christ, the Church, participates in the sinless glory of her head.
“The light shines on in darkness, a darkness that did not overcome it.” John 1:5
Post Script on Today's Scandals
See above.
ONE: The Apocalypse or Book of Revelation shows us the proper way to view the churches and the Church. Our Lord Jesus reveals hinself as intimately aware of the detailed virtues and faults of the seven local churches listed in the early chapters (Apoc. 1:17-3:22). He acknowledges their good but chastises them for their evils. He encourages them to be steadfast in virtue and to promptly repent from sin.
So we have a complete picture of the local assemblies or churches of His people being good but also containing serious evil that must be immediately addressed. Yet in this same book of Scripture we have the description of the Church as the woman glorified by the sun, the moon and the stars (ch. 12) and as the spotless Bride (ch. 21).
TWO: In St. John's first vision in the Apocalypse (ch. 1) Jesus is standing amid seven gold lampstands holding seven stars in his hand. The Scripture itself explains that the golden lampstands are the seven churches to whom the revelation is addressed and the stars are their angels.
Before the Book of Revelation we encounter the exact same Greek word for “lampstand” in Mark 4:21, Matthew 5:15, and (twice!) in Luke 8:16 and 11:33. Each usage concerns revealing – revealing good deeds or someone's goodness. While the Gospel of John does not seem to use the word for lampstand, the whole gospel speaks about light versus darkness: John 1:4-5 and 3:19 are important examples. In John the wicked love darkness to hide their evil deeds.
THREE: Jesus is within the lampstands. He is the light, the local churches display the light. Our Lord in the passages mentioned above says that we do not have a lamp to hide it but to put it on a stand for light. The Apocalypse is clearly using this imagery with the churches and our Lord. And please note: these “ecclesias” are not random slices of the Christian people located in some civic population center. Their identity should be seen as it is examplified in the rest of the New Testament – centered around the bishop and presbyters.
FOUR: Jesus speaks to the seven churches and details how they have responded to grace and how they have fallen to temptation. He reveals their spiritual condition – all are golden lampstands with angels in Heaven but they also obscure the light by falsehood, sin and mediocrity. Jesus says: “But because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of my mouth.”(Rev. 3:16).
FIVE: Is it not extraordinary to our ordinary idea of the Church and the New Testament to realize that Sacred Scripture ends with Jesus' criticism of the various local churches? There is a tendency in churchmen with Holy Orders to attempt to hide their human limitations, mistakes, errors in administering the sacraments, pastoral bad judgment and sins by only emphasizing the holiness of the Church universal and our faithful obligation to love her and reverance her deacons, priests and bishops.
Every deacon, priest, bishop and pope is a sinner. They can be terrible sinners. They are often more in need of repentance and the sacraments than others in different callings. Does that imply a lessening of respect for them and their office? No – it means that we try to love and honor them as we would a parent. We honor our origin in the Church by honoring those we call “father”. But we honor the Church by following our Catholic moral and doctrinal training as officially given and interpreted by the Magesterium. We dishonor the Church when we passively go along with “pastoral” activity contrary to that training.
SIX: Enlightened by the Catholic Faith we can clearly see the development by the Church of her understanding of doctrine. As a case in point, simply read the Acts of the Apostles on the question of admitting and how to admit gentiles. But in viewing the wonderful increase in faith and numbers what is sometimes obscured is what was mentioned in FIVE – the human mistakes and sins of even New Testament Christians. During the gospels, did the Apostles understand and accept all that Jesus did and said? Throughout the Acts, did not the Church realize the fuller implications of Christ's redeeming act
(Acts 10:34 – 11:26; 15:1-29)? Was there not fraud (Acts 5:1-11)? Was there not jealousy (6:1-2)? Clerical ambition (8:17-24)? Disagreement and division between saints (15:36-41)? Fear about churchmen abusing authority (20:28-35)? Is not every epistle concerned with some falsehood, disorder or sin in individuals and the local church?
SEVEN: Yet, in spite of sin, there is the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Acts 21:2). We individual sinners and groups of sinners assembled in local churches can attempt to hide the light under a bushel basket but the Body of Christ, the Church, participates in the sinless glory of her head.
“The light shines on in darkness, a darkness that did not overcome it.” John 1:5
Post Script on Today's Scandals
See above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)