Today on ETWN, Father Richard Ho Lung, founder of the Missionary Of The Poor, a community of brothers and priests dressed in white with a cross hanging prominently in front of their chests, said that their mission was to serve those in the "hell holes" of the world. He was referring to those places where the destitute, abandoned, unloved, disabled, disfigured, deformed, orphaned, lonely or elderly live. As usual, my warped mind was thinking of very different "hell holes" when Fr. Richard's words were echoing between my ears. I thought, how wonderful it would be, for these spiritual, kind and holy brothers, dressed in white habits with a cross over their chests, would walk along the likes of Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles, Castro Street in San Francisco and Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré in Paris, and into the movies studios in Hollywood, and around financial district in New York, Tokyo, Shanghai, London and Hong Kong and in the halls of government houses in Washington D.C, Jerusalem, Tehran, Beijing, Moscow, London, Berlin and Tokyo and around all the affluent residential communities and resorts and the large cruise ships all over the world to identify the souls that populate those hell holes, that have nothing but emptiness in them, and to wash away their sins and save them from eternal damnation [1].
[1] I confess that I have been on Rodeo Drive, Castro Street, Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, to Hollywood, in the financial districts and government houses of many big cities and that I have lived in affluent residential communities and have been to nice resorts and on large cruise ships and I must say I would have loved to have the company of these holy, kind and spiritual brothers at all of these times in my life so my soul could be filled with the Holy Spirit just like theirs.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
First Time Sharing My Prayer With Others -- In Person
It was during Vespers last Friday when as usual the participants were asked for their prayers that I shared this prayer [1] with the Dominican friars and the four novice brothers:
"For Your Love for us, and for our love for You."
[1] I had thought about it for days and days and finally had the courage to join in and when it came time to do it, I actually had a voice which I was afraid would make no sound out of fear.
"For Your Love for us, and for our love for You."
[1] I had thought about it for days and days and finally had the courage to join in and when it came time to do it, I actually had a voice which I was afraid would make no sound out of fear.
"Oblivious Of God"?
The words that came out of a pastor of local church at a 5:30 p.m. Mass on a weekday were something to the effect that we were sometimes or often (I forgot which) "oblivious of God." I have a number of problems with that man in general but take issue with only those words here.
First, there were not that many people who were in attendance and he was not speaking to anyone else but to those in attendance - no one else could hear or see him - it was not televised nor broadcasted on the internet. Let me just say that those who attend a 5:30 p.m. Mass on a weekday are in my opinion not that "oblivious" of God. Had that man the guts to utter those those words in halls of all three branches of government at both the state and the federal levels, they could carry the force of their meaning (based on his intended meaning). Saying such words to those present at Mass that afternoon (again, based on his intended meaning) was in my opinion accusatory, insulting and gratuitous. I think that that is not an exception and after hearing his sermons in the past, I have found that in all instances his words had been similarly insolent and vulgar even though I am not a regular church-goer (because of preachers like this one and others without any sense of holiness). If he was talking about himself only, he should use the pronoun "I" instead of "we". By using "we" he did not appear to me to be including himself. He is after all a priest who wears a priestly garb.
The other point I wish to make is subject to debate but will make my argument nonetheless and let the reader of this blog, if any, form an independent opinion. Dictionary.com defines "oblivious" to mean "unmindful, unconscious; unaware" which on the surface seems to comport with his intentions to accuse and insult his flock. Sadly, if those were his intentions, he expressed the concept incorrectly. The operative word he ought to have used should have been "acknowledge" because not that many people, if any, are "oblivious" or "unmindful, unconscious or unaware" of God.
To the contrary, I know of no person who is "unmindful, unconscious or unaware" of God because God is Pure Goodness and everybody is always mindful, conscious and aware if goodness (i.e., the Goodness of God) has not been received at any moment in time or if received, not enough of it, or the quality of what was received might not be within expectations. In other words, deep down we desire perfection in goodness from everyone else at all times even though we learn to accept having little or none of it, but that does not detract any person from knowing what perfection in goodness (i.e., God) is -- even a newborn knows what it is although the level of goodness needed to satisfy a baby is simpler than what is needed to please an adult.
Back to my original point (modified slightly for this conclusion by taking out the word "insult"), the accusation would have been correct, if that was what the priest intended, and legitimate, if he had said to his audience at the weekday afternoon Mass that we sometimes fail to "acknowledge" our constant desire for God (i.e., perfection in goodness) in others rather than we sometimes or often are "oblivious" of God because we never are truly "unmindful, unconscious or unaware" of God for God's goodness is the standard we always wish we could use, and at times do use, to measure how we are treated by others. [1], [2]
[1] Even atheists cannot be "oblivious" of God. They have to be mindful, conscious and aware of God because one cannot be an atheist without first being cognizant of the existence of God in order to then deny or disbelieve the existence of God. Similarly, Lucifer, the Fallen Angel, as powerful as it is, cannot be "oblivious" of God. It has to be mindful, conscious and aware of God because it needs a standard from which to deviate 180 degrees to have the title Satan. Since God is the Creator of all things "visible and invisible" and as such nothing can be oblivious of God, but once created, God has given the gift of Free Will so that anything, including people, can refuse to acknowledge God. Is it not selfishness that we think it is fair to expect others to act like God (i.e., with perfection in goodness) toward us but many of us (myself included) do not seem compelled to do the same toward others? Is it not a paradox that many of us (myself included) who believe in God and would like to live as much as possible in accordance with the teachings of Christ acknowledge God in and expect God's goodness from others (i.e., the capacity to repeatedly be kind and forgiving and good), including the most evil ones who reject God and care less about Christ, but not acknowledge, let alone repent, the many occasions of "temporary" absences of God and God's goodness from ourselves?
[2] Perhaps I should attend Mass more often and listen to lousy sermons so I can react to them but it is not my preference to be a reactionary even though often times I am. It would be my wish (and a miracle) if all my thoughts could be divinely inspired but that is not going to happen anytime soon even though I credit all of my good thoughts to a gift from God while Satan gets all the credit for my bad thoughts.
First, there were not that many people who were in attendance and he was not speaking to anyone else but to those in attendance - no one else could hear or see him - it was not televised nor broadcasted on the internet. Let me just say that those who attend a 5:30 p.m. Mass on a weekday are in my opinion not that "oblivious" of God. Had that man the guts to utter those those words in halls of all three branches of government at both the state and the federal levels, they could carry the force of their meaning (based on his intended meaning). Saying such words to those present at Mass that afternoon (again, based on his intended meaning) was in my opinion accusatory, insulting and gratuitous. I think that that is not an exception and after hearing his sermons in the past, I have found that in all instances his words had been similarly insolent and vulgar even though I am not a regular church-goer (because of preachers like this one and others without any sense of holiness). If he was talking about himself only, he should use the pronoun "I" instead of "we". By using "we" he did not appear to me to be including himself. He is after all a priest who wears a priestly garb.
The other point I wish to make is subject to debate but will make my argument nonetheless and let the reader of this blog, if any, form an independent opinion. Dictionary.com defines "oblivious" to mean "unmindful, unconscious; unaware" which on the surface seems to comport with his intentions to accuse and insult his flock. Sadly, if those were his intentions, he expressed the concept incorrectly. The operative word he ought to have used should have been "acknowledge" because not that many people, if any, are "oblivious" or "unmindful, unconscious or unaware" of God.
To the contrary, I know of no person who is "unmindful, unconscious or unaware" of God because God is Pure Goodness and everybody is always mindful, conscious and aware if goodness (i.e., the Goodness of God) has not been received at any moment in time or if received, not enough of it, or the quality of what was received might not be within expectations. In other words, deep down we desire perfection in goodness from everyone else at all times even though we learn to accept having little or none of it, but that does not detract any person from knowing what perfection in goodness (i.e., God) is -- even a newborn knows what it is although the level of goodness needed to satisfy a baby is simpler than what is needed to please an adult.
Back to my original point (modified slightly for this conclusion by taking out the word "insult"), the accusation would have been correct, if that was what the priest intended, and legitimate, if he had said to his audience at the weekday afternoon Mass that we sometimes fail to "acknowledge" our constant desire for God (i.e., perfection in goodness) in others rather than we sometimes or often are "oblivious" of God because we never are truly "unmindful, unconscious or unaware" of God for God's goodness is the standard we always wish we could use, and at times do use, to measure how we are treated by others. [1], [2]
[1] Even atheists cannot be "oblivious" of God. They have to be mindful, conscious and aware of God because one cannot be an atheist without first being cognizant of the existence of God in order to then deny or disbelieve the existence of God. Similarly, Lucifer, the Fallen Angel, as powerful as it is, cannot be "oblivious" of God. It has to be mindful, conscious and aware of God because it needs a standard from which to deviate 180 degrees to have the title Satan. Since God is the Creator of all things "visible and invisible" and as such nothing can be oblivious of God, but once created, God has given the gift of Free Will so that anything, including people, can refuse to acknowledge God. Is it not selfishness that we think it is fair to expect others to act like God (i.e., with perfection in goodness) toward us but many of us (myself included) do not seem compelled to do the same toward others? Is it not a paradox that many of us (myself included) who believe in God and would like to live as much as possible in accordance with the teachings of Christ acknowledge God in and expect God's goodness from others (i.e., the capacity to repeatedly be kind and forgiving and good), including the most evil ones who reject God and care less about Christ, but not acknowledge, let alone repent, the many occasions of "temporary" absences of God and God's goodness from ourselves?
[2] Perhaps I should attend Mass more often and listen to lousy sermons so I can react to them but it is not my preference to be a reactionary even though often times I am. It would be my wish (and a miracle) if all my thoughts could be divinely inspired but that is not going to happen anytime soon even though I credit all of my good thoughts to a gift from God while Satan gets all the credit for my bad thoughts.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
A Prayer When Alone Or Lonely
Dear Lord:
Keep me company with Your presence,
Show me my purpose from day to day,
Grant me the courage to do Your work,
and the necessities so I can,
with the faith to wait for them,
plus good help to keep it going. Amen.
Keep me company with Your presence,
Show me my purpose from day to day,
Grant me the courage to do Your work,
and the necessities so I can,
with the faith to wait for them,
plus good help to keep it going. Amen.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Christ - Not A Victim
To have to sit through a sermon you do not agree with is torture. This priest said Christ was a "holy victim." Christ was indeed holy but He was not a victim. A victim elicits pity and is comforted by sympathy. Christ became man to die for our sins. He is our Savior. He certainly did not appear to be a victim, not even to His disciples. He did not elicit any sympathy from them, not even from the three who were at Gethsemane with Him -- they fell asleep. Jesus was sorrowful but was (is) not looking for His disciples' or our sympathy. He certainly does no want our pity. He was here to carry out His Father's Will even though He was scared and prayed to His Father at Gethsemane to let the "cup" of suffering to "pass" from Him. That did not happen and He allowed Himself to be betrayed as prophesied, and willingly suffered and died in accordance with His Father's Will. Does Christ sound like a "victim" to you?
My question is: Why do some priests think that they are qualified to be priests? Priesthood seems for them a livelihood rather than a calling. The lack of God's grace and holiness in these priest somehow distances me from the Church, but I nonetheless love them for who they are, as persons upholding the Church and administering the sacraments, but not for what they say.
On the other hand, some priests give beautiful and meaningful sermons and I wish they would not stop preaching because I just want to sit there and listen to them. These priests have the Grace of God and are truly called to serve.
My question is: Why do some priests think that they are qualified to be priests? Priesthood seems for them a livelihood rather than a calling. The lack of God's grace and holiness in these priest somehow distances me from the Church, but I nonetheless love them for who they are, as persons upholding the Church and administering the sacraments, but not for what they say.
On the other hand, some priests give beautiful and meaningful sermons and I wish they would not stop preaching because I just want to sit there and listen to them. These priests have the Grace of God and are truly called to serve.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Seek Refuge In God
PC World reported (6 hours ago) that Edward Snowden had been charged by the US with espionage, theft, and conversion of government property. [1] FoxNews.com reported (18 hours ago) that "[a]n Icelandic business executive says a private plane is on standby to
transport NSA secrets leaker Edward Snowden from Hong Kong to Iceland," but there is no guarantee yet by Iceland that he would not be extradicted to the US. [2] The Guardian reported (about 21 hours ago) that "Russia has offered to consider an asylum request from the US whistleblower Edward Snowden, in the Kremlin's latest move to woo critics of the west." [3] Although Snowden is still supposedly in Hong Kong at this time, China still has not made any public offer of asylum to Snowden.
Edward Snowden, as smart as he is, ought to have considered going to the Vatican, the State, and ask to be sheltered by the Pope, the Head of State. If he had, he could, while he is there, ask the same guy, the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ for a confession for the repentance of sins and ask to seek refuge in the House of God. Now who on earth would force the Vicar of Christ, the Catholic Pope of approximately 1.214 million Catholics [4] to do anything besides the forgiveness of sins? Certainly not the 2.2 billion (minus the 1.214 million Catholics) other Christians [5] who also believe in the forgiveness of sins and not vengeance.
Short of being able to get to the Vatican easily due to the lack of an airport there and risking arrest before he arrives, it is my hope that Edward Snowden would give a full confession to an American priest (protected communication under the priest-penitent privilege) and become one himself so that he could begin serving Christ freely around the world and should he be murdered, he would be a martyr for believing in the forgiveness of sins.
Edward Snowden, as smart as he is, ought to have considered going to the Vatican, the State, and ask to be sheltered by the Pope, the Head of State. If he had, he could, while he is there, ask the same guy, the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Christ for a confession for the repentance of sins and ask to seek refuge in the House of God. Now who on earth would force the Vicar of Christ, the Catholic Pope of approximately 1.214 million Catholics [4] to do anything besides the forgiveness of sins? Certainly not the 2.2 billion (minus the 1.214 million Catholics) other Christians [5] who also believe in the forgiveness of sins and not vengeance.
Short of being able to get to the Vatican easily due to the lack of an airport there and risking arrest before he arrives, it is my hope that Edward Snowden would give a full confession to an American priest (protected communication under the priest-penitent privilege) and become one himself so that he could begin serving Christ freely around the world and should he be murdered, he would be a martyr for believing in the forgiveness of sins.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Wealth And Privilege Require Extra Humility
Neither wealth nor privilege gives one the right to be haughty. In fact, wealth and privilege requires one to go an extra step to serve those who serve, even when genuine kindness is insulted, when innocent actions are prejudged or when good intentions are accused mistakenly, even when the person who is behind the insulting, the prejudging or the accusing is a person of cloth in the service of Christ.
Why should a person so clothed be forgiven for abusing his or her authority? Because they are also sinners and can therefore be just as imperfect, fallible, envious, vengeful, egoistical and shameless as any one of or the worst of humankind even though they are supposed to be Christ-like and they need to be forgiven.
To be sure, some religious are humble and saintly, caring and loving and as Christ-like as a sinner can hope to be. They are the truly holy ones and are truly shepherds of Christ. They take care of themselves and they take care of the flock.
However, it is not them but shepherds that are sheep in wolves' clothing that need to be embraced by those with wealth and privilege. It does not help these sinful and hypocritical ones when the wealthy and privileged ones (the "haves") drive off, go somewhere else, never to return, to find another religious or religion that suits them.
These sinful religious need to be understood. They are the ones who need the compassion of those who have the comforts of life, never having to face life's hardships like poverty, the pains of drudgery or hunger. Why? Because some of the religious, unlike a handful of the saints who had respectable wealth and privilege like Francis of Assisi, Augustine of Hippo and Charles Borromeo of Milan, are from poor or financially-modest families. Without neither wealth nor privilege, even if they have become highly educated later in life, some, not all, would have the natural tendency to envy those at the opposite end of the spectrum [1] and abuse the power that come with what they wear. Those religious who are bitter and envious of the "haves" are without the strength of character to ward off Satan's influences. Unless they repent, they would eventually succumb under the weight of their sins.
Hopefully that would not happen if the "haves" understand the beginnings of the "have-nots" and support them by forgiving them and giving to them, time and again, so even if these sinful religious remain blinded by Satan to kindness, innocence and goodness, they would at least recognize the persistence of kindness, innocence and goodness given to them. With persistence and repetition, their hardened hearts would yield and Satan's grip on them should loosen so that they will have the chance to repent and have the love of Christ Whom they serve before it is too late and Satan forever claims their souls.
A word of caution for the "haves": If the "haves" are blind to poverty and compassion, they will probably be in Hell.
[1] It is normal for those who have grown up with little or nothing to have a compelling desire to amass everything and remain envious when they cannot. Therefore, it can be argued that the face of Christ is not found among the bitter and envious poor but among those who, for the love of Christ, if they are poor, choose not to be envious of the earthly riches but find fulfillment in Christ, and if they are not poor, choose to be poor, or poor in spirit, or both. To go a step further, it could be argued that Christ Himself chose to be poor for He came from Heaven with all the riches yet He chose not to be born with such wealth and privileges.
Why should a person so clothed be forgiven for abusing his or her authority? Because they are also sinners and can therefore be just as imperfect, fallible, envious, vengeful, egoistical and shameless as any one of or the worst of humankind even though they are supposed to be Christ-like and they need to be forgiven.
To be sure, some religious are humble and saintly, caring and loving and as Christ-like as a sinner can hope to be. They are the truly holy ones and are truly shepherds of Christ. They take care of themselves and they take care of the flock.
However, it is not them but shepherds that are sheep in wolves' clothing that need to be embraced by those with wealth and privilege. It does not help these sinful and hypocritical ones when the wealthy and privileged ones (the "haves") drive off, go somewhere else, never to return, to find another religious or religion that suits them.
These sinful religious need to be understood. They are the ones who need the compassion of those who have the comforts of life, never having to face life's hardships like poverty, the pains of drudgery or hunger. Why? Because some of the religious, unlike a handful of the saints who had respectable wealth and privilege like Francis of Assisi, Augustine of Hippo and Charles Borromeo of Milan, are from poor or financially-modest families. Without neither wealth nor privilege, even if they have become highly educated later in life, some, not all, would have the natural tendency to envy those at the opposite end of the spectrum [1] and abuse the power that come with what they wear. Those religious who are bitter and envious of the "haves" are without the strength of character to ward off Satan's influences. Unless they repent, they would eventually succumb under the weight of their sins.
Hopefully that would not happen if the "haves" understand the beginnings of the "have-nots" and support them by forgiving them and giving to them, time and again, so even if these sinful religious remain blinded by Satan to kindness, innocence and goodness, they would at least recognize the persistence of kindness, innocence and goodness given to them. With persistence and repetition, their hardened hearts would yield and Satan's grip on them should loosen so that they will have the chance to repent and have the love of Christ Whom they serve before it is too late and Satan forever claims their souls.
A word of caution for the "haves": If the "haves" are blind to poverty and compassion, they will probably be in Hell.
[1] It is normal for those who have grown up with little or nothing to have a compelling desire to amass everything and remain envious when they cannot. Therefore, it can be argued that the face of Christ is not found among the bitter and envious poor but among those who, for the love of Christ, if they are poor, choose not to be envious of the earthly riches but find fulfillment in Christ, and if they are not poor, choose to be poor, or poor in spirit, or both. To go a step further, it could be argued that Christ Himself chose to be poor for He came from Heaven with all the riches yet He chose not to be born with such wealth and privileges.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
God Is Still The Most Powerful -- Bar None
"[Edward Snowden] learned just how all-consuming the NSA's surveillance activities were,
claiming 'they are intent on making every conversation and every form of
behaviour in the world known to them.'" [1] Sadly, such technology is primitive since it can only record what is transpiring, not what has yet to transpire. The future and the Final Judgment, firmly in the hands of God, are to be feared by those who try to be God, even by the Antichrist itself. Just look at what happened to Adam and Eve, our foreparents, and the consequences of whose Sin each of us still bear, the pains and sufferings that afflict our minds, bodies and souls, our ultimate deaths and the unknown eternity that awaits us.
[1] Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras, "Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations," The Guardian, June 9, 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
[1] Glenn Greenwald, Ewen MacAskill and Laura Poitras, "Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations," The Guardian, June 9, 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance
To Brother Augustine: A Personal Farewell, For Now
Dear Brother Augustine,
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you Sunday evening, June 9. I am sad to find out from Brother Pius before Compline yesterday that you had decided to spend more time discerning but I understand completely.
You recited for me in Latin the famous words of Saint Augustine "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet." I hope that you will realize soon that chastity and continence are in the end by far more fulfilling that desires of the flesh that never satiates. There may be other reasons that you have decided to take time off. Whatever that may be on your mind, may God be especially close by your side during this period.
You are so talented, so gifted and have so beautiful a soul. You are for me already a man of cloth as of two Sundays ago for you have gifted generously and genuinely to me your concern, your wisdom and your loving guidance and I would like to thank you deeply and humbly. There are many, many others like me who would benefit greatly with you guiding them carefully and gently toward Christ.
What follows is a note I plan to write to all the Brothers before they move forward with their commitment on July 5 and I would like for you to have it when you return (I have faith that you would) to complete yours:
You are so blessed for having the will to follow freely the footsteps of Christ. As you walk with love along your path to holiness leading to The One Who loves you most, may you be filled with the Holy Spirit.
I am blessed to have been able to share some precious and memorable moments with you.
God Bless!
Al
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you Sunday evening, June 9. I am sad to find out from Brother Pius before Compline yesterday that you had decided to spend more time discerning but I understand completely.
You recited for me in Latin the famous words of Saint Augustine "Give me chastity and continence, but not yet." I hope that you will realize soon that chastity and continence are in the end by far more fulfilling that desires of the flesh that never satiates. There may be other reasons that you have decided to take time off. Whatever that may be on your mind, may God be especially close by your side during this period.
You are so talented, so gifted and have so beautiful a soul. You are for me already a man of cloth as of two Sundays ago for you have gifted generously and genuinely to me your concern, your wisdom and your loving guidance and I would like to thank you deeply and humbly. There are many, many others like me who would benefit greatly with you guiding them carefully and gently toward Christ.
What follows is a note I plan to write to all the Brothers before they move forward with their commitment on July 5 and I would like for you to have it when you return (I have faith that you would) to complete yours:
You are so blessed for having the will to follow freely the footsteps of Christ. As you walk with love along your path to holiness leading to The One Who loves you most, may you be filled with the Holy Spirit.
I am blessed to have been able to share some precious and memorable moments with you.
God Bless!
Al
Monday, June 17, 2013
Applying The Gym Workout Technique To Praying
Anyone can lift a weight but in order to be serious about strength training, it is essential that you learn the proper form and do each repetition slowly while squeezing the muscles for maximum benefit. It is no different when it come to praying. Anyone can say a prayer. Anyone can recite for example the Our Father, the Hail Mary, or the Glory Be prayer, but to be serious about praying these prayers, it is not enough just to say the words: it is essential to enunciate each word distinctly, and intonate it with meaning, and feeling, and say the prayer in whatever language the prayer is to be said, unhurriedly and innocently, for maximum benefit.
To say a prayer unhurriedly and innocently is to say it beautifully without affectation and to say it with the heart wide open complete with unconditional love, as if you are saying it right in front of the Almighty Father, the resurrected Christ or Mary, the Mother of God, and if you do, at any moment any one of them Whom you feel would give you the most assurance and love or Whom you need to thank with your deep and abiding love will be right in front of you.
It is not easy for me to say one prayer like that, not even the first two words. Actually, I find it challenging every single time. To be able to say one whole prayer in that way is fulfilling. To say the entire rosary like that without my mind wandering off is a miracle that is yet to happen to me.
To say a prayer unhurriedly and innocently is to say it beautifully without affectation and to say it with the heart wide open complete with unconditional love, as if you are saying it right in front of the Almighty Father, the resurrected Christ or Mary, the Mother of God, and if you do, at any moment any one of them Whom you feel would give you the most assurance and love or Whom you need to thank with your deep and abiding love will be right in front of you.
It is not easy for me to say one prayer like that, not even the first two words. Actually, I find it challenging every single time. To be able to say one whole prayer in that way is fulfilling. To say the entire rosary like that without my mind wandering off is a miracle that is yet to happen to me.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
I Miss Pope Benedict XVI
Although I could never understand what Pope Benedict XVI was saying when I saw him on EWTN, I still liked watching him, his demeanor and his mannerisms, all of which spoke to me one thing: genuineness. Even if Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI might not have spoken God's Truth at all times, he spoke the truth as he knew it. There was never a scintilla of pretension. I admire that. In fact, I admire Pope Benedict XVI tremendously, even if I had at one time or another disagreed with him. I also admire his intellect. It shines brilliantly and its brilliance is evident in the books he had written (I have read only two but plan to read them all). His writing does not lend itself to speed-reading. He packs so much material in so few words that it is easy to miss what he is trying to say if they are not read word by word, carefully.
I am now re-reading On The Way to Jesus Christ [1], slowly and deliberately many of his words over and again to grasp and savor their meaning. The words, even if they maybe offensive to some, they are for me words that help the opinionated and obstinate me understand and absorb the meaning of Christ's words and Passion. Perhaps one day they would become a part of me when I can live them every moment of every day. [2], [3]
[1] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, On The Way to Jesus Christ, trans. Michael J. Miller (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005).
[2] I have or are still reading the words of Francis of Assisi, Térèse of Lisieux, Augustine of Hippo, all of them became saints after their deaths. I put Pope Benedict XVI in the saintly category even though he is not yet a saint (he has the potential). I would like to learn from most of the rest of the saints should I get around to reading about them. I do not believe that all saints are saintly (I could be wrong) because some became saints due to popular demand and/or politics or because they were corrupt (I think Augustine of Hippo said something to that effect in his book Confessions but I cannot be sure because I cannot find where it is in the book right now).
[3] I already know I will have difficulties, especially with understanding and internalizing poverty being the face of Christ. I need more time to think more on this topic. Hopefully it will be resolved soon and when it is I will write down my thoughts.
I am now re-reading On The Way to Jesus Christ [1], slowly and deliberately many of his words over and again to grasp and savor their meaning. The words, even if they maybe offensive to some, they are for me words that help the opinionated and obstinate me understand and absorb the meaning of Christ's words and Passion. Perhaps one day they would become a part of me when I can live them every moment of every day. [2], [3]
[1] Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, On The Way to Jesus Christ, trans. Michael J. Miller (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005).
[2] I have or are still reading the words of Francis of Assisi, Térèse of Lisieux, Augustine of Hippo, all of them became saints after their deaths. I put Pope Benedict XVI in the saintly category even though he is not yet a saint (he has the potential). I would like to learn from most of the rest of the saints should I get around to reading about them. I do not believe that all saints are saintly (I could be wrong) because some became saints due to popular demand and/or politics or because they were corrupt (I think Augustine of Hippo said something to that effect in his book Confessions but I cannot be sure because I cannot find where it is in the book right now).
[3] I already know I will have difficulties, especially with understanding and internalizing poverty being the face of Christ. I need more time to think more on this topic. Hopefully it will be resolved soon and when it is I will write down my thoughts.
Prayer To Mary
Dear Mother Mary, Your sweetness is the fragrance of the Eternal Rose. You have given me Your love, Your care. Please fill me with Your eternal sweetness and love so that all my words and my deeds will have a tiny hint of Your fragrance. Amen. [1]. [2]
[1] I formed this prayer on my knees at a local outdoor Lourdes shrine this evening a little before 7:50 p.m. I normally join the Dominican friars in worshiping the Blessed Sacrament and praying the Compline but tonight there was none. What a gift I had in return for an unfulfilled expectation. I do love You, Lord. I do love You, Mary. I pray that You stay with me always, never lose sight of me, never give up on me, and lead me always back on the path to You when I stray. Amen.
[2] I know what I have asked for I am not capable of having because of Sin and its many variations but still I hope that at least some my words and my deeds would be scented with ever so slight a trace of Mary's holiness so that those receiving them from me will be able to receive them with true peace and contentment in their hearts.
[1] I formed this prayer on my knees at a local outdoor Lourdes shrine this evening a little before 7:50 p.m. I normally join the Dominican friars in worshiping the Blessed Sacrament and praying the Compline but tonight there was none. What a gift I had in return for an unfulfilled expectation. I do love You, Lord. I do love You, Mary. I pray that You stay with me always, never lose sight of me, never give up on me, and lead me always back on the path to You when I stray. Amen.
[2] I know what I have asked for I am not capable of having because of Sin and its many variations but still I hope that at least some my words and my deeds would be scented with ever so slight a trace of Mary's holiness so that those receiving them from me will be able to receive them with true peace and contentment in their hearts.
Monday, June 10, 2013
The Past, Present And Future
From reading Confessions by Augustine of Hippo [1] I am inspired to write once again on the topic of timelessness. Augustine of Hippo asked "What, then, is time? There can be no quick and easy answer, for it is no simple matter even to understand what it is, let alone find words to explain it." [2]
I have the words and therefore answer.
Time - its nature is timelessness which is eternal. The human can only exist in the finiteness of time. This is the result of Adam and Eve's Original Sin. In the absence of Sin, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden would have been timeless because they were made in the image of God, of Perfection in Eternity.
The finiteness of time is only for the flesh of the sinful. Our minds and souls exist in eternity. In God's eternity, the continuum of timelessness, the past and the future become irrelevant since everything simply is.
Augustine asked "how do you reveal the future to us when, for us, the future does not exist?" [3]
Let me answer.
Knowledge of the future does not exist in the minds of men due to Original Sin. Without Original Sin, "the future" - an earthly concept - is also "the present" because man who is without Sin would be perfect and thus could and would make the present perfect. In perfection, there is no division among past, present and future because perfection is constant. It does not change. It is eternal and is timeless. Even Hell is perfect and timeless. Surely nobody wants his mind and soul to end up there however perfect it is.
Augustine was having a lot of trouble separating time on earth and timelessness in God's eternity. He said, [t]he past increases in proportion as the future diminishes, until the future is entirely absorbed and the whole becomes the past." [4] He was correct, but only in the life of man which is finite. In God's infiniteness of time, God's infiniteness of perfection, nothing is gained, nothing is diminished because nothing has to be gained or diminished. It is perfect as is.
Then he asked, "[b]ut how can the future be diminished or absorbed when it does not yet exist? And how can the past increase when it no longer exists?" [5] Then he answered it by pointing to the mind where "there is both expectation of the future and remembrance of the past." [6] For me, reading this is a bit frustrating. Augustine could not get his supreme intellect away from earthly concepts and the flawlessness of his logic to focus it on Heaven's perfection. In Heaven, there is no need for logic or reason for Perfection simply is. [7]
[1] Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (England: Penguin Books, 1961), 262-277.
[2] Ibid, 263-4.
[3] Ibid, 268.
[4] Ibid, 277.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] On earth, we need logic and reason to achieve and justify perfection and even then, nothing is perfect, because of Sin.
I have the words and therefore answer.
Time - its nature is timelessness which is eternal. The human can only exist in the finiteness of time. This is the result of Adam and Eve's Original Sin. In the absence of Sin, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden would have been timeless because they were made in the image of God, of Perfection in Eternity.
The finiteness of time is only for the flesh of the sinful. Our minds and souls exist in eternity. In God's eternity, the continuum of timelessness, the past and the future become irrelevant since everything simply is.
Augustine asked "how do you reveal the future to us when, for us, the future does not exist?" [3]
Let me answer.
Knowledge of the future does not exist in the minds of men due to Original Sin. Without Original Sin, "the future" - an earthly concept - is also "the present" because man who is without Sin would be perfect and thus could and would make the present perfect. In perfection, there is no division among past, present and future because perfection is constant. It does not change. It is eternal and is timeless. Even Hell is perfect and timeless. Surely nobody wants his mind and soul to end up there however perfect it is.
Augustine was having a lot of trouble separating time on earth and timelessness in God's eternity. He said, [t]he past increases in proportion as the future diminishes, until the future is entirely absorbed and the whole becomes the past." [4] He was correct, but only in the life of man which is finite. In God's infiniteness of time, God's infiniteness of perfection, nothing is gained, nothing is diminished because nothing has to be gained or diminished. It is perfect as is.
Then he asked, "[b]ut how can the future be diminished or absorbed when it does not yet exist? And how can the past increase when it no longer exists?" [5] Then he answered it by pointing to the mind where "there is both expectation of the future and remembrance of the past." [6] For me, reading this is a bit frustrating. Augustine could not get his supreme intellect away from earthly concepts and the flawlessness of his logic to focus it on Heaven's perfection. In Heaven, there is no need for logic or reason for Perfection simply is. [7]
[1] Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (England: Penguin Books, 1961), 262-277.
[2] Ibid, 263-4.
[3] Ibid, 268.
[4] Ibid, 277.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] On earth, we need logic and reason to achieve and justify perfection and even then, nothing is perfect, because of Sin.
What The New Pope Said Recently
"Christians need to 'speak the truth with love,' overcoming temptations of wanting always to be liked ...' Pope Francis said." [1]
So allow me to do just that: to speak the truth as I know it to be the truth, and with love, to the best that I am able to convey my love, which is to say the truth as I see it and not sugar coat it or fear it even though I could be wrong because I am fallible, unlike the pope who supposedly is infallible. I hope to be forgiven, yet again, if I am wrong because the fallible me is going to speak about the supposedly infallible Francis, the new pope. If I am right, I hope with love that Francis, the pope, to be distinguished clearly from Francis of Assisi, the saint, will learn from the Saint and one day become holy like the one and only true Francis, Francis of Assisi.
"In his homilies at his early morning Masses June 3 and 4, Pope Francis spoke about people who are corrupt: their attitudes, actions and ways of speaking.
"'Hypocrisy is the language of corruption,' he said during the June 4 mass in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae." [2]
First of all, to assume the papacy and to take the name Francis after Francis of Assisi is a contradiction. Francis of Assisi would never have wanted to be pope; he was humble and wanted to be like Christ. On the other hand, Francis, the pope, want others to think of him as Francis of Assisi. That is, in my opinion, hypocritical because he is anything but, and as such, Francis, the pope, spoke "the language of corruption" on day one as pope by naming himself Francis after Francis of Assisi. I hope with love that Francis, the pope, would change his name and accept what he truly is and what he is not. [3]
I am not the first person who sees the contradiction between Francis, the pope, and Francis, the saint. Hans Küng, on May 21, 2013, wrote a splendid piece entitled The paradox of Pope Francis published in the National Catholic Reporter that is worth reading. [4]
Not only does Francis, the pope, tries to impersonate Francis, the saint, he beguiles like he devil. He set it up like this and I quote: "Even if dressed in 'soft words, beautiful words,' if a statement is motivated by self-love or self-gain it is not true ...
"'There is no truth without love. Love is the first truth,' he said, 'If there is no love, there is no truth.'" [5]
I could not agree more, assuming that he was talking about the Love of God and God's truth and not his love for Satan and the ever-changing and deceiving Satanic truths. What comes next is shocking to me. Francis, the pope, said "'Today let us ask the Lord that our speech would be the speech of the simple, to speak like a child, like children of God, speaking the truth in love,'" because "[t]he meekness of Jesus and the words he expects of his followers, the pope said, are simple, 'like that of a child.'" [6] I detect no love in those words of Francis, the pope, for his predecessor, the erudite theologian that is Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and therefore there can be no truth in them. It should be obvious that there is no truth in those words since the words of Christ are not "like that of a child," an ordinary child of Sin that is a descendant of Adam and Eve, as opposed to Christ Who is a Child of God and without Sin.
In fact, those words of Francis, the pope, had nothing to do with God's truth or his love for God because I believe they were crafted intentionally to be an indirect and a not-so-subtle swipe at Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. [7]
While these words of Francis, the pope, may sound like "soft words, beautiful words" they were actually daggers cloaked in softness and beauty. I believe these deliberately chosen words were motivated by self-love, for this current pope seems to think highly of himself even though he tries to act just the opposite (and it is all an act), and by self-gain, for he wants to elevate himself by stepping on Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (the only way he can hope to cast a shadow on the brilliance of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI).
I hope with love for Francis, the pope, and for the sake of his soul, that Satan would loosen its grip on him, return to him his conscience and let him return to God.
Finally, Francis not only committed the sin of hypocrisy by not acting like Francis of Assisi even though he took the name Francis, he had committed the sin of compound fraud by deliberately misleading people to think that by speaking against hypocrisy that he is free from it [8]. In other words, it is bad enough to be a hypocrite, like preaching about hunger and poverty but eating well and living comfortably, but then to be a hypocrite and to preach against hypocrisy as if he is righteously non-hypocritical, that is exponentially bad. It is not quite as bad as but is close to betraying Christ with a kiss. For the love of Francis, the pope, I pray that he would become holy like Francis, the saint.
[1] Wooden, Cindy. "Truth must be spoken with love, pope says." Catholic San Francisco, Vol. 15, No. 18, p. 12. Accessed June 9, 2013. http://www.catholic-sf.org/files/digital_paper_201306044306.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] Note added 6/23/13: What a stupid fool I was to wish that! How could I have missed it? Jorge Mario Bergoglio (an Italian by birth, i.e. a Roman) chose the name Francis after Francis of Assisi who was born Francesco di Pietro (Peter) di Bernardone because the prophesy of Saint Malachy had to be fulfilled, that this last pope would be Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman).
[4] http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/paradox-pope-francis
[5] Wooden, op. cit., p. 12.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Note added 6/22/13: I promised Brother Matthew, a novice, 23 years old, whose intellect and maturity lie far beyond his earthly years (probably an old soul) to give Pope Francis a charitable read, taking into consideration that he chose the name "Francis" after "Francis of Assisi" because the Pope is similarly "detached in the heart" from worldly matters.
[8] What good hypocrite would speak against hypocrisy if he knows he is one? Only an evil hypocrite trying to hide his true character would speak against hypocrisy.
So allow me to do just that: to speak the truth as I know it to be the truth, and with love, to the best that I am able to convey my love, which is to say the truth as I see it and not sugar coat it or fear it even though I could be wrong because I am fallible, unlike the pope who supposedly is infallible. I hope to be forgiven, yet again, if I am wrong because the fallible me is going to speak about the supposedly infallible Francis, the new pope. If I am right, I hope with love that Francis, the pope, to be distinguished clearly from Francis of Assisi, the saint, will learn from the Saint and one day become holy like the one and only true Francis, Francis of Assisi.
"In his homilies at his early morning Masses June 3 and 4, Pope Francis spoke about people who are corrupt: their attitudes, actions and ways of speaking.
"'Hypocrisy is the language of corruption,' he said during the June 4 mass in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae." [2]
First of all, to assume the papacy and to take the name Francis after Francis of Assisi is a contradiction. Francis of Assisi would never have wanted to be pope; he was humble and wanted to be like Christ. On the other hand, Francis, the pope, want others to think of him as Francis of Assisi. That is, in my opinion, hypocritical because he is anything but, and as such, Francis, the pope, spoke "the language of corruption" on day one as pope by naming himself Francis after Francis of Assisi. I hope with love that Francis, the pope, would change his name and accept what he truly is and what he is not. [3]
I am not the first person who sees the contradiction between Francis, the pope, and Francis, the saint. Hans Küng, on May 21, 2013, wrote a splendid piece entitled The paradox of Pope Francis published in the National Catholic Reporter that is worth reading. [4]
Not only does Francis, the pope, tries to impersonate Francis, the saint, he beguiles like he devil. He set it up like this and I quote: "Even if dressed in 'soft words, beautiful words,' if a statement is motivated by self-love or self-gain it is not true ...
"'There is no truth without love. Love is the first truth,' he said, 'If there is no love, there is no truth.'" [5]
I could not agree more, assuming that he was talking about the Love of God and God's truth and not his love for Satan and the ever-changing and deceiving Satanic truths. What comes next is shocking to me. Francis, the pope, said "'Today let us ask the Lord that our speech would be the speech of the simple, to speak like a child, like children of God, speaking the truth in love,'" because "[t]he meekness of Jesus and the words he expects of his followers, the pope said, are simple, 'like that of a child.'" [6] I detect no love in those words of Francis, the pope, for his predecessor, the erudite theologian that is Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, and therefore there can be no truth in them. It should be obvious that there is no truth in those words since the words of Christ are not "like that of a child," an ordinary child of Sin that is a descendant of Adam and Eve, as opposed to Christ Who is a Child of God and without Sin.
In fact, those words of Francis, the pope, had nothing to do with God's truth or his love for God because I believe they were crafted intentionally to be an indirect and a not-so-subtle swipe at Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. [7]
While these words of Francis, the pope, may sound like "soft words, beautiful words" they were actually daggers cloaked in softness and beauty. I believe these deliberately chosen words were motivated by self-love, for this current pope seems to think highly of himself even though he tries to act just the opposite (and it is all an act), and by self-gain, for he wants to elevate himself by stepping on Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (the only way he can hope to cast a shadow on the brilliance of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI).
I hope with love for Francis, the pope, and for the sake of his soul, that Satan would loosen its grip on him, return to him his conscience and let him return to God.
Finally, Francis not only committed the sin of hypocrisy by not acting like Francis of Assisi even though he took the name Francis, he had committed the sin of compound fraud by deliberately misleading people to think that by speaking against hypocrisy that he is free from it [8]. In other words, it is bad enough to be a hypocrite, like preaching about hunger and poverty but eating well and living comfortably, but then to be a hypocrite and to preach against hypocrisy as if he is righteously non-hypocritical, that is exponentially bad. It is not quite as bad as but is close to betraying Christ with a kiss. For the love of Francis, the pope, I pray that he would become holy like Francis, the saint.
[1] Wooden, Cindy. "Truth must be spoken with love, pope says." Catholic San Francisco, Vol. 15, No. 18, p. 12. Accessed June 9, 2013. http://www.catholic-sf.org/files/digital_paper_201306044306.pdf
[2] Ibid.
[3] Note added 6/23/13: What a stupid fool I was to wish that! How could I have missed it? Jorge Mario Bergoglio (an Italian by birth, i.e. a Roman) chose the name Francis after Francis of Assisi who was born Francesco di Pietro (Peter) di Bernardone because the prophesy of Saint Malachy had to be fulfilled, that this last pope would be Petrus Romanus (Peter the Roman).
[4] http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/paradox-pope-francis
[5] Wooden, op. cit., p. 12.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Note added 6/22/13: I promised Brother Matthew, a novice, 23 years old, whose intellect and maturity lie far beyond his earthly years (probably an old soul) to give Pope Francis a charitable read, taking into consideration that he chose the name "Francis" after "Francis of Assisi" because the Pope is similarly "detached in the heart" from worldly matters.
[8] What good hypocrite would speak against hypocrisy if he knows he is one? Only an evil hypocrite trying to hide his true character would speak against hypocrisy.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Time And Patience
Let the impatient me write about patience.
The wise would say, patience is a virtue, but a lawyer would ask, patient with whom? Should one's patience be given to everyone equally? My mind is too tired or perhaps not sharp enough to argue the point logically but I will answer the second question from a personal perspective: no, because patience is not my virtue, but from the broadest perspective it ought to be given to all except one.
Let me explain. I do not find it to be a virtue to be patient with someone who cannot get his act together, who leaves loose ends in whatever he does, who creates new drama than actually playing his part, who drives so slowly that you end up waiting for yet another red traffic light, and on and on. Why? Because that someone is not considerate of others who might have to get somewhere, do something or see somebody at a particular time and that someone is hindering them with laziness, incompetence, selfishness or some other kind of human fallibility. The clock is always ticking, marking the passage of time, and it is merciless. So why should one be patient with those who are merciless in taking the time of others that cannot ever be returned?
Let's assume that the time we feel we have been robbed of can be given back miraculously, even with someone standing in our way, driving ever so slowly, making more work for us that we still accomplish what we had set out to accomplish in a timely manner and achieving the results we had expected to achieve. Then would we have wasted our time being frustrated, upset or stressed out by that someone? I think the answer would be in the affirmative.
Now think of a task that we need to complete within a specific time frame while being ever so conscious of the time that is ticking and ticking away. We would want to get it done and get it done well on time and if there is anyone that is in our way, slowing us down, we would not have the patience to deal with him in a kind or forgiving manner. I think that most will agree that that is what will likely happen.
For a moment, think of the biggest task that we all undertake: life. It is a task that is going to end at a specific time but we do not know when. At this point we might want to ask, what is the purpose of being impatient with all the little inconveniences [1] when we are required to be patient with not knowing what the future will hold or when we will die?
The wise would say, patience is a virtue, but a lawyer would ask, patient with whom? Should one's patience be given to everyone equally? My mind is too tired or perhaps not sharp enough to argue the point logically but I will answer the second question from a personal perspective: no, because patience is not my virtue, but from the broadest perspective it ought to be given to all except one.
Let me explain. I do not find it to be a virtue to be patient with someone who cannot get his act together, who leaves loose ends in whatever he does, who creates new drama than actually playing his part, who drives so slowly that you end up waiting for yet another red traffic light, and on and on. Why? Because that someone is not considerate of others who might have to get somewhere, do something or see somebody at a particular time and that someone is hindering them with laziness, incompetence, selfishness or some other kind of human fallibility. The clock is always ticking, marking the passage of time, and it is merciless. So why should one be patient with those who are merciless in taking the time of others that cannot ever be returned?
Let's assume that the time we feel we have been robbed of can be given back miraculously, even with someone standing in our way, driving ever so slowly, making more work for us that we still accomplish what we had set out to accomplish in a timely manner and achieving the results we had expected to achieve. Then would we have wasted our time being frustrated, upset or stressed out by that someone? I think the answer would be in the affirmative.
Now think of a task that we need to complete within a specific time frame while being ever so conscious of the time that is ticking and ticking away. We would want to get it done and get it done well on time and if there is anyone that is in our way, slowing us down, we would not have the patience to deal with him in a kind or forgiving manner. I think that most will agree that that is what will likely happen.
For a moment, think of the biggest task that we all undertake: life. It is a task that is going to end at a specific time but we do not know when. At this point we might want to ask, what is the purpose of being impatient with all the little inconveniences [1] when we are required to be patient with not knowing what the future will hold or when we will die?
Looking at the big picture, we realize that the clock was ticking before our arrival and will continue ticking during our stay and within this period our task is simple in concept but virtually impossible to carry out: love, love everyone for his uniqueness, see God in each life that has been created, care about the weaknesses in each other and the lack of fortitude in battling Satan, care about our friends and loved ones who have at some point in their lives departed from or refused to approach God or have no interest in knowing God and to walk with each other toward God, one trying step at a time. With the enormous task that we each need to accomplish for the other unselfishly and lovingly given the mercilessness of the passage of time in the limited time that each of us has, is there still room for impatience? Perhaps with the one person none other than ourselves for not seeing what is important from what is not, for doing things that are futile, emptying the soul rather than feeding it, thereby serving Satan before our departure instead of God. At death's door, when our souls must answer the final call for takeoff, it might be too late to turn back from the Gate of Hell but for the grace of God.
[1] A day after this posting, Sunday, June 9, I was flippping the channels on TV and stopped at Joel Osteen's sermon on patience. His main point (which I already know but sometimes forget) is that delays that annoy us can sometimes be a blessing, saving us from being in a bad situation. On the flip side, which Joel Osteen did not mention, those inconveniences could put us in a better situation than the one we anticipated. In the same broadcast, Joel Osteen also mentioned that we should be patient when God does not answer our prayers, that we should accept our stations in life, that God has a better outcome for us, just not as soon as we would like and that the hardship and frustrations we experience currently prepare us for the outcome that God has for us in our future. Without a doubt I believe that even though I also believe in Free Will for Free Will can always override God's plan if we insist on having it our way. In short, Joel wants all of us to have complete faith in God and in God's timing, including delays that irk us, unanswered prayers that disappoint us greatly and hardships that we have to endure, and when we do, we would be at peace. I believe that 100 percent. Back to one of my themes: be thankful that we are here, in the flesh, that we were incarnated, knowing that there are countless number so souls that wants to incarnate, no matter how difficult or painful the time would be in the flesh, but nonetheless have to wait. Incarnation is the gift. Be the best that you can be is your gift back to God. Nothing else matters.
[1] A day after this posting, Sunday, June 9, I was flippping the channels on TV and stopped at Joel Osteen's sermon on patience. His main point (which I already know but sometimes forget) is that delays that annoy us can sometimes be a blessing, saving us from being in a bad situation. On the flip side, which Joel Osteen did not mention, those inconveniences could put us in a better situation than the one we anticipated. In the same broadcast, Joel Osteen also mentioned that we should be patient when God does not answer our prayers, that we should accept our stations in life, that God has a better outcome for us, just not as soon as we would like and that the hardship and frustrations we experience currently prepare us for the outcome that God has for us in our future. Without a doubt I believe that even though I also believe in Free Will for Free Will can always override God's plan if we insist on having it our way. In short, Joel wants all of us to have complete faith in God and in God's timing, including delays that irk us, unanswered prayers that disappoint us greatly and hardships that we have to endure, and when we do, we would be at peace. I believe that 100 percent. Back to one of my themes: be thankful that we are here, in the flesh, that we were incarnated, knowing that there are countless number so souls that wants to incarnate, no matter how difficult or painful the time would be in the flesh, but nonetheless have to wait. Incarnation is the gift. Be the best that you can be is your gift back to God. Nothing else matters.
Friday, June 7, 2013
First Friday Of The Month Prayer
First Friday Of The Month Prayer [1]
Lord, let Your Holy Blood heal our wounds of sin and let your Holy Death on the cross free our spirits from the chains of Satan. Amen.
[1] My weak faith does not allow me to be certain that I will consistently come up with a new prayer the first Friday of every month.
Lord, let Your Holy Blood heal our wounds of sin and let your Holy Death on the cross free our spirits from the chains of Satan. Amen.
[1] My weak faith does not allow me to be certain that I will consistently come up with a new prayer the first Friday of every month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
