What if Heaven is not a place where one's soul can retire, relax and have fun partying with other souls but a place where souls gather to sing hymns and pray to God in ecstasy for an eternity?
For a soul who is not accustomed to and does not like praying and singing hymns, Heaven would be torturous. Perhaps an eternity of torment in Hell would be preferable since Heaven would be no different. In Hell, it would at least have company.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Friday, October 25, 2013
The Making Of Chicken Ala King And The Making Of Us
When I was a boy growing up in Asia, my favorite dish was chicken ala king. [1] It was a dish with cubes of chicken breast cooked a white sauce from mixing roux and milk together with some Bird's Eye classic mixed vegetables thrown in served over white rice. Then came a trip to Paris, France. I was wandering around the city when I came across a small restaurant run by two chefs with just a few tables. [2] On the menu board I saw Chicken ala King, maybe it was Poulet ala King. I do not recall exactly since that was many, many years ago. Anyway, it was an item on the menu and I ordered it for lunch. Perhaps it was what I wanted or perhaps I did not understand what else was offered since I did not, and still do not, know French except for maybe a few words.
When the plate of food was served, all I saw was white. White cubes of meat, white cream sauce and white rice on a white plate. It did not have any Bird's Eye classic mixed vegetables from the freezer thrown in. I had no idea what to think of it. Looking at it, thinking that I had ordered the wrong thing, that it was going to be bland, as bland as the monochrome color that was on my table, I did not know quite what to do next. Then I remembered that I was hungry. I dug in with my fork and took my first bite.
My taste buds went wild. It was one of the most well-prepared dishes I had ever tasted. Every cube of chicken was tender; every grain of rice was soft, not starchy or lumpy, and the sauce was a wine sauce with a noticeable presence of white wine, deliciously conspicuous but not overpowering. The entree was well-seasoned. It was simply magnifique!
The next time I went to Paris, the area had gone through quite a bit of change. The restaurant that served the poulet ala king was no longer there, and the new food establishments did not have the dish on their menu. Like many things that I experienced only once in my life, this poulet ala king dish is among those that are imbedded in my mind.
After all these years, the dish remains unforgettable and I am still desirous of it. Without a restaurant that serves it, I have to cook it myself. And I have, many, many times. Not once have I come close to achieving what I had tasted, much in the same way that I have tried to be saintly many, many times, but not once have I even come close. It is not enough to make a basic roux, put in milk or cream and white wine, add some chicken cubes and some salt, then cook it and pour it over ordinary white rice and call it a perfectly cooked chicken ala king dish just as it is not enough to be kind and respectful to others and consider oneself saintly.
I think that to cook chicken ala king perfectly, one has to start with the right fundamental ingredients, such as the right kind of fat or butter and the correct proportion of fat and flour to make the roux, the right mix of milk and cream or crème fraîche to add to the roux, the right kind chicken meat from the right age of the chicken raised on the right farm given the right feed, the right varietal of rice from 40,000 varieties [3] picked from the right rice field, and the right white wine and how much of it to use, and cooking all these ingredients together in the right order, for the right amount of time, over the right amount of heat using the proper cookware and utensils.
In the same way, I think that to become saintly, one has to start with the basic ingredients which are humility and charity. Humility is one's willingness to put God and others first and oneself last, and charity is one's willingness to share intellect, talents, time and resources with others. These two ingredients are then fused with joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control and chastity. [4] To arrive at the perfectly formed being, all of these must be folded into unconditional love for God and for neighbor.
As one can see quickly, neither cooking a dish perfectly nor becoming saintly is easy, if it is even possible for the average person, but that does not mean one must stop trying. Even if one does not achieve perfection, one can get close enough to have a taste of it, and the more often one tries and the more time one spends trying, perhaps the closer one will reach perfection. That, I think, and no more, is what is expected of anyone. Whatever shortfall that remains as a result at death will be made up by the Redemptive Blood of Christ.
If we are able to have by the grace of God the Redemptive Blood of Christ live in the heart, we will be perfect, and so will the poulet ala king dish when we cook it, for this dish is not going to be cooked for ourselves, but for our Lord, the Savior of our souls.
[1] Chicken ala king is usually not the first dish that comes to mind when one thinks of Asian food. I suppose my upbringing was atypical. I attribute to my thoughts which are not quite your day to day normal thoughts to my upbringing and the grace (hopefully it is not a curse) of God.
[2] I believe I was in Le Marais.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rice_varieties
[4] The fruits of the Holy Spirit: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm
When the plate of food was served, all I saw was white. White cubes of meat, white cream sauce and white rice on a white plate. It did not have any Bird's Eye classic mixed vegetables from the freezer thrown in. I had no idea what to think of it. Looking at it, thinking that I had ordered the wrong thing, that it was going to be bland, as bland as the monochrome color that was on my table, I did not know quite what to do next. Then I remembered that I was hungry. I dug in with my fork and took my first bite.
My taste buds went wild. It was one of the most well-prepared dishes I had ever tasted. Every cube of chicken was tender; every grain of rice was soft, not starchy or lumpy, and the sauce was a wine sauce with a noticeable presence of white wine, deliciously conspicuous but not overpowering. The entree was well-seasoned. It was simply magnifique!
The next time I went to Paris, the area had gone through quite a bit of change. The restaurant that served the poulet ala king was no longer there, and the new food establishments did not have the dish on their menu. Like many things that I experienced only once in my life, this poulet ala king dish is among those that are imbedded in my mind.
After all these years, the dish remains unforgettable and I am still desirous of it. Without a restaurant that serves it, I have to cook it myself. And I have, many, many times. Not once have I come close to achieving what I had tasted, much in the same way that I have tried to be saintly many, many times, but not once have I even come close. It is not enough to make a basic roux, put in milk or cream and white wine, add some chicken cubes and some salt, then cook it and pour it over ordinary white rice and call it a perfectly cooked chicken ala king dish just as it is not enough to be kind and respectful to others and consider oneself saintly.
I think that to cook chicken ala king perfectly, one has to start with the right fundamental ingredients, such as the right kind of fat or butter and the correct proportion of fat and flour to make the roux, the right mix of milk and cream or crème fraîche to add to the roux, the right kind chicken meat from the right age of the chicken raised on the right farm given the right feed, the right varietal of rice from 40,000 varieties [3] picked from the right rice field, and the right white wine and how much of it to use, and cooking all these ingredients together in the right order, for the right amount of time, over the right amount of heat using the proper cookware and utensils.
In the same way, I think that to become saintly, one has to start with the basic ingredients which are humility and charity. Humility is one's willingness to put God and others first and oneself last, and charity is one's willingness to share intellect, talents, time and resources with others. These two ingredients are then fused with joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control and chastity. [4] To arrive at the perfectly formed being, all of these must be folded into unconditional love for God and for neighbor.
As one can see quickly, neither cooking a dish perfectly nor becoming saintly is easy, if it is even possible for the average person, but that does not mean one must stop trying. Even if one does not achieve perfection, one can get close enough to have a taste of it, and the more often one tries and the more time one spends trying, perhaps the closer one will reach perfection. That, I think, and no more, is what is expected of anyone. Whatever shortfall that remains as a result at death will be made up by the Redemptive Blood of Christ.
If we are able to have by the grace of God the Redemptive Blood of Christ live in the heart, we will be perfect, and so will the poulet ala king dish when we cook it, for this dish is not going to be cooked for ourselves, but for our Lord, the Savior of our souls.
[1] Chicken ala king is usually not the first dish that comes to mind when one thinks of Asian food. I suppose my upbringing was atypical. I attribute to my thoughts which are not quite your day to day normal thoughts to my upbringing and the grace (hopefully it is not a curse) of God.
[2] I believe I was in Le Marais.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rice_varieties
[4] The fruits of the Holy Spirit: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm
Lourdes -- In The Words Of The Bishop Of Tarbes And Lourdes, Nicholas Jean René Brouwet
"[Lourdes] is a very good vision of the Church. A lot of people have a vision of the Church as a pyramid, a big administration with the pope at the top, but in a place like Lourdes you can have another vision: God at the center, and the poor and the sick at the first place and the other Christians praying with them and serving them. I think [Lourdes is] a vision of the Church. We discover what the Church is, not a big pyramid, but to be close to God and to serve each other and to be in communion in the faith around the Lord." Bishop Nicholas Jean René Brouwet. [1], [2], [3], [4].
What a magnificent vision of the Catholic Church Bishop Nicholas Jean René Brouwet has given the world. The God-centered Church brings to mind God's Milky Way galaxy in which the sun-centered system exists and God's creation and placement of this earth at that perfect distance from the sun that allows man and all living things to proliferate and in the same breath, God's creation of man and all living things that are perfectly suited to thrive on this earth. In contrast, the other vision of the Catholic Church is a big pyramid with a pope at the very top. This is not a good vision of the Catholic Church for a pyramid signifies death, even the most famous and marveled of the pyramids is a burial chamber. [5]
Turning away from the dry sands of the desert in which the Great Pyramid of Giza sits to a lush valley in the foothills of the Pyrenees where the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception, appeared to Bernadette Soubirous around the mid-1800s, [6] I learned from the interview of Bishop Nicholas Jean René Brouwet of Tarbes and Lourdes on EWTN that Lourdes has been through two floods fairly recently, one last year in October, 2012, and a major one this year in June, 2013. [7] Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe during the interview said, "Fr. Regis mentioned the significance to the mud and Bernadette, how she took mud and then she rubbed mud on her face. There's kind of a symbolism to sin and how sin disfigures the soul, the image of God in us, but then you have a miraculous spring which points toward baptism and the cleansing of sin that Christ wants to give us." [8] In response to Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe's observation, Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet gave a brief synopsis of the history of Bernadette but did not address directly the significance of the mud brought upon by the flooding.
Let me take this opportunity and the liberty to expound on Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe's remark. In addition to the explanation that the mud that was brought to Lourdes by the recent flooding was a combination of heavy rains and the melted snow, another one that is spiritual is possible.
Taking a cue from Bishop Nicholas Jean René Brouwet who noted that Lourdes is God's project later in the interview, I conclude that the mud that Bernadette Soubirous was asked by the Blessed Virgin Mary to put on her face (or perhaps "drink" before clear water emerged) came back in June of 2013. In my mind, the 2013 mud must not be thought of as mud that has caused damages to Lourdes but rather it must be thought of as mud that is renewing Lourdes. The healing waters of Lourdes began with mud, so must mud return to its original place in order that the water of Lourdes can be renewed of its healing powers.
In other words, the mud that came to Lourdes in June of 2013 once again covered up the hidden gift of God and God is asking all of us to take the place of Saint Bernadette Soubirous, symbolically, to "drink" [9] the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary, without doubt or resistance but with absolute faith and unconditional love so that the fresh water of Lourdes can once again heal us in whatever ways we need to be healed so that we can all take a step closer to saintliness. [10]
Dear Lord, May we all be called to touch the water of Lourdes and be healed. Amen.
[1] An excerpt from an interview with Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet of the Diocese of Tarbes et Lourdes with Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe, on EWTN at http://bcove.me/gshazx4h Please forgive me if you find errors in my transcription.
[2] Background on Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet can be found at: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbrouwet.html and http://en.lpj.org/2012/02/13/un-ancien-cooperant-de-beit-jala-eveque-de-lourdes/ Nicolas Jean René Brouwet is now the bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes. The French and English versions of the Lourdes website is at http://fr.lourdes-france.org/ and http://en.lourdes-france.org, respectively.
[3] For some reason, I find Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet truly holy and saintly without pretension and without hypocrisy and truly blessed by God. If he were my neighbor, I am pretty sure that he could make me saintly. I wish God would give this world a whole lot more priests like him. It is likely that he has faults, that he is not perfect, but who is?
[4] You can hear Lourdes pronounced during the interview with the "s" sound and without the "s" sound. Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet let his native pronunciation of Lourdes slip a few times and during those times, he pronounced it without the "s" sound. For Americans, it is pronounced with the "s" sound. This is not French. The French pronunciation is without the "s" sound. Listen to it pronounced by a male and a female from France at: http://www.forvo.com/word/lourdes/#es Disregard the pronunciation by the females from Mexico and Spain since Saint Bernadette Soubirous was from France.
[5] The pope who can awaken the faith in Christians and bring others along is one who will put God in the center of the Church and direct the focus back onto God-centered church, away from himself, away from the center of attention, away from the limelight, the headlines and the photo-ops.
[6] An introduction to Saint Bernadette Soubirous: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1757
[7] There is an article on the flood in the NY Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/world/europe/flooding-damages-lourdes-french-holy-site.html?_r=0
[8] An excerpt from an interview with Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet of the Diocese of Tarbes et Lourdes with Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe, on EWTN at http://bcove.me/gshazx4h Please forgive me if you find errors in my transcription.
[9] To "drink" as used here means to listen, internalize and act upon.
[10] Note that I used the word "saintliness"and not "sainthood" because while many people are true saints in my mind, there are many who are political saints, defined here as saints canonized by a pope for political reasons or evangelical expediencies. For example, one who is expected to be canonized next is JohnPaul II whom I do not believe showed any sign of saintliness in his life before or during his papacy. The fact that he was seen in Hell in a vision is also not a sign of saintliness, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk_Xr4o97Y I think he is going to be canonized is because many, many people, including priests and other men and women of cloth, clamor that he be put on the fast track to sainthood. A number of these people can probably be considered as idolaters of the dead pope and his alleged writings which are probably written by various ghostwriters.
What a magnificent vision of the Catholic Church Bishop Nicholas Jean René Brouwet has given the world. The God-centered Church brings to mind God's Milky Way galaxy in which the sun-centered system exists and God's creation and placement of this earth at that perfect distance from the sun that allows man and all living things to proliferate and in the same breath, God's creation of man and all living things that are perfectly suited to thrive on this earth. In contrast, the other vision of the Catholic Church is a big pyramid with a pope at the very top. This is not a good vision of the Catholic Church for a pyramid signifies death, even the most famous and marveled of the pyramids is a burial chamber. [5]
Turning away from the dry sands of the desert in which the Great Pyramid of Giza sits to a lush valley in the foothills of the Pyrenees where the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate Conception, appeared to Bernadette Soubirous around the mid-1800s, [6] I learned from the interview of Bishop Nicholas Jean René Brouwet of Tarbes and Lourdes on EWTN that Lourdes has been through two floods fairly recently, one last year in October, 2012, and a major one this year in June, 2013. [7] Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe during the interview said, "Fr. Regis mentioned the significance to the mud and Bernadette, how she took mud and then she rubbed mud on her face. There's kind of a symbolism to sin and how sin disfigures the soul, the image of God in us, but then you have a miraculous spring which points toward baptism and the cleansing of sin that Christ wants to give us." [8] In response to Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe's observation, Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet gave a brief synopsis of the history of Bernadette but did not address directly the significance of the mud brought upon by the flooding.
Let me take this opportunity and the liberty to expound on Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe's remark. In addition to the explanation that the mud that was brought to Lourdes by the recent flooding was a combination of heavy rains and the melted snow, another one that is spiritual is possible.
Taking a cue from Bishop Nicholas Jean René Brouwet who noted that Lourdes is God's project later in the interview, I conclude that the mud that Bernadette Soubirous was asked by the Blessed Virgin Mary to put on her face (or perhaps "drink" before clear water emerged) came back in June of 2013. In my mind, the 2013 mud must not be thought of as mud that has caused damages to Lourdes but rather it must be thought of as mud that is renewing Lourdes. The healing waters of Lourdes began with mud, so must mud return to its original place in order that the water of Lourdes can be renewed of its healing powers.
In other words, the mud that came to Lourdes in June of 2013 once again covered up the hidden gift of God and God is asking all of us to take the place of Saint Bernadette Soubirous, symbolically, to "drink" [9] the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary, without doubt or resistance but with absolute faith and unconditional love so that the fresh water of Lourdes can once again heal us in whatever ways we need to be healed so that we can all take a step closer to saintliness. [10]
Dear Lord, May we all be called to touch the water of Lourdes and be healed. Amen.
[1] An excerpt from an interview with Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet of the Diocese of Tarbes et Lourdes with Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe, on EWTN at http://bcove.me/gshazx4h Please forgive me if you find errors in my transcription.
[2] Background on Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet can be found at: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbrouwet.html and http://en.lpj.org/2012/02/13/un-ancien-cooperant-de-beit-jala-eveque-de-lourdes/ Nicolas Jean René Brouwet is now the bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes. The French and English versions of the Lourdes website is at http://fr.lourdes-france.org/ and http://en.lourdes-france.org, respectively.
[3] For some reason, I find Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet truly holy and saintly without pretension and without hypocrisy and truly blessed by God. If he were my neighbor, I am pretty sure that he could make me saintly. I wish God would give this world a whole lot more priests like him. It is likely that he has faults, that he is not perfect, but who is?
[4] You can hear Lourdes pronounced during the interview with the "s" sound and without the "s" sound. Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet let his native pronunciation of Lourdes slip a few times and during those times, he pronounced it without the "s" sound. For Americans, it is pronounced with the "s" sound. This is not French. The French pronunciation is without the "s" sound. Listen to it pronounced by a male and a female from France at: http://www.forvo.com/word/lourdes/#es Disregard the pronunciation by the females from Mexico and Spain since Saint Bernadette Soubirous was from France.
[5] The pope who can awaken the faith in Christians and bring others along is one who will put God in the center of the Church and direct the focus back onto God-centered church, away from himself, away from the center of attention, away from the limelight, the headlines and the photo-ops.
[6] An introduction to Saint Bernadette Soubirous: http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=1757
[7] There is an article on the flood in the NY Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/world/europe/flooding-damages-lourdes-french-holy-site.html?_r=0
[8] An excerpt from an interview with Bishop Nicolas Jean René Brouwet of the Diocese of Tarbes et Lourdes with Fr. Joseph Mary Wolfe, on EWTN at http://bcove.me/gshazx4h Please forgive me if you find errors in my transcription.
[9] To "drink" as used here means to listen, internalize and act upon.
[10] Note that I used the word "saintliness"and not "sainthood" because while many people are true saints in my mind, there are many who are political saints, defined here as saints canonized by a pope for political reasons or evangelical expediencies. For example, one who is expected to be canonized next is JohnPaul II whom I do not believe showed any sign of saintliness in his life before or during his papacy. The fact that he was seen in Hell in a vision is also not a sign of saintliness, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk_Xr4o97Y I think he is going to be canonized is because many, many people, including priests and other men and women of cloth, clamor that he be put on the fast track to sainthood. A number of these people can probably be considered as idolaters of the dead pope and his alleged writings which are probably written by various ghostwriters.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Poverty And The Poor
I can imagine there are many, probably including this pope, who would disagree with my thoughts on poverty. This entry is for them. It is not my intent to upset them more than I already have or change their set minds, as if they even know or care that my blog exists, but rather to provide an alternate perspective for thought and discussion.
Poverty is not a disease. It has lasted through the ages and cannot be eradicated by donations of money or property. I will go so far as to say that poverty is a way of life, preferred by those living in it, but despised by those self-righteous people who believe they are demigods with the power to cure all the societal ills on this planet that are caused by everyone else but themselves.
If these self-righteous demigods today were in existence in the days of Herod when Christ was born to the Virgin Mary, they would throw up their arms, fight for social justice for this poor and persecuted family of Mary, Joseph and Jesus. How could these evil people, they would ask with indignance, subjugate such a nice family to such persecution and such dire living conditions. This family and families like them must be saved from their unfortunate circumstances. The pope and the priests would stand on their pulpit and demand an end to persecution and an end to poverty. This pope would rush to the stable with his entourage and kiss Christ in front of the cameras after a his security detail has cordoned off the stable for his safety. Hypocrites would stand with the pope and castigate the world for the plight of such families and would then go back home after their speeches and photo opportunities to the comfort of their safe and pampered lifestyles.
They would use this one family of three, prop them up and save them from their wretchedness, by putting them into some kind of housing, but not certainly not equal or better than their own, to show the world their compassion and the good they have done. I suppose there are acts more repugnant that this but I cannot think of any at the moment.
The need-to-feel-good-about-themselves demigods are always looking a battle to fight against an undefined enemy that they truly but sadly and wrongly believe that they are not a part of because they need to continue to feed their rapacious appetite for their sense of self-righteousness or self-proclaimed holiness. The one undefined and ever-present enemy is poverty. To them, it is a chronic disease which no amount of money would be able to cure. They do not want poverty to go away. If poverty is eradicated, they would lose the very source that they rely on to mask their ugliness within, then they would have nothing to do but to examine each other and themselves. One can only imagine the bitter in-fighting within this group with each person trying to outshine the other measured in degrees of righteousness or holiness. Who among them is truly righteous or holy they would argue and they would peer into each other's closets for "skeletons" to tear down one another. To avoid this ugliness, they innately know that they must stand united to make permanent, by any means necessary, poverty as well as what they perceive to be injustices in this world.
What are the injustices in this world, what is poverty, as defined by those who clamor the loudest? As it turns out, definitions are relative to the standards of living and mores of the time that are continually changing and redefined as a result of such changes. [1] For example, water that is not filtered and crystal clear is a sign of poverty even though the water is potable and sustains life, and children without laptops are underprivileged even though Jesus, Cai Lun, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Gutenberg and Einstein had all done quite well without computers.
And what about the lives of the poor? Should those who are suffering from hunger and disease be left alone when the rest of the world has more food and medicine that they need? I am not so heartless as to say that they ought to be left alone but I am not so capable as to have the means to help them all. What I would like to ask is why are people poor? Why do people give birth to children when they know that their babies will suffer?
Despite the state of poverty that people are in, they still give life. That proves my point that life, no matter how difficult, is still precious, that love, no matter the condition of the surroundings, still exists. Mothers still love their children, no matter how poor, and no matter how painful life could be, both mother and child still cherish theirs.
And are the lives of the wealthy that much better? What about those who are living a life of lies who have sold their souls for money? What about those who make so much money who have become addicted to drugs and alcohol? What about those who have so much successes who still feel unfulfilled or those who overeat who still do not feel full? And what about those who have so much power who still feel impotent? Why would a poor family of father, mother and child who enjoy the love they have for each other and for God want to trade their poverty for a life just like the rich and famous and powerful? Why should they be made to upgrade their lives just so that the self-righteous hypocrites who dance to their "unfortunate" plight can feel good for a while?
What would Christ say to these self-righteous hypocrites who pity Him, His poverty and His family, who unilaterally decide to make arrangements to give Him and His family a "step-up" in living standards? [2] I imagine that He would say something like: "Away from me, Satan!" [3]
[1] I describe the changing standards of living and mores of the time as changes rather than improvements because I am not sure the changing living standards or gay adoptions are improvements. My questions are: are we, as a people happier, more caring about each other, living more in accordance to the natural laws and the precepts of Christ and loving God more dearly as a result?
[2] Of course, such a benefit comes with the condition that Joseph, Mary and Jesus be filmed, showing the before squalid conditions and the after new and improved ones so that the documentation can be used to foster good-will for these hypocritical "do-gooders."
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A1-11
Poverty is not a disease. It has lasted through the ages and cannot be eradicated by donations of money or property. I will go so far as to say that poverty is a way of life, preferred by those living in it, but despised by those self-righteous people who believe they are demigods with the power to cure all the societal ills on this planet that are caused by everyone else but themselves.
If these self-righteous demigods today were in existence in the days of Herod when Christ was born to the Virgin Mary, they would throw up their arms, fight for social justice for this poor and persecuted family of Mary, Joseph and Jesus. How could these evil people, they would ask with indignance, subjugate such a nice family to such persecution and such dire living conditions. This family and families like them must be saved from their unfortunate circumstances. The pope and the priests would stand on their pulpit and demand an end to persecution and an end to poverty. This pope would rush to the stable with his entourage and kiss Christ in front of the cameras after a his security detail has cordoned off the stable for his safety. Hypocrites would stand with the pope and castigate the world for the plight of such families and would then go back home after their speeches and photo opportunities to the comfort of their safe and pampered lifestyles.
They would use this one family of three, prop them up and save them from their wretchedness, by putting them into some kind of housing, but not certainly not equal or better than their own, to show the world their compassion and the good they have done. I suppose there are acts more repugnant that this but I cannot think of any at the moment.
The need-to-feel-good-about-themselves demigods are always looking a battle to fight against an undefined enemy that they truly but sadly and wrongly believe that they are not a part of because they need to continue to feed their rapacious appetite for their sense of self-righteousness or self-proclaimed holiness. The one undefined and ever-present enemy is poverty. To them, it is a chronic disease which no amount of money would be able to cure. They do not want poverty to go away. If poverty is eradicated, they would lose the very source that they rely on to mask their ugliness within, then they would have nothing to do but to examine each other and themselves. One can only imagine the bitter in-fighting within this group with each person trying to outshine the other measured in degrees of righteousness or holiness. Who among them is truly righteous or holy they would argue and they would peer into each other's closets for "skeletons" to tear down one another. To avoid this ugliness, they innately know that they must stand united to make permanent, by any means necessary, poverty as well as what they perceive to be injustices in this world.
What are the injustices in this world, what is poverty, as defined by those who clamor the loudest? As it turns out, definitions are relative to the standards of living and mores of the time that are continually changing and redefined as a result of such changes. [1] For example, water that is not filtered and crystal clear is a sign of poverty even though the water is potable and sustains life, and children without laptops are underprivileged even though Jesus, Cai Lun, Michelangelo, Beethoven, Gutenberg and Einstein had all done quite well without computers.
And what about the lives of the poor? Should those who are suffering from hunger and disease be left alone when the rest of the world has more food and medicine that they need? I am not so heartless as to say that they ought to be left alone but I am not so capable as to have the means to help them all. What I would like to ask is why are people poor? Why do people give birth to children when they know that their babies will suffer?
Despite the state of poverty that people are in, they still give life. That proves my point that life, no matter how difficult, is still precious, that love, no matter the condition of the surroundings, still exists. Mothers still love their children, no matter how poor, and no matter how painful life could be, both mother and child still cherish theirs.
And are the lives of the wealthy that much better? What about those who are living a life of lies who have sold their souls for money? What about those who make so much money who have become addicted to drugs and alcohol? What about those who have so much successes who still feel unfulfilled or those who overeat who still do not feel full? And what about those who have so much power who still feel impotent? Why would a poor family of father, mother and child who enjoy the love they have for each other and for God want to trade their poverty for a life just like the rich and famous and powerful? Why should they be made to upgrade their lives just so that the self-righteous hypocrites who dance to their "unfortunate" plight can feel good for a while?
What would Christ say to these self-righteous hypocrites who pity Him, His poverty and His family, who unilaterally decide to make arrangements to give Him and His family a "step-up" in living standards? [2] I imagine that He would say something like: "Away from me, Satan!" [3]
[1] I describe the changing standards of living and mores of the time as changes rather than improvements because I am not sure the changing living standards or gay adoptions are improvements. My questions are: are we, as a people happier, more caring about each other, living more in accordance to the natural laws and the precepts of Christ and loving God more dearly as a result?
[2] Of course, such a benefit comes with the condition that Joseph, Mary and Jesus be filmed, showing the before squalid conditions and the after new and improved ones so that the documentation can be used to foster good-will for these hypocritical "do-gooders."
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4%3A1-11
Love - Not Money - Is The Key To Heaven
The love that opens the gates of Heaven is a pure love. Pure love is a non-possessive love, a love that does not soil another person's image; rather it is the soil that fertilizes a person's Free Will and nurtures it with prayer and care, and kindness of heart, so that Free Will could gradually grow in beauty and strength necessary to defend itself from the grotesque and powerful temptations of Satan and will its way toward a patient, forgiving, loving and expectant Father Who is our Creator.
In order for man to comprehend fully pure love, he has to surrender his heart to God just as the Blessed Virgin Mary surrendered hers willingly and perfectly without reservation. That is an impossibility for we, unlike the Blessed Virgin Mary, are tainted with Original Sin whereas She is without Original Sin. [1] The fact that we could never fully comprehend pure love does not mean that we are incapable to comprehend a part of it, to the best that we are able to given our unique graces, granted to each of us by God individually, despite our common limitation of Sin.
I believe that the more we indulge in the discovery and exercise of pure love, the more we are able to expand our understanding of it, the more we are able to cast its fertile soil far and wide, and that by our example and our words of sincerity, the hearts and souls that are still parched by the empty promises of today's "golden calf" [2] -- worthless pieces of currency paper signifying the collective debt of a bankrupt people -- would be quenched by the salvific blood of Christ.
However worthless such pieces of paper are to the salvation of souls, people around the world are still eating and drinking and indulging in revelry around their "value" just as the Jews of Exodus ate and drank and got up to indulge in revelry around their golden calf. [3]
More iniquitous than worshiping money is the belief that throwing it at the poor, wherever they are around the world, will bring donors salvation. [4] It may have the effect of relieving the pains of poverty by the recipients and the pains of guilt by the donors temporarily. However, this relief is not permanent, not for the benefactors, not for the beneficiaries. What emerges afterward is the reality that existed before. Nothing much in fact changes, and nothing will change until love reigns, love that is pure, non-possessive and unconditional. It is the giving of such love that will unlock the gates of Heaven, love that is rooted in prayer and care and kindness of heart, to those around us. [6], [7]
[1] The Latin words I use to end my Salve Regina in describing the Blessed Virgin Mary are: O clemens, O pia, O dulcis, O sanctissima, inviolata, intemerata, O pulcherimma. See http://lemomentdepaix.blogspot.com/2013/08/salve-regina-hail-holy-queen.html
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exod%2032:2-Exod%2032:6
[4] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A33-46&version=ESV In this passage, line 40 (Matthew 25:40) states, in part, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." "A difficult and important question is the identification of these least brothers. Are they all people who have suffered hunger, thirst, etc. (35,36) or a particular group of such sufferers? Scholars are divided in their responses and arguments can be made for either side. But leaving aside the problems of what the traditional material that Matthew edited may have meant, it seems that a stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist's sense the sufferers are Christians, probably Christians missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel." [Emphasis original] [5] I agree. It would be unreasonable that Christ expected the world's poor be fed, quenched, clothed and housed including those who might be full of hate, bitterness and thanklessness despite all the good they have been given, including the gift of life. In fact, Christ said, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A20&version=NIV Christ did not say: "Blessed are the poor, you are my brother, even if you reject God, and you have to do nothing but ask the world that you be fed, quenched, clothed and housed for yours is the kingdom of God." But that seems to be what the Catholic priests and popes are demanding these days, social justice and equality for all, without regard for the preciousness of life, no matter how difficult, and every person's capacity to love, no matter how destitute, because so many of these religious live indulgent lives that they feel so guilty that they have to demand that those less fortunate be fed, quenched, clothed and housed just like them, except most of them do not do it themselves. Instead, they sit on their thrones and ask others to do what they should be doing themselves, become the least of Jesus' brothers. Perhaps they think that by asking people to give to the poor and by delegating their work to care for the impoverished to others would be enough to cleanse them of their guilt for taking the vow of poverty, living in conditions and having the kinds of power that the poor they advocate so passionately for could never hope to have. I just hope that for every true follower of San Francesco d'Assisi among them hundreds of hypocrites would be forgiven and reach Purgatory.
[5] The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible. Donald Senior, gen. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Print.
[6] It is far more difficult to express such love to the homeless around us, those who are near us, who know us, who wants to prey on us, who are hateful toward us, who want to take advantage of our goodness than to provide care to the very poor in this world great distances from where we live with whom we do not have a personal relationship.
[7] When we are able to give this kind of love, it is important that we do not allow it to mutate and become possessive or conditional. It is equally important to step away humbly, gently but firmly from those attracted to such purity and wishing to contaminate it or hating you for it.
In order for man to comprehend fully pure love, he has to surrender his heart to God just as the Blessed Virgin Mary surrendered hers willingly and perfectly without reservation. That is an impossibility for we, unlike the Blessed Virgin Mary, are tainted with Original Sin whereas She is without Original Sin. [1] The fact that we could never fully comprehend pure love does not mean that we are incapable to comprehend a part of it, to the best that we are able to given our unique graces, granted to each of us by God individually, despite our common limitation of Sin.
I believe that the more we indulge in the discovery and exercise of pure love, the more we are able to expand our understanding of it, the more we are able to cast its fertile soil far and wide, and that by our example and our words of sincerity, the hearts and souls that are still parched by the empty promises of today's "golden calf" [2] -- worthless pieces of currency paper signifying the collective debt of a bankrupt people -- would be quenched by the salvific blood of Christ.
However worthless such pieces of paper are to the salvation of souls, people around the world are still eating and drinking and indulging in revelry around their "value" just as the Jews of Exodus ate and drank and got up to indulge in revelry around their golden calf. [3]
More iniquitous than worshiping money is the belief that throwing it at the poor, wherever they are around the world, will bring donors salvation. [4] It may have the effect of relieving the pains of poverty by the recipients and the pains of guilt by the donors temporarily. However, this relief is not permanent, not for the benefactors, not for the beneficiaries. What emerges afterward is the reality that existed before. Nothing much in fact changes, and nothing will change until love reigns, love that is pure, non-possessive and unconditional. It is the giving of such love that will unlock the gates of Heaven, love that is rooted in prayer and care and kindness of heart, to those around us. [6], [7]
[1] The Latin words I use to end my Salve Regina in describing the Blessed Virgin Mary are: O clemens, O pia, O dulcis, O sanctissima, inviolata, intemerata, O pulcherimma. See http://lemomentdepaix.blogspot.com/2013/08/salve-regina-hail-holy-queen.html
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exod%2032:2-Exod%2032:6
[4] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A33-46&version=ESV In this passage, line 40 (Matthew 25:40) states, in part, "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." "A difficult and important question is the identification of these least brothers. Are they all people who have suffered hunger, thirst, etc. (35,36) or a particular group of such sufferers? Scholars are divided in their responses and arguments can be made for either side. But leaving aside the problems of what the traditional material that Matthew edited may have meant, it seems that a stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist's sense the sufferers are Christians, probably Christians missionaries whose sufferings were brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel." [Emphasis original] [5] I agree. It would be unreasonable that Christ expected the world's poor be fed, quenched, clothed and housed including those who might be full of hate, bitterness and thanklessness despite all the good they have been given, including the gift of life. In fact, Christ said, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God." See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A20&version=NIV Christ did not say: "Blessed are the poor, you are my brother, even if you reject God, and you have to do nothing but ask the world that you be fed, quenched, clothed and housed for yours is the kingdom of God." But that seems to be what the Catholic priests and popes are demanding these days, social justice and equality for all, without regard for the preciousness of life, no matter how difficult, and every person's capacity to love, no matter how destitute, because so many of these religious live indulgent lives that they feel so guilty that they have to demand that those less fortunate be fed, quenched, clothed and housed just like them, except most of them do not do it themselves. Instead, they sit on their thrones and ask others to do what they should be doing themselves, become the least of Jesus' brothers. Perhaps they think that by asking people to give to the poor and by delegating their work to care for the impoverished to others would be enough to cleanse them of their guilt for taking the vow of poverty, living in conditions and having the kinds of power that the poor they advocate so passionately for could never hope to have. I just hope that for every true follower of San Francesco d'Assisi among them hundreds of hypocrites would be forgiven and reach Purgatory.
[5] The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible. Donald Senior, gen. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Print.
[6] It is far more difficult to express such love to the homeless around us, those who are near us, who know us, who wants to prey on us, who are hateful toward us, who want to take advantage of our goodness than to provide care to the very poor in this world great distances from where we live with whom we do not have a personal relationship.
[7] When we are able to give this kind of love, it is important that we do not allow it to mutate and become possessive or conditional. It is equally important to step away humbly, gently but firmly from those attracted to such purity and wishing to contaminate it or hating you for it.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Sin - The Great Equalizer
It bears repeating that our most precious gift is life. [1] As we all know, we are all endowed with different attributes. We judge human attributes relative to each other but we never seen to compare any of them, not even the most valued, against life itself until we at precipice of death. Only then do we wake up to the true value and beauty of life. By then it might be too late to regret.
If we are constantly aware of how precarious life is, then we realize immediately how insignificant the gifts of talent, intellect, beauty, physical prowess, wealth and personal sufferings [2] are relative to the gift of life. Sadly, we so often take life for granted. Since we do, many of us become envious of others with desirable attributes because we are blind to the fact that even the most desirable attributes of a person are nothing compared to the life of one who seemingly has none.
Perhaps the one who has none of the desirable attributes could be one of the most envious although he/she could feel the most blessed because he/she has life, a life that he/she could live in holiness and with unconditional love. How many people can admit to living a life like that? And how precious such a life would be compared to a life filled with successes, accolades and wealth of this world?
Perhaps the people who can best answer the question are those whose lives are filled with successes, accolades and wealth. Who among these can honestly say that he/she is fulfilled in every way? Is it not true that many of these people are still searching for fulfillment? Are they not still trying to expand their conglomerates, gain more attention or accumulate more wealth? I always wonder what go through the minds of these people at night when the lights are out and the world around these people fall silent. Are they troubled by worries, kept awake by anger or tormented by thoughts of vengeance? If they are, then truly how "rich" are their lives? Or are they truly happy because they have attained heaven on earth?
My guess is that no person can say that he/she has attained heaven on earth but most every person has gone through, or is going through hell on earth. [3] Of course, hell is a little different for each one of us just as each one of us is a little different from every other. But hell is Hell; it does not matter whose hell it is, no one likes being in Hell.
Hell is self-willed. Hell does not come upon and envelops person--a person embraces Sin in all its splendor and enters Hell freely. Hell is one place that welcomes the rich and the poor [4], the gifted and the ungifted equally. The tickets for entry are sins of all kinds, and they are free.
So people, especially those who believe they have been short-changed by God for having less than someone else on the planet, do not despair. Sin is the great equalizer and Hell is the destination. There, everyone is tormented; everyone is miserable. There, Satan is able to give what God does not give to man--equality. [5], [6].
[1] Life is a gift from God. It has two basic components: flesh and soul. That is not all. We are also given talents and abilities of different kinds and in varying degrees. The most important of these is love. As impossible as it sounds, we all have the ability to give unconditional love. It is priceless. For anyone who is poor or hungry or out of work or in need of help, if he/she can give unconditional love to all his/her neighbors, then he/she will be never feel poor, or be hungry or be without assistance. Who in this world would not care for someone who loves him/her unconditionally? I cannot think of anyone unless that someone is fully possessed by evil.
[2] Personal sufferings are a gift and if one internalizes that, he/she is well on his/her way to God.
[3] It is important to draw a distinction between the gift of suffering and being in hell. The gift of suffering purifies the soul--it is a gift from God. Contrast it to the torment of hell which is self-willed--it is the abuse of the gift of Free Will from God.
[4] The poor here means those without means but who are mean to God, abuses God's gifts and rejects God, not the poor in spirit.
[5] Why desire equality? Is the gift of life-flesh and soul-good enough? It that not a gift that is being gifted equally, a gift that is the most desirable and the most precious along with Free-Will that comes with it? Why desire justice? Is justice not a concept of human intellect? Is not human intellect fallible? Therefore, is justice not equally fallible? Who can judge what is fair and what is not other than the One Who give us flesh and soul, Who knows where we came from, who we are and what free choices we will be making and where we will end up? The secularists and the fake Christians believe that social justice brings peace. They cannot be more wrong. Social justice never brings peace. Love does. Love never errs because it is rooted in forgiveness. Justice always errs because its seed is vengeance, and vengeance is always wrong.
[6] The man who thinks that he is righteous and wants to bring equality and justice to this world (because he is in a position of power) has the same desire as Satan. The man who so wants is a fool and a pawn of Satan because the more he tries to bring secular equality and justice to people without God's love, the more the scales of equality and justice become ever so finely calibrated that they will never be in balance, leading to more and more strife and more and more evil. In a society where everyone suffers, everyone is equal and all seems just. This kind of society is truly Hell on earth, and its advocate is Satan incarnate.
If we are constantly aware of how precarious life is, then we realize immediately how insignificant the gifts of talent, intellect, beauty, physical prowess, wealth and personal sufferings [2] are relative to the gift of life. Sadly, we so often take life for granted. Since we do, many of us become envious of others with desirable attributes because we are blind to the fact that even the most desirable attributes of a person are nothing compared to the life of one who seemingly has none.
Perhaps the one who has none of the desirable attributes could be one of the most envious although he/she could feel the most blessed because he/she has life, a life that he/she could live in holiness and with unconditional love. How many people can admit to living a life like that? And how precious such a life would be compared to a life filled with successes, accolades and wealth of this world?
Perhaps the people who can best answer the question are those whose lives are filled with successes, accolades and wealth. Who among these can honestly say that he/she is fulfilled in every way? Is it not true that many of these people are still searching for fulfillment? Are they not still trying to expand their conglomerates, gain more attention or accumulate more wealth? I always wonder what go through the minds of these people at night when the lights are out and the world around these people fall silent. Are they troubled by worries, kept awake by anger or tormented by thoughts of vengeance? If they are, then truly how "rich" are their lives? Or are they truly happy because they have attained heaven on earth?
My guess is that no person can say that he/she has attained heaven on earth but most every person has gone through, or is going through hell on earth. [3] Of course, hell is a little different for each one of us just as each one of us is a little different from every other. But hell is Hell; it does not matter whose hell it is, no one likes being in Hell.
Hell is self-willed. Hell does not come upon and envelops person--a person embraces Sin in all its splendor and enters Hell freely. Hell is one place that welcomes the rich and the poor [4], the gifted and the ungifted equally. The tickets for entry are sins of all kinds, and they are free.
So people, especially those who believe they have been short-changed by God for having less than someone else on the planet, do not despair. Sin is the great equalizer and Hell is the destination. There, everyone is tormented; everyone is miserable. There, Satan is able to give what God does not give to man--equality. [5], [6].
[1] Life is a gift from God. It has two basic components: flesh and soul. That is not all. We are also given talents and abilities of different kinds and in varying degrees. The most important of these is love. As impossible as it sounds, we all have the ability to give unconditional love. It is priceless. For anyone who is poor or hungry or out of work or in need of help, if he/she can give unconditional love to all his/her neighbors, then he/she will be never feel poor, or be hungry or be without assistance. Who in this world would not care for someone who loves him/her unconditionally? I cannot think of anyone unless that someone is fully possessed by evil.
[2] Personal sufferings are a gift and if one internalizes that, he/she is well on his/her way to God.
[3] It is important to draw a distinction between the gift of suffering and being in hell. The gift of suffering purifies the soul--it is a gift from God. Contrast it to the torment of hell which is self-willed--it is the abuse of the gift of Free Will from God.
[4] The poor here means those without means but who are mean to God, abuses God's gifts and rejects God, not the poor in spirit.
[5] Why desire equality? Is the gift of life-flesh and soul-good enough? It that not a gift that is being gifted equally, a gift that is the most desirable and the most precious along with Free-Will that comes with it? Why desire justice? Is justice not a concept of human intellect? Is not human intellect fallible? Therefore, is justice not equally fallible? Who can judge what is fair and what is not other than the One Who give us flesh and soul, Who knows where we came from, who we are and what free choices we will be making and where we will end up? The secularists and the fake Christians believe that social justice brings peace. They cannot be more wrong. Social justice never brings peace. Love does. Love never errs because it is rooted in forgiveness. Justice always errs because its seed is vengeance, and vengeance is always wrong.
[6] The man who thinks that he is righteous and wants to bring equality and justice to this world (because he is in a position of power) has the same desire as Satan. The man who so wants is a fool and a pawn of Satan because the more he tries to bring secular equality and justice to people without God's love, the more the scales of equality and justice become ever so finely calibrated that they will never be in balance, leading to more and more strife and more and more evil. In a society where everyone suffers, everyone is equal and all seems just. This kind of society is truly Hell on earth, and its advocate is Satan incarnate.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Your Gift To God
Everything you have is God's gift to you [1], what you do with it is your gift back to God.
Your body is the temple of God -- keep it healthy, strong and beautiful. [2]
[1] Everything includes all the joy and all the sufferings.
[2] The body is not to be fed, drugged, inebriated, caffeinated, starved or otherwise indulged excessively.
Your body is the temple of God -- keep it healthy, strong and beautiful. [2]
[1] Everything includes all the joy and all the sufferings.
[2] The body is not to be fed, drugged, inebriated, caffeinated, starved or otherwise indulged excessively.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
The Shepherd Who Became The Lamb
In the Gospel of John 10:14-18 Jesus said, "14 I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." [1]
If I had read this passage before, which I probably had, it did not mean anything. This time around, I understand it and I just love it. Allow me to explain.
To begin, it is noteworthy that these are words that Jesus Himself said. He introduced Himself as the "good shepherd, not the "lamb of God" as John the Baptist described Jesus in John 1:29 and again in John 1:35. [2] Is it not interesting to note that Jesus did not say that He was the "lamb" but instead said, "I lay down my life for the sheep"? [3] In this one sentence, it is apparent that Jesus never thought of Himself as a "lamb" or a "sheep" but the "Good Shepherd" Who was willing to "lay down [His] life for the sheep [He knows]." [4]
Why did I put brackets around a quote and insert my own words? That is because I want to underscore the first part of Jesus' sentence: "I know my sheep and my sheep know me--" [Emphasis added] [5] To me that means Jesus was not referring to just any sheep but only His sheep specifically. Which sheep are His and which are not is as difficult a question that no one can answer as what does God look like. As usual I do not shy away from answering impossible questions. I think that Christ is not letting just any sheep be become part of His flock but only sheep that will follow their Shepherd. For sheep that wander off freely by themselves because they do not care for a shepherd or believe that they can do without one or do not like the Good Shepherd they have are not sheep that Christ will care for in His sheep pen. I do not think Jesus is going to chase after sheep that leave out of their own Free Will just as the father did not forbid his prodigal son to leave with his half of the inheritance or go after him when he was squandering his wealth to bring him back and lock him up. [6]
What kind of sheep, then, is Jesus going to have in His flock? The answer is in the passage first quoted above. They are sheep that "will listen to my voice" and "other sheep that are not of this pen." [7] I love this. This is so deep that no Jew at the time had any clue what Christ was talking about. [8] Many thought He was a demon while others disagreed because demons cannot heal the blind. [9] However, none of them thought that Christ was actually saying to Jews everywhere, then and in the future, that they were no longer the only sheep that were chosen for His pen, that there would be other sheep not of "this" Jewish pen. With six simple operative words--"other sheep not of this pen"--the Good Shepherd flung wide open the gate of His sheep pen to welcome all other non-Jewish sheep and among them pig-loving ones that will listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd and follow Him.
For those who will listen to the Good Shepherd, whether Jew or gentile, they will be part of His flock, His "one flock" under "one [S]hepherd" [10] and for this one flock, the Shepherd had laid down His life.
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.'25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.' 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." [11]
During consecration of the bread and wine at a Catholic Mass, the priest says: "(Priest) On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you....(Priest) When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me." [12] And at the breaking of the transubstantiated bread, the priest says: "(Priest) Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace. (All kneel down)" [13]
The Catholic Church believes that Christ is the "Lamb of God". The use of "lamb" to describe Christ is consistent with the words of John the Baptist quoted in footnote [2]. In obedience, I ought to attempt to conclude in favor of the Catholic Church that the "Lamb of God" is a proper description of the transubstantiated bread into the Body of Christ despite that Jesus said clearly, four times, that He, the Good Shepherd, was to lay down His life [14] without mincing words, without speaking metaphorically or parablolically. [15] Of course, I would much prefer all Catholic priests to substitute "Good Shepherd" in lieu of "Lamb of God" at the breaking of the transubstantiated bread. On the other hand, Christ, being humble and gentle, can be appropriately described as God's lamb, the perfect lamb [16] to be sacrificed for the forgiveness of Sin and to be raised up on the third day to triumph over death so that the rest of the lambs and sheep that are part of the Good Shepherd's flock can have eternal life.
[1] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A14-18
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A14-16&version=NIV
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32&version=NIV
[7] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A14-16&version=NIV
[8] I am not saying that the Jews at the time were idiots. They did not know or did not want to believe that Jesus was the One Who came to fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament. Are not the Jews, the few who are still patient believers in Judaism, still waiting for their Messiah? In fact, the Messiah did come. The Jews did not like what they saw and heard wanted Him crucified. By then Jesus had already said enough to give the world the New Testament and a New Covenant that "fulfills God's marital vows to His people. He has become 'one body' with them in the Church. This covenant is renewed in each Eucharist, as we are joined intimately to His Body." See http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/lesson/covenant_the_new_and_everlasting_covenant, Section V, subsection E, paragraph 24 (paragraph 24 is not numbered - it is counted)
[9] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A19-21&version=NIV
[10] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A14-16&version=NIV
[11] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A23-26&version=NIV
[12] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/liturgy/holy-mass/the-liturgy-of-the-eucharist/
[13] Ibid.
[14] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A14-18
[15] The word "parablolically" is not an adverb found in a standard dictionary. Since I am neither standard nor normal, I took the word "parable" and made it into an adverb.
[16] Putting it another way, in order to be the perfect shepherd, the Good Shepherd has to become the sheep (or lamb) in order to fully appreciate the limitations of the sheep (or lambs) so that He could to lead them effectively and safely back into His pen.
If I had read this passage before, which I probably had, it did not mean anything. This time around, I understand it and I just love it. Allow me to explain.
To begin, it is noteworthy that these are words that Jesus Himself said. He introduced Himself as the "good shepherd, not the "lamb of God" as John the Baptist described Jesus in John 1:29 and again in John 1:35. [2] Is it not interesting to note that Jesus did not say that He was the "lamb" but instead said, "I lay down my life for the sheep"? [3] In this one sentence, it is apparent that Jesus never thought of Himself as a "lamb" or a "sheep" but the "Good Shepherd" Who was willing to "lay down [His] life for the sheep [He knows]." [4]
Why did I put brackets around a quote and insert my own words? That is because I want to underscore the first part of Jesus' sentence: "I know my sheep and my sheep know me--" [Emphasis added] [5] To me that means Jesus was not referring to just any sheep but only His sheep specifically. Which sheep are His and which are not is as difficult a question that no one can answer as what does God look like. As usual I do not shy away from answering impossible questions. I think that Christ is not letting just any sheep be become part of His flock but only sheep that will follow their Shepherd. For sheep that wander off freely by themselves because they do not care for a shepherd or believe that they can do without one or do not like the Good Shepherd they have are not sheep that Christ will care for in His sheep pen. I do not think Jesus is going to chase after sheep that leave out of their own Free Will just as the father did not forbid his prodigal son to leave with his half of the inheritance or go after him when he was squandering his wealth to bring him back and lock him up. [6]
What kind of sheep, then, is Jesus going to have in His flock? The answer is in the passage first quoted above. They are sheep that "will listen to my voice" and "other sheep that are not of this pen." [7] I love this. This is so deep that no Jew at the time had any clue what Christ was talking about. [8] Many thought He was a demon while others disagreed because demons cannot heal the blind. [9] However, none of them thought that Christ was actually saying to Jews everywhere, then and in the future, that they were no longer the only sheep that were chosen for His pen, that there would be other sheep not of "this" Jewish pen. With six simple operative words--"other sheep not of this pen"--the Good Shepherd flung wide open the gate of His sheep pen to welcome all other non-Jewish sheep and among them pig-loving ones that will listen to the voice of the Good Shepherd and follow Him.
For those who will listen to the Good Shepherd, whether Jew or gentile, they will be part of His flock, His "one flock" under "one [S]hepherd" [10] and for this one flock, the Shepherd had laid down His life.
"The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.'25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.' 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes." [11]
During consecration of the bread and wine at a Catholic Mass, the priest says: "(Priest) On the night he was betrayed, he took bread and gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you....(Priest) When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me." [12] And at the breaking of the transubstantiated bread, the priest says: "(Priest) Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us. Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace. (All kneel down)" [13]
The Catholic Church believes that Christ is the "Lamb of God". The use of "lamb" to describe Christ is consistent with the words of John the Baptist quoted in footnote [2]. In obedience, I ought to attempt to conclude in favor of the Catholic Church that the "Lamb of God" is a proper description of the transubstantiated bread into the Body of Christ despite that Jesus said clearly, four times, that He, the Good Shepherd, was to lay down His life [14] without mincing words, without speaking metaphorically or parablolically. [15] Of course, I would much prefer all Catholic priests to substitute "Good Shepherd" in lieu of "Lamb of God" at the breaking of the transubstantiated bread. On the other hand, Christ, being humble and gentle, can be appropriately described as God's lamb, the perfect lamb [16] to be sacrificed for the forgiveness of Sin and to be raised up on the third day to triumph over death so that the rest of the lambs and sheep that are part of the Good Shepherd's flock can have eternal life.
[1] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A14-18
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NIV
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A14-16&version=NIV
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32&version=NIV
[7] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A14-16&version=NIV
[8] I am not saying that the Jews at the time were idiots. They did not know or did not want to believe that Jesus was the One Who came to fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament. Are not the Jews, the few who are still patient believers in Judaism, still waiting for their Messiah? In fact, the Messiah did come. The Jews did not like what they saw and heard wanted Him crucified. By then Jesus had already said enough to give the world the New Testament and a New Covenant that "fulfills God's marital vows to His people. He has become 'one body' with them in the Church. This covenant is renewed in each Eucharist, as we are joined intimately to His Body." See http://www.salvationhistory.com/studies/lesson/covenant_the_new_and_everlasting_covenant, Section V, subsection E, paragraph 24 (paragraph 24 is not numbered - it is counted)
[9] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A19-21&version=NIV
[10] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A14-16&version=NIV
[11] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+11%3A23-26&version=NIV
[12] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/liturgy/holy-mass/the-liturgy-of-the-eucharist/
[13] Ibid.
[14] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+10%3A14-18
[15] The word "parablolically" is not an adverb found in a standard dictionary. Since I am neither standard nor normal, I took the word "parable" and made it into an adverb.
[16] Putting it another way, in order to be the perfect shepherd, the Good Shepherd has to become the sheep (or lamb) in order to fully appreciate the limitations of the sheep (or lambs) so that He could to lead them effectively and safely back into His pen.
Friday, October 11, 2013
The Betrayal, Suffering And Crucifixion Of Christ
Another thought on the victimhood of Christ came into mind today even though I was absolutely sure that I was done with the topic when my final analysis concluded that neither God nor Christ was a victim. That was before my last entry discussing Sainte Thérèse de Lisieux's idea of Christ as a victim of love. Nonetheless, the thought spoke and my job is to post it.
Neither the betrayal, the suffering nor the crucifixion of Christ is comedic or tragic; rather, these events taken together, as a whole, are salvific.
What led to the betrayal of Christ was the disbelief of Jesus, the Nazarene, was the Son of God. The Jews believed and probably still believe that Jesus was a sorcerer, and that it was a joke, a cruel joke perhaps, that this man was sent by God, the God of Abraham. I remember a line in a movie (I do not remember the name of the movie) uttered by a member of the Sanhedrin who said something to the effect that nothing ever comes out Galilee [1]. Funny line. I chuckled. As it turned out, the existence of Jesus was no joke. Gradually Jesus became a threat and a nuisance to the Jews who were in power. With their money, they bribed Judas to betray Jesus.
What came next changed the world. [2] The scourging and the crucifixion of Christ Who was guiltless and sinless turned Christ into a victim, a holy, pure and spotless victim, in the minds of certain people. How tragic this must have been was probably in the minds of these well-meaning but very mistaken people, or how wasteful, how meaningless or maybe how pitiful.
Anyone who thinks that Christ is a victim and deserves the crown of victimhood [3] because He is "holy, pure and spotless" [4] ought to review what Christ said at the Last Supper: "Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and said, "Take and eat; this is my body" (Matthew 26:26). Then he took the cup of wine and said, "Drink from it all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." [5]
Christ, unlike any ordinary hapless victim, foresaw His own death. The holy and victimless death of Christ ends the eternal deaths of many by His resurrection by way of His blood from His sufferings which was "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." [6] This is salvific. Therefore the events that led to the outpouring of the salvific blood of Christ do not mark the tragic end of a holy, pure and spotless victim but the salvific beginning for those who continually, better yet, continuously, strive to be holy, pure and spotless like our Savior, Jesus Christ, Who knowingly, willingly and freely died for the redemption of Sin.
[1] Nazareth was "a very small village near the Plain of Esdralon in Galilee." http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/nazareth.html
[2] As an aside, what came next also changed the calender of our lives. See the answer to the question what is Anno Domini at http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100517010846AA3YHRy
[3] Christ is not the King of Victims but the Prince of Peace: "'For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, And the government will rest on His shoulders, And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)'" See http://www.gotquestions.org/Prince-of-Peace.html
[4] http://www.jesuschristpassion.com/last_supper.html
[5] http://www.jesuschristpassion.com/last_supper.html
[6] Ibid.
Neither the betrayal, the suffering nor the crucifixion of Christ is comedic or tragic; rather, these events taken together, as a whole, are salvific.
What led to the betrayal of Christ was the disbelief of Jesus, the Nazarene, was the Son of God. The Jews believed and probably still believe that Jesus was a sorcerer, and that it was a joke, a cruel joke perhaps, that this man was sent by God, the God of Abraham. I remember a line in a movie (I do not remember the name of the movie) uttered by a member of the Sanhedrin who said something to the effect that nothing ever comes out Galilee [1]. Funny line. I chuckled. As it turned out, the existence of Jesus was no joke. Gradually Jesus became a threat and a nuisance to the Jews who were in power. With their money, they bribed Judas to betray Jesus.
What came next changed the world. [2] The scourging and the crucifixion of Christ Who was guiltless and sinless turned Christ into a victim, a holy, pure and spotless victim, in the minds of certain people. How tragic this must have been was probably in the minds of these well-meaning but very mistaken people, or how wasteful, how meaningless or maybe how pitiful.
Anyone who thinks that Christ is a victim and deserves the crown of victimhood [3] because He is "holy, pure and spotless" [4] ought to review what Christ said at the Last Supper: "Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and said, "Take and eat; this is my body" (Matthew 26:26). Then he took the cup of wine and said, "Drink from it all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." [5]
Christ, unlike any ordinary hapless victim, foresaw His own death. The holy and victimless death of Christ ends the eternal deaths of many by His resurrection by way of His blood from His sufferings which was "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." [6] This is salvific. Therefore the events that led to the outpouring of the salvific blood of Christ do not mark the tragic end of a holy, pure and spotless victim but the salvific beginning for those who continually, better yet, continuously, strive to be holy, pure and spotless like our Savior, Jesus Christ, Who knowingly, willingly and freely died for the redemption of Sin.
[1] Nazareth was "a very small village near the Plain of Esdralon in Galilee." http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/nazareth.html
[2] As an aside, what came next also changed the calender of our lives. See the answer to the question what is Anno Domini at http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100517010846AA3YHRy
[3] Christ is not the King of Victims but the Prince of Peace: "'For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, And the government will rest on His shoulders, And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)'" See http://www.gotquestions.org/Prince-of-Peace.html
[4] http://www.jesuschristpassion.com/last_supper.html
[5] http://www.jesuschristpassion.com/last_supper.html
[6] Ibid.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Becoming God
Heaven is scarcely a place of disappointment -- in fact, there is no
disappointment at all yet there is hope, a blissful hope that our
collective Free Will will be exercised in ways that lead to God. [1]
Due to Sin, we are unable to will away our propensity toward the draw of
everything that leads us ever closer to the promise of the Serpent.
However, we are not trapped. Christ came to save all of our souls. By
His death and resurrection, He flung open the gate of Heaven that had
remained shut after Adam and Eve were banished so that man, God's most
precious creation, can have a chance to return home to have unending and
uninterrupted fulfillment.
The way is simple. We all know it. After all, Heaven is home. We came from there and we instinctively know how to go back. If we do not, Christ by His actions and His words had shown us the path. Sadly, the world has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to all that is good. We, as descendants of Adam and Eve, are not that far removed from who they were.
Think for a moment. What was their Sin? They knew they were subordinate to God, but they wanted to know everything God knows, to have the power God has. They wanted to be God. That was a long time ago. Millennia later, we have not changed. [2] Today, little Adams and little Eves around the world still crave knowledge, not knowledge of God and the goodness of God, but knowledge that leads to power, the very power Adam and Eve desired, to control this earth and everyone and everything in it, and the universe beyond. The apple indeed does not fall far from the tree.
After accumulating so much knowledge since the fall of Adam and Eve, man still is unable to create on his own, without relying on God's procreative gift, the living cells of life and the living spirit that attaches to life. Consequently, man has to settle for something akin to life without a soul. Man has created the robot. Artificial intelligence ("AI") fueled by electricity is a marvelous invention for the convenience of life to save time in man's daily life, but to do what with it? What use is time without God in it? Time without God is an eternity with Satan. Man's seemingly unshakeable attachment to Sin will lead him there, a place no one wants to go, a place no one would wish anyone to go, no one except Satan.
Satan is happy these days. Man knows enough now to employ AI by making robots with super AI and mobility that can out-think and outperform any human, so much so that these soulless creations could run man's lives and end them without compunction. Perhaps a nuclear bomb would be a welcomed sight when armies of marching, flying and swimming robots start to wipe out the human race. Has a discussion of God just turned into a piece of science fiction? Perhaps, or perhaps not. I think not because man's quest to be God has not ended. Every modern Adam wants to have his phalanges of robots to dominate his neighbor.
Just like our first ancestors Adam and Eve, we are not satisfied with all that we collectively have been given. We have to have more: continually we hunger for more, more of something, something undefinable. Not even at the pinnacle of power is man at peace with himself. That undefinable something is spiritual fulfillment where bliss resides. That can only come from God and that can only be had when willed, freely willed, by man.
Adam and Eve never willed spiritual fulfillment from their Creator. They willed to be the Creator. That will is not one that can ever be realized unless man wills to return to God, to become a part of God. Only then can man be God.
[1] With an overabundance of bliss, there is no time for disappointment in Heaven, even when a person does not will freely to follow the path toward God. When a person ends up in Hell, he/she is the only one who would have an eternity of disappointment. Even Mary, the Mother of God Who is our tireless Advocate, is never disappointed even as one of us sins or ultimately rejects God. She is eternally blissful and prayerful in Her work to save each and every soul and She leaves to each of us the power to freely choose. Our Free Will is the foundation of Heaven's joy. Heaven rejoices because we have chosen freely for we would have used God's gift the way God intended it to be used. That is a celebration!
[2] Nothing has changed, notwithstanding any political slogan. Sin is still very well preserved and alive, everywhere.
The way is simple. We all know it. After all, Heaven is home. We came from there and we instinctively know how to go back. If we do not, Christ by His actions and His words had shown us the path. Sadly, the world has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to all that is good. We, as descendants of Adam and Eve, are not that far removed from who they were.
Think for a moment. What was their Sin? They knew they were subordinate to God, but they wanted to know everything God knows, to have the power God has. They wanted to be God. That was a long time ago. Millennia later, we have not changed. [2] Today, little Adams and little Eves around the world still crave knowledge, not knowledge of God and the goodness of God, but knowledge that leads to power, the very power Adam and Eve desired, to control this earth and everyone and everything in it, and the universe beyond. The apple indeed does not fall far from the tree.
After accumulating so much knowledge since the fall of Adam and Eve, man still is unable to create on his own, without relying on God's procreative gift, the living cells of life and the living spirit that attaches to life. Consequently, man has to settle for something akin to life without a soul. Man has created the robot. Artificial intelligence ("AI") fueled by electricity is a marvelous invention for the convenience of life to save time in man's daily life, but to do what with it? What use is time without God in it? Time without God is an eternity with Satan. Man's seemingly unshakeable attachment to Sin will lead him there, a place no one wants to go, a place no one would wish anyone to go, no one except Satan.
Satan is happy these days. Man knows enough now to employ AI by making robots with super AI and mobility that can out-think and outperform any human, so much so that these soulless creations could run man's lives and end them without compunction. Perhaps a nuclear bomb would be a welcomed sight when armies of marching, flying and swimming robots start to wipe out the human race. Has a discussion of God just turned into a piece of science fiction? Perhaps, or perhaps not. I think not because man's quest to be God has not ended. Every modern Adam wants to have his phalanges of robots to dominate his neighbor.
Just like our first ancestors Adam and Eve, we are not satisfied with all that we collectively have been given. We have to have more: continually we hunger for more, more of something, something undefinable. Not even at the pinnacle of power is man at peace with himself. That undefinable something is spiritual fulfillment where bliss resides. That can only come from God and that can only be had when willed, freely willed, by man.
Adam and Eve never willed spiritual fulfillment from their Creator. They willed to be the Creator. That will is not one that can ever be realized unless man wills to return to God, to become a part of God. Only then can man be God.
[1] With an overabundance of bliss, there is no time for disappointment in Heaven, even when a person does not will freely to follow the path toward God. When a person ends up in Hell, he/she is the only one who would have an eternity of disappointment. Even Mary, the Mother of God Who is our tireless Advocate, is never disappointed even as one of us sins or ultimately rejects God. She is eternally blissful and prayerful in Her work to save each and every soul and She leaves to each of us the power to freely choose. Our Free Will is the foundation of Heaven's joy. Heaven rejoices because we have chosen freely for we would have used God's gift the way God intended it to be used. That is a celebration!
[2] Nothing has changed, notwithstanding any political slogan. Sin is still very well preserved and alive, everywhere.
Christ: A "Vicitm of Love"
"In June [1897, Thérèse de Lisieux] said, 'Do not be troubled, little sisters, if I suffer very much and if you see in me, as I have already said to you, no sign of joy at the moment of death. Our Lord really died as a Victim of Love, and see what His agony was!' And in July she said: 'Our Lord died on the Cross in anguish, and yet His was the most beautiful death of love. To die of love does not mean to die in transports. I tell you frankly, it appears to me that this is what I am experiencing." [1], [2] [Emphasis original]
When Thérèse de Lisieux referred to Christ as a "Victim of Love" I cannot agree more because in a romantic sense, Christ was a victim of His pure and selfless love for all of us. I do not think that Sainte Thérèse meant to use the word "victim" in a literal sense or with the connotation of meaninglessness, or maybe she did. If she did, then I am at a loss as to how Christ can be a "victim" of God, His Father, Who is Love, or that the death of Christ was meaningless. When Thérèse said the Lord's death on the cross "was the most beautiful death of love," [3] I believe she meant that Christ suffered with love, accepted His crucifixion with love and died of love. Even as she was in agony before she died, Sainte Thérèse was seeing beauty but not blame, experiencing bliss but not bitterness and evoking purity but not pity.
[1] Thérèse, de Lisieux, Saint. Story of a Soul The Autobiography of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux . 3rd Edition. Translated by John Clarke, O.C.D. Washington D.C.: Washington Province of Discalced Carmelites, Inc., 1996, p.269.
[2] Transports, defined in OxfordDictionary.com, is an overwhelmingly strong emotion. See http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/transport
[3] Op. cit., Thérèse, de Lisieux, Saint, 269.
[4] Ibid, 270.
When Thérèse de Lisieux referred to Christ as a "Victim of Love" I cannot agree more because in a romantic sense, Christ was a victim of His pure and selfless love for all of us. I do not think that Sainte Thérèse meant to use the word "victim" in a literal sense or with the connotation of meaninglessness, or maybe she did. If she did, then I am at a loss as to how Christ can be a "victim" of God, His Father, Who is Love, or that the death of Christ was meaningless. When Thérèse said the Lord's death on the cross "was the most beautiful death of love," [3] I believe she meant that Christ suffered with love, accepted His crucifixion with love and died of love. Even as she was in agony before she died, Sainte Thérèse was seeing beauty but not blame, experiencing bliss but not bitterness and evoking purity but not pity.
"Mother Agnes collected the last words of Thérèse and wrote them in a notebook.
'I no longer believe in death for myself; I believe only in suffering. Well so much the better!'
'O my God!'
'I love God!'
'O my good Blessed Virgin, come to my aid!'
'If this is the agony, then what is death?'
'Ah! my God. Yes, He is very good; I find He is very good!'
'If you but realized what it is to suffocate!'
'My God, have pity on me; have pity on your little child. Have pity!'
"To Mother Marie de Gonzague Thérèse said:
'O Mother, I assure you, the chalice is filled to the brim!'
'God is surely not going to abandon me!'
'He has never abandoned me before!'
'Yes, my God, everything that You will, but have pity on me!'
'Little sisters, my little sisters, pray for me!'
'My God! My God! You are so good!'
'Oh! yes, You are good, I know it.'
'Yes, it seems I never looked for anything but the truth; I have understood humility of heart. It seems that I am humble.'
'Everything I have written on my desire for suffering is true!'
'I do not regret having surrendered myself to Love.'
'Oh no! I don't regret it; just the opposite!'" [4]
[1] Thérèse, de Lisieux, Saint. Story of a Soul The Autobiography of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux . 3rd Edition. Translated by John Clarke, O.C.D. Washington D.C.: Washington Province of Discalced Carmelites, Inc., 1996, p.269.
[2] Transports, defined in OxfordDictionary.com, is an overwhelmingly strong emotion. See http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/transport
[3] Op. cit., Thérèse, de Lisieux, Saint, 269.
[4] Ibid, 270.
Monday, October 7, 2013
My Final Analysis - Christ Is Not A Victim, And Neither Is God
Ten or so days ago I wrote to Universalis.com about a prayer where it referred to Christ as an innocent victim. I received a reply and posted it on this blog. A few months back, a sermon given by a priest referred to Christ as a holy victim. [1] I disagreed and protested on this blog on June 25, 2013. I was inspired to delve into this topic once again by the reply Universalis.com gave me:
"[W]e didn't write this: the Church did. The Congregation for Divine Worship would be the people to consult.
"The hymn "Victimae paschali laudes" is ancient - and of course Christ is represented as a sacrificial victim (a sheep, in fact) in the Agnus Dei at every Mass."
After much thought, I maintain that Christ is not a victim but that Christ was aptly described as holy by the priest and innocent in the prayer.
In doing so, I though it to be a good idea to start at the beginning and ask if God was a victim of perfection in goodness when Adam and Eve, after receiving their Free Will, willed freely to disobey God by eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden.
God is perfection. In perfection, words [2] such as "innocent" and "holy", "pure" and "spotless" are superfluous when describing perfection since perfection sits far above any earthly accolade or concept, at a place beyond the grasp of human intellect and the reach of human verbalization. [3] While "innocence", "holiness", "purity" and "spotlessness" are words are ranked below the realm of perfection, they, among others connoting virtue, are closer to perfection relative to many other words, such as the word "victim." "Victim" is one of those words far removed from the light of perfection, so much so that it is not in the sphere of perfection in the way that no sinner is on the same level as God, or the Son, Jesus, God incarnate. [4]
My placement of "victimhood" in another dimension away from and below God is because I believe that an entity which is perfect cannot be a prey or victim. Only a flawed entity can be a prey of Satan and a victim of Sin's circumstances. A human being is just such an entity -- a flawed one. Man is ever so weak as to fall prey to temptations and become a victim of his own weaknesses, individually, or collectively as part of mankind. Due to his wholly inadequate nature, he cannot resist comparing God to himself, as Adam did when he desired to be equal to his Creator, because whenever man compares himself to God, he is not elevated to the sphere of God. Instead, the man who compares himself to God brings God down to his level and on his terms, turning God in his mind into a creature of imperfection that is beneath him.
Having the tendency to Sin, man cannot truly and fully comprehend God and attain perfection is all its glory. He cannot control himself, but he thinks he can control anyone and anything else, including Christ, by shutting Him out, making Him irrelevant. Therefore, he must deceive himself, aided by Satan, and trust that he is in control of himself and the circumstances surrounding him. This delusion of man is the joy of Satan, because under this delusion, man will make a mess of things, and he has.
In his own megalomaniac world, a world spinning with Sin and all of its irresistible variations, man would have the audacity to describe God as a victim just like him, a perennial victim of Satan. What man has done, describing Christ, the Son of God, Who is as strong in spirit as God the Father but Who as man was weak in the way that human flesh is weak, as a victim is a sin. In the weakness of human flesh, Christ had bled when He was scourged, was pained when He was humiliated and was helpless when He was crucified. Seeing Christ as a prey of the powerful, man was quick to reduce his Savior to a "victim" of circumstances on earth, more specifically, of circumstances resulting from the acts of man corrupted by evil on earth.
Man could not be happier to be able to reduce Christ to his level by labeling Him as a "victim" and that is exactly what man did. By doing so, man is able to triumph over Christ continuously because as a victim, Christ is merely a statistic among all the victims of the world and as such, He would become another nobody over time, to be met with indifference or obliviousness on the one hand and scorn on the other.
The possibility that men of long ago had labeled Christ a "victim" does not lend the label credence in the least. They were sinners just like those who came before and after them. For those who long ago labeled Christ as a "victim" were in my opinion wrong. For those who now find acceptable that Christ is a "victim" are in my opinion minions of Satan because the word "victim" has, as Brother Charles [5] said, has the connotation of meaninglessness whereas the life of Christ has an abundance of meaning and purpose. The fact that the label of "victim" is preceded by an adjective "innocent" or "holy", "pure" or "spotless" does not diminish the error and certainly does not right the wrong or sanctify the sin.
If anyone at the Congregation of Divine Worship is reading this, you ought to reconsider to correcting the error, an error that weakens the foundation of the Church.
I would be naïve to think that my request would be heard, or heard without objection, and the error corrected and an instruction sent to all the religious notifying them that Christ is never to be thought of or described a "victim," however innocent, holy, pure or spotless. The alternative is unsettling. To allow Christ to be referred to as a "victim" would be to reduce Christ to an ordinary sinner capable to falling prey to Satan and its minions -- men who had willingly become the pawns of Satan. As a result, Christ Who willingly sacrificed Himself at the alters of betrayal, torture and crucifixion would carry only the badge of victimhood with the Satanic effect of diminishing the meaning of Christ's life, nullifying the purpose of Christ's Passion and putting into doubt Christ's ability to lead souls to heaven by humbling and sacrificing Himself to compensate for the sin of Adam.
[1] I also heard it twice during the Eucharistic prayer said by two different priests on two separate occasions on EWTN's televised mass. As it turns out, I am not the only person who has trouble with describing Christ as a "victim." I am happy to find a friar's blog on the internet where Brother Charles also has a problem with the word. I quote his blog at http://friarminor.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-translation-victimhood.html verbatim below:
[2] Words in any language."December 31, 2011
"New Translation: Victimhood
"In accord with my practice for the minimum use of Eucharistic Prayer I, I've been praying the Roman Canon through this whole week of the Christmas Octave. This has given me further opportunity to pray through and reflect upon the new translation.
"One thing that strikes me with some intensity is the restoration of the triad at the end of the Unde et memores: offered to God is the hostiam puram, hostiam, sanctam, hostiam immaculatam.
"The new translation renders this as it is in the Latin: this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim.
"The old translation did away with the structure of the triad, replacing it with this holy and perfect sacrifice.
"On the one hand, I like the restoration of the normative structure of the prayer. Now I just have to let go of the interior urge to make the signs of the cross that accompany this moment in the Extraordinary Form! On the other hand, I see the translation problem. In our time and place, victimhood and victimization have such a connotation of meaninglessness injustice. Jesus' victimhood was certainly an injustice, but one that was, in the paradox of the cross, superabundant in meaning. Can we hear this over and above our common connotations of 'victim'?
"Even though hostia and victima may have been somewhat interchangeable in late antiquity when the Roman Canon came together, the meaning-history of hostia, with its general sense of sacrificial victim and technical use as such in ancient religion would seem to be lost to the average pray-er speaking it as 'victim' in twenty-first century English.
"So it goes to some basic questions regarding liturgical translation. For example, what is the value of trying to bring out the sense of terms in our best guesses as to their original connotation and intent? On other hand, one of the values embedded in the new translation, and to which I consent easily, is that sacral language, such as that of the liturgy, is not supposed to be the same as or beholden to common speech.
"So what do you think? Is it an o.k., good, or not-so-good thing to translate the hostia in hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam as 'victim'?"
[3] God's perfection has not stopped me from verbalizing it, even in the course of doing so I have brought it down to a level so low so that it is within the limits of my understanding. I do not think that attempts to reach for and comprehend the impossible are exercises in futility. On the contrary, the more we try to understand and strive for perfection, however futile our repeated efforts, the farther we are able to distance ourselves from Sin and the closer we are able to place ourselves within the presence of God. In the previous sentence I used the word "farther" to connote an actual measurable distance rather than "further" to connote a conceptual distance because Sin in all its forms and the Master of Sin, Satan are palpable. Sin and all its variations seem abstract because they exist in disguise. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is no longer wrapped around The Apple Tree around the apples of one's eye. (The last three sentences added on November 20, 2013.)
[4] As Brother Charles said victimhood has the connotation of meaninglessness (see http://friarminor.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-translation-victimhood.html ). It also connotes passivity. A victim today is not seen to be blameworthy but rather an individual who has done nothing wrong (without regard that he might not care about God or have done anything good) and hurting nobody (or so it seems) and is merely living in neutrality (as if any sinner can live in neutrality to evil and as if neutrality to evil is a virtue -- a secular virtue perhaps, but certainly not a heavenly virtue). Passivity, a characteristic of the modern victim is far, far away from the light of perfection which is God because passivity does not lead to God. God has given us life, the Free Will and the ability to act in the first instance and act we must in order to go toward God. [6] There are many acts but three stand out. First is to love: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A36-40&version=NIV. Second is to be humble: "In order to show that humility is the most beautiful, as well as the most precious of all virtues, our Lord begins His beatitudes with humility, by saying: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for to them belongs the kingdom of heaven.' St. Augustine tells us that the poor in spirit are those who have humility for their portions. The prophet Isaias said to God: 'Lord, upon whom does Thy holy spirit descend? Is it perhaps upon those who bear a great name in this world, and upon the proud?' 'No,' said the Lord, 'but upon those that are humble of heart.'" [7] Third is to think and act with purity (without guise, deceit, hypocrisy or the like): "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God." [8] Therefore, being passive or neutral is not enough. Just as Christ had behaved and acted, so must we behave and act. Note: Before Pontius Pilate, Christ did not act passively; He acted respectfully. And Christ was not passive on the cross; He was at every moment of his suffering obedient to God until the very end in order to save us from eternal damnation. Christ is our Savior, not a beloved victim.
[5] http://friarminor.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-translation-victimhood.html
[6] God opened the door and gave us Christ, Christ the Savior, not Christ the innocent, pure, holy and spotless victim, to show us the way.
[7] Ven. Curé of Ars (Jean Baptiste Marie Vianney), Sermons of the Curé of Ars (Minnesota: The Neumann Press, 1984), 258.
[8] http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/5.htm
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Passing Through The Seasons
Vignettes of time spent alone with Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary...
Walking along the beach with a rosary in the pocket leaving transient footprints in the cool, wet sand at the edge of tides that ebb and flow on a quiet and warm mid-summer afternoon, then pausing and looking at patterns that glitter with exquisite beauty for one moment, wiped clean by the tide the very next, leaving yet another work of unique shapes, at times surprisingly heavenly;
Hiking up a narrow path in the morning of the first frost flanked between maple trees on a gentle slope with leaves of autumn on their branches and on the ground crackling beneath the shoes toward a monastery cemetery; with nothing particular in mind but mindful of the chill in the air that winter would soon arrive and that spring had long ago faded away, yet at times wondering what comes after life has ended before the mind rests and draws a blank once more with the body having goosebumps once in a while from an uncertain origin of cold; [1]
Praying for a white Christmas when a smattering of white flakes came down during the late evening sky the night before Christmas eve quietly but quickly blanketing the grounds with patches of dirt and weed with an untold thickness of soft powdery snow, then excitedly and quickly boots were on the feet and arms were through a winter jacket, giving no thought to anything else, running to an open space with fresh fallen snow and dropping into nature's new soft comforter making a first snow angel in many a year, and unable to contain the awakening of a long-abandoned childhood fascination with snow angels, many more were made and made with love, standing up carefully from one angel then leaping to another spot making another, and another until joy and gratitude started to well up from within and tears started to well up in the eyes, and while sitting down on an uneven tree stump prayers came forth with a certain sweetness rarely attainable, easily remembered, and hardly describable;
Seeing patches of ice framed by specks of dirt melting away on the ground in the early afternoon and leaf buds emerging in the sun from the stark branches high up in the trees, in seemingly no time at all blossoms are in full bloom with honey bees pollinating life, propelling it forward, waking the sense of smell from its hibernation and the urge to stroll through a soft breeze carrying a hint of fragrance of lavender on one path, of roses on another and as the fragrance of flowers subsides, a whiff of crisp clean air interrupts the dreaminess of the moment as the path meanders along a bubbling brook filled with a mix of of spring rain and melted snow, bending light green blades of grass and bright yellow buttercups along its banks where in the shallows occasionally a small fish hiding under a rock can be spotted, filling an otherwise listless soul with hope, hope that seasons are not merely markers of time, that passing through them year after year is not the same as going around and around, that every time the seasons rotate, they are being experienced in a slightly different sphere at a slightly higher plane in ascending order toward an ever expanding space that is heaven, that is filled with so much love that an eternity cannot absorb or embrace all of it while every moment is a moment of complete and absolute fulfillment.
[1] The Hail Mary is appropriate here, in Latin: Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Walking along the beach with a rosary in the pocket leaving transient footprints in the cool, wet sand at the edge of tides that ebb and flow on a quiet and warm mid-summer afternoon, then pausing and looking at patterns that glitter with exquisite beauty for one moment, wiped clean by the tide the very next, leaving yet another work of unique shapes, at times surprisingly heavenly;
Hiking up a narrow path in the morning of the first frost flanked between maple trees on a gentle slope with leaves of autumn on their branches and on the ground crackling beneath the shoes toward a monastery cemetery; with nothing particular in mind but mindful of the chill in the air that winter would soon arrive and that spring had long ago faded away, yet at times wondering what comes after life has ended before the mind rests and draws a blank once more with the body having goosebumps once in a while from an uncertain origin of cold; [1]
Praying for a white Christmas when a smattering of white flakes came down during the late evening sky the night before Christmas eve quietly but quickly blanketing the grounds with patches of dirt and weed with an untold thickness of soft powdery snow, then excitedly and quickly boots were on the feet and arms were through a winter jacket, giving no thought to anything else, running to an open space with fresh fallen snow and dropping into nature's new soft comforter making a first snow angel in many a year, and unable to contain the awakening of a long-abandoned childhood fascination with snow angels, many more were made and made with love, standing up carefully from one angel then leaping to another spot making another, and another until joy and gratitude started to well up from within and tears started to well up in the eyes, and while sitting down on an uneven tree stump prayers came forth with a certain sweetness rarely attainable, easily remembered, and hardly describable;
Seeing patches of ice framed by specks of dirt melting away on the ground in the early afternoon and leaf buds emerging in the sun from the stark branches high up in the trees, in seemingly no time at all blossoms are in full bloom with honey bees pollinating life, propelling it forward, waking the sense of smell from its hibernation and the urge to stroll through a soft breeze carrying a hint of fragrance of lavender on one path, of roses on another and as the fragrance of flowers subsides, a whiff of crisp clean air interrupts the dreaminess of the moment as the path meanders along a bubbling brook filled with a mix of of spring rain and melted snow, bending light green blades of grass and bright yellow buttercups along its banks where in the shallows occasionally a small fish hiding under a rock can be spotted, filling an otherwise listless soul with hope, hope that seasons are not merely markers of time, that passing through them year after year is not the same as going around and around, that every time the seasons rotate, they are being experienced in a slightly different sphere at a slightly higher plane in ascending order toward an ever expanding space that is heaven, that is filled with so much love that an eternity cannot absorb or embrace all of it while every moment is a moment of complete and absolute fulfillment.
[1] The Hail Mary is appropriate here, in Latin: Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Feast Day of San Francesco d'Assisi
October 4th is the Feast Day of Saint Francis of Assisi according to Catholic Online. [1] Since San Francesco d'Assisi is my favorite saint, I feel compelled to write something about him today. Of the many things I could write about on this October 4, 2013, I have chosen not to express an opinion on the "carefully choreographed pilgrimage" [2] by pope Frank to Assisi, Italy. Today is a day to be prayerful rather than critical.
Today, in the year 1226, Francesco d'Assisi left us to go join Christ in heaven:
and
[1] http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=50
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/world/europe/pope-francis-assisi.html
[3] Armstrong, Regis J. O.F.M. Cap. et.al. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, Volume II, The Founder. Page 107. New York: New York City Press, 2000.
[4] There seems to be a discrepancy between the book from which the above quotation is taken and various sources on the internet with respect to the day Saint Francis of Assisi left this world. The book has the date October 4th while others online have October 3rd. I go by the book.
[5] Armstrong, Regis J. O.F.M. Cap. et.al. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, Volume I, The Saint. Page 346. New York: New York City Press, 2000.
[6] Armstrong, Regis J. O.F.M. Cap. et.al. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, Volume I, The Saint. Page 347. New York: New York City Press, 2000.
Today, in the year 1226, Francesco d'Assisi left us to go join Christ in heaven:
On this Feast Day of Saint Francis of Assisi, this blog memorializes two prayers below, quoted verbatim:After twenty years of clinging most perfectly to Christ, and of following the life and footsteps of the apostles, in the one thousandth, two hundredth, and twenty-sixth year of the Incarnation of the Lord, on the fourth of October, a Sunday, Francis, that apostolic man, most joyfully passed to Christ, winning eternal rest after many labors, and fittingly entering into the presence of the Lord." (Emphasis original.) [3], [4]
"God, by the merits of blessed Francis you enlarge your Church with the birth of new offspring. Grant, that by imitating him we may look away from everything on earth, in order to enjoy forever sharing the gifts of heaven." [5]
and
"Make holy, Lord, the gifts presented to you, and, through the intercession of the blessed Francis, purify us of all our lapses into sin." [6]
[1] http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=50
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/world/europe/pope-francis-assisi.html
[3] Armstrong, Regis J. O.F.M. Cap. et.al. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, Volume II, The Founder. Page 107. New York: New York City Press, 2000.
[4] There seems to be a discrepancy between the book from which the above quotation is taken and various sources on the internet with respect to the day Saint Francis of Assisi left this world. The book has the date October 4th while others online have October 3rd. I go by the book.
[5] Armstrong, Regis J. O.F.M. Cap. et.al. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, Volume I, The Saint. Page 346. New York: New York City Press, 2000.
[6] Armstrong, Regis J. O.F.M. Cap. et.al. Francis of Assisi: Early Documents, Volume I, The Saint. Page 347. New York: New York City Press, 2000.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Photographs Of Hell On Earth
Lake Natron in Tanzania is not a lake anyone would swim in because the result is calcification. It could very well be a glimpse of Hell's Eden, the garden of Satan. According to the report, the water is blood-red and steaming hot. Photographs can be seen here: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/bird-mummies-natron-lakes-toxic-waters-petrify-animals-fall-8C11322626 or here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/03/calcified-animals_n_4032659.html?1380818481&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl4|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D385951 Are these deaths this a sign of things to come? [1]
[1] Revelation 16:3-5 quoted below from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+16%3A3-5&version=NIV :
[1] Revelation 16:3-5 quoted below from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+16%3A3-5&version=NIV :
3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.New International Version (NIV)
4 The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. 5 Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say:
“You are just in these judgments, O Holy One,
you who are and who were;
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
My E-mail To Universalis - Continued
To my surprise, Universalis.com replied to my e-mail. I replied. The exchange is copied below:
Thank you, sincerely, Martin, for your reply. I will think deeply about your edifying words and start with this question which I will answer in my blog:
Was God a victim of perfection in goodness by giving Adam and Eve Free Will?
God Bless.
Al
From: Universalis
To: (deleted by Al)
Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2013 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: Midday Prayer Friday 27 September 2013
Well, we didn't write this: the Church did. The Congregation for Divine Worship would be the people to consult.
The hymn "Victimae paschali laudes" is ancient - and of course Christ is represented as a sacrificial victim (a sheep, in fact) in the Agnus Dei at every Mass.
At 22:48 27/09/2013 -0700, you wrote:
Dear Unversalis,
First of all, thank you for the website.
Today, I have questions on one of the prayers at Sext. The prayer follows with the word in question highlighted:
Let us pray.
Lord Jesus Christ,
who at this sixth hour, when the whole world was shrouded in darkness,
mounted the wood of the cross
as the innocent victim for our redemption,
give us always that light
which will bring us to eternal life.
You live and reign for ever and ever.
Amen.
Why is Christ, the Son of God who chose freely to obey His Father, to suffer and be crucified for the redemption of Sin, a victim? Can Christ Who is part of the Holy Trinity can ever be a victim? Was Christ not someone who could have walked away from the Cross freely by choosing a different birth, a different path, or by submitting Himself to the will of the ruling Jews and Romans? Was He not trying to set an example for all of us, to become leaders, to speak His Truth, to become His warriors, to battle for and become a testament to the Truth? Is it not true that a victim has the right to blame others for their plight? Did any of Christ's disciples blame anyone for theirs? Do you think any one of them would consider themselves to be hapless victims rather than saviors of souls? Do you think that Christ ever thought the He was a victim of circumstances beyond His control and therefore we can rightly consider Him to be a "victim"?
I would be most grateful if you are able to answer my questions and enlighten me.
Thank you.
Al----------------------
Martin Kochanski
Webmaster, Universalis
----------------------
Universalis Publishing Ltd, 81 Cambridge Mansions, London SW11 4RX, England
Email: universalis@cardbox.com
Web: http://www.universalis.com
Twitter: @CatholicFeasts
Facebook: http://facebook.com/universalisCom
Blog: http://universalis.wordpress.com
Mailing list: http://forums.universalis.com/UNIV
(Your email address will not be given to anyone, and you can leave the mailing list at any time.)
eBooks: http://www.universalis.com/n-ebooks.htm
Downloadable Universalis for Windows, Mac, iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch, Android 4.0:
http://www.universalis.com/n-apps.htm
A Priest Stepped Down
A 58-year old man who had been a priest for 18 years fathered a son who is soon to be born stepped down on Saturday and he is no longer performing priestly duties. [1] We are all sinners and I pray that he receives God's forgiveness even though he broke the vow of chastity while he was a priest. I am fairly certain that he is not the only priest or monk who had broken this vow who are still continuing with their priestly or brotherly vocations.
While I do not judge this priest or others who have been unchaste, I do maintain, at least for myself who at one point entertained the possibility of becoming a man of cloth, that a vow of chastity taken before God to commit oneself to a life loving and serving God is sacrosanct, but if one has difficulty in keeping the vow, he must ask to be released from the vow before breaking it. Otherwise, it would be a betrayal of one's bond with God, a bond that is bound by a boundless love so personal, intimate and private that it has no equivalent. It would hurt when it is broken, and I think it would hurt much, much more when it is broken without prior consultation and prayer. [2]
[1] http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130925/A_NEWS/309250326
[2] I do not know how much it hurts God if one considers entering into this unique bond but in the end walks away from it relative to the breaking of the bond after prostrating oneself before God and making a vow. Perhaps it depends on what the person does with his life afterwards. Perhaps the pain of regret or disappointment can be attenuated or compensated by acts of goodness and prayer. The time will come when I will know. Hopefully, the blood of Christ and the intercessions of the Blessed Virgin Mary would be enough for salvation.
While I do not judge this priest or others who have been unchaste, I do maintain, at least for myself who at one point entertained the possibility of becoming a man of cloth, that a vow of chastity taken before God to commit oneself to a life loving and serving God is sacrosanct, but if one has difficulty in keeping the vow, he must ask to be released from the vow before breaking it. Otherwise, it would be a betrayal of one's bond with God, a bond that is bound by a boundless love so personal, intimate and private that it has no equivalent. It would hurt when it is broken, and I think it would hurt much, much more when it is broken without prior consultation and prayer. [2]
[1] http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130925/A_NEWS/309250326
[2] I do not know how much it hurts God if one considers entering into this unique bond but in the end walks away from it relative to the breaking of the bond after prostrating oneself before God and making a vow. Perhaps it depends on what the person does with his life afterwards. Perhaps the pain of regret or disappointment can be attenuated or compensated by acts of goodness and prayer. The time will come when I will know. Hopefully, the blood of Christ and the intercessions of the Blessed Virgin Mary would be enough for salvation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
