What.. What. . Wait? when did this happen? When did November creep up on me??
Sorry guys, I won't be posting anything in my blog area until after the JLPT test in December. Why? Because I am that serious about passing it that I will probably be cutting out any and all semi-necessary activities to study for it... which is bad because I just found out Saturday that I have enough willpower to study until I literally fall asleep in mid-sentence. @_@
I'll have to figure out some way to inject more energy into this body of mine.... the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, no?
Also, please pray for me that I might get accepted by JET. I am applying to work in Japan starting next summer and yeah, the cut-off date is in November. Between that and the typical school stuffs are going to be classified as essentials just so that I actually remember to work on them.
So, in my absence...
Go and Set the world on Fire
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Secularism
So, what is secularism anyway? What is particular to French Secularism?
Am I supposed to be opposed to Secularism? These are the kind of questions I've been pondering today.
Setting aside for a moment the basic dictionary definitions which simply point to things like "of or relating to the world" or "not overtly or specifically religious," I have to mention why this is bugging me. The definition I was given by a classmate, who happens to be fluent in French, bothered me horribly.
Secularism is something, be it a person place or thing, devoid of religion or so I've heard. I, however, don't understand how anybody could think this is even a plausible theory, let alone a fact. There is no such thing as something devoid of religion (when you presume it to be talking of irremovable beliefs). No doubt, the makers of Merriam Webster's dictionary realized this fact because their definitions are pretty sanitized. Check them out sometime.
My logic comes from the basic thought that religion and philosophy are intimately intertwined. Obviously the whole topic is about 10x's more extensive than how I am going to quickly cover here, but I think I have to point out how people's professed and actual religions/philosophies can be different. However, the point of the matter is that we are all philosophical people whether we've chosen to philosophize or not. Why? Well, when you choose not to philosophize, you haven't actually chosen to not philosophize but instead have chosen to not think. That, of course, is still a philosophy even if it is a bad one.
Thinking of this in terms of the secular then, there is no such thing as a place devoid of religion (using the term loosely to mean belief) because casting out all Islamic, Christian, or Hindu symbols will still leave you with a belief system: atheism or worse any of the myriad of apathetic belief systems.
My question then to tickle your brains is whether I should be then opposed to secularism? as it is defined by Webster? OR should I be more concerned about differences in application and the definition? Ah, politics and religion....
Am I supposed to be opposed to Secularism? These are the kind of questions I've been pondering today.
Setting aside for a moment the basic dictionary definitions which simply point to things like "of or relating to the world" or "not overtly or specifically religious," I have to mention why this is bugging me. The definition I was given by a classmate, who happens to be fluent in French, bothered me horribly.
Secularism is something, be it a person place or thing, devoid of religion or so I've heard. I, however, don't understand how anybody could think this is even a plausible theory, let alone a fact. There is no such thing as something devoid of religion (when you presume it to be talking of irremovable beliefs). No doubt, the makers of Merriam Webster's dictionary realized this fact because their definitions are pretty sanitized. Check them out sometime.
My logic comes from the basic thought that religion and philosophy are intimately intertwined. Obviously the whole topic is about 10x's more extensive than how I am going to quickly cover here, but I think I have to point out how people's professed and actual religions/philosophies can be different. However, the point of the matter is that we are all philosophical people whether we've chosen to philosophize or not. Why? Well, when you choose not to philosophize, you haven't actually chosen to not philosophize but instead have chosen to not think. That, of course, is still a philosophy even if it is a bad one.
Thinking of this in terms of the secular then, there is no such thing as a place devoid of religion (using the term loosely to mean belief) because casting out all Islamic, Christian, or Hindu symbols will still leave you with a belief system: atheism or worse any of the myriad of apathetic belief systems.
My question then to tickle your brains is whether I should be then opposed to secularism? as it is defined by Webster? OR should I be more concerned about differences in application and the definition? Ah, politics and religion....
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Alice and Christopher West
To start off with, this whole situation initially confused me as well, but I figured that sorting through it in words would be helpful.
First off, Exhibit A:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Sex/Story?id=7527380&page=2 May 7, 2009
Actually, you don't have to read that because, in fact, I find that article horribly offensive because I've read some of Christopher West's books, and even been to a talk of his (if I remember correctly). However, the ABC news piece takes snippets of what Christopher said in an interview and then twists them by putting a very scandalous spin on his beliefs. Despite the negative patterns of this interview, West is really just awesome when it comes to making Catholic teaching relevant to our current generation. Why then does this article exist? My assessment would be simply that he is too pure to notice when he is being led to the slaughter.
Now, Exhibit B:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15950 May 12, 2009
First off, before I get started on my commentary, note the date. This interview with Alice Von Hildebrand occurred right after the above ABC post which I found offensive but (Thank God!) knew enough about Christopher West as to not be scandalized. Alice's harsh critique of Christopher West, if it is truly a reaction to the ABC article, and there is evidence that it is, then I would conjecture that she is knocking down little straw men instead of constructively critiquing West. Now let me add one more piece of relevant information. She does claim to have read the following.
Exhibit C:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15928 May 9, 2009
This article is concerned with West taking the opportunity to try and set straight some of the sensationalizing that occurred in the ABC interview.
Now, before I continue, you may be wondering who Alice Von Hildebrand is, aren't you? Well, she is the wife of Dietrich Von Hildebrand who was a renowned advocate of purity. Not having read either of their books, with the exception of skimming Alice's "The Privilege of being a woman," I really can't comment any further. Except to say that they are both on the same battlefield for purity as Christopher West and have their own unique approach to teaching it.
See http://www.hildebrandlegacy.org/main.cfm?r1=1.00&ID=1&level=1 for more information.
Now, let me call your attention back to exhibit B. I was really disappointed in this article. Alice starts off by saying that she "knew the gist of the Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body." Additionally, I was disappointed to note that I could not find her mention anywhere how extensive her knowledge was of Christopher West's materials. So, it struck me that she was likely not actually qualified to be making any remarks on the matter. When you are critiquing someone who is an expert on something extensive like say the Theology of the Body (a series of 129 sermons given over a five year period) and you only get the "gist" of the thing, you have no right to give definitive remarks. It only creates unnecessary turmoil from within the Church and extends from a lack of charity.
Actually, the thing that bothered me the most was that she attacked his reverence. If her reaction was to the ABC article, then yes he did appear irreverent, but that was hardly a good presentation of West. In fact, I would say he is rather reverent and on the very same side as Alice. A fact, which might have been communicated during his two-hour interview but not in the seven-minute regurgitation.
The impression I get is that Alice and her husband's works are geared for those ready for an intense, highly conservative approach to God and sexuality. They are like the howitzers of war, the enemy can't even get close and the user has to already be strongly entrenched on their side to properly utilize them.
Christopher West's materials are more like the everyday Ak-47's, grenades or flamethrowers of war that are used in the everyday grind. He simply brings the content to the world in which the world can relate, and his materials are in the middle of the conflict on the front lines.
My overall summary is simple. These two are together in the same war fighting on the same side with no time for this sort of dissonance. I see their two approaches as different, not contradictory, but even quite possibly complimentary. I would say Christopher West is seeking to be a different face for the world. An approach best summarized in the immortal words of St. Paul "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor 9:22
For those who want to see the entire Theology of the Body talks, I give this link:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm
First off, Exhibit A:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Sex/Story?id=7527380&page=2 May 7, 2009
Actually, you don't have to read that because, in fact, I find that article horribly offensive because I've read some of Christopher West's books, and even been to a talk of his (if I remember correctly). However, the ABC news piece takes snippets of what Christopher said in an interview and then twists them by putting a very scandalous spin on his beliefs. Despite the negative patterns of this interview, West is really just awesome when it comes to making Catholic teaching relevant to our current generation. Why then does this article exist? My assessment would be simply that he is too pure to notice when he is being led to the slaughter.
Now, Exhibit B:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15950 May 12, 2009
First off, before I get started on my commentary, note the date. This interview with Alice Von Hildebrand occurred right after the above ABC post which I found offensive but (Thank God!) knew enough about Christopher West as to not be scandalized. Alice's harsh critique of Christopher West, if it is truly a reaction to the ABC article, and there is evidence that it is, then I would conjecture that she is knocking down little straw men instead of constructively critiquing West. Now let me add one more piece of relevant information. She does claim to have read the following.
Exhibit C:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15928 May 9, 2009
This article is concerned with West taking the opportunity to try and set straight some of the sensationalizing that occurred in the ABC interview.
Now, before I continue, you may be wondering who Alice Von Hildebrand is, aren't you? Well, she is the wife of Dietrich Von Hildebrand who was a renowned advocate of purity. Not having read either of their books, with the exception of skimming Alice's "The Privilege of being a woman," I really can't comment any further. Except to say that they are both on the same battlefield for purity as Christopher West and have their own unique approach to teaching it.
See http://www.hildebrandlegacy.org/main.cfm?r1=1.00&ID=1&level=1 for more information.
Now, let me call your attention back to exhibit B. I was really disappointed in this article. Alice starts off by saying that she "knew the gist of the Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body." Additionally, I was disappointed to note that I could not find her mention anywhere how extensive her knowledge was of Christopher West's materials. So, it struck me that she was likely not actually qualified to be making any remarks on the matter. When you are critiquing someone who is an expert on something extensive like say the Theology of the Body (a series of 129 sermons given over a five year period) and you only get the "gist" of the thing, you have no right to give definitive remarks. It only creates unnecessary turmoil from within the Church and extends from a lack of charity.
Actually, the thing that bothered me the most was that she attacked his reverence. If her reaction was to the ABC article, then yes he did appear irreverent, but that was hardly a good presentation of West. In fact, I would say he is rather reverent and on the very same side as Alice. A fact, which might have been communicated during his two-hour interview but not in the seven-minute regurgitation.
The impression I get is that Alice and her husband's works are geared for those ready for an intense, highly conservative approach to God and sexuality. They are like the howitzers of war, the enemy can't even get close and the user has to already be strongly entrenched on their side to properly utilize them.
Christopher West's materials are more like the everyday Ak-47's, grenades or flamethrowers of war that are used in the everyday grind. He simply brings the content to the world in which the world can relate, and his materials are in the middle of the conflict on the front lines.
My overall summary is simple. These two are together in the same war fighting on the same side with no time for this sort of dissonance. I see their two approaches as different, not contradictory, but even quite possibly complimentary. I would say Christopher West is seeking to be a different face for the world. An approach best summarized in the immortal words of St. Paul "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." 1 Cor 9:22
For those who want to see the entire Theology of the Body talks, I give this link:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb2.htm
Friday, October 23, 2009
Momentous Decisions
As we all know momentous decisions are not to be made lightly. In fact they are quite the opposite, and since I have a few that I have to make here shortly, I've been trying to map out the various levels/stages/components that are key to a momentous decision. Before writing any further though, I must be acutely clear that what I am about to outline is concerned only with momentous decisions.
Normative Alliance
The decision should lead you down a path that is both right in means and end.
~if the end is not good, i don't know why you do it anyway.
~if the means are not good, you should bide your time and choose a different approach.
For example, if you wanted money and since money is not necessarily a bad thing, the ends are not bad. Although, sneaking into and stealing from someone would not be a good means. It would be better actually if you got a part-time job.
Emotional Preparation
If there is something causing you to worry about it, until a solution can be found, one should wait.
If you can't solve it on your own you should find a trustworthy friend to talk with.
Clarify Goals
Write out what you plan to do, that way if you ever have doubts you can recheck you math so to speak.
Decision Time
When it comes time for the actual decision to be made, make it unwaveringly. Being nervous is okay but you should appear calm.
Sticking with it
Stick with it, until you have thoroughly thought through reason as to why it doesn't work. Although, if you have already done the above things well, you should be able to proceed without looking back.
Religion/One's belief system
If what you believe is related to this at all, you should pray about it, or do whatever is most appropriate to your belief system. Me? I'd pray, maybe say the rosary.
I think that if you do all of the above you can approach your momentous decision without any worries. I'm still researching this though. Actually, I think that this sort of approach is quite relevant for vocational discernment.
省略：
正しさ
結果的にと行動的に正しいと思わない決定しないほうがいいです。
～結果的には正しくなければどうしてやろうとするがわからないです。。
～行動的には正しくなければ我慢して別の行動捜したほうがいい
例えば金がほしかったら金は別に悪いものでもないから結果的には問題ないんです. もし自分が決めた行動は誰かの家を忍び込んで盗むと言う事だったら多分バイトとかしたほうがいいですよ。
心構え
悩みまだあったら解決できるまで進まない方がいいです。
ちょっとした一人で考えてから自分が解決できなかったら信頼できる友達に相談したほうがいいです。
はっきり見える目的
自分の目的を紙には長く説明して書きなさい。 そうすれば決定の行動の悩みがあったらいつでも参考出来る物があるよ。
決定する事
決める時ちゃんと自信を持つしかないです。 ちょっと緊張してもいいけど冷静に行動したほうがいいです。
頑張りぬかないように
決めてから考え直してもいいけど立ち戻るまえに熟思した方がいいです。
でも基本的に上の事をちゃんとしたなら「決して立ち戻るな」のほうがいいです。
信仰
自分が信じる事「例えば宗教とか」によってふさわしい行動したほうがいいです。 たとえばロサリオを祈ります。
上の事ちゃんとするなら重要な決定したら心配しなくて言いと思いますよ。 でもまだ調べ中です。
Addendum:
With regard to momentous decisions, I have figured that the section with regard to sticking to it, is probably better classified as “Flexibility.” After all, once a decision is made, the path that it goes down still is new. So, as one heads down the path, no matter how much they might have planned or known ahead of time, new things do occur and might happen. When such situations arise they must be dealt with an open mind. Which is to say, per Chestertonian logic, that opening one’s mind is in the capacity of shutting it on something solid.
ちょっとした考え直した事があります。 ”頑張りぬかないように”と言いたいけど伝えたい概念はちょっと違います。 基本的にはどんな流れは現れても適用としなければなりません。 英語でいうとyou must be flexible. または柔軟な姿勢で取り組むことが大切です。 アルクのお陰でその文章が分かってきました。
Normative Alliance
The decision should lead you down a path that is both right in means and end.
~if the end is not good, i don't know why you do it anyway.
~if the means are not good, you should bide your time and choose a different approach.
For example, if you wanted money and since money is not necessarily a bad thing, the ends are not bad. Although, sneaking into and stealing from someone would not be a good means. It would be better actually if you got a part-time job.
Emotional Preparation
If there is something causing you to worry about it, until a solution can be found, one should wait.
If you can't solve it on your own you should find a trustworthy friend to talk with.
Clarify Goals
Write out what you plan to do, that way if you ever have doubts you can recheck you math so to speak.
Decision Time
When it comes time for the actual decision to be made, make it unwaveringly. Being nervous is okay but you should appear calm.
Sticking with it
Stick with it, until you have thoroughly thought through reason as to why it doesn't work. Although, if you have already done the above things well, you should be able to proceed without looking back.
Religion/One's belief system
If what you believe is related to this at all, you should pray about it, or do whatever is most appropriate to your belief system. Me? I'd pray, maybe say the rosary.
I think that if you do all of the above you can approach your momentous decision without any worries. I'm still researching this though. Actually, I think that this sort of approach is quite relevant for vocational discernment.
省略：
正しさ
結果的にと行動的に正しいと思わない決定しないほうがいいです。
～結果的には正しくなければどうしてやろうとするがわからないです。。
～行動的には正しくなければ我慢して別の行動捜したほうがいい
例えば金がほしかったら金は別に悪いものでもないから結果的には問題ないんです. もし自分が決めた行動は誰かの家を忍び込んで盗むと言う事だったら多分バイトとかしたほうがいいですよ。
心構え
悩みまだあったら解決できるまで進まない方がいいです。
ちょっとした一人で考えてから自分が解決できなかったら信頼できる友達に相談したほうがいいです。
はっきり見える目的
自分の目的を紙には長く説明して書きなさい。 そうすれば決定の行動の悩みがあったらいつでも参考出来る物があるよ。
決定する事
決める時ちゃんと自信を持つしかないです。 ちょっと緊張してもいいけど冷静に行動したほうがいいです。
頑張りぬかないように
決めてから考え直してもいいけど立ち戻るまえに熟思した方がいいです。
でも基本的に上の事をちゃんとしたなら「決して立ち戻るな」のほうがいいです。
信仰
自分が信じる事「例えば宗教とか」によってふさわしい行動したほうがいいです。 たとえばロサリオを祈ります。
上の事ちゃんとするなら重要な決定したら心配しなくて言いと思いますよ。 でもまだ調べ中です。
Addendum:
With regard to momentous decisions, I have figured that the section with regard to sticking to it, is probably better classified as “Flexibility.” After all, once a decision is made, the path that it goes down still is new. So, as one heads down the path, no matter how much they might have planned or known ahead of time, new things do occur and might happen. When such situations arise they must be dealt with an open mind. Which is to say, per Chestertonian logic, that opening one’s mind is in the capacity of shutting it on something solid.
ちょっとした考え直した事があります。 ”頑張りぬかないように”と言いたいけど伝えたい概念はちょっと違います。 基本的にはどんな流れは現れても適用としなければなりません。 英語でいうとyou must be flexible. または柔軟な姿勢で取り組むことが大切です。 アルクのお陰でその文章が分かってきました。
Sunday, October 18, 2009
So... I'm troubled, who doesn't have worries?
This is going to be me rambling something horrible so be forewarned.
Its really just the simple things that get us down right? I mean, I think that I shatter my core system nearly every week or so. Then I stare at the ground and begin to pick up the sharp pieces. It starts off with me getting cut on something like this: "Why am I alive?" and slowly as the pieces are re-assimilated, reborn or left behind, the inquiry degrades to such questions as "What's my purpose in life?" or "What's the point of school?" If I don't have a succinct answer or something that I can dig up quickly through some logic or inspiration, I start from scratch.
Some pieces of the old me are simply left on the ground and treated as only a memory, but I believe it is through this search that I am finding out some answers.
However, no, I don't claim to have any of the answers. In fact, the only thing I can tell you are possibly some things that aren't true. Its one thing for me to identify the broken discarded pieces of self, also known as failings, than it would be for me to express what the ideal "me" is. I mean to extrapolate this towards my search for truth. I'm not some all-powerful soothsayer, some grand philosopher king, some thrilling theologian, or some sort of expert on the Bible, but I take what I can and do with what I can in my limited space and time.
Perhaps the only wisdom I have stumbled upon, and that is only because I haven't found it false yet is that there are shards of truth in everything. It is just a matter of reaching in and getting your hands dirty in the things of this world. Then and only then do you experience the truth by cutting yourself on it.
Take the Halloween season for example. We, Catholics, tend to prefer All Soul's day which falls the day after Halloween and is a celebration of all those holy men and women that have gone before us. On the other hand, Halloween, the secular holiday, is sometimes frowned upon for its glorification of the morbid. I like to look at it a slightly different way. It is only through passing through the dark of Halloween that we emerge to the light of All Saints Day and All Soul's Day. Which I suppose leads to my justification for dressing as a vampire.
Vampires, in the old Bram Stoker sense, and not in the style of Twilight, Blade or even the original I am Legend sense, actually serve as to remind us of God much like the gargoyles of old served to remind us of the hideousness of sin. Vampires, you see, in the true sense are cursed beings for their offenses to God. They are therefore not wholly unlike us in our slavery to sin. In fact, their abject abhorrence for all things holy to the point of them incurring fatal wounds is still a nod to God's power.
At least when you compare them to most modern depictions of vampires that dumb down the whole vampire mystique to often nothing more than a genetic mutation or disease. Really, it is horribly disappointing as a reflection of how much so our culture has become obsessed with science to the point of our entertainment lacking any sort of spiritual mystique. Not to deny the specific rationale of science, but could one say that denial of the spiritual is irrational?
Now that I've digressed totally, let me clarify one thing. I have worries, and I think I can come up with rational answers to them which is not wholly a bad thing. What I am having trouble remembering to do is to drop everything of my own and remember the lesson of Peter walking on water. Look at God, focus on God and the maelstrom that is the world around you will matter not. I pray that someday I will be able to leave my worries at the altar and move on.
I leave you with my ramblings.
Go and set the world Ablaze!
Its really just the simple things that get us down right? I mean, I think that I shatter my core system nearly every week or so. Then I stare at the ground and begin to pick up the sharp pieces. It starts off with me getting cut on something like this: "Why am I alive?" and slowly as the pieces are re-assimilated, reborn or left behind, the inquiry degrades to such questions as "What's my purpose in life?" or "What's the point of school?" If I don't have a succinct answer or something that I can dig up quickly through some logic or inspiration, I start from scratch.
Some pieces of the old me are simply left on the ground and treated as only a memory, but I believe it is through this search that I am finding out some answers.
However, no, I don't claim to have any of the answers. In fact, the only thing I can tell you are possibly some things that aren't true. Its one thing for me to identify the broken discarded pieces of self, also known as failings, than it would be for me to express what the ideal "me" is. I mean to extrapolate this towards my search for truth. I'm not some all-powerful soothsayer, some grand philosopher king, some thrilling theologian, or some sort of expert on the Bible, but I take what I can and do with what I can in my limited space and time.
Perhaps the only wisdom I have stumbled upon, and that is only because I haven't found it false yet is that there are shards of truth in everything. It is just a matter of reaching in and getting your hands dirty in the things of this world. Then and only then do you experience the truth by cutting yourself on it.
Take the Halloween season for example. We, Catholics, tend to prefer All Soul's day which falls the day after Halloween and is a celebration of all those holy men and women that have gone before us. On the other hand, Halloween, the secular holiday, is sometimes frowned upon for its glorification of the morbid. I like to look at it a slightly different way. It is only through passing through the dark of Halloween that we emerge to the light of All Saints Day and All Soul's Day. Which I suppose leads to my justification for dressing as a vampire.
Vampires, in the old Bram Stoker sense, and not in the style of Twilight, Blade or even the original I am Legend sense, actually serve as to remind us of God much like the gargoyles of old served to remind us of the hideousness of sin. Vampires, you see, in the true sense are cursed beings for their offenses to God. They are therefore not wholly unlike us in our slavery to sin. In fact, their abject abhorrence for all things holy to the point of them incurring fatal wounds is still a nod to God's power.
At least when you compare them to most modern depictions of vampires that dumb down the whole vampire mystique to often nothing more than a genetic mutation or disease. Really, it is horribly disappointing as a reflection of how much so our culture has become obsessed with science to the point of our entertainment lacking any sort of spiritual mystique. Not to deny the specific rationale of science, but could one say that denial of the spiritual is irrational?
Now that I've digressed totally, let me clarify one thing. I have worries, and I think I can come up with rational answers to them which is not wholly a bad thing. What I am having trouble remembering to do is to drop everything of my own and remember the lesson of Peter walking on water. Look at God, focus on God and the maelstrom that is the world around you will matter not. I pray that someday I will be able to leave my worries at the altar and move on.
I leave you with my ramblings.
Go and set the world Ablaze!
Friday, October 02, 2009
Mary, Mother of God?
I just wanted to bring this to forefront. ^_^
Originally posted Oct 2, 2009 as a response to Random Bible thoughts of August 22, 2009
My response is as follows:
Cute: Did I talk to my father about this one? Which one? ^_^
May I be so bold as to ask: Why do you take pride in that you are flying solo? I try, yet often fail to admit my weakness and seek to learn through the help of others. Remember, I too believe it necessary that faith be in accord with the scriptures.
That said, you have failed to understand what it was that I was stating as I too failed to understand you as well. Let me try and clear the air a little:
I think that the assumptions that are causing conflict for us are in the implications that motherhood holds for our faith. I assume motherhood to be a status or position especially with regard to a maternal connection. Correct me if I am wrong, but you assume motherhood implicates the total "begetting" of that to which she gives birth.
I do believe I can actually agree with four of your points. With Point 2, however, I must clarify that the I do not understand what you mean by apocryphal because none of the definitions of apocryphal that I am aware of are relevant in this situation. The title Mother of God is most certainly not erroneous or without authorship. I offer one place where the concept is at the very least expressed: Luke 1:42 “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
As to what you're really getting at, which is the "solo scriptura" belief. I'll say it now and clearly, I find that unscriptural. So, no doubt you know the implications of what I am saying. Scripture and Tradition (not to be confused with traditions of men) are two sides of the same coin and as such any attempts to separate the two lead to dire consequences.
In summary, I'll try and state the Catholic Church's views on this:
Mary because she is the Mother of Jesus Christ she is the Mother of God but, most agreeably for you, she is not the one to beget His existence. The Catholic Church condemns the notion of Mary pre-existing God. However, (English strikes again) the Catholic Church maintains Mary's title of mother of God as the most near translation for the word “Theotokos” (God-bearer/Mother of God) because it best maintains the expression of Mary's maternal connection to the person Jesus Christ. Not because it says Mary created God or some other preposterous notion.
Also, try and look into the church fathers sometime, they are hardly silent on the matter of Mary as mother of God. I recommend St. Cyril of Jerusalem especially.
Finally, Claim A? Actually, I see you're syllogism lacking but I don't know the most tactful way to express that. Your Claim A is lacking clarity concerning in what way and in what respect Godhood and manhood are separable and individually distinct. It is on that tiny piece of information that the rest of your argument hinges.
That said, I don't think I have anything to disagree with you on Claim A regardless, but I will clarify by saying that the two natures of Christ, Godhood and Manhood, are separable and distinct but that the person of Christ is not separable. As an extension of this thought, the person's of the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and Jesus Christ are separable and distinct but All three are the same God, the Trinity.
Continue Ablaze bro
P.S. So confused @_@ How are Zecharias's words related...?
Originally posted Oct 2, 2009 as a response to Random Bible thoughts of August 22, 2009
Hello Xavier.
Did you talk to your father about this one? :-)
I did not get this teaching from any theological school, teacher or books. I arrived at this conclusion independently through the study of Scripture. It is in Scripture that my assumptions are based.
If you reread my post, you will find NONE of the following assumptions: personhood begins at birth; Jesus' divinity and humanity are incompatible; Jesus could not be both God and man simultaneously, but would have to switch between the two. Indeed, I refute all three of these premises, and still arrive at the same conclusion.
How is this possible? I refer you to the following assumptions, which I apparently failed to set forth clearly before:
1) Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ, who was simultaneously both fully God and fully man.
2) The phrase "Mother of God" is not found in Scripture, and can therefore be considered apocryphal-- i.e. that it is an invention (at least as a phrase).
3) Personhood begins at conception.
4) Before his physical conception as a human, the Lord Jesus Christ was in existence in the world as the sole, eternal, omnipotent Creator God.
5) Mary could not have contributed to God's existence as set forth in Claim 4, because God existed in the world before she did-- as HER OWN Creator.
I doubt that you would deny claims 1, 3, or 4. But what do you think of claims 2 and 5?
If you are honest with yourself and take claim 2 at face value, I think you will agree with it in principle-- despite its strong wording. All this point asks you to concede is that the *phrase* is an invention of man, which cannot be found in Scripture. Therefore it lacks ultimate theological weight.
Also, in response to your comment, I'll raise a new claim. :)
Claim A: Though not incompatible, the two concepts of Godhood and manhood are separable and individually distinct.
Rationale: Suppose that you reject Claim A. Then Godhood and manhood are not individually distinct. Then, because all men certainly possess manhood, all men also possess Godhood*. Thus, to reject Claim A is clearly blasphemous and against the teaching of Scripture.
*[Go ahead and try to refute this conclusion under the assumption that Claim A is false. You'll see what I mean.]
This is called proof by contradiction, and is a familiar logical progression to math-heads like myself. Let me know what you think!
Peace. --Jacob
P.s. While reviewing the virgin birth, I ran across another passage you might enjoy: Luke 1:68-75.
My response is as follows:
Cute: Did I talk to my father about this one? Which one? ^_^
May I be so bold as to ask: Why do you take pride in that you are flying solo? I try, yet often fail to admit my weakness and seek to learn through the help of others. Remember, I too believe it necessary that faith be in accord with the scriptures.
That said, you have failed to understand what it was that I was stating as I too failed to understand you as well. Let me try and clear the air a little:
I think that the assumptions that are causing conflict for us are in the implications that motherhood holds for our faith. I assume motherhood to be a status or position especially with regard to a maternal connection. Correct me if I am wrong, but you assume motherhood implicates the total "begetting" of that to which she gives birth.
I do believe I can actually agree with four of your points. With Point 2, however, I must clarify that the I do not understand what you mean by apocryphal because none of the definitions of apocryphal that I am aware of are relevant in this situation. The title Mother of God is most certainly not erroneous or without authorship. I offer one place where the concept is at the very least expressed: Luke 1:42 “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”
As to what you're really getting at, which is the "solo scriptura" belief. I'll say it now and clearly, I find that unscriptural. So, no doubt you know the implications of what I am saying. Scripture and Tradition (not to be confused with traditions of men) are two sides of the same coin and as such any attempts to separate the two lead to dire consequences.
In summary, I'll try and state the Catholic Church's views on this:
Mary because she is the Mother of Jesus Christ she is the Mother of God but, most agreeably for you, she is not the one to beget His existence. The Catholic Church condemns the notion of Mary pre-existing God. However, (English strikes again) the Catholic Church maintains Mary's title of mother of God as the most near translation for the word “Theotokos” (God-bearer/Mother of God) because it best maintains the expression of Mary's maternal connection to the person Jesus Christ. Not because it says Mary created God or some other preposterous notion.
Also, try and look into the church fathers sometime, they are hardly silent on the matter of Mary as mother of God. I recommend St. Cyril of Jerusalem especially.
Finally, Claim A? Actually, I see you're syllogism lacking but I don't know the most tactful way to express that. Your Claim A is lacking clarity concerning in what way and in what respect Godhood and manhood are separable and individually distinct. It is on that tiny piece of information that the rest of your argument hinges.
That said, I don't think I have anything to disagree with you on Claim A regardless, but I will clarify by saying that the two natures of Christ, Godhood and Manhood, are separable and distinct but that the person of Christ is not separable. As an extension of this thought, the person's of the Holy Spirit, God the Father, and Jesus Christ are separable and distinct but All three are the same God, the Trinity.
Continue Ablaze bro
P.S. So confused @_@ How are Zecharias's words related...?
Thursday, October 01, 2009
This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?
Let me start at the beginning.
Leaving work today, I headed over to St.Margaret Mary's over by UNO. Well, I did make a little detour to grab an Odwalla bar from Wholners but that story is beside the point and the bar is long since been inside my stomach. Anyway, I made it to the church in time to join the beginning of the Eucaristic Procession across UNO campus. Funneling my way into the line, I felt at first a complete outsider. Everyone around me possessed a candle and a song sheet. I only had my green jacket to wrap around me.
Amidst the cold air and slight wind, we made our way to a small makeshift altar set up by Memorial Park by the crosswalk. It was a beautiful sight with the Monstrance at the head of the procession. The Monstrance was complete with a mobile tent carried by four altar servers. There we all knelt before Christ our Lord and prayed for a few minutes before moving along, but it was then a thought came to me.
What do others think? What does it look like we are doing? What are we doing? No really, why am I here? My doubting Thomas had settled in and wasn't about to back off until he had his answers. Whether my mind would wait or not didn't matter. Father had started off the rosary with our creed and general intercessory prayers. Then the group began to move across the crosswalk and into the heart of campus. We began to pray the luminous mysteries of the rosary as we went on our way, so I pulled my sword(rosary) from it's sheath and hoped my mind would catch up with my actions.
While I prayed along, I tried to meditate on the mysteries one after another. First, there was our Lord's Baptism in the Jordan which I can remember pretty well because the back half of the group where I was was just far enough back that we couldn't hear the first half well enough to respond. The next was the Wedding at Cana, where I began to try to seek out my answers.
Who cares what other's think? Really? I don't, I can't, why? because this is who I am, I can't change that.
Then I became distracted because I realized that a pre-designated part of our group was kneeling in the street to allow the procession to continue uninterrupted by traffic. A couple cars were stopped in their tracks by this action. Imagining for a second what we looked like, I think anyone would have their preconceptions shaken by that unexpected sight. There were people kneeling in the street!
Then we meditated on the Proclamation of the Kingdom where Jesus made his sermon on the mount, gave us the beatitudes and announced his divine Davidic Kingship. While I recalled related images and passages, we passed in front of Kaiser Hall. I found myself somewhat giddy, partially because of the cold, but also because such an obviously catholic group had just invaded the dead secularism of UNO. I couldn't even imagine this sight in correlation to UNO. My mind went numb.
The announcement of the mystery of the Transfiguration caught me off guard and I my mind wandered into realms of Moses. Moses and Elijah, both prefigurements of Christ, one of his saving power and the other of his prophetic influence hovered amidst my mind. Then somehow my mind extended back to both Moses and the manna in the desert and Elijah and the cakes he requested. The parallels grew because both were bread-like, life saving and seemingly endless in supply.
Then it hit me like Bam! We were on the mystery of the Institution of the Eucharist. Instead of my mind leaping to the usual images of the Last Supper and various related thoughts, the road to Emmaus strode in unannounced.
My stream of consciousness went approximately as follows.
[Were not our hearts burning within us?
when He opened the scriptures for us...
When He revealed their connections.
But, why then was it in the breaking of the bread that we came to know Him.
This is hard saying, who can hear it?
This is my Body, This is my Blood. Take eat, Take drink.
Do this in memory of me (anamnesis, in doing so, you make it present once again)
Were not our hearts burning within us.
The scriptures bring the passion.
We learn of Jesus in his presence.
But, it was in the breaking of the bread... we came to know Him.
We come to know Him truly in the Eucharist.]
My poor Thomas had his fill, and shut up for the rest of the night. How could he not, there before him stood in full body, blood, soul and divinity the might of Christ veiled only by the appearances of bread and allowing Himself to be humbled to such a lowly, frail position.
My distracted Thomas stepped aside and my Peter, if you will, remembered that in focusing on Christ you too can step on waves. But if at once you remove your gaze and all focus is lost, so are you too. Everything must be about Him.
My mind cleared and I was able to focus on my God before me during the litany of the saints, during which we prayed on bended knee before the student center, and on through the rest of the procession back to the church. Sometimes God grants us the wishes for which we ought to have wished.
This is a hard teaching, who can listen to it?
You have the words of eternal life Lord:
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. " John 6
Go and Set the World on Fire
Leaving work today, I headed over to St.Margaret Mary's over by UNO. Well, I did make a little detour to grab an Odwalla bar from Wholners but that story is beside the point and the bar is long since been inside my stomach. Anyway, I made it to the church in time to join the beginning of the Eucaristic Procession across UNO campus. Funneling my way into the line, I felt at first a complete outsider. Everyone around me possessed a candle and a song sheet. I only had my green jacket to wrap around me.
Amidst the cold air and slight wind, we made our way to a small makeshift altar set up by Memorial Park by the crosswalk. It was a beautiful sight with the Monstrance at the head of the procession. The Monstrance was complete with a mobile tent carried by four altar servers. There we all knelt before Christ our Lord and prayed for a few minutes before moving along, but it was then a thought came to me.
What do others think? What does it look like we are doing? What are we doing? No really, why am I here? My doubting Thomas had settled in and wasn't about to back off until he had his answers. Whether my mind would wait or not didn't matter. Father had started off the rosary with our creed and general intercessory prayers. Then the group began to move across the crosswalk and into the heart of campus. We began to pray the luminous mysteries of the rosary as we went on our way, so I pulled my sword(rosary) from it's sheath and hoped my mind would catch up with my actions.
While I prayed along, I tried to meditate on the mysteries one after another. First, there was our Lord's Baptism in the Jordan which I can remember pretty well because the back half of the group where I was was just far enough back that we couldn't hear the first half well enough to respond. The next was the Wedding at Cana, where I began to try to seek out my answers.
Who cares what other's think? Really? I don't, I can't, why? because this is who I am, I can't change that.
Then I became distracted because I realized that a pre-designated part of our group was kneeling in the street to allow the procession to continue uninterrupted by traffic. A couple cars were stopped in their tracks by this action. Imagining for a second what we looked like, I think anyone would have their preconceptions shaken by that unexpected sight. There were people kneeling in the street!
Then we meditated on the Proclamation of the Kingdom where Jesus made his sermon on the mount, gave us the beatitudes and announced his divine Davidic Kingship. While I recalled related images and passages, we passed in front of Kaiser Hall. I found myself somewhat giddy, partially because of the cold, but also because such an obviously catholic group had just invaded the dead secularism of UNO. I couldn't even imagine this sight in correlation to UNO. My mind went numb.
The announcement of the mystery of the Transfiguration caught me off guard and I my mind wandered into realms of Moses. Moses and Elijah, both prefigurements of Christ, one of his saving power and the other of his prophetic influence hovered amidst my mind. Then somehow my mind extended back to both Moses and the manna in the desert and Elijah and the cakes he requested. The parallels grew because both were bread-like, life saving and seemingly endless in supply.
Then it hit me like Bam! We were on the mystery of the Institution of the Eucharist. Instead of my mind leaping to the usual images of the Last Supper and various related thoughts, the road to Emmaus strode in unannounced.
My stream of consciousness went approximately as follows.
[Were not our hearts burning within us?
when He opened the scriptures for us...
When He revealed their connections.
But, why then was it in the breaking of the bread that we came to know Him.
This is hard saying, who can hear it?
This is my Body, This is my Blood. Take eat, Take drink.
Do this in memory of me (anamnesis, in doing so, you make it present once again)
Were not our hearts burning within us.
The scriptures bring the passion.
We learn of Jesus in his presence.
But, it was in the breaking of the bread... we came to know Him.
We come to know Him truly in the Eucharist.]
My poor Thomas had his fill, and shut up for the rest of the night. How could he not, there before him stood in full body, blood, soul and divinity the might of Christ veiled only by the appearances of bread and allowing Himself to be humbled to such a lowly, frail position.
My distracted Thomas stepped aside and my Peter, if you will, remembered that in focusing on Christ you too can step on waves. But if at once you remove your gaze and all focus is lost, so are you too. Everything must be about Him.
My mind cleared and I was able to focus on my God before me during the litany of the saints, during which we prayed on bended knee before the student center, and on through the rest of the procession back to the church. Sometimes God grants us the wishes for which we ought to have wished.
This is a hard teaching, who can listen to it?
You have the words of eternal life Lord:
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst. " John 6
Go and Set the World on Fire
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)