Happy birthday to me! On October 6th I'll be flying home, and then flying back out on October 10th.
On Saturday 7 October, my 22nd Birthday, there will be funness and happiness involving smoke and liquor. And probably a good deal of happy conversation. If you're thinking of a gift, bring yourself. If you must, bring an offering of incense, or smokes. I'm always in the market for a new pipe. But, yourself is always sufficient.
Please consider this an open invitation if anyone's in the area. I'll be inviting a few explicitly, but everyone else is implicitly invited!
Valete fratrem meum et Benedicant Deus!
-D the Dragonslayer
26 September 2006
21 July 2006
Oh Israel, what have you done now?
Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert was born the three years before the re-establishment of the State of Israel and has been in politics since 1981. Being a former soldier and a volunteer in the IDF, one would think that he would have some sense of history.
One could argue, and I would, that Israel has the right to protect itself against all aggressors internal and otherwise, and the abduction of two of it's soldiers is certainly a grievous act of aggression. One could also argue that if a nation will not do it's part to rid itself of aggressors (Lebanon to Hezbollah) then the aggrieved nation would have recourse to invasion. But is it prudent?
In June of 1914, Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (AHE). This Sarajevo-assassination launched a string of dominos that could not be stopped. The AHE declared war on Serbia, and was assisted by Germany. Russia came to the defense of Serbia. Germany invaded Luxembourg, and France and Britain came to the defense of the small Nation-State, and all hell broke loose.
Now imagine this in the Middle East ninety-some-odd years later, where tensions run high as it is, and many pundits, mullahs and heads of government have declared their intention and desire to "push Israel into the sea." I'm not sure how wise it is to unilaterally bombard, and attack another nation when you are literally surrounded by Lebanon's allies. One must assume that if Lebanon is threatened (read invaded), Syria will come to their aid, Yemen, Jordan, Iran and Egypt, who itself must still be seething from the effects of the 6 Day war, accompanied by the entire host of fundamentalist Islamic nations who are vehemently opposed to the very existence of Israel. One must also recognize the likeliness of the United States, the World's last super-power, getting involved; as well as the United Kingdom and possibly even the United Farce, er Nations becoming embroiled in the conflict, as it was by United Nations 1947 Partition Plan that the State of Israel was created.
I just simply ask that you reflect upon this brief recap of history and this vague prediction of the future if Israel continues on it's course. I would be happy for your comments and observations.
With great fear and trepidation that we are standing on the threshold of World War III and, God forbid, a nuclear conflict I remain yours,
D
One could argue, and I would, that Israel has the right to protect itself against all aggressors internal and otherwise, and the abduction of two of it's soldiers is certainly a grievous act of aggression. One could also argue that if a nation will not do it's part to rid itself of aggressors (Lebanon to Hezbollah) then the aggrieved nation would have recourse to invasion. But is it prudent?
In June of 1914, Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (AHE). This Sarajevo-assassination launched a string of dominos that could not be stopped. The AHE declared war on Serbia, and was assisted by Germany. Russia came to the defense of Serbia. Germany invaded Luxembourg, and France and Britain came to the defense of the small Nation-State, and all hell broke loose.
Now imagine this in the Middle East ninety-some-odd years later, where tensions run high as it is, and many pundits, mullahs and heads of government have declared their intention and desire to "push Israel into the sea." I'm not sure how wise it is to unilaterally bombard, and attack another nation when you are literally surrounded by Lebanon's allies. One must assume that if Lebanon is threatened (read invaded), Syria will come to their aid, Yemen, Jordan, Iran and Egypt, who itself must still be seething from the effects of the 6 Day war, accompanied by the entire host of fundamentalist Islamic nations who are vehemently opposed to the very existence of Israel. One must also recognize the likeliness of the United States, the World's last super-power, getting involved; as well as the United Kingdom and possibly even the United Farce, er Nations becoming embroiled in the conflict, as it was by United Nations 1947 Partition Plan that the State of Israel was created.
I just simply ask that you reflect upon this brief recap of history and this vague prediction of the future if Israel continues on it's course. I would be happy for your comments and observations.
With great fear and trepidation that we are standing on the threshold of World War III and, God forbid, a nuclear conflict I remain yours,
D
"We will fight terror wherever it is because if we do not fight it, it will fight us. If we don't reach it, it will reach us."
- Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, Israeli ACoSEdit: Apparently Frm. Secretary of State Madeline Albrite agrees with me. ( Watch ) this FoxNews interview.
18 July 2006
Second star on the right, and straight on 'till morning!
So my friends, we're on a journey; About to enter another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land of imagination. Next stop, Virginia!
Virginia, where the women are serene, full bosomed, every one a queen, for they are Lees, damnit, Lees of Old Virginia!
Pease pardon those bizarre outbursts -- Ten points to whoever can accurately name all three 'quasi-quotations.' I am actually on my way to Virginia. Heading down to the Ol' UVA to visit Mistresses Laura Clapp and Elissa Kaufhombre, and possibly Mistress Bridget Prisk in Virginia Beach. I plan to be there until a week from today, being Tuesday the 18th of July.
I am currently in Waterbury, CT, in the home of Mr., Mrs., Michael and Caity Casey. I am spending the night here after having a pleasant evening. In the morning we plan on attending (defined: fully, actively and knowingly participating in) the Celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And after the H.S.o.t. Mass, we'll breakfast and then, once again I shall be rollin', rollin', rollin' on a river; much like Proud Mary (CCR). Estimating my time of arrival in Charlottesville, VA to be around 1800hrs (6:00pm).
And so, for now, this weary traveler is going to lay his weary head. And until we meet at last, God Bless, God Bless.
FORWARD HO!
Virginia, where the women are serene, full bosomed, every one a queen, for they are Lees, damnit, Lees of Old Virginia!
Pease pardon those bizarre outbursts -- Ten points to whoever can accurately name all three 'quasi-quotations.' I am actually on my way to Virginia. Heading down to the Ol' UVA to visit Mistresses Laura Clapp and Elissa Kaufhombre, and possibly Mistress Bridget Prisk in Virginia Beach. I plan to be there until a week from today, being Tuesday the 18th of July.
I am currently in Waterbury, CT, in the home of Mr., Mrs., Michael and Caity Casey. I am spending the night here after having a pleasant evening. In the morning we plan on attending (defined: fully, actively and knowingly participating in) the Celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And after the H.S.o.t. Mass, we'll breakfast and then, once again I shall be rollin', rollin', rollin' on a river; much like Proud Mary (CCR). Estimating my time of arrival in Charlottesville, VA to be around 1800hrs (6:00pm).
And so, for now, this weary traveler is going to lay his weary head. And until we meet at last, God Bless, God Bless.
FORWARD HO!
14 July 2006
Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins:
Out-of-the-mainstream beliefs about gay marriage and supposedly sexist doctrines are gutting old-line faiths.
The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.
Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church.
Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.
It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."
Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers and endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. (The latter may be a good idea, but it is hard to see how it falls under the theological purview of a Christian denomination.)
The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.
As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It's a Church of What's Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct.
You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God's name to Sophia? Go ahead. The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ's divinity, to address her priests.
When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.
When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.
It doesn't help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women's ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.
Despite the fact that median Sunday attendance at Episcopal churches is 80 worshipers, the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is financially equipped to carry on for some time, thanks to its inventory of vintage real estate and huge endowments left over from the days (no more!) when it was the Republican Party at prayer. Furthermore, it has offset some of its demographic losses by attracting disaffected liberal Catholics and gays and lesbians. The less endowed Presbyterian Church USA is in deeper trouble. Just before its general assembly in Birmingham, it announced that it would eliminate 75 jobs to meet a $9.15-million budget cut at its headquarters, the third such round of job cuts in four years.
The Episcopalians have smells, bells, needlework cushions and colorfully garbed, Catholic-looking bishops as draws, but who, under the present circumstances, wants to become a Presbyterian?
Still, it must be galling to Episcopal liberals that many of the parishes and dioceses (including that of San Joaquin, Calif.) that want to pull out of the Episcopal Church USA are growing instead of shrinking, have live people in the pews who pay for the upkeep of their churches and don't have to rely on dead rich people. The 21-year-old Christ Church Episcopal in Plano, Texas, for example, is one of the largest Episcopal churches in the country. Its 2,200 worshipers on any given Sunday are about equal to the number of active Episcopalians in Jefferts Schori's entire Nevada diocese.
It's no surprise that Christ Church, like the other dissident parishes, preaches a very conservative theology. Its break from the national church came after Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Communion, proposed a two-tier membership in which the Episcopal Church USA and other churches that decline to adhere to traditional biblical standards would have "associate" status in the communion. The dissidents hope to retain full communication with Canterbury by establishing oversight by non-U.S. Anglican bishops.
As for the rest of the Episcopalians, the phrase "deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind. A number of liberal Episcopal websites are devoted these days to dissing Peter Akinola, outspoken primate of the Anglican diocese of Nigeria, who, like the vast majority of the world's 77 million Anglicans reported by the Anglican Communion, believes that "homosexual practice" is "incompatible with Scripture" (those words are from the communion's 1998 resolution at the Lambeth conference of bishops). Akinola might have the numbers on his side, but he is now the Voldemort — no, make that the Karl Rove — of the U.S. Episcopal world. Other liberals fume over a feeble last-minute resolution in Columbus calling for "restraint" in consecrating bishops whose lifestyle might offend "the wider church" — a resolution immediately ignored when a second openly cohabitating gay man was nominated for bishop of Newark.
So this is the liberal Christianity that was supposed to be the Christianity of the future: disarray, schism, rapidly falling numbers of adherents, a collapse of Christology and national meetings that rival those of the Modern Language Assn. for their potential for cheap laughs. And they keep telling the Catholic Church that it had better get with the liberal program — ordain women, bless gay unions and so forth — or die. Sure.
The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.
Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church.
Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.
It is not entirely coincidental that at about the same time that Episcopalians, at their general convention in Columbus, Ohio, were thumbing their noses at a directive from the worldwide Anglican Communion that they "repent" of confirming the openly gay Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe."
Following the Episcopalian lead, the Presbyterians also voted to give local congregations the freedom to ordain openly cohabiting gay and lesbian ministers and endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. (The latter may be a good idea, but it is hard to see how it falls under the theological purview of a Christian denomination.)
The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.
As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It's a Church of What's Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct.
You want to have gay sex? Be a female bishop? Change God's name to Sophia? Go ahead. The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ's divinity, to address her priests.
When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. According to the Hartford Institute for Religious Research, in 1965, there were 3.4 million Episcopalians; now, there are 2.3 million. The number of Presbyterians fell from 4.3 million in 1965 to 2.5 million today. Compare that with 16 million members reported by the Southern Baptists.
When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.
It doesn't help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents' commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women's ordination. The churches are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.
Despite the fact that median Sunday attendance at Episcopal churches is 80 worshipers, the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is financially equipped to carry on for some time, thanks to its inventory of vintage real estate and huge endowments left over from the days (no more!) when it was the Republican Party at prayer. Furthermore, it has offset some of its demographic losses by attracting disaffected liberal Catholics and gays and lesbians. The less endowed Presbyterian Church USA is in deeper trouble. Just before its general assembly in Birmingham, it announced that it would eliminate 75 jobs to meet a $9.15-million budget cut at its headquarters, the third such round of job cuts in four years.
The Episcopalians have smells, bells, needlework cushions and colorfully garbed, Catholic-looking bishops as draws, but who, under the present circumstances, wants to become a Presbyterian?
Still, it must be galling to Episcopal liberals that many of the parishes and dioceses (including that of San Joaquin, Calif.) that want to pull out of the Episcopal Church USA are growing instead of shrinking, have live people in the pews who pay for the upkeep of their churches and don't have to rely on dead rich people. The 21-year-old Christ Church Episcopal in Plano, Texas, for example, is one of the largest Episcopal churches in the country. Its 2,200 worshipers on any given Sunday are about equal to the number of active Episcopalians in Jefferts Schori's entire Nevada diocese.
It's no surprise that Christ Church, like the other dissident parishes, preaches a very conservative theology. Its break from the national church came after Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican Communion, proposed a two-tier membership in which the Episcopal Church USA and other churches that decline to adhere to traditional biblical standards would have "associate" status in the communion. The dissidents hope to retain full communication with Canterbury by establishing oversight by non-U.S. Anglican bishops.
As for the rest of the Episcopalians, the phrase "deck chairs on the Titanic" comes to mind. A number of liberal Episcopal websites are devoted these days to dissing Peter Akinola, outspoken primate of the Anglican diocese of Nigeria, who, like the vast majority of the world's 77 million Anglicans reported by the Anglican Communion, believes that "homosexual practice" is "incompatible with Scripture" (those words are from the communion's 1998 resolution at the Lambeth conference of bishops). Akinola might have the numbers on his side, but he is now the Voldemort — no, make that the Karl Rove — of the U.S. Episcopal world. Other liberals fume over a feeble last-minute resolution in Columbus calling for "restraint" in consecrating bishops whose lifestyle might offend "the wider church" — a resolution immediately ignored when a second openly cohabitating gay man was nominated for bishop of Newark.
So this is the liberal Christianity that was supposed to be the Christianity of the future: disarray, schism, rapidly falling numbers of adherents, a collapse of Christology and national meetings that rival those of the Modern Language Assn. for their potential for cheap laughs. And they keep telling the Catholic Church that it had better get with the liberal program — ordain women, bless gay unions and so forth — or die. Sure.
08 May 2006
Ora pro nobis Deum
Just a quick note to my ([very] limited) reading audience that my maternal grandmother had an Aneurysm (alt) on Saturday. She was kept sedated over the weekend and had surgery today, Monday. She went in around noon and got out around 5. She made it through the surgery, and is recovering right now. I understand that this will be a very long time. I ask for your prayers.
In prayer,
D
Edit: My grandmother died a week after her anyerusm. I thank you all for your support.
In prayer,
D
Edit: My grandmother died a week after her anyerusm. I thank you all for your support.
05 May 2006
Unam Ecclesiam sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam.
Who do they think they are? And I'm not just talking about the Chinese here. If one were to say "I am a cube." One would have to have six sides, eight points, and 90o angles all. If one were to say "I am a cube." And have say, five sides. One would not, in fact, be a cube.
Following, If one says "I am a Catholic." One would have to submit one's intellect and will to every single solitary teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, who's sole authority lies in the Vatican. If one were to say "I am a Catholic." And submit to everything save, say, the fact that women are invalid matter for ordination, that is--it would be a violation of femininity and motherhood to even attempt the ordination of a woman, one would not be Catholic. One would, instead be much closer to a High Anglican. Or a High Lutheran. Unless you possess 100% of the qualities you claim, you cannot justly claim to be what you are.
For one last example, "I equal one hundred parts." One would have to be comprised of 100 individual parts. But if one only consisted of 98 parts, then one could not make the assertion "I equal one hundred parts." If you wish to be justly called a Catholic, you must submit your intellect and will to all teachings of the Church, Ordinary, Extraordinary (defined), and nondefinitive.
In the Papal Bull Munificentissimus Deus, of 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith. If one could not grasp this--if one could not comprehend how this could be--one only has to submit that "God, only you can fully understand your ways. And I believe that your revelation to the Church and her bishops is Truth. Help me to see." One does not have to comprehend but accept totally. In this, regarding sin, one must also understand that all men are sinners and are given to concupiscence. As long as one admits that one's fallen action is sinful and confesses such, one is still within the communion of the Church.
Moving on to China; If one acts outside the Church and her (canon) laws and claims to act in the name of the Church, one must expect reprisals. China is attempting to put the same conditions, restrictions and quid pro quos on the Church as medieval European kings and princes did. "You can only operate here if you do exactly what I say and submit to my authority."
Well I am sorry, but that simply doesn't work. Unless of course we're talking about the Prince of Peace, or the King of Kings. It is simply not possible for the Catholic Church to be submissive to anyone by the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Pontifex Maximus, the sucessor to the Apostle Peter, the Pope.
To bring a quick, and hopefully not too abrupt end to this rant, if you wish to be considered Catholic, act like it. If you're going to dissent from the Church, leave it. Do you think that women should be priests, there's no need for confession, Jesus isn't truly present in the Eucharist, and that the Pope isn't infallible (when speaking about faith and morals)? You are a material heretic and all it would take for an excommunication would be a bishop with the testicular fortitude to tell you so. I dare you to go to the bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska and tell him that you're Catholic and you don't believe in the True Presence. Tell me how it goes.
In Catholic orthodoxy,
D
Following, If one says "I am a Catholic." One would have to submit one's intellect and will to every single solitary teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, who's sole authority lies in the Vatican. If one were to say "I am a Catholic." And submit to everything save, say, the fact that women are invalid matter for ordination, that is--it would be a violation of femininity and motherhood to even attempt the ordination of a woman, one would not be Catholic. One would, instead be much closer to a High Anglican. Or a High Lutheran. Unless you possess 100% of the qualities you claim, you cannot justly claim to be what you are.
For one last example, "I equal one hundred parts." One would have to be comprised of 100 individual parts. But if one only consisted of 98 parts, then one could not make the assertion "I equal one hundred parts." If you wish to be justly called a Catholic, you must submit your intellect and will to all teachings of the Church, Ordinary, Extraordinary (defined), and nondefinitive.
In the Papal Bull Munificentissimus Deus, of 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith. If one could not grasp this--if one could not comprehend how this could be--one only has to submit that "God, only you can fully understand your ways. And I believe that your revelation to the Church and her bishops is Truth. Help me to see." One does not have to comprehend but accept totally. In this, regarding sin, one must also understand that all men are sinners and are given to concupiscence. As long as one admits that one's fallen action is sinful and confesses such, one is still within the communion of the Church.
Moving on to China; If one acts outside the Church and her (canon) laws and claims to act in the name of the Church, one must expect reprisals. China is attempting to put the same conditions, restrictions and quid pro quos on the Church as medieval European kings and princes did. "You can only operate here if you do exactly what I say and submit to my authority."
Well I am sorry, but that simply doesn't work. Unless of course we're talking about the Prince of Peace, or the King of Kings. It is simply not possible for the Catholic Church to be submissive to anyone by the Vicar of Christ on Earth, the Pontifex Maximus, the sucessor to the Apostle Peter, the Pope.
To bring a quick, and hopefully not too abrupt end to this rant, if you wish to be considered Catholic, act like it. If you're going to dissent from the Church, leave it. Do you think that women should be priests, there's no need for confession, Jesus isn't truly present in the Eucharist, and that the Pope isn't infallible (when speaking about faith and morals)? You are a material heretic and all it would take for an excommunication would be a bishop with the testicular fortitude to tell you so. I dare you to go to the bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska and tell him that you're Catholic and you don't believe in the True Presence. Tell me how it goes.
In Catholic orthodoxy,
D
28 April 2006
Familiaris Consorio
Male Contraceptives May Soon Become A Reality
This article, as well as others like it, and conversations that I have had with fellow students in the past two days have prompted me to post this.
Why is Natural Family Planning accepted by the Church while contraception is condemned? They both do the same thing--prevent pregnancy.
Because you don't judge the morality of actions by their effects or consequences. You judge their morality by what they essentially are. Using contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms may accomplish the same end result as Natural Family Planning, but the ways they go about it are very different.
Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae defines contraception as "every action which, in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (14). Such an action actively eliminates or withholds the procreative good of the marital act. This is sinful because "every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life" (11). Since one of the two ends of sexual intercourse is procreation (the other being unity of husband and wife, 12), engaging in sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative act is, as Pope John Paul II has repeatedly called it, "a lie in the language of the body."
If practicing contraception is to lie in the language of the body, to practice Natural Family Planning is to take the Fifth. Natural Family Planning (typically) involves restricting sexual relations to infertile periods in the woman's cycle. Although intercourse during these times is less likely to produce a conception, a couple always remains open to the possibility, having taken no action to render it impossible; therein lies the difference (see Humanae Vitae 16). During fertile periods abstinence is practiced, a sacrifice which shows respect for God's gift of sex and its proper ends. Conversely, practicing contraception during these times displays a lack of respect for this gift and a focus instead on selfish pleasure.
One further difference needs to be pointed out. Contraception is often a practice of convenience, while Natural Family Planning, to be licit, must be a practice of necessity, requiring "serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions" (16). Thus it must not be used as "contraception Catholic style."
If you have any questions, corrections, problems or comments please feel free to comment and we'll get into it.
Apologetically yours,
D
This article, as well as others like it, and conversations that I have had with fellow students in the past two days have prompted me to post this.
Why is Natural Family Planning accepted by the Church while contraception is condemned? They both do the same thing--prevent pregnancy.
Because you don't judge the morality of actions by their effects or consequences. You judge their morality by what they essentially are. Using contraceptives such as condoms or diaphragms may accomplish the same end result as Natural Family Planning, but the ways they go about it are very different.
Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae defines contraception as "every action which, in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (14). Such an action actively eliminates or withholds the procreative good of the marital act. This is sinful because "every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life" (11). Since one of the two ends of sexual intercourse is procreation (the other being unity of husband and wife, 12), engaging in sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative act is, as Pope John Paul II has repeatedly called it, "a lie in the language of the body."
If practicing contraception is to lie in the language of the body, to practice Natural Family Planning is to take the Fifth. Natural Family Planning (typically) involves restricting sexual relations to infertile periods in the woman's cycle. Although intercourse during these times is less likely to produce a conception, a couple always remains open to the possibility, having taken no action to render it impossible; therein lies the difference (see Humanae Vitae 16). During fertile periods abstinence is practiced, a sacrifice which shows respect for God's gift of sex and its proper ends. Conversely, practicing contraception during these times displays a lack of respect for this gift and a focus instead on selfish pleasure.
One further difference needs to be pointed out. Contraception is often a practice of convenience, while Natural Family Planning, to be licit, must be a practice of necessity, requiring "serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions" (16). Thus it must not be used as "contraception Catholic style."
If you have any questions, corrections, problems or comments please feel free to comment and we'll get into it.
Apologetically yours,
D
26 April 2006
Senatus Publiusque Romanus
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
- John Adams
From a random comment to a friend about a John Adams quotation comes this post... After reading this quotation my friend asked me if it were from 1984. No, that's not a typo. I corrected him with 1776. We then began a discussion about 1984: A New Musical. Can you imagine having a song about; "Big Brother is Watching You! Watching everything you do... Dobee dobee doo."
What other books would make bizzarre musicals? We have Equilibrium which, for those who haven't seen it, is like some amazing mixture of 1984, meets The Matrix, meets Farenheit 451. But it's not a musical. How about Maxtrix The Musical or The DaVinci Code on Ice? This really got me thinking.
What are your thoughts? What books would you like to see put to music? What would be the tagline from the show?
Preternaturally yours,
Brandon
You are the chosen one Neo! The only one Neo! You are here to set us free0!
Remember to click the ads!
- John Adams
From a random comment to a friend about a John Adams quotation comes this post... After reading this quotation my friend asked me if it were from 1984. No, that's not a typo. I corrected him with 1776. We then began a discussion about 1984: A New Musical. Can you imagine having a song about; "Big Brother is Watching You! Watching everything you do... Dobee dobee doo."
What other books would make bizzarre musicals? We have Equilibrium which, for those who haven't seen it, is like some amazing mixture of 1984, meets The Matrix, meets Farenheit 451. But it's not a musical. How about Maxtrix The Musical or The DaVinci Code on Ice? This really got me thinking.
What are your thoughts? What books would you like to see put to music? What would be the tagline from the show?
Preternaturally yours,
Brandon
You are the chosen one Neo! The only one Neo! You are here to set us free0!
Remember to click the ads!
23 April 2006
Philadelphia Hic Alliud Sum
So I'm back here in Philadephia after my two week jaunt in Home Sweet Massachusetts. In my efforts to procrastinate some more and avoid the two projects that I have due tomorrow, I'll give you a few reflections on my vacation, and what you can expect sooner or later out of me.
I spent some time with my family. While I love them dearly, whenever we get together, it seems as if everyone is always trying to impress upon everyone else of their own self-worth. I can't really tell if people are being phony, or they just simply don't know how to act around their own family. Then again, by that same token, that could simply be me, misinterpreting things. I am admittedly uncomfortable around my own family. Though that does double back to the fact that I outright dislike a certain member, and feel the others are phony. But enough about that. I also got to see my friends and hang out with some people with whom I needed to reconnect.
I also bought a Blue Betta Fish. His name is Hattori Hanzo II. He sits in a tank on my desk at school, and is very active. I think he's happy. *grin*
And finally, what can you expect of me in the coming weeks and months? Well besides having two weeks of class and then a week of finals, you can expect me to write short blurbs, or long ramblings on why I think modesty in dress and speech is good. How prudence relates to the human experience. A critique of the modern episcopacy (though this might be a looong time coming). And the difference between sacraments and sacramentals. As well as a summary and reflection of my year here at St. Chucks.
So remember, I need ideas for entries on this, as I haven't quite got my focus down. So feel free to help out and throw ideas at me. Also, remember to click the ads at the top of the page, even one click gets me money, and you can close the window as soon as the page fully loads.
And now, without further adieu...
POSTY!
-Brandon
One kneels in the consciousness of one's nothingness, and rises a priest forever. - Cure d'Ars
I spent some time with my family. While I love them dearly, whenever we get together, it seems as if everyone is always trying to impress upon everyone else of their own self-worth. I can't really tell if people are being phony, or they just simply don't know how to act around their own family. Then again, by that same token, that could simply be me, misinterpreting things. I am admittedly uncomfortable around my own family. Though that does double back to the fact that I outright dislike a certain member, and feel the others are phony. But enough about that. I also got to see my friends and hang out with some people with whom I needed to reconnect.
I also bought a Blue Betta Fish. His name is Hattori Hanzo II. He sits in a tank on my desk at school, and is very active. I think he's happy. *grin*
And finally, what can you expect of me in the coming weeks and months? Well besides having two weeks of class and then a week of finals, you can expect me to write short blurbs, or long ramblings on why I think modesty in dress and speech is good. How prudence relates to the human experience. A critique of the modern episcopacy (though this might be a looong time coming). And the difference between sacraments and sacramentals. As well as a summary and reflection of my year here at St. Chucks.
So remember, I need ideas for entries on this, as I haven't quite got my focus down. So feel free to help out and throw ideas at me. Also, remember to click the ads at the top of the page, even one click gets me money, and you can close the window as soon as the page fully loads.
And now, without further adieu...
POSTY!
-Brandon
One kneels in the consciousness of one's nothingness, and rises a priest forever. - Cure d'Ars
20 April 2006
Primus
I'm going to see if I can start writing a regular blog, maybe make it more intelligent than my now defunct Livejournal. Please, everytime you visit, click on the Google ads above, and if you ever need to do google searches, use the bar below. Doing so profits me, your poor seminarian, miniscule-y financially, but every penny counts!
Please leave me some coments on what you think I should write about. I have a feeling that how my day went, and that balonga sandwich I had for lunch just isn't going to keep you satisfied. So, tell me what you want to read, and I'll try and provide.
Please leave me some coments on what you think I should write about. I have a feeling that how my day went, and that balonga sandwich I had for lunch just isn't going to keep you satisfied. So, tell me what you want to read, and I'll try and provide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)