08.31.07
Posted in General at 4:04 pm by Brian Schuettler
Alexy II Praises Letter on 1962 Missal
ROME, AUG. 29, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI’s move to allow for wider celebration of the Roman Missal of 1962 has received a positive reaction from the Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow.
“The recovery and valuing of the ancient liturgical tradition is a fact that we greet positively,” Alexy II told the Italian daily Il Giornale.
Benedict XVI’s apostolic letter “Summorum Pontificum,” published in July, explains new norms allowing for the use of the 1962 missal as an extraordinary form of the liturgical celebration.
“We hold very strongly to tradition,” he continued. “Without the faithful guardianship of liturgical tradition, the Russian Orthodox Church would not have been able to resist the period of persecution.”
When asked about the relationship between Rome and Moscow, the patriarch said: “It seems to me that Benedict XVI has repeated many times that he desires to work in favor of dialogue and collaboration with the Orthodox Churches. And this is positive.”
Regarding a possible meeting between Alexy II and Benedict XVI, the patriarch said it must be well-prepared, and “be an encounter that truly helps to consolidate relations between our two Churches.”
http://www.zenit.org/article-20364?l=english
Permalink
Posted in Dogmatic Atheism at 12:26 pm by Brian Schuettler
Many people who automatically associate C.S. Lewis with Christianity as a prodigious writer and apologist, may not know that he was a self proclaimed atheist in his younger years. Later on in life Lewis had some rather harsh comments about atheism and even at one time referred to those who avow atheism as being “fools”. A classic quote of Lewis, taken from Mere Christianity, is as follows:
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.
I know that Richard Dawkins sees this issue of a cruel and unjust God as being pivotal to the absurdity of Faith. I wonder what underlying principle or justification or philosophical argument Mr. Dawkins has for his assertion of justice or goodness or beauty. The realization of the existence of absolutes must precede their use in discussion, as Nietzsche understood in his statement that God is dead. Nietzsche knew, as Dawkins doesn’t, that God cannot be proclaimed dead unless He was first alive. The very language that Dawkins and his fellow travelers use rings hollow because their presentation depends upon an ontological framework that they say is non-existent. If there is no universal concept of justice based, of necessity, upon a source for this universal understanding of justice that even atheists seem to accept as preexistent to the discussion then the atheist obviously cannot bemoan a world lacking this justice. The difference between these new “dogmatic atheists” and the classical atheists is, among other things, a profound ignorance in the study of philosophy and a well rounded classical education. Immanuel Kant, for instance, rejected the ontological argument based on his theory that reason is too limited to know anything beyond human experience. However, he did argue that religion could be established as presupposed by the workings of morality in the mind (what he referred to as “practical reason”). God’s existence is a necessary presupposition of there being any moral judgments that are objective, that go beyond mere relativistic moral preferences; such judgments require standards external to any mind; hence they presume God’s mind.
An excellent book to read in this regard is Drama of Atheistic Humanism by Henri de Lubac
published by Ignatius Press: http://www.amazon.com/Drama-Atheist-Humanism-Henri-Lubac/dp/089870443X/ref=sr_1_1/102-9061241-4971335?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187220909&sr=1-1
…..but no horses.
“A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!”
Permalink
Posted in Daily Mass Readings, Saints at 8:42 am by Brian Schuettler
Mathew 25: 1-13
‘Then the kingdom of heaven will be like this. Ten bridesmaids took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3When the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them; 4but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5As the bridegroom was delayed, all of them became drowsy and slept. 6But at midnight there was a shout, “Look! Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.” 7Then all those bridesmaids got up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish said to the wise, “Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.” 9But the wise replied, “No! there will not be enough for you and for us; you had better go to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.” 10And while they went to buy it, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went with him into the wedding banquet; and the door was shut. 11Later the other bridesmaids came also, saying, “Lord, lord, open to us.” 12But he replied, “Truly I tell you, I do not know you.” 13Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.
We pray for the soul of Princess Diana.
*********************************************************************************************
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
**************************************************************************************
The Road to Official Sainthood
The beatification of Mother Teresa was conducted Oct. 19, 2003 by Pope John Paul II. Many believe Blessed Mother Teresa will be named a saint of the Catholic Church someday, and her beatification is the latest step in that path to sainthood.
by John Bookser Feister
and Julie Zimmerman
On Oct. 19, 2003, Pope John Paul II beatified Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who died in 1997. The beatification of the Macedonia-born nun took place in Rome, and her popularity has remained strong in the months since.
The process leading up to the beatification has been the shortest in modern history. In early 1999—less than two years after Mother Teresa’s death—Pope John Paul waived the normal five-year waiting period and allowed the immediate opening of her canonization cause.
In 2002, the Holy Father recognized the healing of an Indian woman as the miracle needed to beatify Mother Teresa of Calcutta. That healing occurred on the first anniversary of Mother Teresa’s death. It involved a non-Christian woman in India who had a huge abdominal tumor and woke up to find the tumor gone. Members of the Missionaries of Charity prayed for their founder’s intervention to help the sick woman.
“Her life of loving service to the poor has inspired many to follow the same path. Her witness and message are cherished by those of every religion as a sign that ‘God still loves the world today,” members of the Missionaries of Charity, the religious order she founded, said in a statement after Mother Teresa’s beatification was announced.
Since her death, they said, “people have sought her help and have experienced God’s love for them through her prayers. Every day, pilgrims from India and around the world come to pray at her tomb, and many more follow her example of humble service of love to the most needy, beginning in their own families.”
In 2001, on the Feast of the Assumption of Mary, officials closed the diocesan inquiry into Mother Teresa’s sanctity. The yearlong gathering of testimony from those who knew Mother Teresa was the first major step in a typically long process. A year earlier, at an August 26, 2000, celebration in Calcutta marking Mother Teresa’s birth anniversary, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim admirers joined in common prayers for her speedy canonization.
After her beatification, the recognition of another miracle will be required for sainthood.
Process to sainthood
If Mother Teresa of Calcutta had lived in earlier centuries, the Church might have gathered at her funeral to declare her a saint. That’s the way things worked in ancient Christianity. Now achieving official sainthood is more complicated—and not without its own brand of politics and other human imperfections. But just as this “Saint of the Gutters” seemed above politics in her life, her utter and simple devotion to the poor will transcend bureaucratic obstacles between her and official sainthood.
Mother Teresa is already revered as a modern-day saint by Christians from all corners and denominations. In July Catholic News Service reported Archbishop Henry D’Souza of Calcutta as saying that Mother Teresa’s tomb “remains a shrine where people are praying and from which many are receiving grace and strength.”
Why the formal process of canonization? Why the delay? It has been observed that the Catholic Church thinks in centuries, not in years. It is good for the Church to test the enthusiasm of the day, to wait awhile, to discern whether one seen as a saint today will stand the test of time. As Archbishop D’Souza said last year, the Church “must be sure that someone who is declared to be a saint is truly such.” The formal investigation will document details of Mother Teresa’s life that may have gone unnoticed, and thus provide a wealth of information for generations to come.
D’Souza, though, a longtime friend of Mother Teresa’s, expressed little doubt that “God would provide the miracles” to prove her cause. It was Teresa’s single-mindedness, her simplicity and consistency that captured the world’s imagination. One can only recall the beatitude of Jesus, ”How happy are the pure of heart.“ That pureness of heart is a simple, single-minded commitment to the ways of God. We computer-dependent citizens of the 20th-century long for simplicity; Mother Teresa of Calcutta lived it.
Francis’ example
In a 1981 interview, Mother Teresa spoke about another champion of the poor: St. Francis of Assisi. In a famous story of a turning point in Francis’ life, he encounters a leper by the side of the road and passes him by. Then he realizes that if he is going to devote his life to the poor he must embrace the leper—he must welcome him into his life as a brother. Francis then runs to the leper’s aid. Mother Teresa commented, “The encounter with the leper made St. Francis.” So, too, it is Mother Teresa’s selfless encounter with the dying that made Mother Teresa.
It is the calling of Christians to serve the poor, to make room at the table for everyone. Francis came to see that. He reveled in the foolishness of God who has special love for those whom most of us would rather avoid. Teresa learned that, too, during mid-life. She will be named a saint because she cleared away life’s clutter and allowed God to work through her in a powerful way. We should imitate her.
John Bookser Feister is editor of AmericanCatholic.org
Julie Zimmerman is managing editor of AmericanCatholic.org.
We remember Mother Teresa.
Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, pray for us and pray especially for those in most need of the Lord’s mercy, protection and the graces necessary to persevere to the end.
Permalink
08.30.07
Posted in General at 8:37 am by Brian Schuettler
Keith Ellison doesn’t like tobacco smoke. One day last week, a member of his staff smelled “a very strong odor” coming from a nearby office in their building. In typical liberal fashion, he didn’t track down the vile offender and ask him if he might, out of deference to Mr. Ellison, extinguish his cigar. Instead, he called the cops.
It turns out that the smoker had a perfect right to enjoy his cigar—the building in question is not covered by the city’s draconian nonsmoking ordinance. But the story doesn’t end there, because Mr. Ellison himself, informed of this fact, dropped by to ask the smoker to refrain in the future.
All of this might sound like a normal day in our brave new health-conscious world, except for a few salient facts. Mr. Ellison is a freshman congressman, a Democrat from Minnesota—and the first Muslim ever to serve in Congress. The building in question was a House office building in the nation’s capital. And the offender is Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a longtime critic of open immigration, and currently a candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2008.
Mr. Ellison’s office now claims that the congressman suffers from “seasonal asthma,” implying that his dislike of cigar smoke has nothing to do with his religious beliefs. Since Mr. Ellison saw fit to swear his oath of office with his hand upon the Koran, however, skeptics might be forgiven for wondering whether his concerns go just a little bit beyond his health.
Are we seeing the convergence of the therapeutic state and Islamic law?
Some Muslims in America are willing to make the connection clear. Dr. Khalid Siddiqui is the president of the Muslim Association of Greater Rockford (Illinois) and the chairman of the board of the Rockford Iqra School. He was also, at one time, the assistant director of neonatology at Swedish-American Hospital, the largest hospital in Rockford. In February 2002, Aaron Wolf, the associate editor of Chronicles, and I interviewed Dr. Siddiqui and others in the library of the school. When the subject turned to sharia, Dr. Siddiqui assured us that Americans do not have to fear the imposition of Islamic law in the United States—not because Muslims here have no interest in establishing sharia but because, when sharia comes to the United States, it will come democratically. The Constitution, he explained, is a “pure Islamic document,” and he detailed how Muslim doctors such as himself would be able to frame the debate over, say, a nationwide ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol purely in terms of health. Ditto with tobacco, and with pork.
Sharia would benefit us all, Dr. Siddiqui concluded, because when men make laws, they make them in their own interest. But “Who is superior to us? Only God. If He made the laws, then He can be unbiased.”
God may be unbiased, but those who consider themselves servants of Allah certainly are not, and they, of course, are the ones who will implement and enforce sharia. Magdy Kandil, one of the founders of MAGR and one of the other men we interviewed, was very frank about the issues that have concerned Muslims in America since September 11. Chief among them is the restriction of civil liberties, which Kandil argued was part of a broader backlash against Islam. This backlash is coming “from some minority in the U.S. who now feel threatened by a new minority.”
Whom could he possibly mean, I asked, since political and religious leaders have been quick to embrace Islam and declare it a religion of peace? He didn’t answer but just looked at me in annoyance: He knew that I knew that he meant Jews.
Permalink
Posted in Anti-Catholicism at 8:28 am by Brian Schuettler
Regional director of ADL fired over comments on Armenian massacres
The Anti-Defamation League, a US Jewish group has fired its New England regional director after he said he wants the organization to recognize the World War I killing of Armenians as genocide, according to a published report Saturday.
Primarily known for fighting anti-Semitism, the ADL fired Andrew Tarsy on Friday, the Boston Globe reported. Tarsy told the newspaper that the organization’s stance is ‘’morally indefensible.'’ His firing has prompted a backlash among local Jewish leaders against the ADL’s leadership and its national director, Abraham Foxman, the newspaper reported. (AP)
ynetnews.com> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3439118,00.html
Permalink
Posted in Judaism-Our Elder Brothers at 8:24 am by Brian Schuettler
A new Orthodoxy is taking root in the most unlikely of places
By Jonathan Rosenblum
| |
|
| |
| |
|
Heroic rabbis — and their families — are sacrificing and succeeding
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Over the last four weeks, I have had the privilege of visiting three communities in the hinterlands of American Orthodox life — Mercer Island, Washington (a suburb of Seattle), La Jolla, California (just outside of San Diego), and Dunwoody, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta). On the face of it, it would be hard to imagine less promising soil for Orthodoxy to take hold. Yet in each place, I found shuls of between 140 and 300 families.
Each of these communities exists only because an intrepid rabbi put down stakes in a place in which there was not even a minyan of Sabbath observant Jews. Such efforts are typically associated with Chabad. But both Rabbi Jeffrey Wohlgelernter in La Jolla and Rabbi Binyomin Friedman in Atlanta are products of Baltimore’s Ner Israel Rabbinical College. (Rabbi Yechezkel Kornfeld, the spiritual leader of the Young Israel of Mercer Island, is Lubavitch-trained, but he did not found the synagogue.)
In each of the three cities, the odds were stacked against creating a vibrant Orthodox congregation. Upscale suburban communities, with single-family homes on large lots are ill-suited to attracting any significant number of already observant Jews into the area. If an Orthodox synagogue was to be built, the only option was to attract those who were already living in the neighborhood. That meant drawing members not only from the existing Reform and Conservative congregations, but also from the ranks of the totally unaffiliated.
None of these congregations are comprised entirely of Sabbath observant members. In both LaJolla and Atlanta more than half the membership is not yet shomer Shabbos. Yet, the existence of thriving synagogues, with thrice daily minyanim (communal prayer services) and overflow Sabbath services, in an environment long assumed to be hostile to Orthodoxy tells us something important about the direction of American Jewry: Those who care about their children’s future as Jews are increasingly recognizing Orthodoxy as the only hope for the future.
Affiliation with an Orthodox shul, even for families who are not Sabbath observant, has immense implications. The chance of the children attending Jewish day schools increases greatly. And the level of Jewish knowledge and familiarity with Jewish practice of the young members is far greater than if they had never seen the inside of an Orthodox synagogue. The act of joining an Orthodox congregation removes the stigma from Orthodoxy for family members.
I met a number of black-hatted young men in these communities who came from marginally observant homes, and many others from non-observant but Orthodox-affiliated homes, who ended up in Israel at ba’al teshuva yeshivos. In many cases, the parents followed their children’s upward spiritual trajectory.
THE RABBIS WHO HEAD these congregations relate to and accept every Jew as one finds them in terms of religious observance and Jewish knowledge. If those that the rabbi seeks to draw close sense that his concern with them is contingent on their becoming fully observant, they will recoil.
The rabbi must learn to rejoice in every small step forward on a spiritual journey that can take many years, and which usually involves numerous ups and downs, and he must possess the ability not to lose heart when the inevitable obstacles arise along the way.
The degree of personal involvement in every aspect of their congregants’ lives required of these rabbis is quite unlike anything experienced by those in more traditional synagogues. Each member family is unique in terms of its background and internal dynamics, and those dynamics are constantly shifting during the religious growth process. Each congregant requires his or her individual approach. The only rule to guide the rabbi is: There are no rules.
The demands upon the rabbis’ families are also quite unlike those of the families of rabbis in more traditional settings. My Sabbath in Dunwoody, for instance, there were over 25 people for both the main Shabbes meals, and a dozen people sleeping over at the Friedman’s home. Those numbers I was informed by members of the shul are relatively modest, and the presence of at least three more unopened folding tables in the dining room lent credibility to that claim.
The demands on the rabbis’ wives are not limited to entertaining large numbers of guests. They are also intimately involved in the lives of the female congregants as role models, friends, and counselors.
Even the rabbis’ children are an integral part of the effort. They learn early to adapt to sharing their homes with strangers. And they are heavily invested in each family in the congregation. Even after they move away, their calls home usually revolve around families in the congregation. In their new settings — even in during post-marriage advanced studying in Israel — they invariably find themselves drawn to outreach work. One of the rabbis I met told me that his children have developed an acute sensitivity to the needs of others. As a consequence, they are always among the first in rabbinical school or seminary to spot a classmate with some emotional need and to offer support.
There are unique frustrations that go with the rabbi’s position. One is that some of the congregants who progress furthest religiously will inevitably move to larger Orthodox communities, where there are greater educational opportunities for their children.
Another is that there will always be a certain percentage of congregants who feel frustrated in their own religious growth process, and find the rabbi the easiest person to blame.
Yet for all the rabbis I met the privilege of being able to facilitate their fellow Jews on the path of coming closer to G-d and the joy of watching them do so compensates for the incessant demands and the frustrations that go with the territory. And that makes them heroes of ahavas Yisrael in our time.
At the Jewish World Review>
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/rosenblum_kiruv_shuls.php3
Permalink
08.29.07
Posted in Forerunner of the Messiah at 3:17 pm by Brian Schuettler
Flavius Josephus - Jewish Historian
Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119
Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt — for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise — believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.
And so John, out of Herod’s suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.
St. John the Baptist, last of the Old Testament prophets, is also known, especially among the Orthodox, as St. John the Forerunner. Of his birth, the Bible tells us that, during the days of King Herod of Judaea, Zechariah, a priest of the Abijah section of the priesthood, was burning incense in the Lord’s sanctuary in the Temple when the Archangel St. Gabriel appeared to him, telling him that a son would soon be born to his wife Elizabeth whom they must call John who would lead many of the Israelites back to God. When Zechariah doubted the angel’s words due to his wife’s barrenness, St. Gabriel struck him dumb, telling him that, as he did not believe the archangel’s words, he would remain mute himself until these things had come to pass. When the priest’s time of service had ended, he went back home where his wife concieved (Luke 1:5-25).
Permalink
« Previous entries ·
