After a Long Absence/ On A Path Finally Taken

These beauteous forms, Through a long absence, have not been to me As is a landscape to a blind man's eye: But oft, in lonely rooms, and 'mid the din Of towns and cities, I have owed to them In hours of weariness, sensations sweet, Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart; And passing even into my purer mind, With tranquil restoration:--feelings too  Of unremembered pleasure: such, perhaps, As have no slight or trivial influence On that best portion of a good man's life, His little, nameless, unremembered, acts Of kindness and of love. Nor less, I trust, To them I may have owed another gift, Of aspect more sublime; that blessed mood, In which the burthen of the mystery, In which the heavy and the weary weight Of all this unintelligible world,  Is lightened:--that serene and blessed mood, In which the affections gently lead us on, 

~ "Lines", William Wordsworth 

 Greetings, my dear friends.

I apologize for the long absence, but in life things change, and it's entirely possible this blog has come to an end. It has been a labor of love, a labor of defiance at times, and, for long time readers, an obvious catharsis. It is perhaps because of this blog and time away in prayer and reflection that has helped to open another door in my life.

As an update, at this time I am not considering religious life, and believe that door to be closed. I fully believe Our Lord called me to deeply discern that Call, but in the end, He desired only that I say yes, and be willing, even though He has not allowed my own response to be possible. Although I am saddened in some ways, in others I realize it simply means He calls me on to other adventures, and this is glorious for God always knows where our true happiness lies. It means I continue on, the pilgrim that I am, perhaps now going into "special ops" mode in the spiritual sense of the word. By this I do not imply extreme holiness (since I have no where near achieved it), only, rather, deeper adventure, deeper mission, more covert and hidden operations in my heart and soul than can be shared with the great unknown ocean that makes up the internet world.

In this time of absence here, though, I have been working. It was as if a dam broke, and after a couple years of no interest in writing, I have, in just the last couple months, written one book and am half-way through the sequel, perhaps of a trilogy.

A couple months ago while doing some "nothing" reading, suddenly an old idea clicked in my mind and the story and characters have come to life. I have a couple dear friends who are  helping me with this project, providing support and even professional editing assistance, connecting me with resources (including people to interview) for research purposes, and even more amazingly, God has connected me with a very holy priest who also writes fiction (so far unpublished as he has not sought it yet), who has become the kind of friend every Catholic writer needs.

Just today I spoke with him about story development, and he commented on the recently deceased author Vincent Flynn (Rest in Peace) who was a faithful Catholic who lived what he believed. He noted that Flynn allowed the characters to have "free will", and this is a mark in Catholic writing. Writing is of course an art, and as Catholics, if we are faithful, if we allow God to work through us, even in works that are not religious in nature, our faith shines through.

The books I am writing are not "Catholic" in the religious sense. They are simply stories about people, they are adventure, thriller, action, and romance. They are merely human drama....yet, is there anything "mere" about the drama in the average human life? I'm not speaking here of emotional angst, but some of the deepest yearnings of the human soul, which often play out in ways that seem superficial.

As an aside....

This is why we have fiction. Our very souls are laid out nakedly in fiction; it's why we are drawn to it, identify with characters that do not exist, and engage with a story that never happened. One theologian, I believe it was Fr. Thomas Dubay, once observed that our engagement with a story in which that story comes to life in our imaginations, bringing us directly into it, is actually like a state of contemplative prayer. It is NOT the same thing, but it reveals our ability to engage all of our senses and abilities; and if we can do that with mere fiction, it also indicates we can do so even more deeply, more completely, in communion with God.  I would suggest, therefore, that reading good fiction may very well be a preparation for prayer and help us engage more deeply; that is, if we read the right things.

Moving on...

Getting back to the main point of this post, I haven't been writing a religious work, yet I found, when I completed the first draft, that Catholic themes are present. I cannot write what I do not believe. I can create characters who don't share my beliefs, and I can establish themes and content, but in the end, who I am as a Catholic is still imprinted upon the characters and within the story. Themes of sin, of redemption, forgiveness, sacrifice and eternal union arise in ways that are perhaps unexpected.

In writing seriously, I have found that my characters do truly have "free will", for they don't match what I want them to do, but seem to have minds of their own. Characters I'd like to see go down one path, in an interaction with another character choose a different one...and somehow, details emerge about the importance of the deviation from what I, the author want.

I have found, thanks to brief conversations with my priest friend, that I now have the ability to go back in this work of revision, looking with different eyes at where the free will of the characters emerge, for none of them are clones of me. They don't act as I do, they don't respond as I do. Nor do I want them to do so.

My friend today pointed out that this act of writing is an act of co-creation with God, in allowing the characters to develop, to become who they are and not necessarily what I originally envisioned them to be. It is humbling to think of it in those terms, yet his comments hearken back to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, revealing the proof of God's existence as the First Mover. A painting points to an artist, and the brush held by the artist, and in any given creation, God is that artist. A book points to the pen and the author, but then, who created the author?

Any truth points to God, if it is really true.

Whether or not my book will be published, I can't say. Although the first draft of the first book is complete, and I've done a read-through and minor correction with the second draft (typos, minor things), the third draft is in deep progress and will take time and additional research as I await one of my  important contacts to come back into the country to be available to assist with special-ops information. (non-classified) ;-)

It's amazing how many people I've already had to involve in just writing the first draft, and now I understand the litany of thanks given in any published book, for no author acts alone or anonymously.

So with that, dear readers, I thank you for the prayers and sacrifices you have offered me over the last several years, and beg for more in this new endeavor (and always for my Vocation, whatever it may be as I enter middle age).

It's entirely possible this blog is not at an end, however, I likely won't be writing much here any more. I can say that perhaps there will be other updates and other actions of God that prompt me to add another post, but maybe the "Tales of Adoro" are largely at an end since the original purpose of this blog has fallen into oblivion.

Thank you for coming with me on this journey, and, God willing, it will continue albeit in a direction I never really expected.

God bless you all, and thank you. From the bottom of my heart and the core of my soul, thank you.

TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that the passing there Had worn them really about the same, And both that morning equally lay In leaves no step had trodden black. Oh, I kept the first for another day! Yet knowing how way leads on to way, I doubted if I should ever come back. I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.

 ~ "The Road Not Taken", Robert Frost

Women's "Ordination" is Preposterous

I've written before on the absolute idiocy of advancing the idea of "priestesses" in the Catholic Church, but this week something else really struck me. The fact is...the Church doesn't exclude women, but rather...She excludes MEN!

** skip down for the focus of this post. The following is actually just background.***

The people trying to advance the feminist agenda firstly have NO IDEA what the Church really is. They don't understand her. They are at odds with everything she teaches and don't even realize why we call her "Holy Mother Church." Even if they use the term, they do so out of a deep misunderstanding which could be corrected if they would simply be open enough to Truth to truly learn something outside of the box within which they've hidden themselves.

There was a time that I thought it would be ok to have female "priests", although I actually wasn't a practicing Catholic and didn't know my Ecclesiology, either. I also hadn't read the Vatican II documents, had NO IDEA what they said, or what the 1st Vatican Council declared, or the Council of Trent...etc., etc. etc. And in fact, I'm STILL learning. It takes TIME to learn.

And a little dose of humility, I guess. I had to learn I was wrong and suck it up. I had to listen to logic, to objective facts, and allow the Holy Spirit to change my heart. It didn't happen overnight. It won't for the dissidents of today, either.

Don't give up on them. Pray for them.

Back to the topic: "Womynpriestesses"

The charge many level against the Church is that she is "oppressive" and "patriarchal" and "male-dominated" and "exclusive". They say she isn't "welcoming" to women.

I've written on this before, a few times.

The fact that people make this charge reveals not that the Church is evil, but that those making such a claim are ignorant as to what scripture reveals and the Divine Revelation passed on to us through the Magisterial teachings of the Church which are...by the way...Apostolic.

Books have been written about this, so I'm going to make only a few points, a la Summa:

On Common Objections to the Church as she relates to Women:

Objection 1: The Church excludes women. Women have no place in the Church.

Objection 2: The Church had a female deaconate and I see no reason why that shouldn't be revived.

Objection 3: The Church is Patriarchal

On the Contrary: All of the above objections are made out of ignorance or simply misunderstand proper context.

I answer that: People who make such claims have a burden of proof upon them to prove their case and not a single one has actually been successful. Those who try find the Truth ultimately abandon the lies they hold so viciously and dearly to themselves, and, surprised by immense joy and freedom, they enter into the Church as true Sons and Daughters. It is truly beautiful to behold someone set free.

Reply to Objection 1: Anyone who would claim that women have no place in the Church clearly don't darken the door of their local parish very often. Women run EVERYTHING, from finance committees, to liturgy commissions, are involved in every single overuse of the word "ministry" and then some, are highly visible, and in fact, it's like pulling teeth to get men involved in anything that isn't recreational. Why? Because women are in the way doing everything and bragging that no matter what it is, they can do it better. No, I'm not making this up. Some parishes are better than others in that regard, however.

On the Theology end, this objection raises the very obvious reality that someone who would say such a thing reveals willful ignorance at worst, or brainwashing by bad "scholars" at best.

The fact is, the Church is feminine. Catholicism is a very sensual religion; consider the scents (incense, beeswax candles, flowers, pine in winter, etc.), textures, colors, stained glass, sacred art, sacred music (not modern music but sacred music), spirituality....it all exudes femininity. And that's all on the surface! Catholicism is in what we can observe in all of our senses, and all of that draws us into something that transcends our very being!

St. Jerome famously said, "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ!" He is right! And it goes even deeper...to know Christ, one must know the Church, and one cannot know the Church without a proper reading of scripture!

The Old Testament faith introduced the marriage theology of the Church, which was profoundly revealed in the New Testament in Luke, in the Gospel of John (Wedding at Cana, the foot of the Cross), and in Revelation, as well as in the writings of Paul, among others. We see the "Woman" introduced to us in Genesis flowing throughout the scriptures, finding her place in the Great Mothers, in many women of great valor, in the psalms, all revealing Israel not by honoring patriarchy...but by honoring Israel as a woman.

In a deep study, that "woman" is revealed to be Mary, who joins the Old and New Covenants, who stands in the place of the Church under the New Covenant, and we find that if we don't understand Mary...we don't fully understand Christ. She points to Him, and...He binds with US!

WE are the Bride of Christ, a holy nation, Daughter Zion, the New Jerusalem, as foretold throughout the Old Testament! The Church by her very nature and being is feminine! Everything ABOUT the Church is feminine!

We can hack her hair off and strip her of her garments, we can make the Church look "butch" to the outside eye, but we can't change her intrinsic beauty, we can't violate that which cannot be violated for she is under the protection of her spouse, the Holy Spirit.

To suggest that the Church has no place for women is to fail to understand that the Church IS Woman, men and women alike. Yes...in the Church, men are Brides, too. Together, we are all Brides of Christ and that marriage union with Him takes place when we consummate the Holy Sacrifice at Holy Communion.

And we profane our lover, our Bridegroom, when we receive Him in a state of mortal sin.

How, exactly, is the Church exclusive of women when everything She is about is...feminine?

Reply to Objection 2: Indeed, the early Church had female "diakonos" (I might have spelled that wrong, readers please correct my spelling.) Today that word is read as "deacons" or "deaconate", and yes, it's true such people served the early Church and that some were women. However....to suggest that they were the same as our Ordained Deaconate today is, again, a statement belonging to ignorance, not scholarship.

In the early Church, Baptisms were done by full immersion, if my understanding is correct. Women were conscripted to protect the modesty of other women and to serve in other ways. In fact the word "Diakonos" meant "servant" and did NOT indicate ordained ministry.

There has NEVER been record in the Catholic Church of women being ordained. Using a word that has developed a new meaning over thousands of years, and applying a modern definition to history to support modern misunderstanding is intellectually dishonest.

As an aside, it is also fallacious to suggest that Christ COULDN'T make women priests; the fact was that the pagan cultures ran rampant with women "priestesses" and they were actually involved in temple prostitution and fertility rites. Contrast that with the dignity the Church recognizes of Women today, that we are not here for men's pleasure but rather, that we reflect the image and likeness of God.

Get down on your knees and thank Our Lord for saving us from a culture that used us and threw us away to be left or dead, or used us and stoned us to death!

Reply to Objection 3: Indeed, the Church is Patriarchal, in the sense that Christ in His Divine wisdom instituted an all-male priesthood, and consequently, as it belongs to the deposit of the Faith, Tradition, and the reality of our theology, the Church does not have the authority to ordain women.

Christ didn't will a female priesthood, and it would make no theological sense to have one. It's not up for discussion, nor will it ever be so. It IS an infallible teaching. Period.

The fact is, in looking at the totality of the Church, the ONLY thing that belongs to men at all is the Sacrament of Holy Orders! That's it! That's all they get!

If we are to be honest, we have to see that if ANYONE is excluded in the Church...it's MEN!

If the Church is to be fruitful, She NEEDS the Patriarchy, the male priesthood, which stands in for Christ, the Bridegroom. A woman cannot stand in the place of Christ for she cannot be a Bridegroom. She cannot offer the Sacrifice of the Cross, she cannot be Christ. She is designed to be maternal, not paternal, just as the Church is designed to be maternal and receive the Word, and bear it out to the world. It belongs to men to deliver the Word to the receptive Bride.

We come full circle to the marriage theology of the Church, which can ONLY be fulfilled and expressed through an all-male Priesthood and feminine Church.

**

My friends, ignore the cries of the blind who cry out that they are "oppressed" by the Church: the only oppression they suffer is their refusal to open their eyes and see, open their ears to hear, open their hearts to God's love. They are stuck in Isaiah, living the "life" of a disobedient and adulterous Israel, giving themselves to political alliances, disdaining trust in God and obedience to His Commandments.

The Church isn't oppressive; she is Maternal. She is our Holy Mother, in whose arms we take refuge, there, with her under the shadow of the Cross. The Cross is Salvation; anything outside is real oppression.

The ONLY thing that makes sense is a male-only Priesthood! To allow women, Our Lord knew, would destroy the Covenant and make His Bride into the Harlot of the Pagan cultures from which He came to save us.

God our Father is faithful to Himself and to His Covenant; if we choose to disobey, we leave the Covenantal relationship behind, we leave the Marriage of the Lamb, and we become nothing more than pagan prostitutes worshiping idols in meaningless fertility rites that deny our final end and bar us from eternal beatitude.

If you believe in women's ordination, support it, take part in it...it is YOU who leave the Church. SHE hasn't left YOU. Why would you ever leave your Mother in order to make a false idol in your own image?

***************************

Commenting Policy: I allow anonymous comments. For the sake of courtesy, sign some kind of name, which blogger gives you the option to enter without being registered. If you behave like a Troll, you'll be deleted and no, I don't have to justify that decision. My blog, my rules, my judgment. Disagree if you'd like, but don't be a jerk about it.

Called to Communion

St. Thomas Aquinas is known for having written the Summa Theologica,  (among other works!) which was never finished.  He had a vision of Heaven and afterwards found it impossible to write anything further, and said of his Magnum Opus, "It is as straw!"  

Taken out of context, some would think his comment rendered the work useless;  this is far from the truth!  What he was stating was that in comparison to the Beatific Vision, nothing can compare. He had not yet written on Heaven, and found it impossible to address in writing what "eye has not seen, ear has not heard".  

I'm actually having a similar moment right now...

For our Ecclesiology course this semester, we are reading "Called to Communion" by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The chapter, "A Company in Constant Renewal" is so amazing that it's almost COMPLETELY marked up at this point. I've dog-eared the pages at top and bottom to note passages for class or for personal edification, things to write about, things to re-read, etc. 

He says everything I want to say, but says it better, with a lot more knowledge and wisdom, and informs me where I'm lacking. Which is exactly what he SHOULD have been doing as a Cardinal, and now Pope!  

My blog...it is as straw!  I'm not sure I can ever write again after reading this book!  

It was interesting to see how he used a Thomistic format in his writing, at least to my untrained eye.  Throughout the chapter, he addressed first the objections and misunderstandings and summarized the answers of those who think the Church is a political organization.  After making a few such points, he responded with the "On the Contrary"(although not in those words) and gave the answer as to what the Church IS and why, revealing Truth, pointing out the divinity of the Church in a world that wants to make it human.  He clearly answered each objection.

It is only by allowing the Church to be divine, as she truly is, that we will ever, and the Church herself, can ever become fully human.  

I'm going to let the Pope speak for himself: 

"A church based on human resolutions becomes a merely human church. It is reduced to the level of the makeable, of the obvious, of opinion. Opinion replaces faith. And in fact, in the sself-made formulas of faith with which I am acquainted, the meaning of the words 'I believe' never signifies anything beyond 'we opine'. Ultimately, the self-made church savors of the 'self', which always has a bitter taste to the other self and just as soon reveals its petty insignificance. A self-made church is reduced to the empirical domain and thus, precisely as a dream, comes to nothing." 

 ~ (p. 139-140)

Wow.  

I can think of a few examples that exemplify that perfectly.  

Now, for a little Christian Anthropology compliments of the Pope:  

Michelangelo considered the proper activity of the artist to be an act of uncovering, of releasing - not of making. 

The same conception, applied to anthropology in general, is found in St. Bonaventure, who explains the path by which man truly becomes himself with the help of the likeness of the sculptor. The sculptor...does not make anything, rather his work is "ablatio" - the removal of what is not really part of the sculpture.  In the same way, continues Bonaventure, man, in order that God's image may shine radiantly in him, must first and foremost receive the purification whereby the divine Sculptor frees him from that dross that conceals the authentic figure of his being.

~ (p. 141-142)

Again...wow.  

And I'm seeing more of our foundation showing up now...last semester we read, in Spiritual Theology, Bonaventure's "Journey to the Mind of God", and this is what is being referenced in the above passage.  However, I don't think one must be familiar with that work in order to understand the above passage.  

There's so much here, so I'll leave you to ponder the two passages above.   Our Pope is a man of great wisdom who sees the world as it truly is, and is giving of himself in every way that he can in order to help us all understand the ends to which we are directed through the ministry of Christ through His Church. 

Pray for the Pope...he's leading us into the future, and needs us all to help him do this work. 

*

Enjoy the New Year With a Toast to St. Thomas Aquinas!

Last summer I..ah.. * cough * discovered...yeah...a piece of the Summa that had been ignored, and published it on my blog. Today I republish the main text of the question of whether beer can be blessed, and found that dear St. Thomas Aquinas indeed has an opinion. Now, mind you, given that this is New Years' Eve, he does address temperance and moderation. Fr. Kyle Schnippel has the Beer Blessing (in Latin, no less!) on his blog.

My personal favorite quote from the good Father Schnippel is this:

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

So read this section of the Summa carefully, take note of the linked Blessing, find a good Priest to invite to your party, and have a Happy New Year!

*

On Whether the blessing of beer is proper and can be justified?

Objection 1. It would seem that the impropriety of blessing the intoxicating liquid commonly called "beer" should be obvious to one and all who aspire to living a life of sanctity. As beer can be quickly intoxicating and thus eliminate the inhibitions of properly-sober persons, the action of "blessing" the beer would seem to give license not only to intoxication, but also to limited mental faculties that lead one into sin.

Objection 2: Further, blessing beer creates a temptation and an occasion of sin. When sober, a man has the use of full reason consistent with his intellectual capacity, however, the use of beer can diminish what reason he possesses. In the diminishment of reason, one may determine that something otherwise considered to be sinful would in fact be pleasent and "good", and thus, the beer would have lead said person down a path away from reason and towards sin. Such a thing is a temptation and thus the blessing can be termed to be "an occasion of sin."

Objection 3: Further, beer is a beverage not consumed at holy events, but in bars, backyard barbecues, and keg parties for the sake of imbibing great quantities for the intended purpose of intoxication. It should not be imbibed at all, and other intoxicating liquids should also be avoided for one trying to live a life in God's grace.

Objection 4: It is scandalous to the faithful to bless beer.

On the contrary, It is written (Jn 2:3) "When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine'". Even further, it is written in reference to the 30-gallon jars meant for ritual purification, that they be filled to the brim. In this, the first miracle of Jesus (Jn 2:7), Jesus changed that water into wine for the feast, and He provided a quantity fit to intoxicate a crowd of their own volition. Thus we see that although the scriptures mention abundant wine, they do not mention beer.

I answer that, beer was not an ingredient of celebration in biblical times, however that does not imply that the invention of it is ungodly, only different but similar in effects to the predecessor which was wine.

Reply to Objection 1: Good beer was created from earthly ingredients freely given by God for this purpose. Good beer was created from especially tasty elements and was designed not for embarassing consumption but to be sipped in fellowship and enjoyed as with a good wine. The intoxicating properties are limited through the virtue of the one who consumes the beverage. Beer consumed in proper amounts does not inhibit the life of sanctity.

Reply to Objection 2: As in the reply to Objection 1, although beer can be a temptation to sin by some, it is not a temptation to sin for all. I further answer that food can be a temptation for some, but that does not inhibit our need to ask God to bless our food. To argue that beer cannot be blessed because it may be a temptation and occasion for sin is fallacious; for that point to be true, those who are tempted to gluttony must not have their meals blessed, if they eat at all! Thus, blessing beer does not enter one into an occasion of sin.

Reply to Objection 3: I answer that beer is also consumed at fine meals and at family events, taken with food, and limited in quantity. Just as wine with dinner is not automatically drunk to intoxication, thus is beer. Beer is no different from wine in this regard. To argue against blessing beer is to argue against allowing wine to be blessed with the meal. Jesus himself consumed wine at Passover and had beer been created, he would likewise have consumed beer. Yet we do not read of Christ and his Apostles drinking to intoxication at the Last Supper.

Reply to Objection 4: It would seem that it is NOT scandalous to bless beer. As we also bless food and consume it, thus we must also bless beer to be consumed with the food, for its elements too, are gifts from God, as are our friends and family. It must be observed that the blessing must call to mind right use of those gifts, which further enables us to focus on the virtues of temperence and charity, while unblessed food or beer could lead us to treat those gifts and ourselves callously. Thus, we see that the blessing of beer would not only be spiritually advantageous, but could, in fact, draw one into a closer union with God through the increased virtue inspired by the blessing. Especially if the blessing is stated in Latin.

Further, the only thing that would cause the blessing to be scandalous would be if the priest blessed the beer and then refused access to the rest of the present faithful.

*

The original post and context in which it was written can be found here.

(Gotta love St. Thomas...what a guy!)

Finding Jesus in the Temple

During class this last semester, in Spiritual Theology our professor introduced us to Plato's cave analogy. In that analogy, Plato describes some men who are bound, facing the wall of a cave. Behind them is a road, and beyond the road, a fire, which provides the backlight needed to cast the shadows that the bound men observe. And in the reverberating voices, the bound men believe that the shadows themselves are speaking.

And then the men are unbound, and made to walk. As they turn, they observe the road, and the people who had caused the shadows represented on the wall, and they see that the voices emit from them, not from the shadows they had cast. The now-unbound prisoners walk up the road, past the fire, and towards the mouth of the cave where the sun begins to light it. Yet they do not know the cause of the light until they emerge from the darkness.

The analogy goes on, obviously discussing something akin to one of St. Thomas Aquinas's proofs of God..the First Cause, the Unmoved Mover. But there is a deeper meaning.

The first Sunday of Advent, I attended my first TLM (Extraordinary Form) Mass, and found it beautiful. Not earth-shattering, but suddenly things made sense. It was proper. It took what I knew intellectually, and made it real, almost tangible. And yet, I was lost. I still had hold of the images, the shadows that have been my life until then. It wasn't until I let go of what I thought I understood (ie divesting myself of images) that I could allow the new understanding to penetrate my soul and intellect.

Suddenly, the Cave Analogy made perfect sense...I was living it.

I have to confess, now, when I attend Mass at my own parish, I'm dissatisfied. The pro populum altar has driven me crazy for a long time...even more so now. The performers on the stage singing Haugen show tunes seem more than ever to be performing. I feel like I've been freed, but then returned and bound, looking at shadows that are speaking to me...but they aren't.

They're speaking to God. And even the shadows don't seem to know that they are supposed to be doing so.

It's getting more and more difficult to focus at Mass. The gestures of the people around me in the pews toward the priest (who isn't speaking to any of us, but only to God) is distracting. The constant intercom announcements to "join in singing" the latest new/old heretical protestant hymn, which is followed by applause for the performers is forcing me to figure out how to properly find God in all this mess.

I feel like a prisoner in my own parish. And yet, even as I feel bound, I'm grateful, for I know that so many others are still completely lost, staring at shadows they don't know are shadows, reacting to gestures that aren't being made to them, but rather, for them. And if they only KNEW the reality of the mysteries for which we are present....!

It fills me with pity, and even with a certain anger, for I wonder how it has come to this?

And then, this evening, I read this while praying Vespers:

Ant. Son, why have you done this to us? Think what anguish your father and I have endured looking for you. But why did you look for me? Did you not know that I had to be in my Father's house?

Read that dialogue over a few times. Enter into it. Isn't that what so many of us ask every week, maybe every DAY? Don't we experience anguish when we see how the theological symbolism has been so lost to us? Isn't it a terrible hardship to have to try to look for God, when we aren't being directed to Him?

One of the things I've learned in my Master's program has been on the theology of suffering. God does not specifically will suffering, but He allows it, and in that is found His will for us. When we enter into suffering, we ask these questions, and Our Lord awaits them, expecting this faith seeking understanding, no matter where we are in life, whether spiritual or temporal.

And He answers, but we must be willing to listen, no matter what the cacaphony around us, be it bad theologically-incorrect-Vatican-II-noncompliant showtunes or the ignorant applause that follows it. We must return to the horror of the birth of Christ, and the horrors that followed in the slaughter of the Holy Innocents, and we must remember that if that is what He suffered, should we not expect to suffer the same?

We have to remember that God gave His only Son to Mary and Joseph...and they lost Him, and had to look through him in the dusty, dirty, uncivilized roads leading to and through Jerusalem. And where did they find Him?

In the Temple.

The Temple wasn't a perfect place...a few years later, Jesus would form a whip and overturn the tables of the money changers, chastizing them for turning the Lord's house into a place of commerce.

We have to see, then, that no matter how bad things might be, Christ is there. He is speaking, even to those who aren't listening or refuse to listen.

More and more, I'm realizing how drawn I am to either the Latin Novus Ordo (which locally is done ad orientum) or the Extraordinary Form (TLM) Masses, but today's antiphon after the Canticle of Mary has chastized me.

My preferences perhaps don't matter; God is present at my own parish. I don't need to look for Him anywhere else; I just have to see Him where He is, and where He has called me at this moment. The anguish in trying to find him is both real and self-inflicted all at once. What is happening to our Church is within God's will, for He is allowing it, perhaps to make us seek Him in the storm.

We don't grow in holiness through an easy road, but through suffering. We can never find Christ unless we endure the Cross.

The other day I wrote about how our romanticized ideal of the birth of Christ obscures the reality of the Incarnation; perhaps that same understand needs to be applied to the Mass. Maybe we have to learn to find Christ no matter where we are. We don't have to love the music; we have to love Jesus. And if He could endure the abuses at the Temple, then we can endure the same kind of thing for His sake and those of His people, those around us.

Maybe the next time, then, that I enter into the cacaphony of the Mass at my parish, I will remember that I need not seek so hard for Jesus, for He is already there, and the more I give in to resentment, the further back I will be in the crowd. And even if the eyes of the crowd are upon the performers, it is my place to keep my eyes and heart focused on Christ.

And THAT is a path to holiness that has been given to most of us.

Pray. Endure. And remember He is Present. Don't let Him be alone.

Summa: The Defects of the Mystical Body of Christ

Research note from Adoro: I found another cutting from the Summa Theologica, one of the pieces found with the Q. Documents. Amazing that it addresses so many of the questions we find today. If you would like to see the other cuttings I've found, check this link and scroll down. It addresses such questions as Blessing Beer and meeting people over the Internet...which truly flummoxed the one making objections. In any case...here is St. Thomas Aquina's answer as to the hypocritical nature of those who faithfully attend Mass. I've found it to be very timely and enlightening.

Article 1: On the Nature of the Defective Nature of Mass-Goers

Objection 1: It would seem that those who attend Mass are hypocrites. They go to Mass on Sunday and throughout the rest of the week, they're complete jerks. They don't practice what they preach. They're holier-than-thou and I don't like them.

Objection 2: Further, I can worship God on my own, in private. Because in scripture it states in Mt 6:6: "When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you. " Therefore, it is better to pray on one's own than it is to risk offending the Father by praying in the sight of others.

Objection 3: My Protestant friends don't go to church on Sunday and they say they're Saved. So it doesn't make sense that Catholics have to go to Mass especially considering they're jerks anyway and I'd rather go hunting or to hockey than spend time with those jerks.

On the contrary: It is clear that the Church as the Mystical Body arose out of the side of Christ after His death on the cross, and made her beginnings on Pentecost. For just as the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary so that Christ would be conceived, so the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Apostles as they were in community, in order to give life to the Mystical Body. As Christ died in public humiliation, so the Church enters into communion through first public acknowledgment of our own sins in the Penitential Rite. The People of God had always had a community; our faith arises out of the community of our Jewish brothers and sisters, preserving the Law which was fulfilled in Christ, written in the New Testament, and carried out today through Apostolic Tradition and Scripture.

I answer that, it is fitting that hypocritical sinners come together in common to acknowledge guilt and learn to become holy, that Christ did not intend solitary worship, and that basing one's spirituality upon heretical ideals and personal preferences makes one a bigger hypocrite that those who actually admit they are not perfect human beings and are seeking to do better through the assistance of their likewise less-than-perfect pewmates.

Reply to Objection 1: Mass, and the Church as a whole, made up of the Magisterium, the Priests, the Laity, assigned to parish communities throughout cities and towns and dioceses and archdioceses throughout the world, was brought into being in order to save sinners. As it says in Mt 9: 10-13: " While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples.11 The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 12 He heard this and said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. 13 Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' 10 I did not come to call the righteous but sinners." Thus, it would seem that if those attending Mass are hypocrites and jerks the rest of the week, then they are in exactly the right place. You should join them unless you're already one of the righteous. Because if you are, Christ didn't come for you and doesn't love the righteous anywhere near as much as He loves sinners and hypocrites.

Reply to Objection 2: Certainly one can and should worship God on one's own. Such is holy and good, however is not sufficient in and of itself. Christ called His people into a community, began the Church in a community, and through Baptism, completed in Confirmation, one is made a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. Each is called into this kind of communion. All have gifts to contribute to the whole, and when one member is suffering, the entire Body suffers in union. When one member is lost, all are lessened by that loss. Further, all souls are lacking in virtue and obtain those virtues by way of others, especially in enduring their failings. By refusing to endure the failings of other jerks, one fails to rise out of one's own sinful mire of self-righteousness.

Reply to Objection 3: It is a poverty to cite theology lacking in logic, and even further, to cite the heretical ideas of the "Reform" era which arose from demonically-influenced "theology" and the minimalist philosophy of Ockham whose ideas nearly single-handedly with Luther (his follower) lead to the socialist welfare system still in place today. The idea that one is "saved" while still committing sin is a seriously flawed way to dismiss oneself from the mortal sin of intentionally skipping Mass. Especially when the Protestant doctrine cited both does not understand what the Mass is (or they would not continue to protest) and that their man-made doctrine of salvation is flawed even to the cited philosophical foundations of their ideal. Thus, just because a Protestant does something does not mean that Catholics are held to that low bar. In fact....as we have been given much, we have much more to give, and owe a greater debt of gratitude to the God who comes to us each day through Holy Mass and through the Sacraments. As the Protestants do not have these gifts, they cannot understand why we MUST attend Mass, and the great benefit of enduring the jerkiness of others in order to be drawn closer to Our Crucified Lord.

I further answer that, to cite personal preference and the unsavoriness of other churchgoers as a reason to skip Mass reveals the foundational sin of Pride and is an outright denial of the need of a personal Lord and Savior. To knowingly choose hockey or hunting over Mass is akin to choosing Eternal Damnation.

The Internet and St. Thomas Aquinas

As I previously mentioned, I was wondering what my blog patron, St. Thomas Aquinas, would have to say about the phenomena of meeting and becoming friends with people via the internet. So I did some digging, and sure enough, I found another section of the Summa Theologica that was located with the Q Documents. My guess is that it was cut from the Summa because, at the time it was written, apparently there WASN'T internet so archaeologists were confused and didn't think the writings were authentic. (What I don't understand is that the people who like the "Q" theories think all SORTS of crazy things with no basis in ANY reality are true...but when they are faced with the prophetic wisdom of a great Saint they trample his writings into the dirt!)

Well, after laborious translations, I think I have finally found the answer to whether our current method of making friends is a good thing.

Whether using a tool called "the internet" to meet other people and travel great distances to meet them in person can be justified?

Objection 1: It is dangerous to meet people via the internet. As the true intentions of those with whom one may interact through a written medium cannot be properly ascertained, one should maintain friendships only with those with whom they have real contact each day.

Objection 2: It is especially dangerous to travel in order to meet other people, for the same reasons as set out above, but furthermore, it is MORE dangerous because then one is taken away from home which is a protective haven.

Objection 3: It is more virtuous to be cautious and aloof.

Objection 4: What is the inter net? We need only one layer in order to catch fish and we don't use nets to capture people. This question has no logic. No one meets other people through the use of nets!

ON THE CONTRARY I answer that, from the beginning of the written word, contact has been made with other people through the use of such words, prior to actual meetings. The Apostles, such as Paul, and James, sent letters to the various churches and visited them as well in order to preach according to his Divine Mission.

I answer that it can be justified to meet others via the medium of the tool yet to be invented called "the internet", for this tool will take the place of the laborious process of writing letters using ink and papyrus, sealing them with beeswax and a seal, and sending them via courier.

Reply to Objection 1: I answer that, while it may be true that contact via written word from afar cannot reveal the hearts of those with whom one corresponds, it is still a true contact. Truthfulness can be verified over time through the use of details and consistency in the writings presented from each correspondant. At times it is necessary to send ahead the written words, as in the case of St. Ignatius of Antioch who wrote letters prior to his martyrdom and whose letters were taken to heart by the peoples who had never made his direct acquaintance. Those who knew the Saint directly were only harmed when they followed in his heroic footstps and were martyred with him after willingly identifying themselves as Christians, then were fed to the lions. Thus, it was not the written correspondance that harmed the innocent, but rather, it was the Romans. Thus I answer that the internet is not dangerous; the governing bodies that shed the blood of the faithful are dangerous.

Additionally, the objection calls to mind the position of one who is cloistered and refrains from contact with the outside world. By necessity, humanity was designed by God to interact with others, and often with strangers and travellers. The act of traveling can be a pilgrimage in which the pilgrim must in humility submit to God's own designs, and the pilgrim must be willing to accept the assistance of strangers. It is further a grace for strangers to provide assistance to travelling pilgrims. Thus, I answer that the internet facilitates pilgrimages in a manner that is much safer than those which take place in our day.

Reply to Objection 2: I answer that, while home is a protective haven, it may be necessary for various reasons for one to leave that haven to visit other locales. In this process, while discernment is needed first, should the person in question accept the challenge to leave their haven, again the virtue of humility comes into exercise as the soul must learn to trust God for safety, and not those with whom one normally associates. Thus, it is clear that, rather than being dangerous, it is virtuous for someone to meet others via the internet as it causes one to grow in foundational virtues.

Reply to Objection 3: It would seem that being cautious is a virtue, yet the seeds of the Church was the blood of the martyrs. Thus, I answer that caution is not a virtue but a tool of Satan. Further, as our example for behavior belongs to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was not aloof, but rather, took on our sins in order to free us from death, if we are aloof we are not in imitation of Him. Jesus tells us to "Take up your cross and follow me", which often means following Him away from what we think is safe; for we may also be called to be crucified, either where we live or, as in the case of St. Ignatius, in a circus in Rome. Travel to meet others, then, can lead to ultimate union with God, and this is a consummation devoutly to be wish'd!

Reply to Objection 4: The internet is a tool of communication yet to be invented, designed to take the place of the contemporary writing tools of our day. Further, it would seem that this objection has no logic, for Our Lord Himself met Apostles James and John while they were at their nets, and later directed Peter to "Duc en altum". Thus, it is clear that the use of nets has always been in place to facilitate important meetings especially with regard to divine mission.

I answer that, overall, it is clear that using the internet to facilitate meeetings with others is a continuation of the Apostolic tradition and ultimately unifies Christians all over the world. In the case where such meetings lead to martyrdom, this is part of God's plan and a necessary seed in order to plant holiness in an area of the world where Christendom has not spread. Discernment in this regard is necessary before embarking upon any pilgrimage in order that the right intentions and virtues be in place prior to making the trip.


*

So, there you have it. But I'm still not telling Mom what I did. She'd freak out!

Beer and St. Thomas Aquinas

Father Schnippel has posted a wonderful blessing for beer. Yes, beer. Mmmmmmmm...beeeeer. But the Thomist in me wonders...is a beer blessing... um...kosher? Can beer be blessed? So, since this blog is in need of levity, humor, and wit, and something for the geek, too, well, I've researched and researched and have discovered this little-known clip of the Summa Theologica that apparently was left on the editing-room floor. It was found near one of the quashed records from the early Church that proved the authorship of the Gospels (in addition to the writings of the Early Church Fathers), so, given the state of modern "Catholic" scholarship today, it's no surprise that we don't often hear of the ancient blessing of beer. So, without further ado, here's a little artifact for all you Thomists out there; let your soul be refreshed...and let temperance be your guide!


Whether the blessing of beer is proper and can be justified?

Objection 1. It would seem that the impropriety of blessing the intoxicating liquid commonly called "beer" should be obvious to one and all who aspire to living a life of sanctity. As beer can be quickly intoxicating and thus eliminate the inhibitions of properly-sober persons, the action of "blessing" the beer would seem to give license not only to intoxication, but also to limited mental faculties that lead one into sin.

Objection 2: Further, blessing beer creates a temptation and an occasion of sin. When sober, a man has the use of full reason consistent with his intellectual capacity, however, the use of beer can diminish what reason he possesses. In the diminishment of reason, one may determine that something otherwise considered to be sinful would in fact be pleasent and "good", and thus, the beer would have lead said person down a path away from reason and towards sin. Such a thing is a temptation and thus the blessing can be termed to be "an occasion of sin."

Objection 3: Further, beer is a beverage not consumed at holy events, but in bars, backyard barbecues, and keg parties for the sake of imbibing great quantities for the intended purpose of intoxication. It should not be imbibed at all, and other intoxicating liquids should also be avoided for one trying to live a life in God's grace.

Objection 4: It is scandalous to the faithful to bless beer.

On the contrary, It is written (Jn 2:3) "When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine'". Even further, it is written in reference to the 30-gallon jars meant for ritual purification, that they be filled to the brim. In this, the first miracle of Jesus (Jn 2:7), Jesus changed that water into wine for the feast, and He provided a quantity fit to intoxicate a crowd of their own volition. Thus we see that although the scriptures mention abundant wine, they do not mention beer.

I answer that, beer was not an ingredient of celebration in biblical times, however that does not imply that the invention of it is ungodly, only different but similar in effects to the predecessor which was wine.

Reply to Objection 1: Good beer was created from earthly ingredients freely given by God for this purpose. Good beer was created from especially tasty elements and was designed not for embarassing consumption but to be sipped in fellowship and enjoyed as with a good wine. The intoxicating properties are limited through the virtue of the one who consumes the beverage. Beer consumed in proper amounts does not inhibit the life of sanctity.

Reply to Objection 2: As in the reply to Objection 1, although beer can be a temptation to sin by some, it is not a temptation to sin for all. I further answer that food can be a temptation for some, but that does not inhibit our need to ask God to bless our food. To argue that beer cannot be blessed because it may be a temptation and occasion for sin is fallacious; for that point to be true, those who are tempted to gluttony must not have their meals blessed, if they eat at all! Thus, blessing beer does not enter one into an occasion of sin.

Reply to Objection 3: I answer that beer is also consumed at fine meals and at family events, taken with food, and limited in quantity. Just as wine with dinner is not automatically drunk to intoxication, thus is beer. Beer is no different from wine in this regard. To argue against blessing beer is to argue against allowing wine to be blessed with the meal. Jesus himself consumed wine at Passover and had beer been created, he would likewise have consumed beer. Yet we do not read of Christ and his Apostles drinking to intoxication at the Last Supper.

Reply to Objection 4: It would seem that it is NOT scandalous to bless beer. As we also bless food and consume it, thus we must also bless beer to be consumed with the food, for its elements too, are gifts from God, as are our friends and family. It must be observed that the blessing must call to mind right use of those gifts, which further enables us to focus on the virtues of temperence and charity, while unblessed food or beer could lead us to treat those gifts and ourselves callously. Thus, we see that the blessing of beer would not only be spiritually advantageous, but could, in fact, draw one into a closer union with God through the increased virtue inspired by the blessing. Especially if the blessing is stated in Latin.

Further, the only thing that would cause the blessing to be scandalous would be if the priest blessed the beer and then refused access to the rest of the present faithful.