Sunday, September 16, 2012
Who is Jesus Christ?
Today at Holy Mass, Fr. Tigges challenged each and every person to ask and reflect on "Who is Jesus Christ, to me?"
For the Catholic person, this is not a difficult question. Because we are Catholic, the Church gives a clear, concise and perfect answer as to who Jesus Christ is.
Jesus Christ is God made man.
That may seem like a very simple answer and it is. But it is the most perfect answer, because it directly, clearly and properly answers the question. Many will say there has to be more than that. Many will say that He is this or He is that. And that is all opinion. But in essence and in reality, Jesus Christ is God made man.
Some may ask why is Jesus God? Jesus Christ is God, because He is the only Son of God, having the same Divine nature as His Father. Some may ask, why is Jesus man? Jesus Christ is man, because He is the son of the Blessed Virgin Mary and has a body and soul like ours. Others may ask since Jesus is part of the Blessed Trinity, He must be more than one person, right? No. Jesus Christ is only one Person; and that Person is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. It gets a little more complicated, but as questions keep getting asked, the answers around Jesus remain simple in answer. Jesus Christ has two natures: the nature of God and the nature of man. This is because He is the Son of God and He is the son of the Blessed Virgin.
As we continue to look at who Jesus is, we must understand that Jesus was not always man. He became man at the time of the Incarnation. Some will ask, what is meant by the Incarnation? By the Incarnation is meant that the Son of God, retaining His Divine nature, took to Himself a human nature, that is, a body and soul like ours. The next question often asked is how was He made man? The Son of God was conceived and made man by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. When did this happen? The Son of God was conceived and made man on Annunciation Day, the day on which the Angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God. When was Jesus Christ born? Christ was born of the Blessed Virgin Mary on Christmas Day, in Bethlehem, more than two thousand years ago.
When we look to who is Jesus, this is the easiest answer. It is also the most complete. There is a misconception in today's world that there must be some deep theological and philosophical answer. That isn't the case. The best answer is the most simple. When Catholics look to answer the question, "Who is Jesus Christ, to me?" He can answer that in solidarity with all other Catholics in the world and say with all confidence and right thinking, Jesus Christ is God made man.
Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Musical Patrimony...Has It Been Completely Lost?
I spoke about this late last year, but honestly I think that I need to bring it up again. What has happened to the musical patrimony of the Church? The Mass is a song. In and of itself it is sung. It doesn't need help from hymns, it doesn't need "contemporary updating." Vatican Council II specifically spoke to this by expressing that Gregorian Chant should still be the norm. Yet we get Curtis Stephan and the Mass of Renewal. Blech. I know that some will look at this as a matter of taste. It is. But it is more. The Church has a set way of singing the Mass, why change it? For the sake of change? Or something else? To make it more palatable to the Protestants....
Listen below and tell me if you hear the similarity. Remember, the secular has no place in the sacred.
Listen below and tell me if you hear the similarity. Remember, the secular has no place in the sacred.
compared to this...
No place. The comparison can be made to easily and there is no place for this musical style in the Mass. The profane (not vulgar) is not apt for Mass. Leave it on Broadway.
Too Catholic?
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
A '42 Chevy and the Church?
I know that this isn't a perfect analogy, but I recently had a friend who said the following:
I don't think that there is a way to pull it out of the ditch, without totaling it. I think that the only way to save it is to overhaul it.
I liken it this way. Look at the modified street rods that are out there. It would be like taking a '42 Chevy coupe and restoring it to 100% stock body and interior, while souping up the chassis and putting in a Corvette ZR1 engine package. She'd look cool and have tons of power, but she wouldn't be authentic. That's what they tried to do with the Novus Ordo in the first place. And the driver put it into the ditch.
Realistically, there is nothing wrong with putting in a restored 216 inline 6-cylinder which was what was original to the car, it adds stock value and authenticity to the car. And will fit much better and with no modification. In other words, if it can be fixed without breaking it, don't break it.
I think that the Church is looking at the Novus Ordo reform of the reform this way. I think that they want to pull the wreck out of the ditch and reform the car into something that looks like a '42 Chevy, but in actuality is something different. Why? Because change is good? Why not restore the '42 Chevy into an authentic '42 Chevy? The parts are all there, the restoration won't be any more or less difficult. And once we have the '42 Chevy with the 216, isn't it going to be easier to drive, less apt to cause problems and keep to the authentic spirit of the car as it originally was?
The TLM was the '42 Chevy in it's original state.
The Novus Ordo was the '42 Chevy modified.
The attempt at the reform of the reform is to pull the car out of the ditch without totaling it.
What ought to happen is to pull the '42 Chevy out of the ditch and restore it to it's original state, as the car ought to be, all original parts. All original specs. It is authentic and it adds value. And it will run right.
In short...sometimes a reform is good, but a restoration always adds value. I think that the leadership which heads Holy Mother Church could learn something. Just sayin'.
Perhaps the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo are crystallized in the fact that it leads to diffuse blog discussions (like this one) of how to pull it out of the ditch.To which I responded:
I don't think that there is a way to pull it out of the ditch, without totaling it. I think that the only way to save it is to overhaul it.
I liken it this way. Look at the modified street rods that are out there. It would be like taking a '42 Chevy coupe and restoring it to 100% stock body and interior, while souping up the chassis and putting in a Corvette ZR1 engine package. She'd look cool and have tons of power, but she wouldn't be authentic. That's what they tried to do with the Novus Ordo in the first place. And the driver put it into the ditch.
Realistically, there is nothing wrong with putting in a restored 216 inline 6-cylinder which was what was original to the car, it adds stock value and authenticity to the car. And will fit much better and with no modification. In other words, if it can be fixed without breaking it, don't break it.
I think that the Church is looking at the Novus Ordo reform of the reform this way. I think that they want to pull the wreck out of the ditch and reform the car into something that looks like a '42 Chevy, but in actuality is something different. Why? Because change is good? Why not restore the '42 Chevy into an authentic '42 Chevy? The parts are all there, the restoration won't be any more or less difficult. And once we have the '42 Chevy with the 216, isn't it going to be easier to drive, less apt to cause problems and keep to the authentic spirit of the car as it originally was?
The TLM was the '42 Chevy in it's original state.
The Novus Ordo was the '42 Chevy modified.
The attempt at the reform of the reform is to pull the car out of the ditch without totaling it.
What ought to happen is to pull the '42 Chevy out of the ditch and restore it to it's original state, as the car ought to be, all original parts. All original specs. It is authentic and it adds value. And it will run right.
In short...sometimes a reform is good, but a restoration always adds value. I think that the leadership which heads Holy Mother Church could learn something. Just sayin'.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Another Frank Conversation....
No...I didn't meet Frank Caliendo, but I think I would like to someday, I think that his impressions of George W. Bush and John Madden are spot on...LOL!!!
Seriously, I had a conversation with a priest acquaintance recently which got me to thinking and I think that finally priests are starting to ask the right questions....maybe there is a little hope.
Father said, "No, we need to celebrate the OF as best as we can by the rubrics, with a good art of celebrating it and doing what is allowed to make it in continuity with the EF Mass, the EF Mass should remain extraordinary, not Ordinary."
I responded in this way:
As best we can.
That is the crux of this whole problem and I see it as multi-faceted.
The first issue. "WE" don't celebrate the Mass, YOU do. We assist. We have no right to assume that we are celebrants along with you in that regard. Whether you meant it to be the clergy or not, that is not how it came across. The faithful have been confused these last 50 years by the erroneous notion that "we" celebrate the Mass. Most simply put, we don't.
Second issue. As best we can. Why not "as the Church expects?" The Mass is not a subjective action. Let me rephrase..the Mass SHOULD NOT be a subjective action. Sadly, with the Novus Ordo, it is. There is no liturgical law dictating what is and what is not. The rubrics of the Mass are 100% subjective. The options have been expanded ad nauseam, they have been taken from directive to suggestive, etc...Why can't the priest celebrate the Mass the way the Church intends? The answer is that the Church hasn't decided how the Mass should be celebrated. And this lends itself to the idea that the OF should really be the EF and vice versa. I will speak to that later.
Third issue. Doing what is allowed to make it in continuity with the EF. What does that mean? How can that objectively be applied across the board? It is an issue, because the OF has no clear direction. And I believe that is by design, from the Consilium.
Fourth issue. The EF should remain extraordinary...No, dear Father; it should not. The Mass is a directed action which is the vehicle to confect a sacrament. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. We are not based, as Catholics, on a subjective notion of biblical worship. We are based upon a liturgical ideal which is not only objective in nature, but guided by laws. It is guided by liturgical and canon law. Because liturgical law was stripped from the Novus Ordo in favor of suggestion, we are left with "as best we can." That is not good enough. With the TLM, we have legal recourse within the Church to hold our priests accountable to their actions. Because this structure is so very key to the notion of Catholic worship, the TLM should be the Ordinary Form until such time as the Novus Ordo is brought into legal certainty with regard to her ceremony.
It was a "suggestion" of the Protestant observers to loosen the rubrics from the objective to the subjective and it was adopted. So the language of the rubrics did change. And the Mass is yet again undermined.
This is all very complex, but a systematic view will show that until the Novus Ordo is not only in need of theological reform, but also in need of legal reform. The Mass is not a subjective biblical notion, but rather it is an objective liturgical notion.
And priests and modern liturgical theologians have either lost sight of that or willfully ignore it.
Seriously, I had a conversation with a priest acquaintance recently which got me to thinking and I think that finally priests are starting to ask the right questions....maybe there is a little hope.
Father said, "No, we need to celebrate the OF as best as we can by the rubrics, with a good art of celebrating it and doing what is allowed to make it in continuity with the EF Mass, the EF Mass should remain extraordinary, not Ordinary."
I responded in this way:
As best we can.
That is the crux of this whole problem and I see it as multi-faceted.
The first issue. "WE" don't celebrate the Mass, YOU do. We assist. We have no right to assume that we are celebrants along with you in that regard. Whether you meant it to be the clergy or not, that is not how it came across. The faithful have been confused these last 50 years by the erroneous notion that "we" celebrate the Mass. Most simply put, we don't.
Second issue. As best we can. Why not "as the Church expects?" The Mass is not a subjective action. Let me rephrase..the Mass SHOULD NOT be a subjective action. Sadly, with the Novus Ordo, it is. There is no liturgical law dictating what is and what is not. The rubrics of the Mass are 100% subjective. The options have been expanded ad nauseam, they have been taken from directive to suggestive, etc...Why can't the priest celebrate the Mass the way the Church intends? The answer is that the Church hasn't decided how the Mass should be celebrated. And this lends itself to the idea that the OF should really be the EF and vice versa. I will speak to that later.
Third issue. Doing what is allowed to make it in continuity with the EF. What does that mean? How can that objectively be applied across the board? It is an issue, because the OF has no clear direction. And I believe that is by design, from the Consilium.
Fourth issue. The EF should remain extraordinary...No, dear Father; it should not. The Mass is a directed action which is the vehicle to confect a sacrament. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. We are not based, as Catholics, on a subjective notion of biblical worship. We are based upon a liturgical ideal which is not only objective in nature, but guided by laws. It is guided by liturgical and canon law. Because liturgical law was stripped from the Novus Ordo in favor of suggestion, we are left with "as best we can." That is not good enough. With the TLM, we have legal recourse within the Church to hold our priests accountable to their actions. Because this structure is so very key to the notion of Catholic worship, the TLM should be the Ordinary Form until such time as the Novus Ordo is brought into legal certainty with regard to her ceremony.
It was a "suggestion" of the Protestant observers to loosen the rubrics from the objective to the subjective and it was adopted. So the language of the rubrics did change. And the Mass is yet again undermined.
This is all very complex, but a systematic view will show that until the Novus Ordo is not only in need of theological reform, but also in need of legal reform. The Mass is not a subjective biblical notion, but rather it is an objective liturgical notion.
And priests and modern liturgical theologians have either lost sight of that or willfully ignore it.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
A Sincere Thank You...
I want to take a moment to thank each one of you who read my blog for doing so. I write this blog as an outlet for my Catholic thoughts. While I don't necessarily fall into the establishment view and I often say things which seem to be at odds with the mainstream, I can tell you that my intention is never to divide, but to bring perspective to the idea that the Church didn't start 47 years ago, but rather 2012 years ago.
Again, thanks for taking the time out of your day to read my blog. It is humbling to me that a small town kid in the middle of Iowa has had over 35,000 views in 21 months of a blog.
AMDG+
Andy Milam
Again, thanks for taking the time out of your day to read my blog. It is humbling to me that a small town kid in the middle of Iowa has had over 35,000 views in 21 months of a blog.
AMDG+
Andy Milam
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The Mass....The Real Question...
Since my days in college where I was a "liturgical assistant," I have fought against this notion that the Holy Sacrifice is a meal, in the first place. It is not.
It is true that Christ instituted the Eucharist at the Last Supper, but it was not completed until the Sacrifice on Calvary. The liturgy is not, as Weakland and his cohorts would have us believe a meal, with sacrificial undertones.
And that is the shift in theology. And this shift in theology from the Mass being a sacrifice to the Mass being a meal vis-a-vis insitution narrative v. the consecratory prayer. Ultimately, this is the problem with the Novus Ordo. It can be argued that the architects changed the intention of the Mass from that which it was understood to be into something wholly and completely new. And that argument has legs.
We can go on and on and on about the liturgical direction, the posture of the faithful, the attitude of the faithful regarding participatio actuosa v activa, the placement of the pax, etc, etc...those things are all very important discussions, as I can attest, but if we bring it down to brass tacks, it is this theological question, "What is the Mass, primarily, Meal or Sacrifice?"
If the Mass is a Sacrifice, we have 1965 years of theological certainty to back up our position. If the Mass is a meal, we have 47-64 years to defend a theological shift. We can find reference to the "meal aspect" going back to the first century, but that aspect is always, always couched as being secondary and subordinate to the Sacrificial action. This is not the case since at least 1965 and most likely 1948. When the Mass loses it's Sacrificial nature, it loses it's validity, because while the Eucharist was instituted on Holy Thursday, it was not completed until Good Friday. And without the bloody Sacrifice of Our Lord and Savior, we have nothing more than a symbol. There is no sign. For what is a Sacrament? An outward sign instituted by Christ to bring about Grace. Without the Sacrificial action of Christ at Calvary, there cannot be an unbloody sacrifice at each Holy Mass.
So, we can argue all we want about postures and positions, they make the Mass more reverent, but the real question is how do we defend the unbloody Sacrifice against the notion of a meal? The theological question is in front of us, we must answer it and defend it, in an orthodox manner.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
It's Election Time...Accusations of Flip-Flopping...
It seems every election season we hear about flip-flopping. You know, where someone changes a position that the other party doesn't like. Most of the time it is a Democrat accusing a pro-life candidate of changing his position from being once pro-abortion to that of pro-life.
Friends, that is not flip-flopping, that is development of understanding. As Christians, and more specifically, as Catholics, we are expected to form our consciences according to the Truth. Sometimes it is easier, sometimes it is harder. But it is always a journey that takes the entire life of a person and it happens in varying degrees.
What we are really fighting is what is known as British Empiricism. It is the basis of the philosophies of John Stuart Mill, John Locke and David Hume. They essentially state that logic is the answer and that everything can be explained vis a vis the scientific method (Yes, I know that is an oversimplification, but it is the very base of their understanding) and that if it cannot be logically reasoned or proven then there is no basis for it. This is how the vast majority of pro-aborts view their movement. They really believe that since we cannot prove that life begins at conception, that we cannot treat the unborn human person as a person. And the argument stems from there. I will not rehash it, it is widely known.
To the contrary, many in the pro-life movement don't ascribe to this philosophy. They are more akin to Bl. John Henry Newman's view as presented in An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. Newman breaks things down into several parts, first he speaks about believing that which you don't understand and second, he speaks about believing that which you cannot prove. These views are at odds with the Empiricists because it uses assent and inference, a concept which does not follow the closed view of logic. Newman's view speaks much more fluidly about logic and that it can be applied in a much more open way.
What the pro-aborts refuse to acknowledge is that one can assent their mind and their will to the tenants of the unborn without fully understanding that life begins at conception. But it is not necessary to "know" this either because So while the regular unlearned pro-lifer, or anyone for that matter, may not be able to conceive that human life begins at conception, the words of the propositions that define the position are clear and intellectually accessible and assent may legitimately follow.
The key difference between assent and inference is that assent is unconditional and inference is conditional, i.e., dependent on other propositions or ideas and unable to stand by itself. This is the second part of the equation.inference described a proposition that is intrinsically dependent on other propositions. For instance, the statement, "Therefore, the car is red," is clearly dependent on antecedent propositions for its meaning and those propositions would need to be disclosed before one could meaningfully assent. This is an inferential statement as opposed to "The car in front of the house is red," which is an assertion that can be assented to because it can stand on its own.
Finally, Newman speaks about the Ilative sense. It is the faculty of the human mind that closes the logic-gap in concrete situations and thus allowing for assent. Logic/formal inference utilizes dependable processes that lead to a certain and firm conclusion in the fields in which it is applied. However, Newman maintained that in concrete life formal incontrovertible proof in favor of a decision is not possible—the best one can achieve is converging probabilities in favor of a conclusion. For Newman it is impossible to attain the concrete existential equivalent of logical certainty. Thus, to close that gap between converging probabilities and full assent, one needs the aid of the Illative Sense in order to attain certitude in specific situations.
Newman recognized that there are dangers associated with using the Illative Sense. In using it one may become vulnerable to superstition and eccentricity. But superstition is held in check, Newman suggests, by the moral element in the act of faith, that is, holiness, obedience, and the sense of duty will safeguard faith from becoming mere superstition.
So, where the pro-abort fails is in holding fast to the Empirical view is that he refuses to look beyond the scope of the logic which faces him. He doesn't properly apply reason as it is intended to be applied. The pro-lifer, on the other hand is more willing to allow for his own human faculties to grow and close the "logic gap" as Newman puts it, therefore opening the possibility that it is acceptable to believe that human life begins at conception without empirically knowing it to be the case.
As we listen over the coming months about Romney's journey to becoming more pro-life, we must take into consideration that he may not have a full assent of his mind to the concept. However, we can take solace in the fact that he is coming to understand it better. We know this because of his own personal transformation, but also because of who he chose as a running mate. Paul Ryan is staunchly pro-life and he will be able to continue to help the assent of Romney's mind to that of being more completely pro-life.
If Romney can make the statement regarding being pro-abort, "Understand over time one's perspective changes somewhat," he said. "I'm in a different place than I was probably in 1994, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, in my own views on that."
We can have hope that he will continue to grow in assenting his mind to becoming 100% pro-life. We must not forget that while there may be some semblance of evil in some of the things a candidate believes, we are bound to electing that candidate which will do the most to further the common good. If we stop supporting Romney in favor of a candidate like Ron Paul, who may be more perfect, knowing that he does not have the votes to defeat Obama who is more evil than Romney, we are not helping to lessen evil in the world. For if Obama is re-elected we will face a greater evil than if Romney is elected. The push right begins by choosing the lesser evil and perfecting the person after that. It is clear that we cannot perfect Obama, so we must choose to elect the candidate who can defeat him. In this election it is Mitt Romney. Once Romney is in office, the American people through the pro-life movement can work to perfect him. We have seen that he is open to developing his view.
It is not better to be a little pro-abort. But it is better to be open to the pro-life truth. Romney gets us there and he is electable. No other candidate can do that. So, as we vote this election season, we must remember that to lessen evil is a step at destroying evil. It is akin to the parable of the weeds...
Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43
I am not telling you how to vote, but rather that you must vote to lessen evil. Who is sowing good seed in that parable and who is sowing weeds?
Friends, that is not flip-flopping, that is development of understanding. As Christians, and more specifically, as Catholics, we are expected to form our consciences according to the Truth. Sometimes it is easier, sometimes it is harder. But it is always a journey that takes the entire life of a person and it happens in varying degrees.
What we are really fighting is what is known as British Empiricism. It is the basis of the philosophies of John Stuart Mill, John Locke and David Hume. They essentially state that logic is the answer and that everything can be explained vis a vis the scientific method (Yes, I know that is an oversimplification, but it is the very base of their understanding) and that if it cannot be logically reasoned or proven then there is no basis for it. This is how the vast majority of pro-aborts view their movement. They really believe that since we cannot prove that life begins at conception, that we cannot treat the unborn human person as a person. And the argument stems from there. I will not rehash it, it is widely known.
To the contrary, many in the pro-life movement don't ascribe to this philosophy. They are more akin to Bl. John Henry Newman's view as presented in An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. Newman breaks things down into several parts, first he speaks about believing that which you don't understand and second, he speaks about believing that which you cannot prove. These views are at odds with the Empiricists because it uses assent and inference, a concept which does not follow the closed view of logic. Newman's view speaks much more fluidly about logic and that it can be applied in a much more open way.
What the pro-aborts refuse to acknowledge is that one can assent their mind and their will to the tenants of the unborn without fully understanding that life begins at conception. But it is not necessary to "know" this either because So while the regular unlearned pro-lifer, or anyone for that matter, may not be able to conceive that human life begins at conception, the words of the propositions that define the position are clear and intellectually accessible and assent may legitimately follow.
The key difference between assent and inference is that assent is unconditional and inference is conditional, i.e., dependent on other propositions or ideas and unable to stand by itself. This is the second part of the equation.inference described a proposition that is intrinsically dependent on other propositions. For instance, the statement, "Therefore, the car is red," is clearly dependent on antecedent propositions for its meaning and those propositions would need to be disclosed before one could meaningfully assent. This is an inferential statement as opposed to "The car in front of the house is red," which is an assertion that can be assented to because it can stand on its own.
Finally, Newman speaks about the Ilative sense. It is the faculty of the human mind that closes the logic-gap in concrete situations and thus allowing for assent. Logic/formal inference utilizes dependable processes that lead to a certain and firm conclusion in the fields in which it is applied. However, Newman maintained that in concrete life formal incontrovertible proof in favor of a decision is not possible—the best one can achieve is converging probabilities in favor of a conclusion. For Newman it is impossible to attain the concrete existential equivalent of logical certainty. Thus, to close that gap between converging probabilities and full assent, one needs the aid of the Illative Sense in order to attain certitude in specific situations.
Newman recognized that there are dangers associated with using the Illative Sense. In using it one may become vulnerable to superstition and eccentricity. But superstition is held in check, Newman suggests, by the moral element in the act of faith, that is, holiness, obedience, and the sense of duty will safeguard faith from becoming mere superstition.
So, where the pro-abort fails is in holding fast to the Empirical view is that he refuses to look beyond the scope of the logic which faces him. He doesn't properly apply reason as it is intended to be applied. The pro-lifer, on the other hand is more willing to allow for his own human faculties to grow and close the "logic gap" as Newman puts it, therefore opening the possibility that it is acceptable to believe that human life begins at conception without empirically knowing it to be the case.
As we listen over the coming months about Romney's journey to becoming more pro-life, we must take into consideration that he may not have a full assent of his mind to the concept. However, we can take solace in the fact that he is coming to understand it better. We know this because of his own personal transformation, but also because of who he chose as a running mate. Paul Ryan is staunchly pro-life and he will be able to continue to help the assent of Romney's mind to that of being more completely pro-life.
If Romney can make the statement regarding being pro-abort, "Understand over time one's perspective changes somewhat," he said. "I'm in a different place than I was probably in 1994, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, in my own views on that."
We can have hope that he will continue to grow in assenting his mind to becoming 100% pro-life. We must not forget that while there may be some semblance of evil in some of the things a candidate believes, we are bound to electing that candidate which will do the most to further the common good. If we stop supporting Romney in favor of a candidate like Ron Paul, who may be more perfect, knowing that he does not have the votes to defeat Obama who is more evil than Romney, we are not helping to lessen evil in the world. For if Obama is re-elected we will face a greater evil than if Romney is elected. The push right begins by choosing the lesser evil and perfecting the person after that. It is clear that we cannot perfect Obama, so we must choose to elect the candidate who can defeat him. In this election it is Mitt Romney. Once Romney is in office, the American people through the pro-life movement can work to perfect him. We have seen that he is open to developing his view.
It is not better to be a little pro-abort. But it is better to be open to the pro-life truth. Romney gets us there and he is electable. No other candidate can do that. So, as we vote this election season, we must remember that to lessen evil is a step at destroying evil. It is akin to the parable of the weeds...
[24]Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seeds in his field. [25] But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way.
[26] And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. [27] And the servants of the goodman of the house coming said to him: Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? [28] And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? [29] And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. [30] Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.
[...]
[36] Then having sent away the multitudes, he came into the house, and his disciples came to him, saying: Expound to us the parable of the cockle of the field. [37] Who made answer and said to them: He that soweth the good seed, is the Son of man. [38] And the field, is the world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And the cockle, are the children of the wicked one. [39] And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels. [40] Even as cockle therefore is gathered up, and burnt with fire: so shall it be at the end of the world.
[41] The Son of man shall send his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all scandals, and them that work iniquity. [42] And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. [43] Then shall the just shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43
I am not telling you how to vote, but rather that you must vote to lessen evil. Who is sowing good seed in that parable and who is sowing weeds?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)