07.19.09
St. John Vianney
Now is the year of Priests for the Church, beginning from June 19th 2009 to the same in 2010. St. John Vianney, the Curé of Ars, is being made the patron Saint of all priests in the world. Here, then, is an opportunity to reflect on the priests’ complete transparency and light-giving role in the world.
“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”
(Matthew 5:14-16)
May the Lord continue to bless the House of St. John Vianney 
05.06.09
Seeing the Truth about Reality through Science and Realist Philosophy
Here’s a rather important question about life, the universe and everything: How do we know what is real? What’s the truth about our existence, and in our experiences of the world?
I’m going to suggest something that may not be too apparent to some. I’m going to suggest that we find ourselves in the contemporary world, amidst all the latest discoveries and technological progress, that we’re further and further out of touch with the true reality; artificial belief systems and environment of the contemporary world tends to make difficult the search for the truth about what’s real, since we’re less exposed to what is truly real. It’s almost as if we’ve constructed for ourselves a highly comfortable and even more effective versions of Plato’s cave, and think ourselves more enlightened for it.
There is possibly a danger of seeing science as the only way to encounter the concrete reality and relegating philosophy to a real of abstract speculations that have nothing to do with our concrete experiences. While science is a very good way of seeing the quantifiable world, Realist philosophy of Aristotle (with background in Socrates and Plato) can help up in jogging us to being awake to the reality that’s been in front of us all the time.
It’s quite helpful to realise that, in a sense, the experiences that are most “concretely” real to us are not experiences of the scientific sort at all, but experiences of the everyday reality; the sort that we end up expressing in the grammar and ways of talking about things. We never say, “a previously encountered carbon-based biped produced high-frequency aural outbursts toward this set of aural receptors at 1132 hours GMT” – we say, “my annoying little sister was screaming at me this morning” (well, some of us might ). The qualitative and holistic ways of looking at things is the most real to us – the quantitative is real, yes, but only secondary. A person is seen as a whole person that is living (life being the source of that wholeness) and does meaningful things, not as a mere collection of bits of flesh and chemicals operating as a clever but lifeless (because lack of life means lack of any real unity and wholeness) machine that only does mechanical (and hence meaningless) movements and actions in space and time.
We don’t wonder enough at the mysterious reality present in plants, animals and human persons, and in the fact that they exist as unities (an animal is one real thing, which also contains within itself many bits). The difference is apparent in the change when a thing comes to be, or dies. In coming to be, it start almost from a point, and expands out of itself, actually accumulating more matter into itself (and so transcending the parts it’s made of), all the while remaining the same actual thing (a baby and a teenager are both human beings – the difference is in their stages of growth). When it dies, there’s no longer that unity, but only a collection of bits (which is seen more readily as it scatters as dust). This is why when a person dies, we know (even when we’re looking at the body) that he or she is no longer there.
It’s a funny society that we have today. We tend to think the deepest reality is to be found in the artificial deconstruction of what’s in front of us, little realising that a real, living thing dies when it’s dismembered from its wholeness. We must learn again to look at the reality holistically, and recover the art of preserving living and holistic realities when studying their complexities.
[Compiled and edited from my posts in a Being Frank thread]
02.05.09
Is Catholicism Man-made or God-sent?: The Resurrection Evidence
From a very random dialogue on the web.
Poster 1: Catholicism is true christianity. The only true family of God. All other religion is man-made.
Poster 2: Actually, all religions are man made.If you can prove otherwise be my guest 
Poster 3 (moi): Ah, but why should such an a priori assumption be more credible than faith? Remember, faith is not blind – it resolves eventually to sight. What I mean is, if I told you that I had crumbed fish for dinner tonight, and you believe me, you now have a new piece of knowledge based on hearing (because I really did have crumbed fish last night). Whether or not it is true depends on the credibility of the witness. That aspect, for Christianity, can be historically examined and tested, since it is a religion of eye witnesses and public revelations (unlike, um… I can’t think of any other, actually!).
Since you ask for proof, I’ll give you a challenge. Why not examine the historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection, starting with the websites of Peter Kreeft (www.peterkreeft.com) and William Lane Craig (www.reasonablefaith.org)? This is a good, central topic, because one can say to all Christians with St. Paul, “…if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” (I Corinthians 15:17).
Go on, I dare you – take the challenge from this agnostic-turned-Catholic. Here’s the link to the first article: www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm
And God bless ye’ – all, who seek, shall find.
12.05.08
Free Subscription to the Envoy Magazine!
Get subscriptions to the Envoy Magazine for free, through their banner program! All you have to do is to host a banner on your website or ‘blog for the duration of the subscription.
For more information, see this post on Sonitus Sanctus. You can find the codes for the banners here, insert it into your website or ‘blog, then contact johnmallon [at] mac.com (replace ‘[at]‘ with ‘@’) to validate it. Easy!
Envoy is a great Catholic apologetics magazine – very informative, and maddenningly funny (in a good way)! It has my highest recommendations.
Message from John Mallon
Here is a Message from John Mallon of Envoy Institute to Catholic bloggers:
John Mallon is trying to assemble an email list of Blogs in the English speaking world, especially in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. He is currently working as Contributing Editor for Inside the Vatican magazine, doing media relations for Human Life International, and assisting at the Envoy Institute in a promotional capacity. He has two degrees in theology and frequently has items of interest to Catholic Bloggers worldwide. With 25 years of experience in the Catholic Press, he has found that major secular outlets are often closed to these messages. If you have or know of Blogs that would be interested in receiving press releases and other pertinent materials for your Blogs, he would very much appreciate getting a mailing list of these blogs for this purpose. This is not spam. Anyone not wishing to receive these materials will be removed from the list immediately upon request. Catholic Blogs are absolutely critical for spreading credible information on the Church. This mailing list could serve as a News Agency supplying news and other information to Catholic Blogs.
It is absolutely maddening trying to harvest emails off of Blogs, where people won’t post their emails. He is only interested in people who want to receive these messages, not bothering anyone.
For more on John Mallon please visit his website at: http://johnmallon.net
Please let me know if you can help.
Thanks & God bless you,
John Mallon
johnmallon [at] mac.com (replace ‘[at]‘ with ‘@’)
11.18.08
Catholic Life and the Magisterium
I posted this in a Being Frank thread, and thought it may be good to post here also.
We ought really to be full of thanksgiving in the freedom we have (freedom in the true sense). We are guided by the Magisterium and must be faithful to it as sheep to their shepherd, but this should not be seen as some sort of an unduly (a key word there) rigid and legalistic thing. We adhere to the authority of the magisterial as a child to his/her mother, since such is the environment of true freedom where all of our potentials and possibilities can be nurtured and realised through her loving and maternal care (the greatest fruit of which is salvation – “unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3).
I think being orthodox in the face of seemingly ubiquitous unfaithfulness and dissent seemingly takes an incredible degree of ‘rigidity’ in standing one’s ground, as it does also with natural marriage against the culture of unfaithfulness and adultery, but we must be constantly aware of the true freedom this brings, and never reduce the relationship to such a rigidity (in both cases).
This is the case, I think, in every area of Catholic faith: theology, ministry, apostolate – anywhere where faith, hope and love are manifest. What Aidan Nichols says for theology seems applicable everywhere: it is dependent on the magisterium for its very life in faith, yet also its scope is not prescribed by the office beforehand. We are the body of Christ and individually member of it (1 Corinthians 12:28), yet out of this harmony, and out of the same Spirit who forms us into the same body, comes various gifts which constitute the diverse offices and ministries (1 Corinthians 12:4-6,28-31
).
The hands and feet work in harmony with the head and the nervous system, but not for the sake of such harmony alone – they’re directed toward some common end. So, we must firmly be established in our roots of the magisterium and the faith, yet we must not forget that this is directed through the stem of hope toward its flowering in love.
10.22.08
Understanding Vatican II
It seems there is a wide-spread misunderstanding of what Vatican II is, and what the Council Fathers intended. Here’s something I compiled from some posts I made on the topic.
There seems to be often a misunderstanding that Vatican II “changed everything” in the Church, and that there is therefore a radical break from tradition and nothing prior to the 1960s is valid any longer.
Nothing can be farther from the truth.
The hermeneutics, or interpretation, of Vatican II should be carried out in the spirit intended by the Council Fathers, which is also the Apostolic and Catholic spirit of continuation and reform of tradition, rather than rapture, as Holy Father has pointed out (also as Cardinal). Hence, it can never be so ‘radically different’ as to negate what has been handed down from the past.
Perhaps the key to understanding Vatican II is Lumen Gentium, which is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. As one of the two dogmatic constitutions (the other being Dei Verbum), It is arguably the most important document from the Council. In it, the identity of the Church is examined by the Council Fathers as they explicitly state in their opening paragraph, “This [the Sacred Synod] intends to do following faithfully the teaching of previous councils”. There is not a conflict here at all, but (as with all authentic Catholic doctrine) an organic development. This becomes clear upon objective reading of the document itself.
Now, the term “People of God” is used of the Church in the second chapter of Lumen Gentium. This was the term used in order to capture the “bird’s eye view”, as it were, of the Church. Often, the use of the phrase in chapter 2 is regarded as emphasising this aspect over and above the others, as a sort of hint of democratization of the Church, which counters the ‘pre-Vatican-II’, hierarchical concept. This is, of course, an over-simplification.
The ‘people Church’ includes the hierarchy (LG, chapter 3) as well as the laity (LG, chapter 4). The term “people of God” was used to recall the Old Testament, in order to stress the Scriptural continuity of the Church, as well as to provide a term for the Church which could embrace all the various elements (such as the hierarchy, the laity, and the religious) which follow chapter 2. It is not meant as an isolated term to negate all the elements which are implicitly found in it.
Besides, it’s arguable that the most comprehensive term for the Church is ’sacrament’, used in the opening paragraph, since this is the mystery of the Church as outlined in the first chapter, which is also inclusive of the people of God, as part of the Church’s sacramental operation (invisible grace working through the Church’s visible members).
‘People of God’ is one aspect of the Church that is further illucidated in the proceeding chapters. As a term which emcompasses the others, it is necessarily a general term that needs to be seen in the light of all of the others (and vice versa, of course). Thus, it necessarily needs to respect the other seven chapters in the document. One cannot emphasise the second chapter without considering the third, and vice versa:
1. The Mystery Of The Church
2. On The People Of God
3. On The Hierarchical Structure Of The Church And In Particular On The Episcopate
4. The Laity
5. The Universal Call To Holiness In The Church
6. Religious
7. The Eschatological Nature Of The Pilgrim Church And Its Union With The Church In Heaven
8. The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother Of God In The Mystery Of Christ And The Church
There is certainly a doctrinal development in ecclesiology, or the theology about the Church, but it is an organic development, not one of rapture from Apostolic Tradition (found in sacred scripture and articulated in the early Church by Ignatius of Antioch, among others). This is crucial, since Apostolic Tradition is constitutive of the Church (2Thess 3:6) – without this divine means of guidance, there can be no Church, for the Church is not a merely human social institution, but one that is divinely established (Mt 16:18)
10.07.08
The Church: Her Mission and Structure
[This was written in reply to an article discussing a supposed patriarchal domination in history and the Church]
As perspective and perception play large roles in determining one’s response and sentiments regarding an issue, it may be fruitful to turn to the Ecclesiological understanding of the matter.
We must keep in mind that the mission of the Church is fudamentally derived, rather than created. It is the Father who sends the Son, who, in turn and through the Holy Spirit, delegates His own mission to the Apostles, and through them to the entire Church.
Thus, the activity of the Church must be first of all seen to be Pneumatological – that is, of the Holy Spirit – and directed toward its Eschatological end – that is, toward the consummation of the world and the coming of Christ.
There is a risk of speciously perceiving the Church as a humanistic, sociological institution. It is, as Lumen Gentium states in the opening chapter, in fact a sacrament reflecting Christ’s two natures. The Church is human as well as divine, as the Holy Spirit works with human members in her. It therefore exists not for temporal purposes (although these are legitimate means and intermediate ends), but for the purpose of consecrating the world to Christ, thus bringing them to salvation, and to contemplation of God in the Beatific Vision.
Now, because of the analogical nature of creation, which reflect that of God, all things in creation have some signification. The Holy Spirit respects this, being united with the Word through which all things have their being, and so the Pneumatic mission of the Church, which has its origin in Christ Himself, has a divinely destined structure (for a body without a form cannot exist, and the Church is that of Christ).
This cannot be grasped purely at the natural level, since it is, as Lumen Gentium affirms, a divine and sacramental mystery. It requires the faithful’s thirst for the divine gifts – the theological virtues – of faith, hope and charity. As these virtues are inextricably linked to salvation – that is, one cannot be saved without them – the Church is rightfully called the Ark of Salvation.
09.19.08
Danger! Danger! (The New Age: Lost and Spaced Out)
In response to a Being Frank thread, I collected a number of links that pertain to reiki, the enneagram and the New Age in general. Even faithful Catholics are often ignorant about the origins and nature of reiki and the enneagram. Here are a few of the resources that tell us why we ought to keep well away from them, lest we be lost and spaced out (well, more the former):
Catholic Answers Live (MP3 Audio):
Catholics United for the Faith:
The Holy See:
