I attended (for twenty minutes or so before the kids shut down--it was nap time and we'd already been to hours) my first paraklesis yesterday. I had no idea what the service entailed, and finally got an answer from my soon-to-be godfather (so pleased!). He is a young priest but already very knowledgeable. His manner in answering my questions about things Orthodox has been the best I've encountered. Just "This is how it is", instead of "Ooh, lookie what I know about this and that and also I could go on about this part and how I piously do it". It's refreshing and helpful, and Father N. has also answered my children's questions and corrected them gently. He came to pray for Elijah when he split his head a week ago, and patiently endured Eli's sucker pieces falling on the epitrachelion. I was a bit embarrassed when Eli conceded, "I don't like that cross," but Father N., simply replied, "I'll wear the other one next time and we will see if you like that one."
I did protest, "Next time?!" because I am not ready for lacerations and blood and staples again yet. I'd rather never do it again. That was the first time I have taken any of my kids to the emergency room...it was not fun.
Back to paraklesis. I have yet to figure out in which way we venerate the larger, prominently placed icon of the Theotokos during Dormition, but that'll come, I suppose, with time. The liturgy is beautiful and I hope to make it through a whole one soon. I was blessed to hear Father N. and his sweet wife Kh. Jeanette singing together.
Kh. Jeanette is due to have her second child within days and I'd apprectiate your prayers for her.
Most Holy Theotokos, save us!
31 July 2010
21 July 2010
unnatural passions
I am sitting here beside my young daughter's bed watching her fall asleep. She insists on the comfort of my presence to drift off to sleep. Sometimes I stare at her like this, in love with the delicate flare of her tiny nostrils, and the way her little fingers curl around mine. Other times I am, honestly, just impatient to leave the room and do what I want. Those are the times when I miss the moment's beauty entirely. I deny myself stillness in exchange for hurry. This cycle is vicious, and hard to recognize.
I am thinking now about my passions. I have many, some natural and some unnatural that I constantly come face to face with and battle. It's scary to consider that even something good can become an unnatural passion, corrupted by desires of our flesh. Say, a person is a gifted writer, but that writing becomes self-seeking and proclaims righteousness in self and degrades others by constant criticism. Who is more destructed, the reader or the author? I'd say the author. I have denied my sins and acted horribly enough times that I have started to understand that I am the author of all my miseries. No matter how many times and how brilliantly I condemn and blame others, I gain nothing but arrogance- I mislead myself and while ruling with wild abandon my own passions overtake me and dash me against the backwards stepping stones, which I laid myself through haphazard unwillingness to love.
Where does forgiveness come into battling passions? I heard a homily a few weeks ago and I cannot forget it. It echoes through my day like a haunt. Father said that truly forgiving means asking for forgiveness even when you're not the worst of the conflict, even if you are sure you've done nothing wrong. I'm paraphrasing sadly here, but what he said was the best I've heard on forgiveness thus far. I had the idea that we should always forgive, and ask for forgiveness, but this notion of asking for forgiveness no matter the circumstances is hard to swallow. I think it speaks of that holiness Orthodoxy encourages all of us to seek. This charge is above self, above what basic rights we think we have. I feel that I have a right to my views, to my thoughts, to my own ways of living, when in fact I only have the right to beg forgiveness. No matter what.
I don't know quite what to do with this, but I know it's important.
Back to the research paper, now. Which is quite fun.
I am thinking now about my passions. I have many, some natural and some unnatural that I constantly come face to face with and battle. It's scary to consider that even something good can become an unnatural passion, corrupted by desires of our flesh. Say, a person is a gifted writer, but that writing becomes self-seeking and proclaims righteousness in self and degrades others by constant criticism. Who is more destructed, the reader or the author? I'd say the author. I have denied my sins and acted horribly enough times that I have started to understand that I am the author of all my miseries. No matter how many times and how brilliantly I condemn and blame others, I gain nothing but arrogance- I mislead myself and while ruling with wild abandon my own passions overtake me and dash me against the backwards stepping stones, which I laid myself through haphazard unwillingness to love.
Where does forgiveness come into battling passions? I heard a homily a few weeks ago and I cannot forget it. It echoes through my day like a haunt. Father said that truly forgiving means asking for forgiveness even when you're not the worst of the conflict, even if you are sure you've done nothing wrong. I'm paraphrasing sadly here, but what he said was the best I've heard on forgiveness thus far. I had the idea that we should always forgive, and ask for forgiveness, but this notion of asking for forgiveness no matter the circumstances is hard to swallow. I think it speaks of that holiness Orthodoxy encourages all of us to seek. This charge is above self, above what basic rights we think we have. I feel that I have a right to my views, to my thoughts, to my own ways of living, when in fact I only have the right to beg forgiveness. No matter what.
I don't know quite what to do with this, but I know it's important.
Back to the research paper, now. Which is quite fun.
19 July 2010
16 July 2010
Abortifacient Contraceptives? edited with additional information
What follows is from a letter I wrote recently:
I have spent a good deal of time going over scientific evidence and opinions from all possible outlooks. I am considering writing a research paper for school on the abortive properties of contraceptives, but I am beginning to see that while sufficient evidence exists to support the belief that oral contraceptives (as well as the "shot" and other hormone suppressive contraceptives) can cause post-fertilization abortion, there are actually enough studies to be found that any work I did might be redundant. These studies are not particularly easy to find, however, and certainly aren't inflencing mainstream practices, sadly.
In general medical definition, which is then passed onto the patient as truth, life is not present (and therefore termination at this point is not seen as abortion) at fertilization, but only after the fertilized egg implants in the uterus and matures enough to be considered "clinical pregnancy". However, from scientific studies as early as the 1800s, the fertilized egg was recognized as a living organism at the single-celled stage of life. Modern vernacular tells women (I have heard it myself from doctors) that pregnancy is not present until the aforementioned "clinical pregnancy" exists.
As a Christian, and even before, I have always believed that life begins at conception. It is my perception that this is the stance of the Orthodox Church as well. If I am correct, then I assume a priest might want to inform his parishioners of what their doctor and media in general will not tell them. Even if a person was Christian and pro-choice (this is impossible, but I am sure it is a viewpoint a few might hold) I think they'd agree that if women have a right to an abortion then they have a right to know when their actions cause an abortion as well. They should be informed of these very real findings about abortifacients.
Here is one article that covers it all, and objectively-with scientific studies considered. It covers what Joe told you about our findings in the manufacturer labeling as well...the thing is that in the patient insert the ovulation suppressant action of the contraceptive is stressed, and the abortifacient properties are either not shown at all, or very slightly observed in a way that keeps the uninformed woman from drawing any conclusions. The percentage of pregnancy listed is also skewed, because often what is listed is only the clinical use findings (based again on the idea that "clinical pregnancy" is the only concern), therefore without any variation by patient or observing more typical use. Think of this: even if most often quoted 1% of 100,000 women conceived while taking the pill, that results in 1,000 terminations of life. The percentages, however, are often out of 100 women, which increases the abortion rate.
It's nice to know that organizations such as Prolife OBGYNS exist. Their own view on contraceptives can be seen here, and two further evidentiary articles are linked.
This, from the APPLOG site, is especially interesting:
"At the same midwinter meeting a draft document entitled BIRTH CONTROL PILLS: CONTRACEPTIVE OR "ABORTIFACIENT? was circulated. While this was advertised as not a project of AAPLOG, eight of the signers were or are members of the board of directors. Near the beginning of their document, the authors state; “We begin with the recognition that within the Christian community there is a point of view which holds that artificial birth control per se is wrong. We would consider this a personal matter of conscience and belief, and this paper is not intended to argue for or against this issue.” While admiring the Christian philosophy of the authors, there is another truth to be considered. There is an unarguable logic connecting the contraceptive act and the abortive act. They are both anti-life. To fully articulate this proposition, the contraceptive action is anti-the-formation of a new life. One does not pop a pill, slip on a condom, take a shot in the buttocks, etc. in preparation for a game of Chinese Checkers. The only logical reason for these actions is to prevent the formation of a new life while positing voluntary coital acts. One might employ condoms in the illusory hope of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), but this is Russian roulette revisited with twice the risk of dying if AIDS is the object of one’s concern. The greatest witness to the logic of this truth is Planned Parenthood (PP). PP has progressed from being the Western world’s number one promoter and provider of contraception to being the number one provider and promoter of induced abortion."
Read the rest here, where the "big lie" is adressed. A must read.
I have spent a good deal of time going over scientific evidence and opinions from all possible outlooks. I am considering writing a research paper for school on the abortive properties of contraceptives, but I am beginning to see that while sufficient evidence exists to support the belief that oral contraceptives (as well as the "shot" and other hormone suppressive contraceptives) can cause post-fertilization abortion, there are actually enough studies to be found that any work I did might be redundant. These studies are not particularly easy to find, however, and certainly aren't inflencing mainstream practices, sadly.
In general medical definition, which is then passed onto the patient as truth, life is not present (and therefore termination at this point is not seen as abortion) at fertilization, but only after the fertilized egg implants in the uterus and matures enough to be considered "clinical pregnancy". However, from scientific studies as early as the 1800s, the fertilized egg was recognized as a living organism at the single-celled stage of life. Modern vernacular tells women (I have heard it myself from doctors) that pregnancy is not present until the aforementioned "clinical pregnancy" exists.
As a Christian, and even before, I have always believed that life begins at conception. It is my perception that this is the stance of the Orthodox Church as well. If I am correct, then I assume a priest might want to inform his parishioners of what their doctor and media in general will not tell them. Even if a person was Christian and pro-choice (this is impossible, but I am sure it is a viewpoint a few might hold) I think they'd agree that if women have a right to an abortion then they have a right to know when their actions cause an abortion as well. They should be informed of these very real findings about abortifacients.
Here is one article that covers it all, and objectively-with scientific studies considered. It covers what Joe told you about our findings in the manufacturer labeling as well...the thing is that in the patient insert the ovulation suppressant action of the contraceptive is stressed, and the abortifacient properties are either not shown at all, or very slightly observed in a way that keeps the uninformed woman from drawing any conclusions. The percentage of pregnancy listed is also skewed, because often what is listed is only the clinical use findings (based again on the idea that "clinical pregnancy" is the only concern), therefore without any variation by patient or observing more typical use. Think of this: even if most often quoted 1% of 100,000 women conceived while taking the pill, that results in 1,000 terminations of life. The percentages, however, are often out of 100 women, which increases the abortion rate.
It's nice to know that organizations such as Prolife OBGYNS exist. Their own view on contraceptives can be seen here, and two further evidentiary articles are linked.
This, from the APPLOG site, is especially interesting:
"At the same midwinter meeting a draft document entitled BIRTH CONTROL PILLS: CONTRACEPTIVE OR "ABORTIFACIENT? was circulated. While this was advertised as not a project of AAPLOG, eight of the signers were or are members of the board of directors. Near the beginning of their document, the authors state; “We begin with the recognition that within the Christian community there is a point of view which holds that artificial birth control per se is wrong. We would consider this a personal matter of conscience and belief, and this paper is not intended to argue for or against this issue.” While admiring the Christian philosophy of the authors, there is another truth to be considered. There is an unarguable logic connecting the contraceptive act and the abortive act. They are both anti-life. To fully articulate this proposition, the contraceptive action is anti-the-formation of a new life. One does not pop a pill, slip on a condom, take a shot in the buttocks, etc. in preparation for a game of Chinese Checkers. The only logical reason for these actions is to prevent the formation of a new life while positing voluntary coital acts. One might employ condoms in the illusory hope of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), but this is Russian roulette revisited with twice the risk of dying if AIDS is the object of one’s concern. The greatest witness to the logic of this truth is Planned Parenthood (PP). PP has progressed from being the Western world’s number one promoter and provider of contraception to being the number one provider and promoter of induced abortion."
Read the rest here, where the "big lie" is adressed. A must read.
13 July 2010
low key
The past few weeks have been pretty low key. I am moseying along through my classes, the kids are getting ready for a new school year and new experiences, and we're all enduring the mugginess of summer. It was unreasonably hot, but the last few days it's been raining off and on. Thus, the mugginess.
Happenings:
1. My littlest got four more teeth. She endured it well. Those were her last before molars.
2. Elijah is more and more inquisitive, or maybe he is just easier to understand now. He's so much fun.
3. Hanging indentations are silly.
4. I found an old friend from my jiu-jitsu days, and caught up. Fun!
5. I re-read the Protoevangelion of St. James the less. (my patron)
6. We've asked folks to be our sponsors/godparents. (we, being the whole family) Wow.
It's been a long July. A good one, but I feel especially tired. I am ready for the cooler, less demanding touch of fall. October sounds lovely.
Happenings:
1. My littlest got four more teeth. She endured it well. Those were her last before molars.
2. Elijah is more and more inquisitive, or maybe he is just easier to understand now. He's so much fun.
3. Hanging indentations are silly.
4. I found an old friend from my jiu-jitsu days, and caught up. Fun!
5. I re-read the Protoevangelion of St. James the less. (my patron)
6. We've asked folks to be our sponsors/godparents. (we, being the whole family) Wow.
It's been a long July. A good one, but I feel especially tired. I am ready for the cooler, less demanding touch of fall. October sounds lovely.
09 July 2010
oatmeal stout
My new favorite beer. Available at our local Snucks just shy of the diaper isle, too.
I read up on Samuel Smith's this morning. Quite interesting!
03 July 2010
family egoism
I found this piece while trying to find some instance of the Fathers commenting on patriotism. I don't know who wrote it, no author was given. I especially agree with the parts I highlighted below. The author makes some interesting points.
Family and Society; Patriotism
A strong and healthy family is the first and basic unit of society and of the state. The strongest and most well organized state will come to a condition of decline and disintegration if its family unit falls apart and there are no bases of family life and upbringing. If, on the other hand, the family unit is strong and the upbringing is healthy, then in the event of a major external destruction of the forms of state life, the people remain capable of carrying on life and can re-establish the strength and unity of the state.
A Christian family must not lock itself up within itself or turn itself into a "chicken coop." Such a life is family egoism. A person who lives in it has no interests outside his own family, does not want to know of the joys and sorrows of the surrounding world and does not serve it in any way. Such a life is not a Christian life, and such a family is not a Christian family. A Christian family, as a cell or unit of society, is a part of it which is inseparably united with its whole. It actively participates in the society's life and serves its neighbors.
According to the clear teaching of the Gospel moreover, the living relationship of the Christian must not be locked up within the framework of the national state. Christian love is pan-human. For a Christian, each person, no matter to what nation he may belong, is his neighbor whom he must love according to the commandment of the Savior. We are clearly told this by the parable of the merciful Samaritan, and especially by its categorical conclusion. In this parable, the Savior showed the Pharisee the degree of mercy and love which the good Samaritan bestowed upon the robbed and wounded Jew - a man from a nation inimical to his own. Further He told the Pharisee, "Go and do likewise! Such is the law of Christian love."
But if we Christians are called to such an all-embracing love, then are we not compelled to accept cosmopolitanism - that teaching of the brotherhood of all people, according to which man is a "citizen of the universe," and not of his own state? According to this teaching, mankind must become one family, without any state-national differences and divisions.
We do not doubt that the positive part of cosmopolitanism's teaching approaches close to Christianity. It undoubtedly took its appeals for brotherhood, love and mutual help directly from Christianity. These appeals are purely Christian. It is, however, only these Christian ideas which are of value in cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism has, however, added much distorted falsehood and error to this element of truth. Because of this, its teaching has become narrowly one-sided and artificial, and thus not vital. Such errors include all the tenets of cosmopolitanism which speak against feelings of patriotism and the duty of service to the native land, its good estate and safety.
One can, in fact, observe that the lives of the verbose preachers of cosmopolitanism are dry and incapable of sincere, compassionate relationships. With foam at the mouth they cry about their love for mankind, but cannot love their neighbor as is necessary. Christianity does not teach this false, one-sided cosmopolitanism. Christ commanded us to have, not an artificial "love for mankind," but real love for neighbor. For a Christian, such a neighbor is every person in general (therefore, a Christian must love everyone), and in particular, each person with whom he meets in daily life. Christian life is manifested most of all precisely in these personal encounters, in living mutual intercourse, mutual support and compassion. How distant from this is the one-sided teaching, of cosmopolitanism with its appeals for an artificial "love for mankind;" a love which is removed from the realities of life.
As a child, a person's neighbors, are his parents, brothers, sisters, and other relatives. At this time, it is sufficient if one is a good, loving, responsive and dedicated member of the family. The child does not yet have vital relationships with those outside the family. Gradually growing up through childhood and adolescent years, one develops personal, vital relationships with many other people and they become "one's own." Good upbringing must teach the child to treat these new "neighbors" in a Christian manner - to be friendly, of good will, to have a sincere readiness to help, and to render as much service as possible. As a person matures, his horizons expand and every human being becomes one's "neighbor," no matter to what nation or race they may belong.
Naturally, one will love one's own family and the relatives he grew up with, most of all, and secondly, the whole country, the people to which one belongs. One is tied to this people both by state and civil obligations and by culture and customs. One is bound to one's people, to one's own homeland, and one loves them. This love for homeland is that Christian patriotism which cosmopolitanists so strongly struggle against.
Christian patriotism is, of course, alien to those extremes and errors into which "super-patriots" fall. A Christian patriot, while loving his nation, does not dose his eyes to its inadequacies, but soberly looks at its properties and characteristics. He will never agree with those "patriots" who are inclined to elevate and justify everything native (even national vices and inadequacies). Such "patriots" do not realize that this is not patriotism at all, but puffed-up national pride - that very sin against which Christianity struggles so strongly. No, a true patriot does not dose his eyes to the sins and ills of his people; he sees them, grieves over them, struggles with them and repents before God and other peoples for himself and his nation. In addition, Christian patriotism is completely alien to hatred of other peoples. If I love my own people, then surely I must also love the Chinese, the Turks or any other people. Not to love them would be non-Christian. No, God grant them well-being and every just success.
The most important information which we find on patriotism is in the Holy Scripture. In the Old Testament, all the history of the Jewish people is filled with testimony of how the Jews loved their Zion, their Jerusalem, their temple. This was a model of true patriotism, of love for one's people and its sacred things ... The prophet Moses showed an especially striking example of love for his people. On one occasion, immediately after the concluding of the testament of God, the Israelite people betrayed their God and worshipped a golden calf. Then, the justice of God's Truth was strongly inflamed. Moses began to pray for his people which had sinned. He remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights in prayer. The Lord told him, "Depart from Me, do not hinder Me, that My justice be kindled on them and destroy them."
The great prophet began to pray even more fervently and finally exclaimed, "Forgive them their sin, and if You will not, then erase me also from Your book of life." And the Lord harkened to Moses. Is this not the highest struggle of self-denying patriotism?
We see a similar example in the New Testament in the life of the great Apostle Paul. No one hindered his work of preaching more wrathfully and stubbornly than did his fellow countrymen. They hated Paul and considered him to be a betrayer of the faith of their fathers. Nevertheless, the Apostle says, "I would be cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren ... the Israelites." From these words, we see his love for his native people. This love was so great that, like Moses, he was prepared to sacrifice even his personal, eternal salvation for the salvation of his people.
We have an example in the life of the Savior Himself. In the Gospel we read that He came only to His own people and spoke to them first of all. On another occasion, He said, turning to Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones them that are sent unto you; how often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings."(Lk. 13:34-35). When He rode into Jerusalem to the cries of "Hosanna," when all the people rejoiced, the Savior wept. He did not weep for Himself, but for this, His city, and about the ruin of those who were now crying to Him, "Hosanna!" but in a few days would cry, "Crucify Him!" Thus did He love His own people with a profound and moving love.
The feeling of patriotism, therefore, is not rejected and condemned by Christianity. It does not condemn, despite the false views of cosmopolitanists, the righteousness of the pre-eminent love for one's neighbors. We already know the words of the Apostle, "If anyone does not care for his own, and especially for his own household, he has renounced faith and is worse than an unbeliever... "
Once more we emphasize that such love and care must not be egoistic, self-enclosing love. While caring for those with whom one comes into a direct contact, a Christian must never forget other people in his Christian love - his neighbors, and brothers in Christ. In conclusion, let us cite these words of Apostle Paul (from the Epistle to the Galatians): "So, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those of the household of faith."
Family and Society; Patriotism
A strong and healthy family is the first and basic unit of society and of the state. The strongest and most well organized state will come to a condition of decline and disintegration if its family unit falls apart and there are no bases of family life and upbringing. If, on the other hand, the family unit is strong and the upbringing is healthy, then in the event of a major external destruction of the forms of state life, the people remain capable of carrying on life and can re-establish the strength and unity of the state.
A Christian family must not lock itself up within itself or turn itself into a "chicken coop." Such a life is family egoism. A person who lives in it has no interests outside his own family, does not want to know of the joys and sorrows of the surrounding world and does not serve it in any way. Such a life is not a Christian life, and such a family is not a Christian family. A Christian family, as a cell or unit of society, is a part of it which is inseparably united with its whole. It actively participates in the society's life and serves its neighbors.
According to the clear teaching of the Gospel moreover, the living relationship of the Christian must not be locked up within the framework of the national state. Christian love is pan-human. For a Christian, each person, no matter to what nation he may belong, is his neighbor whom he must love according to the commandment of the Savior. We are clearly told this by the parable of the merciful Samaritan, and especially by its categorical conclusion. In this parable, the Savior showed the Pharisee the degree of mercy and love which the good Samaritan bestowed upon the robbed and wounded Jew - a man from a nation inimical to his own. Further He told the Pharisee, "Go and do likewise! Such is the law of Christian love."
But if we Christians are called to such an all-embracing love, then are we not compelled to accept cosmopolitanism - that teaching of the brotherhood of all people, according to which man is a "citizen of the universe," and not of his own state? According to this teaching, mankind must become one family, without any state-national differences and divisions.
We do not doubt that the positive part of cosmopolitanism's teaching approaches close to Christianity. It undoubtedly took its appeals for brotherhood, love and mutual help directly from Christianity. These appeals are purely Christian. It is, however, only these Christian ideas which are of value in cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism has, however, added much distorted falsehood and error to this element of truth. Because of this, its teaching has become narrowly one-sided and artificial, and thus not vital. Such errors include all the tenets of cosmopolitanism which speak against feelings of patriotism and the duty of service to the native land, its good estate and safety.
One can, in fact, observe that the lives of the verbose preachers of cosmopolitanism are dry and incapable of sincere, compassionate relationships. With foam at the mouth they cry about their love for mankind, but cannot love their neighbor as is necessary. Christianity does not teach this false, one-sided cosmopolitanism. Christ commanded us to have, not an artificial "love for mankind," but real love for neighbor. For a Christian, such a neighbor is every person in general (therefore, a Christian must love everyone), and in particular, each person with whom he meets in daily life. Christian life is manifested most of all precisely in these personal encounters, in living mutual intercourse, mutual support and compassion. How distant from this is the one-sided teaching, of cosmopolitanism with its appeals for an artificial "love for mankind;" a love which is removed from the realities of life.
As a child, a person's neighbors, are his parents, brothers, sisters, and other relatives. At this time, it is sufficient if one is a good, loving, responsive and dedicated member of the family. The child does not yet have vital relationships with those outside the family. Gradually growing up through childhood and adolescent years, one develops personal, vital relationships with many other people and they become "one's own." Good upbringing must teach the child to treat these new "neighbors" in a Christian manner - to be friendly, of good will, to have a sincere readiness to help, and to render as much service as possible. As a person matures, his horizons expand and every human being becomes one's "neighbor," no matter to what nation or race they may belong.
Naturally, one will love one's own family and the relatives he grew up with, most of all, and secondly, the whole country, the people to which one belongs. One is tied to this people both by state and civil obligations and by culture and customs. One is bound to one's people, to one's own homeland, and one loves them. This love for homeland is that Christian patriotism which cosmopolitanists so strongly struggle against.
Christian patriotism is, of course, alien to those extremes and errors into which "super-patriots" fall. A Christian patriot, while loving his nation, does not dose his eyes to its inadequacies, but soberly looks at its properties and characteristics. He will never agree with those "patriots" who are inclined to elevate and justify everything native (even national vices and inadequacies). Such "patriots" do not realize that this is not patriotism at all, but puffed-up national pride - that very sin against which Christianity struggles so strongly. No, a true patriot does not dose his eyes to the sins and ills of his people; he sees them, grieves over them, struggles with them and repents before God and other peoples for himself and his nation. In addition, Christian patriotism is completely alien to hatred of other peoples. If I love my own people, then surely I must also love the Chinese, the Turks or any other people. Not to love them would be non-Christian. No, God grant them well-being and every just success.
The most important information which we find on patriotism is in the Holy Scripture. In the Old Testament, all the history of the Jewish people is filled with testimony of how the Jews loved their Zion, their Jerusalem, their temple. This was a model of true patriotism, of love for one's people and its sacred things ... The prophet Moses showed an especially striking example of love for his people. On one occasion, immediately after the concluding of the testament of God, the Israelite people betrayed their God and worshipped a golden calf. Then, the justice of God's Truth was strongly inflamed. Moses began to pray for his people which had sinned. He remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights in prayer. The Lord told him, "Depart from Me, do not hinder Me, that My justice be kindled on them and destroy them."
The great prophet began to pray even more fervently and finally exclaimed, "Forgive them their sin, and if You will not, then erase me also from Your book of life." And the Lord harkened to Moses. Is this not the highest struggle of self-denying patriotism?
We see a similar example in the New Testament in the life of the great Apostle Paul. No one hindered his work of preaching more wrathfully and stubbornly than did his fellow countrymen. They hated Paul and considered him to be a betrayer of the faith of their fathers. Nevertheless, the Apostle says, "I would be cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren ... the Israelites." From these words, we see his love for his native people. This love was so great that, like Moses, he was prepared to sacrifice even his personal, eternal salvation for the salvation of his people.
We have an example in the life of the Savior Himself. In the Gospel we read that He came only to His own people and spoke to them first of all. On another occasion, He said, turning to Jerusalem, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which kills the prophets and stones them that are sent unto you; how often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings."(Lk. 13:34-35). When He rode into Jerusalem to the cries of "Hosanna," when all the people rejoiced, the Savior wept. He did not weep for Himself, but for this, His city, and about the ruin of those who were now crying to Him, "Hosanna!" but in a few days would cry, "Crucify Him!" Thus did He love His own people with a profound and moving love.
The feeling of patriotism, therefore, is not rejected and condemned by Christianity. It does not condemn, despite the false views of cosmopolitanists, the righteousness of the pre-eminent love for one's neighbors. We already know the words of the Apostle, "If anyone does not care for his own, and especially for his own household, he has renounced faith and is worse than an unbeliever... "
Once more we emphasize that such love and care must not be egoistic, self-enclosing love. While caring for those with whom one comes into a direct contact, a Christian must never forget other people in his Christian love - his neighbors, and brothers in Christ. In conclusion, let us cite these words of Apostle Paul (from the Epistle to the Galatians): "So, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those of the household of faith."
01 July 2010
My priest recommend St. Vincent of Lerins Commonitory.
Here is chapter 23.
CHAPTER XXIII
On Development in Religious Knowledge
BUT some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself; alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.
The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide diference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.
In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.
For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of corn, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result,--there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind--wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.
Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.
For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God's mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.
But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.
Here is chapter 23.
CHAPTER XXIII
On Development in Religious Knowledge
BUT some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself; alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.
The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide diference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.
In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.
For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of corn, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result,--there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind--wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.
Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.
For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God's mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.
But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,--if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,--this, and nothing else,--she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)