When one is not grounded in truth (and isn't even seeking it anyway), it is easy for them to be persuaded to believe in anything... One does not need to be held accountable for anything, at least in their mind, if they simply deny the divinity of Christ and the authority of God. It's easy to escape by simply throwing out the "organized religion" card.
This disease of relativism is seen often, even in Christian circles. One excuses their sinful behavior, instead of taking ownership of it, by making statements like, "God and I have an understanding... " or "I don't really think that is what the Bible says... " Absurd.
Truth is truth... and if you're not grounded in it, you will be "blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming." (Eph 4:14)
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Monday, July 07, 2008
Neglected
As anyone can see, this blog has seriously been neglected. It bothers
me that I haven't written in so long but I've just been so busy with
living life and getting through one day at a time with work, kids,
school and financial adjustments. Sometimes I think, "If I could just
reach that milestone, then I will have more time to write... Including
my conversion story." But, it seems that milestone never gets reached
and the story never gets written.
Clay had his First Communion on June 1. I was so proud of him and so
excited to see one of my children receive the Eucharist. My whole
family attended... The first Mass for my parents. I can't help but
pray that I will one day be sitting regularly in church with my
parents. Apparently, there is a long history of Catholicism on my
mom's side of the family that was only broken in recent generations.
May God restore us all to the fullness of truth!
I hope to write more soon...
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
One Year
I can officially say that I've ben Catholic one year, as of yesterday! Woot woot!
It's been quite a year, too! My children were baptized last summer. Clay is preparing for First Reconciliatin and First Holy Communion (May 31) and we are striving to make Catholic living a part of our everyday lives.
I wish I could impart some words of wisdom but my mind is full of useless information I need for a test tomorrow and I just can't seem to focus!
Will my life ever slow down enough to breathe?
It's been quite a year, too! My children were baptized last summer. Clay is preparing for First Reconciliatin and First Holy Communion (May 31) and we are striving to make Catholic living a part of our everyday lives.
I wish I could impart some words of wisdom but my mind is full of useless information I need for a test tomorrow and I just can't seem to focus!
Will my life ever slow down enough to breathe?
Friday, March 28, 2008
God's Love
In case you're wondering how much God loves you:
I could barely make it through this video. Get your tissue.
(Scenes from the short film "Most")
I could barely make it through this video. Get your tissue.
(Scenes from the short film "Most")
Monday, March 17, 2008
Adoption Update
The meeting with the expectant mother went great and she has chosen to place her twin boys with my sister and her husband! Our family is so excited! The cost of the adoption is just about what they have saved up and some family members have promised to provide any amount they may be short! God has truly made a way for this all to happen. We all feel such a peace about everything!
In less than two months, I'll have two brand new nephews! The first one born will be called Jaden, which means "God has heard". The second will be called Joseph, which means "may God add/increase". Both names are perfectly fitting!
I want to give a very sincere THANK YOU to everyone for their prayers and for those who donated even the smallest of amounts! It is because of this that God has heard our prayers and brought this dream into a reality!
In less than two months, I'll have two brand new nephews! The first one born will be called Jaden, which means "God has heard". The second will be called Joseph, which means "may God add/increase". Both names are perfectly fitting!
I want to give a very sincere THANK YOU to everyone for their prayers and for those who donated even the smallest of amounts! It is because of this that God has heard our prayers and brought this dream into a reality!
Monday, March 10, 2008
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Egg Yolks and Babies
My sister, April, got a call from the case working handling their adoption yesterday. There is a an expectant mother due in July who is looking to place her babies in a loving home. April and her husband are going to meet her on Saturday! That's right, BABIES... She's having TWIN boys!
There IS something significant about the concept of adopting twins:
One morning a couple of years ago, after April and her husband found out that it was indeed impossible to conceive, she was praying about adoption... a serious long talk with God in the morning. She went out to the kitchen to make some breakfast, pulled out the eggs and cracked one into the pan. Out came twin yolks. Interesting but nothing to write home about until the SECOND egg cracked into the pan was ALSO was a twin yolk. Since that time, my family has thought of these TWO twin eggs as a sign that God is in control... and that, one day, their dream to adopt would be realized (though we didn't exactly expect TWINS!) We have always linked those eggs to my sister's morning prayer about adoption. There have been a couple of occasions when I have also cracked open twin eggs, thinking instantly of my sister and her adoption prayer.
So, when this expectant mother came up with twins, we all thought of this twin egg occurrence... Could this be it? Is this God's way of giving us peace about this particular possibility?
Please keep my family in your prayers. Please pray that everything will go as God wills it. Pray that these babies are the answer to prayer we've been waiting for and that my sister and her husband can finally be the parents they've always wanted to be!
Friday, February 29, 2008
Grammar Rant
Please pardon my horrible grammar in my newsletter...I should have read it before I sent it out! I have no idea what I was thinking but I had a good laugh about it!
Two fragmented sentences and I used "conscience" instead of "conscious"... all within the first line! SHEESH!
Ok, that's my rant.
Two fragmented sentences and I used "conscience" instead of "conscious"... all within the first line! SHEESH!
Ok, that's my rant.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Catholics Come Home
Used to be Catholic? Why should you return?
Not Catholic but have questions about what Catholics believe?
Catholic and want to help others come home?
Go to CatholicsComeHome.org
This site is awesome!
Not Catholic but have questions about what Catholics believe?
Catholic and want to help others come home?
Go to CatholicsComeHome.org
This site is awesome!
Monday, February 25, 2008
Did Jesus Have Brothers?
It’s common for non-Catholics to insist that what Catholics believe contradicts Scripture. While some of what the Catholic Church teaches may be not be EXPLICITLY found in Scripture, this does not mean that it “contradicts”.
First off, we should define “contradict”.
Contradict = to assert the contrary or opposite of
So, just because something is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture doesn't mean it is contradicting it.
I've been asked to address several different issues, one being whether Mary had other children (which would disprove the Church's teach on Mary's perpetual virginity). So, here goes...
The following verse is often used to "prove" that Mary had other children:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Notice one thing… Mark 6:3 says THE son of Mary, not “a” son… more on this verse below. Look at the following passages in Genesis:
Gen 14:14
And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Gen 11:27
Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
In Gen 14:14, it says “brother” (some translations render this as kinsman). But in Gen 11:27, we already read that Lot was Abrams nephew. This is because there was no Hebrew word for nephew. Just like there wasn’t one for cousin, uncle, niece, aunt, etc. They had to use the word “brother”.
Check out the following verses:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Matthew 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
According to Mark 6:3, didn't it say that this Mary was the mother of Jesus and was also the mother of James and Joses? But Matthew 27 says that a different Mary is the mother of James and Joses. Well, we know that this Mary (mother of James and Joses) was NOT the mother of Jesus because it says she was looking on from afar and Jesus’ mother was standing at the foot of the cross.
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Mark15:47
And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Don’t you think Scripture would have said the mother of Jesus if they were referring to the same Mary?
Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. So, what is going on? One idea that is plausible is that James and Joses are Jesus’ cousins (or other kinsmen) but they are called “brothers” because the Jews didn’t have a separate word for close relatives. So, Scripture does NOT clearly or explicitly state that Mary had other children.
How about this passage:
Acts 1:14-15
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,
There were 120 people? Think about it... there were 11 apostles (at that time), Jesus’ mother (that makes 12 people), plus the women (approximately 3 but let’s even say a dozen or more just to be fair). That would mean Jesus had about 80 or 90 brothers! Clearly the use of the word "brothers" does not necessarily mean they were all brothers as we understand the term today.
Also, if Mary had any other sons, wouldn't Jesus have given his mother over to them to care for? In that day, it would have been highly offensive for Jesus to ask anyone other than his own brothers to look after their mother, yet this is what he did in his final moments...
John 19:26-27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
So, we can show that Scripture does not contradict the concept that Mary could have been a perpetual virgin… and it is, therefore, fair and logical to believe such a teaching.
On a side note about this topic... It’s logical to believe that anyone who carried Christ, the Son of God and Holiest of Holy, in her womb would not later defile that womb by conceiving a sinful person. It was common in that day to be consecrated as a virgin and take on a spouse, who’s purpose was to protect that vow. This is said about Mary in other ancient texts, which may also aid us in knowing the surrounding context of Scripture. But there is nothing in Scripture that states that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, so this Catholic teaching does not contradict Scripture, as some like to claim.
First off, we should define “contradict”.
Contradict = to assert the contrary or opposite of
So, just because something is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture doesn't mean it is contradicting it.
I've been asked to address several different issues, one being whether Mary had other children (which would disprove the Church's teach on Mary's perpetual virginity). So, here goes...
The following verse is often used to "prove" that Mary had other children:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Notice one thing… Mark 6:3 says THE son of Mary, not “a” son… more on this verse below. Look at the following passages in Genesis:
Gen 14:14
And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
Gen 11:27
Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
In Gen 14:14, it says “brother” (some translations render this as kinsman). But in Gen 11:27, we already read that Lot was Abrams nephew. This is because there was no Hebrew word for nephew. Just like there wasn’t one for cousin, uncle, niece, aunt, etc. They had to use the word “brother”.
Check out the following verses:
Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Matthew 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.
According to Mark 6:3, didn't it say that this Mary was the mother of Jesus and was also the mother of James and Joses? But Matthew 27 says that a different Mary is the mother of James and Joses. Well, we know that this Mary (mother of James and Joses) was NOT the mother of Jesus because it says she was looking on from afar and Jesus’ mother was standing at the foot of the cross.
John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Mark15:47
And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.
Don’t you think Scripture would have said the mother of Jesus if they were referring to the same Mary?
Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. So, what is going on? One idea that is plausible is that James and Joses are Jesus’ cousins (or other kinsmen) but they are called “brothers” because the Jews didn’t have a separate word for close relatives. So, Scripture does NOT clearly or explicitly state that Mary had other children.
How about this passage:
Acts 1:14-15
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,
There were 120 people? Think about it... there were 11 apostles (at that time), Jesus’ mother (that makes 12 people), plus the women (approximately 3 but let’s even say a dozen or more just to be fair). That would mean Jesus had about 80 or 90 brothers! Clearly the use of the word "brothers" does not necessarily mean they were all brothers as we understand the term today.
Also, if Mary had any other sons, wouldn't Jesus have given his mother over to them to care for? In that day, it would have been highly offensive for Jesus to ask anyone other than his own brothers to look after their mother, yet this is what he did in his final moments...
John 19:26-27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
So, we can show that Scripture does not contradict the concept that Mary could have been a perpetual virgin… and it is, therefore, fair and logical to believe such a teaching.
On a side note about this topic... It’s logical to believe that anyone who carried Christ, the Son of God and Holiest of Holy, in her womb would not later defile that womb by conceiving a sinful person. It was common in that day to be consecrated as a virgin and take on a spouse, who’s purpose was to protect that vow. This is said about Mary in other ancient texts, which may also aid us in knowing the surrounding context of Scripture. But there is nothing in Scripture that states that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, so this Catholic teaching does not contradict Scripture, as some like to claim.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Update
Sorry I've been out for so long. I've got a full plate right now with full-time work, 3 college courses and the everyday job of being a mom, too! I haven't had much time for blogging and I've found myself on non-Catholic blogs lately, trying to share the truth of the Catholic faith.
I have, however, started a forum, where we can discuss various aspects of our Catholic faith. Non-Catholics are also welcome!
Check it out, join us, and post something for discussion!
http://thiscatholicjourney.heavenforum.com
I DO have a post rumbling in my head... I hope to find the time to get it up in the next couple of days, provided I can survive all the homework I have!
Blessings to all!
I have, however, started a forum, where we can discuss various aspects of our Catholic faith. Non-Catholics are also welcome!
Check it out, join us, and post something for discussion!
http://thiscatholicjourney.heavenforum.com
I DO have a post rumbling in my head... I hope to find the time to get it up in the next couple of days, provided I can survive all the homework I have!
Blessings to all!
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Rest in Peace, Josh Magee
I learned today that a dear old friend of mine passed away...
I met Josh sometime around 1994. He was one of those "do-anything-for-you" kinds of friends and he came through for me on more than one occasion.
In his own words (from 2000):
"...please know that I'm always here for you in any way I can be.... if you need some money, or a place to stay, or child care, or if you need someone to talk to… lemme know what I can do… Your one of the best friends I've ever had, and I want you to know that you can count on me."
And in November 2006:
"You know Amber... I think the world of you. And even though I might have not ever expressed it, I have a kind of brotherly protectivness in my heart over you. And I must say... Damion is a good and very pleasant man, and I truely enjoyed meeting him. I hope to get to know him more in the future... wanna see Seattle sometime? ;)"
I never did make it to Seattle.
Josh was adventurous... a risk-taker. The biggest risk-taker I've yet to meet, in fact. He loved life, he loved his family... His sense of humor was one of a kind as well. His stories and the way he'd tell them always had me laughing. Sometimes, even the most serious of events would take a silly twist.
I remember cruising in his car, the base thumpin' so loudly, it was literally changing our heart beats. I remember when he saw me off at the airport when I moved to Alaska and shed a tear as I flew away. I remember he sent my old 486 computer to me because I couldn't afford to get it up to Alaska myself… We had long talks of childhood memories, wacky neighbors, dare-devil tricks, drunken nights and love gone wrong... I remember when he told he was going to learn to do underwater construction. He was so excited and it didn't surprise me at all. It sounded just like something he would do!
In November, Josh got engaged to Reasa. I'd never known him to be so in love and so happy. And I was so happy for him… happy that he'd found someone deserving of him.
Josh, you were a true friend and I will always miss you.
"Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. May peace be granted to Josh's family and Reasa as well. Amen."
I met Josh sometime around 1994. He was one of those "do-anything-for-you" kinds of friends and he came through for me on more than one occasion.
In his own words (from 2000):
"...please know that I'm always here for you in any way I can be.... if you need some money, or a place to stay, or child care, or if you need someone to talk to… lemme know what I can do… Your one of the best friends I've ever had, and I want you to know that you can count on me."
And in November 2006:
"You know Amber... I think the world of you. And even though I might have not ever expressed it, I have a kind of brotherly protectivness in my heart over you. And I must say... Damion is a good and very pleasant man, and I truely enjoyed meeting him. I hope to get to know him more in the future... wanna see Seattle sometime? ;)"
I never did make it to Seattle.
Josh was adventurous... a risk-taker. The biggest risk-taker I've yet to meet, in fact. He loved life, he loved his family... His sense of humor was one of a kind as well. His stories and the way he'd tell them always had me laughing. Sometimes, even the most serious of events would take a silly twist.
I remember cruising in his car, the base thumpin' so loudly, it was literally changing our heart beats. I remember when he saw me off at the airport when I moved to Alaska and shed a tear as I flew away. I remember he sent my old 486 computer to me because I couldn't afford to get it up to Alaska myself… We had long talks of childhood memories, wacky neighbors, dare-devil tricks, drunken nights and love gone wrong... I remember when he told he was going to learn to do underwater construction. He was so excited and it didn't surprise me at all. It sounded just like something he would do!
In November, Josh got engaged to Reasa. I'd never known him to be so in love and so happy. And I was so happy for him… happy that he'd found someone deserving of him.
Josh, you were a true friend and I will always miss you.
"Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. May peace be granted to Josh's family and Reasa as well. Amen."
Monday, December 10, 2007
Adoption Update
As many may know my sister and her husband have completed a home study and are trying to raise money to adopt. For the last couple of months my family, especially my sister, has been working away at making all kinds of hand-crafted items to sell at an open house to raise money for the adoption. We held the event at my parents' house on Saturday, December 8, and it was a huge success! We managed to raise $4535.45, bringing them that much closer to their goal!
Praise God for his blessing on this event! People were so generous and it was quite an emotional time for our family. I know that some people stretched themselves in their giving and this was more than we expected.
In addition to this amount, another blessing happened Thanksgiving weekend. Their social worker in their adoption case, decided to drop a few bucks into a slot machine (Nevadans!) with the intention (she prayed about it) that anything she won, she would give to April and Tim. Well, she won $450!!! We couldn't believe it! She gave them every penny of it!
Tim also got a higher paying job with a company he previously worked for. THEY approached him about the job!
God is truly moving things and making them happen. I know that all the prayers are being answered and God has a huge plan in their lives and the lives of the child (or children) destined to be theirs.
April has decided to also start a blog. Once she puts her first post up, I'll share the link with you all! Thank you to all those who are praying for them! They are thankful and appreciative beyond words!
Praise God for his blessing on this event! People were so generous and it was quite an emotional time for our family. I know that some people stretched themselves in their giving and this was more than we expected.
In addition to this amount, another blessing happened Thanksgiving weekend. Their social worker in their adoption case, decided to drop a few bucks into a slot machine (Nevadans!) with the intention (she prayed about it) that anything she won, she would give to April and Tim. Well, she won $450!!! We couldn't believe it! She gave them every penny of it!
Tim also got a higher paying job with a company he previously worked for. THEY approached him about the job!
God is truly moving things and making them happen. I know that all the prayers are being answered and God has a huge plan in their lives and the lives of the child (or children) destined to be theirs.
April has decided to also start a blog. Once she puts her first post up, I'll share the link with you all! Thank you to all those who are praying for them! They are thankful and appreciative beyond words!
Friday, December 07, 2007
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Whether God exists?
The following is also from Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Ex. 3:14)
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
Reply to Objection 2: Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.
Objection 2: Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.
On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Ex. 3:14)
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.
Reply to Objection 2: Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.
Whether it can be demonstrated that God exists?
The following is from Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. He says what I want to say, only much, much better!
Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Heb. 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.
Objection 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.
Objection 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.
On the contrary, The Apostle says: "The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.
I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.
Reply to Objection 1: The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.
Reply to Objection 2: When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God".
Reply to Objection 3: From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.
Next up: Whether God exists?
Objection 1: It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen (Heb. 11:1). Therefore it cannot be demonstrated that God exists.
Objection 2: Further, the essence is the middle term of demonstration. But we cannot know in what God's essence consists, but solely in what it does not consist; as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4). Therefore we cannot demonstrate that God exists.
Objection 3: Further, if the existence of God were demonstrated, this could only be from His effects. But His effects are not proportionate to Him, since He is infinite and His effects are finite; and between the finite and infinite there is no proportion. Therefore, since a cause cannot be demonstrated by an effect not proportionate to it, it seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated.
On the contrary, The Apostle says: "The invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Rom. 1:20). But this would not be unless the existence of God could be demonstrated through the things that are made; for the first thing we must know of anything is whether it exists.
I answer that, Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called "a priori," and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration "a posteriori"; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated, so long as its effects are better known to us; because since every effect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those of His effects which are known to us.
Reply to Objection 1: The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.
Reply to Objection 2: When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause's existence. This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its essence follows on the question of its existence. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently, in demonstrating the existence of God from His effects, we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word "God".
Reply to Objection 3: From effects not proportionate to the cause no perfect knowledge of that cause can be obtained. Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.
Next up: Whether God exists?
Friday, November 16, 2007
Site Feed *EDIT*
I just realized my site feed (with mysitefeed.com) is a mess... So, I'm going to try to make improvements. Those of you who read me via site feed, I'm sorry. Hopefully, I'll fix the issue. The changes will require you to subscribe again so keep an eye out for that possibility.
*EDIT* Stupid me... the fix was so obvious, I can't believe I ever tried to use mysitefeed.com in the first place. If you subscribed to my blog through mysitefeed.com, please resubscribe using the link here... Thanks!
http://thiscatholicjourney.com/atom.xml
*EDIT* Stupid me... the fix was so obvious, I can't believe I ever tried to use mysitefeed.com in the first place. If you subscribed to my blog through mysitefeed.com, please resubscribe using the link here... Thanks!
http://thiscatholicjourney.com/atom.xml
Logan and the Calf
Logan is a 13 year-old boy who lives on a ranch in a very small town in Nebraska. Logan listens to Christian Radio station 89.3FM KSBJ which broadcasts from Houston, TX. Logan called the radio station distraught because he had to take down a calf . His words have wisdom beyond his years.
I wish I had this kind of insight at the age of 13!
I wish I had this kind of insight at the age of 13!
Source: http://www.valenciahills.com/Logan
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Mary and the Saints, Pray for Us!
This post is in response to a comment made by Russell. His part is in quotes and mine is bold. If anyone else has something to add to the response for Russell, please feel free to comment.
“I'd just like to make a few comments on this particular post. First, I pretty much agree with you on the "One Mediator" point. But there is a difference between praying "for" someone and praying "to" them. We pray TO Jesus (and ONLY to Him / God) because of His role as Mediator in paying the full price for sin on our behalf. But nowhere in Scripture are we allowed to pray TO anyone else. It is not the same thing as praying FOR other people, e.g., for health, blessings, guidance, etc.”
When Catholics “pray to” Mary and the saints, we are asking them to pray FOR us… this is no different than you asking me to pray for you, except that it’s done mentally, instead of vocally because they are in heaven. Mary and the saints then pray TO Jesus FOR us, just as I would pray for you. We do not pray TO them as if they have the power to answer our prayers or in a sense of worshipping them. Again, we are merely asking them to pray (or intercede) for us. This IS in Scripture. (1 Tim 2:1-4) This might be better understood if we remove the word “pray” and the meaning you are applying to it. Catholics ASK Mary and the saints to pray for us. We are not praying in the sense of worship but praying in a historical meaning of the word, which is “to ask or beg”.
“Concerning those in Heaven, yes, they are very much alive. But the two passages you offered in Revelation simply tell us that the angels and elders "offered" the prayers of the saints to God. It never says that the prayers were first directed to the angels, or anyone else in Heaven.”
How can they offer our prayers if they don’t know what our prayers are? How do our prayers, not a physical item, get to them in order for them to be able to offer them? Do we not need to tell them what those prayers are first? Clearly, they must know of our prayers by mentally ask them to pray for us, since we cannot ask them vocally. I see no issue here. We are asking them to pray for us and those prayers are offered by them, indicating they must know what those prayers are… There is nothing in scripture that tells us we cannot ask those in heaven (also Christians) to pray for us. If we cannot ask them to pray for us, then we should not be asking each other either. But THAT would contradict Scripture.
“The verses you quoted in Psalms are not directing us to PRAY TO the angels, but are simply exhorting ALL (even the Heavenly hosts) to praise and exalt God, because He is worthy. You didn't mention the next verse (103:22), which encourages His "works" (not just living creatures) to also praise Him. Does that mean that we pray to all His "works" also? What about when PEOPLE are admonished to praise Him? Are we praying to THEM too?”
This again boils down to the meaning you are applying to “pray”. The angels are addressed and a request for joint praise is offered. But if we were not to address those in heaven at all, then this concept would not be tolerated. This is the point I was making with this passage. Catholics do the same when we address Mary or the saints… asking them to intercede TO God FOR us or maybe even just asking them to join us in praising God!
“It is perfectly fine to pray FOR someone here on earth. But we find no precedent in the Bible where anyone obediently prays to ANYONE ELSE but God.”
Again, Mary and the saints pray FOR us. No one is praying TO anyone else. We simply pass our intentions along to them “mentally” instead of vocally, which we call “praying” (to ask). Nothing in scripture speaks against this and nothing in scripture limits “praying for each other” to those on earth alone.
Furthermore, to deny the saints’ ability to fully act as members of the body of Christ (which includes praying for each other), or to deny that they are necessary, is to go against Scripture:
1 Corinthians 12:20-21
As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"
Our view of the body of Christ is limited by our humanity on earth but once we are in heaven, we see the full picture. Why is it impossible to believe that the body of Christ that is in heaven wouldn’t have a full picture or understanding of the body of Christ? And, in having this full picture, that they would not be able to see or hear (solely by the power of God, of course) what is going on with the rest of the body here on earth? Can they say, “I do not need you”?
1 Corinthians 13:12
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And then we see that the prayers of the righteous are powerful and effective. Who is more righteous than those who are in heaven?
James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
I hope this helps to shed some light on the Catholic position. Christians are called to pray for each other. Those in heaven are also Christians, a part of the body of Christ and just as “necessary” as the rest of the body. They are the most righteous, making their prayers powerful and effective. To ask them to pray FOR us is not only encouraged in Scripture, but is logically a very good idea! The passages in Revelation (5:8, 8:3-4) clearly show that those in heaven offer our prayers TO God on our behalf. To do this, they must first receive the prayers FROM us… “The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel's hand.”.
Thanks for stopping by, Russell. It’s good to hear from you again.
Peace be with you!
“I'd just like to make a few comments on this particular post. First, I pretty much agree with you on the "One Mediator" point. But there is a difference between praying "for" someone and praying "to" them. We pray TO Jesus (and ONLY to Him / God) because of His role as Mediator in paying the full price for sin on our behalf. But nowhere in Scripture are we allowed to pray TO anyone else. It is not the same thing as praying FOR other people, e.g., for health, blessings, guidance, etc.”
When Catholics “pray to” Mary and the saints, we are asking them to pray FOR us… this is no different than you asking me to pray for you, except that it’s done mentally, instead of vocally because they are in heaven. Mary and the saints then pray TO Jesus FOR us, just as I would pray for you. We do not pray TO them as if they have the power to answer our prayers or in a sense of worshipping them. Again, we are merely asking them to pray (or intercede) for us. This IS in Scripture. (1 Tim 2:1-4) This might be better understood if we remove the word “pray” and the meaning you are applying to it. Catholics ASK Mary and the saints to pray for us. We are not praying in the sense of worship but praying in a historical meaning of the word, which is “to ask or beg”.
“Concerning those in Heaven, yes, they are very much alive. But the two passages you offered in Revelation simply tell us that the angels and elders "offered" the prayers of the saints to God. It never says that the prayers were first directed to the angels, or anyone else in Heaven.”
How can they offer our prayers if they don’t know what our prayers are? How do our prayers, not a physical item, get to them in order for them to be able to offer them? Do we not need to tell them what those prayers are first? Clearly, they must know of our prayers by mentally ask them to pray for us, since we cannot ask them vocally. I see no issue here. We are asking them to pray for us and those prayers are offered by them, indicating they must know what those prayers are… There is nothing in scripture that tells us we cannot ask those in heaven (also Christians) to pray for us. If we cannot ask them to pray for us, then we should not be asking each other either. But THAT would contradict Scripture.
“The verses you quoted in Psalms are not directing us to PRAY TO the angels, but are simply exhorting ALL (even the Heavenly hosts) to praise and exalt God, because He is worthy. You didn't mention the next verse (103:22), which encourages His "works" (not just living creatures) to also praise Him. Does that mean that we pray to all His "works" also? What about when PEOPLE are admonished to praise Him? Are we praying to THEM too?”
This again boils down to the meaning you are applying to “pray”. The angels are addressed and a request for joint praise is offered. But if we were not to address those in heaven at all, then this concept would not be tolerated. This is the point I was making with this passage. Catholics do the same when we address Mary or the saints… asking them to intercede TO God FOR us or maybe even just asking them to join us in praising God!
“It is perfectly fine to pray FOR someone here on earth. But we find no precedent in the Bible where anyone obediently prays to ANYONE ELSE but God.”
Again, Mary and the saints pray FOR us. No one is praying TO anyone else. We simply pass our intentions along to them “mentally” instead of vocally, which we call “praying” (to ask). Nothing in scripture speaks against this and nothing in scripture limits “praying for each other” to those on earth alone.
Furthermore, to deny the saints’ ability to fully act as members of the body of Christ (which includes praying for each other), or to deny that they are necessary, is to go against Scripture:
1 Corinthians 12:20-21
As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!"
Our view of the body of Christ is limited by our humanity on earth but once we are in heaven, we see the full picture. Why is it impossible to believe that the body of Christ that is in heaven wouldn’t have a full picture or understanding of the body of Christ? And, in having this full picture, that they would not be able to see or hear (solely by the power of God, of course) what is going on with the rest of the body here on earth? Can they say, “I do not need you”?
1 Corinthians 13:12
Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And then we see that the prayers of the righteous are powerful and effective. Who is more righteous than those who are in heaven?
James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
I hope this helps to shed some light on the Catholic position. Christians are called to pray for each other. Those in heaven are also Christians, a part of the body of Christ and just as “necessary” as the rest of the body. They are the most righteous, making their prayers powerful and effective. To ask them to pray FOR us is not only encouraged in Scripture, but is logically a very good idea! The passages in Revelation (5:8, 8:3-4) clearly show that those in heaven offer our prayers TO God on our behalf. To do this, they must first receive the prayers FROM us… “The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel's hand.”.
Thanks for stopping by, Russell. It’s good to hear from you again.
Peace be with you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)