I have told you what men preeminent alike in philosophy and eloquence have thought of the majesty and government of the most high God. Moreover, I have cited the noblest masters of both these supreme arts expressly to facilitate my proof that all others have either agreed, or, if they have disagreed, have done so without any authority. And, in fact, I can find none who have differed from this judgment, except for the delirious ravings of the Epicureans and certain of their imitators. These last have associated God with carelessness and sloth, just as they have linked pleasure with virtue — so it appears that those who entertain this idea are likely to follow the vices of the Epicureans along with their opinion and doctrine.
I do not think that we need also use the divine word to prove so obvious a case, especially since the sacred writings furnish such abundant and open refutation of all the claims of ungodly men that, in meeting those of their vile charges which follow, we shall be able to refute more fully those already mentioned. They say that God neglects us entirely, since he neither restrains the wicked nor protects the good, and therefore in this world the condition of the better men is substantially the worse. They contrast the poverty of good men with the wealth of the wicked, their weakness with the strength of the wicked, their constant grief with the others’ perpetual joy, their misery and mean estate with the honors and prosperity of sinners.
I wish at the outset to ask those who mourn this state of affairs, or base their accusations on it, this one question: is their grief for the saints, that is, the true and faithful Christians, or for the false impostors? If for the false, it is a needless grief that mourns for the unhappiness of the wicked, since, to be sure, all evil men are made worse by success in their undertakings, and rejoice at the lucky turn of their folly. Yet they ought to be most wretched in order that they may cease to be wicked, that they may cease to apply the name of religion to their most evil gains and to bestow the title of sanctity on their sordid traffickings; in such a case, indeed, a comparison of the misfortunes of sinners with their misdeeds shows that they are less unfortunate than they deserve, for the utmost misfortunes they can suffer leave them still less wretched than they are wicked. It is foolish to grieve for their lack of wealth and happiness. Far less should we lament in the case of the saints, for however unhappy they may seem to men who do not understand their condition, it is impossible for them to be otherwise than happy. Moreover, it is superfluous to think them wretched because of sickness or poverty or any like misfortune, in the midst of which they count themselves happy; for no man is wretched because of other men’s judgment, but only in his own.
So those who are truly happy in their own estimation cannot be unhappy through the false conception of any man; for none, I think, are more fortunate than those who live and act according to their own determination and vows. Religious men are lowly — they wish to be so; poor — they delight in poverty; without ambition — they spurn it; unesteemed — they flee from honors; they mourn — but they seek out occasion for mourning; they are weak — nay, they rejoice in weakness. For the apostle said, “When I am weak, then am I strong.” Nor was this opinion held undeservedly by the man to whom God himself spoke thus: “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” — Book I.
Corwin Smidt, a college professor from Michigan, writes in Religion and Nationalism – a Reflection from Hungary:
When language, nationality, religion, and state are basically the embodiment of different facets of the same underlying sociological entity, it is difficult to discern just where culture, religion, nationalism, and loyalty to the state begin and end. This linkage of national identity, language, and religion has important consequences. Probably two of the most basic, and firmly rooted, identities that can be forged in human beings are one’s religious and national identities.
Sometimes, these identities begin to overlap to such an extent that the two become linked together—” making it is difficult to separate them without some serious, and concerted, effort to do so. This is particularly the case when, embedded in one’s particular culture, one seeks to discern just where one’s fundamental loyalties lay —” whether to one’s nation or to one’s religious faith. This is difficult enough in the American context, but when culture and language get added to the mix, it becomes even more difficult.
As he walks through different ecclesiastical models he ponders the intersection between culture, nationalism, and religion. In the Christian context that intersection can be problematic, as he points out, but it can also be fruitful.
I would love to see the professor do a comparative between his experiences and insights from Hungary and Bishop Hodur’s writing on this very subject.
In short, I think Bishop Hodur took a far more anthropological view of nations and religion, with nations as a tool in God’s hands. Each nation and culture has specific gifts and insights which add to the totality of Christian experience. Religion cannot espouse the dissolution of national and cultural boundaries as its goal — a sort of straw man argument for those who define everything in terms of separation, but must focus itself on the transcendent nature of God. God speaks to every nation and draws no distinction between Jew or Greek, slave or free (Galatians 3:28) — using each to declare His name (Acts 17:26-28).
And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
for `In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have said, `For we are indeed his offspring.’
Personally I understand it this way: Our gifts are particular. Our faith is transcendent. In Him we are all one body.
From DuluthCommunityNews: Left out in the cold: The story of Polish Catholics in Duluth.
An interesting article that provides a historic overview of the emergence of the PNCC in Duluth. The piece was produced by the Duluth Community News, a project run by journalism students at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Their project tells the stories of Duluth neighborhoods, exploring different communities and issues throughout the city of Duluth.
All the divine precepts are, therefore, referred back to love, of which the apostle says, “Now the end of the commandment is love, out of a pure heart, and a good conscience and a faith unfeigned.” Thus every commandment harks back to love. For whatever one does either in fear of punishment or from some carnal impulse, so that it does not measure up to the standard of love which the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in our hearts — whatever it is, it is not yet done as it should be, although it may seem to be. Love, in this context, of course includes both the love of God and the love of our neighbor and, indeed, “on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” — and, we may add, the gospel and the apostles, for from nowhere else comes the voice, “The end of the commandment is love,” and, “God is love.“
“But when the Pharisees had heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together; and one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?”
Again does the evangelist express the cause, for which they ought to have held their peace, and marks their boldness by this also. How and in what way? Because when those others were put to silence , these again assail Him. For when they ought even for this to hold their peace, they strive to urge further their former endeavors,and put forward the lawyer, not desiring to learn, but making a trial of Him, and ask, “What is the first commandment?”
For since the first commandment was this, “You shall love the Lord your God,” thinking that He would afford them some handle, as though He would amend it, for the sake of showing that Himself too was God, they propose the question. What then says Christ? Indicating from what they were led to this; from having no charity, from pining with envy, from being seized by jealousy, He says, “You shall love the Lord your God. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
But wherefore “like this?” Because this makes the way for that, and by it is again established; “For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light;” and again, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.” And what in consequence of this? “They are corrupt, and become abominable in their ways.” And again, “The love of money is the root of all evils; which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith;” and, “He that loves me, will keep my commandment.”
But His commandments, and the sum of them, are, “You shall love the Lord your God, and your neighbor as yourself.” If therefore to love God is to love one’s neighbor, “For if you love me,” He says, “O Peter, feed my sheep,” but to love one’s neighbor works a keeping of the commandments, with reason does He say, “On these hang all the law and the prophets.“
Of these four different stages of man, the first is before the law, the second is under the law, the third is under grace, and the fourth is in full and perfect peace. Thus, also, the history of God’s people has been ordered by successive temporal epochs, as it pleased God, who “ordered all things in measure and number and weight.” The first period was before the law; the second under the law, which was given through Moses; the next, under grace which was revealed through the first Advent of the Mediator.” This grace was not previously absent from those to whom it was to be imparted, although, in conformity to the temporal dispensations, it was veiled and hidden. For none of the righteous men of antiquity could find salvation apart from the faith of Christ. And, unless Christ had also been known to them, he could not have been prophesied to us — sometimes openly and sometimes obscurely — through their ministry.
Now, in whichever of these four “ages” — if one can call them that — the grace of regeneration finds a man, then and there all his past sins are forgiven him and the guilt he contracted in being born is removed by his being reborn. And so true is it that “the Spirit breatheth where he willeth” that some men have never known the second “age” of slavery under the law, but begin to have divine aid directly under the new commandment.
Yet, before a man can receive the commandment, he must, of course, live according to the flesh. But, once he has been imbued with the sacrament of rebirth, no harm will come to him even if he then immediately depart this life — “Wherefore on this account Christ died and rose again, that he might be the Lord of both the living and the dead.”‘ Nor will the kingdom of death have dominion over him for whom He, who was “free among the dead,” died. — Chapter XXXI.
As delivered by the Rt. Rev. Dr. Anthony Mikovsky.
From the Rev. Canon Chandler Holder Jones, SSC: Vatican Recognition of Anglican Orders With Old Catholic Infusion.
An interesting article pointing to a new book No Ordinary Fool: A Testimony To Grace by Father John Jay Hughes, plus an excellent picture of PNCC Bishops Gawrychowski, Bończak, Hodur, and Gritenas.
But if God regards a man with solicitude so that he then believes in God’s help in fulfilling His commands, and if a man begins to be led by the Spirit of God, then the mightier power of love struggles against the power of the flesh. And although there is still in man a power that fights against him — his infirmity being not yet fully healed — yet the righteous man lives by faith and lives righteously in so far as he does not yield to evil desires, conquering them by his love of righteousness. This is the third stage of the man of good hope.
A final peace is in store for him who continues to go forward in this course toward perfection through steadfast piety. This will be perfected beyond this life in the repose of the spirit, and, at the last, in the resurrection of the body. — Chapter XXXI.
…and its Roman Catholic Bishops?
From the Citizens Voice: Scranton bishop tells forum his letter is ‘only relevant document’ for diocese.
Local and national Catholics reacted Tuesday to statements by Bishop Joseph F. Martino apparently discounting teachings of the national body of bishops during a political forum at a Honesdale Roman Catholic Church this weekend.
Martino arrived unannounced in the midst of a panel discussion on faith issues and the presidential campaign at St. John’s Catholic Church on Sunday. According to people who attended the event, the bishop chastised the group for holding the forum and particularly took issue with the discussion and distribution of excerpts from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ position on voting issues. The document defines abortion and euthanasia, as well as racism, torture and genocide, as among the most important issues for Catholic voters to consider.
—No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,— he was quoted as saying in the Wayne County Independent, a Honesdale-based newspaper. —The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.—
Thomas Shepstone, a local businessman and Catholic who spoke about his opposition to abortion rights during the event, recalled Tuesday that Martino also told the audience that he voted against the U.S. Bishops’ statement and described it as a consensus document —written to mean all things to all people.—
According to participants, Martino expressed dismay that the panelists did not discuss the pastoral letter he directed all priests in the Diocese to read in place of their homilies on Oct. 4 and 5. In that letter, he called on Catholic voters to consider abortion above all other issues, except those he defined as having equal moral weight, like euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research.
—The only relevant document … is my letter,— he said at the forum, according to the Independent. —There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.—
According to the Independent, the bishop also said he no longer supports the Democratic Party.
A diocesan spokesman on Tuesday confirmed the bishop’s comments as reported in the Independent…
And, this one’s the kicker:
Tagle said the bishop criticized the resident pastor, the Rev. Martin Boylan, for holding the forum and —seemed to justify his presence there by stating that he owned the building.—
I think Bishop Martino is channeling Bishops O’Hara and Hoban.
I found this article through the blog Another Monkey in The Bishop is not the Church. Obviously The writer’s understanding of the Bishop’s role is confused, and I can see why. Where the Bishop is, there is the Church, but of course confusion ensues when the Bishop concerns himself with politics and property ownership over the spiritual well being of his flock. His role is to teach. Teach is not spelled B U L L Y. If he taught his flock in love and channeled their energies into making over the earth, rather than one election, he would have far better success.
Perhaps the bishop needs a refresher on prudence:
Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.” “Keep sane and sober for your prayers.” Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid. — The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1806
This CNS story on a homily by Archbishop Quinn from four long years ago is also instructive.