All Activity

Just what I needed........and I thought reading the above and your whole homily for Sunday, just what we all need in The Church today...........a comment too on the world at this time. Just what we all need to hear, methinks. Thank you very much for posting these homilies, cappie, very much appreciated 🏆 Something might be dy-ing (a process of) but in Faith something is breaking through and will have the last Word.

From Divine Office (General Calendar) Monday 27th March 2023 - 5th Week LENT Morning Prayer - Lauds MORNING PRAYER Evening Prayer - EVENING PRAYER Night Prayer - NIGHT PRAYER (Compline) Second Reading Office of Readings Monday 27th March 2023 Second Reading From the commentary on the penitential psalms (1555) by St John Fisher, bishop and martyr If anyone should sin, we have an advocate before the Father Christ Jesu is our bishop, his most precious body is our sacrifice, which he offered upon a cross for the redemption of all the world. The blood shed for our redemption was not the blood of goats or calves as in the old law, it was the very blood most innocent of our saviour Jesus Christ. The temple wherein our bishop did sacrifice was not made by man’s hand but only by the power of God, he shed his precious blood for our redemption in the face of all the world, which is the temple made only by the hand of God. This temple has two divers parts, one is the earth whereon we inhabit, the other is not yet known to us mortal creatures. First he did sacrifice in the earth when he suffered his passion. After, in a new clothing or garment, the vesture of immortality, and with his own precious blood he entered into sanctum sanctorum [the Holy of Holies] that is to say into heaven when he shewed his said most precious blood before the throne of his father which he shed for all sinners 7 times. By this holy sacrifice almighty God must needs have pity and execute his mercy to all true penitents and this sacrifice shall continue not only year by year as the manner was of Jews, but also it is daily offered for our comfort, and every hour and moment for our most strong succour, wherefore saint Paul says Having obtained eternal redemption. By it we are redeemed for ever. Every contrite and true penitent person not willing to fall again but with a full purpose to continue in virtuous living is partaker of this holy sacrifice. As saint John shews in his first epistle: My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin; but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. EUCHARISTIC ADORATION - LIVE ONLINE

NOBODY receives the leftovers of God's love, or is "not as loved", because God does not love in measures, or unequally. There are no leftovers, or back burners. He does not love me more or less than he loves you. He doesn't ignore me because he's too besotted by someone else. His love for each of us is equally immense, equally unlimited and unconditional. If there's any doling out or leftovers of love, they come from us, not God! (unfortunately)

Christians have some very distinctive, and some very special, things to say about death—about both real, physical death and about the other deaths, the smaller deaths, the endings and changes and losses that we seem constantly to be experiencing. In fact, we say much the same thing about both types of death. What it is can be found in both Ezekiel and John. The bones Ezekiel is looking at and talking to is Israel. The great nation God had raised up to be a blessing for all the world is gone. There are a handful of exiles in Babylon with a few memories, fewer hopes. So with Lazarus. Lazarus, like Israel, was dead. Graveyard dead. In fact, Lazarus was dead three days, and the rabbis taught that after that long, all that was left was corruption. Now. Death ruled over Lazarus.So, Ezekiel looked over the valley of dry bones, and Jesus looked at the stone in front of the cave where his friend’s body lay. When we Christians look at death with the eyes of Ezekiel, and of Jesus, we see what they saw. The first thing they saw was the reality and the sheer power of death. Ezekiel was struck mute (a very rare event). And Jesus was shaken; he was deeply troubled; he wept. There is nothing in this world stronger or more final than death, and there is nothing in this world that can rebuild what death tears down. Death is real and it’s powerful and it hurts and it destroys. Jesus and Ezekiel both saw that. But they saw something more. What Ezekiel saw, and what Jesus saw, was that God was Lord, Lord even over death. God was Lord even over a dead Israel—and so God, and God alone, could call Israel back, and give it new life, and new direction. The wonderful part of this story is that the Spirit of the Lord would not be stopped, and that even death could not destroy the purposes of God. So with Lazarus. The real point of his story is not that Lazarus came back. Before too long, Lazarus died again, and Jesus wasn’t there, and Lazarus stayed very dead. The real point is that Jesus is Lord of the living and the dead, that the voice of Jesus carries even through the walls of the grave, and his word is the strongest word, and the last word. That’s the good news, that’s what we Christians see that the world does not see. We see, that the word of God, and the purposes of God, and the love of God cannot be silenced, cannot be stopped, and will not be stopped. . At the same time, notice that these stories give us no information about the mystery of death itself. Death remains the great unknown. Nor do these stories promise that everything will be alright, or that they will be terrible, as we count such things. Lazarus doesn’t become a celebrity. And Israel never again became what it used to be or what it wanted to be. The dry bones formed into something very different, something less powerful, but truer to its mission. The promise of new life is not a promise that we are in charge and that we will get what we want. The promise is better than that. The promise is that God, in Jesus Christ, is Lord even of the dead, even of death itself. And that what he says, goes. That’s what we Christians see. Alas, we can see no farther. But we can see that. Of course, we want more, we want some power and some control in all of this. But we don’t get any of that. Instead, in the face of death, we are told first that death is stronger than we are and that we have neither knowledge about nor power over death. And then we are told that Jesus is Lord, Lord of all—Lord of life and of death. So, we must choose. We must choose to despair or to trust; to give up or to go on; in faith. That choice is not made for us but is instead given to us. And that choice can be terribly hard. For we see all that the world sees, and yet we see more. We see that the dry bones, even our dry bones, can live once more. And we see that the word of Jesus has power. “Come out,” the Lord calls. “Come out” into different life, into new life. “Come out” in trust and in hope.

Maybe, but now it's about how Professor Nunsuch will be helping Jack get his doctorate in Proper Internet Discussion and Discord. The first 14 years will consist of two gruelling 14 hour lectures each day listing all the many ways she can't take him seriously.

There’s nothing common about COVID-19 it’s a deadly virus

What the Church once taught, the Church will always teach. In this particular case, it is quite clearly set out in the CCC 916 ... "The religious state is... "more intimate"... "dedicated totally to God"... "follow Christ more nearly"... "give themselves to God who is loved above all"... "pursuing the perfection of charity". In CCC 923 consecrated virgins "are betrothed mystically to Christ" and become a "sacred person". So, no, the CCC does not come outright with the statement that it is a higher state. However, it seems obvious to me that all of this points to the statement nonetheless. The religious life is higher because it is a total gift of self. Yet still, it is only for those whom God has called out of the world. The rest of us will love and serve God more fully by fulfilling our duties in our state in life. We may have smaller glasses, but God will still fill them up to the brim if we cooperate with His graces.

In light of what so many have said here--there would be nothing more contrary to God's will, or your call to holiness, if you attempted to live religious life if you were not called to it! In fact, no responsible community would accept you if they thought that you were not truly called. If you feel called to marriage, then that is probably where you belong; find a spouse who will be a loving and wise and prayerful companion on your mutual journey to God. What would be more beautiful than that?

People still say it - but I have to bite my tongue whenever anyone says, "Not what you want - what God wants...", or some variation. Of course, in any vocation or field, there may be circumstances where we do not achieve a goal - but that is the way of the world, not some divine hand pushing a button. I've known all too many people who thought whatever makes us happy isn't what God wants - or that 'what God wants' is whatever we want least, or is the most difficult. We cannot help being anthropomorphic - we have our human limitations. But God isn't pushing buttons! If 'what you want' is to be head of a crime syndicate, obviously it is wrong - but nothing we want to do or which we pursue is opposed to 'God's will' unless it is sinful.

⭐ ... and our inmost desires are often an indication of where our vocations lay.

Not the OP, of course, but I just wanted to say that I found this really encouraging. Thank you.

Gloire au Pere, et au Fils et au Saint Esprit, comme il etait au commencement, maintenant et toujours pour les siecles des siecles. Amen Oh mon Jesus, pardonnes-nous nos offenses, preserves-nous des feux de l'enfer, conduisez au ciel toutes les ames, specialement celles qui ont le plus besoin de Ta misericorde. Amen

I forget what this thread was originally about... something about tanks... right?

I think you're on to something with the rape comment there... Consent was given during the sexual act... outside of rape, that destroys that logic outright. (and note: consent given by both the man and woman means both are equally responsible for the new life created)

hmmm.. pretty sure the common cold kills people, at least in the past, or considering comorbidities. Just not a high or note worthy rate. I've seen plenty of people hit hard with colds... I'm not saying that it's not to be taken seriously... but this Covid thing in my opinion has been embarrassingly overblown. What I find sad is that people have been so invested in the narrative that they are unable to admit the errors and continue to wear the embarrassment, sometimes as a virtue signal... Anyways... I'm going back to watching the weather channel... it's more interesting and pertinent than Covid has ever been.

I don't consider you ignorant--I don't even know you. But I do consider you as someone who tends to prooftext sources, accepting the validity of those which reinforce your preconceptions and dismissing those which challenge them. On the other hand, why there are people on this board who do know a fair amount about what they comment on. The fact that you dismiss their expertise--or even the possibility that they *have* expertise--makes it difficult to take you seriously. To put it another way: I have taught at the university level literally for decades. If you submitted work to me or my colleagues that took this approach to evidence, you would not be happy with the outcomes.

Correct, I don't know enough to support either side. I do know enough to know that Russia's actions can't be summarily regarded as wrong, and I also know enough to know that the US is likely just as guilty as Russia is. So I guess that wasn't your final word then. You had to come back and insult me some more. Look, I get it. You don't like me. And rather than engage with opposing viewpoints, you'd rather attack me personally and say, repeatedly, that you're not going to engage in the conversation with me. You consider me ignorant and irrational. You've made that clear over and over again. Honestly, I think if you'd try to get to know me you'd find there are things about me that you like, and maybe you'd even start to at least understand my perspective on things, and why I'm so passionate about what I believe, even if you don't agree with me. In my last statement, I didn't say, "I don't know much at all about what's going on over in Russia." I said I don't know enough to pick one side over the other. But I also implied that neither does anyone else here, or at least that was the intended implication. People who are pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia in this whole mess are only parroting the media-led public opinion.

Yes, Thomas Aquinas did so, and with him the theology of consecrated life - until Vaticanum II. Lumen Gentium, as Lou pointed out, clarified this and gave it a new direction: The question is no longer "how do I (the individual) become a more perfect person?", but "what is the specific task of consecrated persons in the people of God?" - and that task is, to be a sign. A sign that reminds of Jesus' life, a sign that a lot of stuff (material things, careers, even a spouse) is unnecessary in the reign of God. So, we are asked to strive no longer for perfection as individuals, but for the best possible way in which we can be helpful for each other. That's how I understand it. It doesn't solve the problem completely though, because if consecrated persons are signs, then is this not again a "better" way of life than being not consecrated? Therefore, I like your thougth that maybe there is an objective "more perfect", but for an individual it always is the better way to follow one's own vocation. Sorry if I sound a bit confusing, welcome to the limits of my knowldedge of English 😉

St. Thomas Aquinas did express however that consecrated life is more perfect. I think it would be possible for both vocations to enable someone to live God with their whole heart, while one still being objectively more perfect maybe.

I'd be interested in your source for this. I'm a theologian, and AFAIK, the Church does NOT teach this, at least since Vatican II. There are certainly a lot of people around who express thoughts like the ones you cite ("undivided heart" etc.), but for all I know, official Church teaching makes it very clear that there is no state of life (as in marriage, single life or consecrated life) which is per se higher than another. You got this totally right with your impression that the Bible teaches we are all called to love God with all we are and have. Maybe you just read some older material which gave you a misleading impression?

I don't know if this is as common today (and I dearly hope it is not), but what Alison posted reminded me of a dreary attitude some people I knew had fifty years ago (or more) - as if 'what we want' cannot be 'what God wants.' Alison, if you do not want to be married, God isn't a trickster who'll force you into this. Just referring to your own quotation - how could 'God's plan' for you be anything that would prevent you from loving him with your whole heart - or be 'leftovers' of his love - or less loved by Him? In general, I'm very sorry that, perhaps since around 1970, there have been misinterpretations of the 'universal call to holiness.' Indeed, that calling is universal - and many of the major conflicts in the earliest centuries of Christianity were founded on concepts of what was in accord with this calling. But it was very unfortunate that the idea that the only calling is baptism made some Religious think that their vowed life had no particular value. Do you know right from wrong? Do you fulfil your responsibilities? Then, you are doing nothing contrary to God's will. You need to discern in which manner you will best love God and neighbour, but you sound so fearful and wound up that you just might need a breather. I'm not a spiritual director, but it's possible that, for the time being, you might need to focus on a disciplined prayer life and worship. People should not seek religious life because they fear any alternative would mean they were less loved or having 'leftovers,' but neither should they marry because they think God wants them to sacrifice what they believe to be their calling. (Yes, this is anecdotal - but there were people I knew personally who lived to regret marrying 'to do God's will', and 'as a sacrifice.' Such did exist - and those devoted to Therese were most prone to such mistakes.)

I agree with Lou.,Whatever state God calls you to is the holiest way for you. Look at Zelie and Louis Martin. If they hadn't got married we wouldn't have Saint Therese. Have you visited or contacted any communities. Why not think about going on a vocations retreat. Quite a few communities run them. Keep your mind open.

I think it might help you to read Lumen Gentium https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html and know that lay people participate in the fullness of the priesthood given by Christ and that this, in itself, is a beautiful gift and a vocation and call. You will be closest to God in whatever your vocation is. Aquinas describes religious life as a more 'perfect' state, but the reality is: if the Lord is calling you to marriage, it is in THIS way that you will have greatest intimacy with him. If you decide to be a Sister/Nun just because it's traditionally viewed as the way of perfection to Divine love, and not because God is calling you, you will just be... well, bitter and angry and unhappy and probably not loving of God at all! Whatever God is asking of you is what He made you for and is how you will love Him best. If that's as a wife and mother, then that's where your intimacy with Him lies. That's where your complete gift of self will be. I've heard Catholic couples speak of how in the Eucharist, it's said 'This is my body, given up for you' and how for them, this is true in their spousal union. They each give of themselves constantly, to each other, to their children- but ultimately to God. The gift of themselves does not stop at the human person to whom they are giving, it goes further and transcends as a gift to God. God is still their first love and in many ways, marriage is a miracle! Graced by Christ. It's a sacrament. Then though, if the idea of marriage is unattractive to you, that might be God's way of showing you that you ARE called to Religious life. He often makes us more attracted to whatever we are called to. He shapes the desires of our hearts. But both the lay vocation and the Religious vocation, lived well and with love of the Church, are real and true paths to sanctity if they are lived in union with God.

Actually, that is *not* what the research shows. Here is an article about the largest study ever conducted. Coincidentally, it was published today. I'm gifting it, so you should be able to read it without a subscription. https://wapo.st/3TAKDyw

We certainly do need to listen to their stories and be compassionate. Just because you don't agree with someone's way of life though doesn't mean that you condemn them. Charity and truth are not opposed to each other. You can love someone yet have honest conversations in a respectful manner if they're open to such discussions. I don't love my family members who've left The Church any less. Not that we should treat people like they're our "projects" to convert. In some ways, it's like interacting with those with same-sex attraction. Research has shown that sex changes didn't make the problems of those with gender dysphoria go away. The roots of their issues need to be addressed. Serious health and psychological problems can result after these procedures. https://sexchangeregret.com/ The Church has spoken out against sex-changes. Over time, more resources and pastoral approaches will further develop. https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/upload/Gender-Ideology-Select-Teaching-Resources.pdf