Tag: Scripture

(x) – Do As You Would Be Done By

I don’t communicate very well. That’s why I like writing, I can express myself thoughtfully, deliberately. I can take my time. If you ask me to speak off the cuff I sound clumsy, confused, muddled, possibly stupid.

I also am not very open. I have a lot going on in my head and I am aware of my thoughts and feelings but if you ask me to “just say whats on your mind” I freeze. Suddenly my thoughts are like molasses in a pressure washer—they’re going nowhere, fast.

I was praying about something earlier and I noticed, as usual, God didn’t really talk back to me. He doesn’t say, “Hey, Scoot, I’ve got it under control”. He doesn’t say, “Message received, Scoot, I will see what I can do”. He doesn’t say, “You know Scoot that’s really the wrong way of thinking about all this.”

I get silence.

Now, in some ways it has helped me to trust in God more. I don’t know what He listens to (he listens to everyone, of course, pardon my loose language), but I see His handiwork every day of my life. It’s like I am a tourist on a construction site. God is building things around me and its my job to observe and keep out of His way.

But I can’t help but think God is communicating to me the way I communicate to others. Silently. A surprising consequence of the “do as you would be done by” principle. I know people who feel God reaching out to their lives, who can feel God speaking to them at various times or in various situations. They are also much more open—they tell people what they think. Does God communicate to them because they communicate to others?

Maybe God just likes communicating to me in writing, too.

Comparison is the thief of joy so there’s no point in dwelling too long here. God loves each of us and speaks to each of us differently. Maybe some of you can confirm or deny my observation. If you feel God talking to you, are you very open? If you do not, are you a tough nut to crack? Any tough nuts feel God speaking to them? Any open souls feel God is silent?

AMDG

CDXXVIII – Have A Relationship With Scripture

It occurred to me recently that to read the Bible cover to cover is not, exactly, to know the Bible. I’ve been to talks where a confident Catholic says, “I know my Bible, I have read it 12 times.” And I can’t help but feel as if that misses part of the point.

Of course, reading the Bible cover-to-cover is not a bad endeavor. It is good to read it Chronologically. But the Bible is not a book–not the way other books are books. My priest once told me that the Bible is the “Word made flesh made word,” and I’ve always liked that phrasing. God is present in the scriptures. He is present to us and is speaking to us through the scriptures.

To read the Bible without guidance can be problematic, the way it is not problematic to read any other book on ones own. Any other book, as a work of art, you can get what you want out of it, devise your own interpretations. The Bible you are not free to draw your own conclusions–you are free to make the conclusions of the Bible your own. And that is not easily done, not in one sitting, and not easily on your own. You need something else when you read the Bible. There are many things that serve as that something else, but it stands to reason that there is something.

Consider, by analogy, any friend you have. Let’s say it’s a friend at work, you pass them in the hallways frequently. You tell people, “I know my friend, I see them 10 times a day at work.” But–if you don’t talk to your friend, or spend time outside of work together, what is your friendship? A doctor could tell you your height, your weight, your hair color, the contents of your blood, the contents of your urine, how many bones you’ve broken–but do they know you?

It is important to look at Scripture both as a friend and as a book. Scripture is a book in that you ought to read it, you ought to read it all, you ought to read it often. Scripture is a friend in that you ought to spend time with it, you ought to get to know it, you ought to ask for help and patiently accept it’s answers.

Befriend scripture. Love scripture. Open the book and read scripture, so that you can open and read yourself.

AMDG

CDXXVII – Idolatry

The accusation of Idolatry gets thrown around a lot sometimes, and I think we have lost sight of what exactly it means. Frequently Idolatry is used in the context of “You are putting too much importance on this one specific thing, you are not putting it in it’s proper proportion.”

That’s a good admonition and a valuable one too, but I don’t think it is Idolatry–it is more a matter of Temperance. The linguistic tendency comes from the idea of “idolizing” someone or some thing, or a person referred to as an “idol”–they are objects of fascination and celebritas, but that doesn’t rise to the level of Idolatry.

[…] I recently read the Letter of Jeremiah. The Letter is non-canonical, is said to be written by the Prophet Jeremiah, and focuses exclusively on Idolatry. I found nothing really erroneous in it, but it’s good to know it is not in the canon; more a helpful supplement.

Edit: the Letter of Jeremiah is indeed in the Catholic Canon, appended to Baruch as Baruch chapter 6. I didn’t know this and couldn’t find it in my Douay Rheims translation at the time I wrote this article!

What the Letter of Jeremiah taught me is that true idolatry is the worship of objects as if they were gods among us. The statue isn’t just a representation of the gods, it is god. The statue is an incarnation. The Letter of Jeremiah rebukes this kind of idolatry–this worship of created things. He goes through numerous examples of hardships that can befall these idols and proves that these cannot be gods. Only the one God, the God of Abraham and Isaac and Joseph, the God of Israel can bestow blessings, can live and breathe, can halt the weather, can bless you with graces.

This past Sunday, at Mass, the deacon gave the homily and it was about four things that, to me, sounded a lot like modern idols: Wealth, Pleasure, Power, Honor. We can idolize these things because we think they can solve all our problems, we think they can give us blessings, we think they have the power to change us and change those around us.

We worship Wealth by trying to accumulate as much of it as we possibly can, by thinking that money can buy happiness. We use our wealth to earn favors, to win the jealousy of others. We think that it is the money, and not God, that has blessed our lives, and so we stockpile money, and ignore God, so that our perceived blessings can continue.

We worship Pleasure by trying to experience as much of it as we possibly can, by thinking that pleasure is happiness. We use pleasure to affirm ourselves, to make ourselves feel important and special. We put our own pleasure first, and ignore the needs of others. We think that it is the pleasure, and not God, that has blessed our lives, and so we continue pursuing pleasure and ignoring God, so that our perceived blessings can continue.

We worship Power by trying to acquire and exercise as much of it as we can, by thinking that power makes us masters of our happiness. We use power to control others and to make ourselves feel meaningful and important. We think that it is the power, and not God, that has blessed our lives, and so we accumulate more power and ignore God, so that our perceived blessings can continue.

We worship Honor by trying to demand and protect as much of it as we can, by thinking that honor received from others makes us meaningful and important. We think that it is the honor, and not God, that has blessed our lives, and so we demand more and more of it, and ignore God, so that our perceived blessings can continue.

The homily put these four things in contrast to the Beatitudes, which said that blessed are the people who don’t have any wealth, pleasure, power, or honor.

We can become blessed by giving our wealth away and building up our treasure in Heaven.

We can become blessed by abstaining from pleasures, that we might receive the ultimate pleasure of union with God.

We can become blessed by forgoing power, that we might rely entirely on the power of God.

We can become blessed by forbearing honors, that we might redirect honors properly due to God.

AMDG

CCCLXXXI – De Minimis Fringe Benefits of Prayer

The theme of the readings two weeks ago were to pray always, without getting tired like Moses with his arms raised during the battle against Amalechites. The theme of the readings this past Sunday were, in the words of the deacon homilist, “Quality over quantity”.

In Accounting, we have this idea of a de minimis fringe benefit. The phrase “de minimis” is an abridgement of the full phrase de minimis non curat lex which means “the law is not concerned with trivial matters”. The law will help you fight for restitution when the government impounds your vehicle on accident; the law will not help you get a penny back that your brother took from under your couch cushion. In Accounting, this is used to describe benefits that are too negligible to identify separately. A fringe benefit would be something like having paid parental leave; a de minimis or trivial fringe benefit would be something like having a coffee machine in the break room. Having a coffee machine is not something an employer is obligated to offer, but it does make life easier so it is offered as a de minimis benefit to help improve the quality of life around the office.

Prayer has some pretty explicit benefits. It helps us win against the Amalechites. It helps us unite our will to God’s will. But there’s a de minimis benefit to prayer which occurred to me after reflecting on these gospel readings.

If you do not pray, everything that happens is from your power alone. If you’re fighting the Amalechites, if you win it’s because you fought well, if you lose it’s because you didn’t fight well enough. This is territory of pride or despair, respectively–it’s not great.

But if you pray about everything–or likewise make everything a prayer–then you almost take yourself out of the equation. Everything good that happens comes from God. Everything Bad that happens God can help with, or maybe it comes from God to help us grow. Either way–we immediately take a completely different attitude about our lives, just by praying at all. If you can acknowledge God as creator of the universe, creator of you, and loving shepherd of the world, then who cares about our feeble forms? Prayer makes the world make sense, it prevents pride and despair, it gives purpose and meaning to everything. Yet–this is never what people talk about when they talk about prayer. Evangelism is not concerned with trivial matters. But the great thing about the trivial matters, like the coffee machine in the break room, is that they make our lives a little bit easier.

Thank you, God, for the gift of prayer.

AMDG

CCCLXXIII – Two Thoughts: Birds and Angels

Why did the Holy Spirit descend as a dove? There are a lot of good reasons for this–doves are evocative of the covenant with Noah after the flood; doves are light and gentle creatures and the Holy Spirit alights upon Christ gently.

But I think there’s something about birds that is kind of like how there is something about gold. Birds are evocative of spirits, and have been even before Christ. Rome was founded because of a wager about vultures–symbols of the God of War, Mars. After Christ, we have seen the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires use the two-headed Eagle, almost every country has a national bird, and this practice seems to be ubiquitous. It’s not that every country decided–“Hey, we should pick a national bird”–it’s that every country had one already, colloquially if not officially.

National birds tell us about the spirit of the country, or the spirit of the organization. America has the Eagle, Canada has the Goose, France has the Gallic Rooster, the Philippines have the Philippine Eagle. You an obviously learning something about a people by the symbols they choose for themselves, but you can especially learn something about a people by the birds they choose to represent them. The birds embody their national spirit.

My mind naturally transitioned from Birds to Angels, not only because of the winged imagery but also because I have thought about the spirits of places before.

This thought took a different approach though. When did God create angels? When I googled, the top result was that it was on the first day when God separated the light and the dark. I remember also Hambone telling me about some Tolkeinology that prior to creation the angels sang in a harmonious chorus. There’s something convincing about both ideas.

The idea that Angels were created on the first day is convincing because it establishes quite neatly that nothing existed prior to creation–that everything is accounted for in Genesis. While the creation of Angels are not explicit, I think it could easily be implicit. Aquinas notes–as a helpful commenter here once told me–that the Angels are so numerous as to be beyond human comprehension. Angels could have jobs and those jobs could be things like “Carry the sun” or “Carry the moon” or “enforce the division between light and dark”. The separation of the light and dark could also be evocative of the fall of angels–fallen angels were separated from the light and were cast into the outer darkness. Both ideas could be correct as far as I can tell.

I like the second idea–that Angels pre-existed Genesis–because it implies that God created Angels and while I am sure He found them very good, they were not His finished work. The Angels could adore and glorify God alone, but in the plan of creation is something more mystical and beautiful than just the formless void and the angels alone. There’s something beautiful about that thought–that God could have contented himself with angels but didn’t, because he intended creation from the very beginning.

Also, the idea of an Angelic genesis is kind of cool. Although–God is creating Angels all the time, I think, so it is never a complete genesis, the way Biblical Genesis is complete. Maybe that’s why Angels are not mentioned, and yet are presumed to already exist (as Satan is a fallen angel and already in the garden.)

I don’t know what the Church teaches on Angels, having–as always–done no research for this. I also don’t know how detailed knowledge of the Angelic genesis would help with our faith journey, but I did find the thought interesting and I hope you do too.

AMDG

CCCLXXI – An Idea-Stew About Truth, Scripture, And Morality

I’m really not sure how to arrange these ideas. The thought came to me in one of those moments of clarity before I fell asleep recently and I just wrote some notes down but haven’t really developed it much. This prelude is not important or interesting, more of an apology for what will be a haphazard introduction of some ideas and let’s see where it goes together.

The idea goes something like this: There is an objective truth out there, which we perceive dimly. We can perceive it dimly through natural reason, or certain parts can be illuminated through revealed truth. We can approach truth through Scripture–the common recourse of Sola Scriptura protestants–and we can also approach it through the Magisterium–which I use in the sense of the collective corpus of accepted doctrines and teachings of the Church. How all of these things relate to each other is the subject of this stew, so let’s put in some ingredients.

In my previous Apologia for the Authority of the Catholic Church, I essentially argue that the Church operates as a validation service for writers and thinkers. It investigates and draws connections between works and across time so that if you want to know if any given work is in conformity with the Church, all you need to do is check some ideas. If any of the ideas deviate from the accepted truths in the magisterium, you know it is not kosher and you can avoid it. If what you have to say is roughly the same as St. Cyprian, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. John Henry Newman, and Pope St. John Paul II, then you are probably on kosher footing. The Church does all the investigating and heavy lifting so we do not have to individually validate whether Cyprian, Aquinas, etc were on the right track.

The Church maintains this corpus of orthodox thought, and the reason it does this is because the Church is concerned with what things are true. There is an objective, definite, actual reality. We can perceive it dimly, and with the aid of the Church (and the Holy Spirit) can even come to know some absolute truths with absolute certainty. But from a philosophical level I think it’s fair to say that the whole truth is veiled right now. This is logical because if the truth were not veiled then we would have more agreement as to what things are true, but because it is not immediately obvious what things are true we need help figuring it out.

Imagine for a moment that the Absolute Truth is like the actual layout of roads in a city, and we find ourselves without our glasses, it’s foggy outside, and it’s nighttime. It can be hard to find our way. The Magisterium acts like binoculars, or night vision goggles, or a map–it is the sum of what we have been able to figure out about the city on our own and some parts of it have been revealed to us by the divine City Planner. We cannot see the whole truth but we can perceive what is around us and we can look at the map we have been given as a guide.

Doctrines and Dogmas represent known successful pathways through the city–things we know are true. And I don’t mean know in the fallible human sense–we know in the sense that we have been there and we know from experience that this route takes us to the grocery store and we can get there and back very easily. It’s the difference between knowing someone’s name and knowing them because you’ve been friends for 10 years–so Doctrines and Dogmas represent things we know–things that are true. These are given to us by the Church and are informed by her Magisterium. The Magisterium is what connects us to Truth and helps us to know it, and the Doctrines and Dogmas are what we have learned by using the Magisterium.

Doctrines and Dogmas in turn inform practices and beliefs. Practices and Beliefs are things we are fallibly confident are true. We are not required to pray the Rosary, but it is a practice which we have good reason to believe is helpful, and we have good experiences corroborating that belief. We are not required to believe God made the earth in 7 literal days, but it is ok to believe that.

I have painstakingly outlined what many consider to be obvious because I want to have a picture of how these different pieces relate to each other. Some veiled absolute truth feeds into the Magisterium, which adds in truths we reasoned into ourselves; this leads to doctrines and dogmas which codify certain things as truths; this leads to certain practices and beliefs that govern our conduct with respect to these doctrines and dogmas.

Let’s talk about scripture. Scripture has been on my mind recently, because I have been frustrated with the proper way to use it as a rhetorical device. If I were to offer an interpretation of scripture, there is no reason for you to accept my interpretation. The Church also does not offer specific interpretations–there is no one way to read the Bible–but scripture does contain within it certain truths. So where does Scripture fit into the framework I just described, and how can we use scripture as a rhetorical device?

Scripture is in a unique position–it both informs and is affirmed by the Magisterium. Let me put it this way: Scripture is illustrative, scripture is descriptive, scripture is prescriptive. Scripture is illustrative because it demonstrates certain truths, it shows us the means of our salvation, it tells the story of our faith from beginning to end. Scripture is Descriptive because it describes how we should conduct ourselves, how we should relate to God, how we should relate to our fellow man. Scripture is Prescriptive because it tells us what the solution to some problems are, especially via the Epistles where Paul both scolds and praises the nascent church for it’s respective faults and successes. These are the ways Scripture informs and feeds the Magisterium. But it is also affirmed by it, because when the Holy Writ was assembled into a single volume, a lot of work was done to affirm the historicity and authenticity and truth of the documents which were being considered.

Sola Scriptura protestants err in putting importance on Scripture in it’s illustrative, descriptive, and prescriptive properties, but disconnecting it from the Magisterium so there’s no outside body of truths for comparison–leaving scripture open to faulty interpretation.

Excursus: The secret to effective rhetorical use of scripture then is to connect scripture to the confirmed teachings of the Church, which support that interpretation or which are informed by that interpretation. Then the argument rests less on “this is what I think about scripture” and more on “this is what the Church teaches and this scripture affirms”. This is a much higher bar for the use of scripture, but ones arguments will be much clearer. The mistake I fall into repeatedly is quoting scripture and waxing philosophical on my own exegesis, and then stopping–thinking that’s enough. That’s never enough–we have to go the extra step.

Kristor and a.morphous have been having a dialogue in the comments at the Orthosphere and the way I have skimmed the argument, I would summarize one of the points of contention between them as “what is morality”. Many moderns mistakenly put morality at the level of “practice and belief” in the above framework, which is distantly illuminated by things which are true. a.morphous seems to believe that morality is a set of human constructed practices.

Morality is, by my dim understanding of the Church, a set of principles and values which are at the Magisterium level–they are things we know to be true because we can see them when we look through the lenses of the Church and we have walked the paths of morality enough to know that they are good paths and true. When I frequently refer to morality as “objective” I mean that the principles of morality rest on some transcendent quality and not on some human faculty. I do not know how to disabuse a.morphous of that notion but it is Kristor’s Sisyphus-like task to attempt to explain it to him, and he does so ably enough.

That’s all for now. I don’t know how to bring this to a fitting close so I’ll cut it abruptly here. Thank you for reading!

AMDG

CCCLVII – Harsh Doctrines (Romans Edition)

A harsh doctrine practiced with kindness: this is not a formula for hypocrisy, but the secret of all ancient, rich, and mature civilizations.
-Nicolás Gómez Dávila (Don Colacho)
(Previously)

Bless them that persecute you: bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep. Being of one mind one towards another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Be not wise in your own conceits. To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men.

If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.
– Romans 12:14-21

Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.

For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.

Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law. For Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet: and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law.
– Romans 13:1-10

Now we that are stronger, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of you please his neighbour unto good, to edification.

For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written: The reproaches of them that reproached thee, fell upon me. For what things soever were written, were written for our learning: that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope.
– Romans 15:1-4

Neither yield ye your members as instruments of iniquity unto sin; but present yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of justice unto God.
– Romans 6:13

AMDG

CCCX – More Reflections From Luke 22

21 But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. 22 And the Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined: but yet, woe to that man by whom he shall be betrayed.

23 And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. 24 And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater.

This is an interesting scene, to me. I can imagine how the conversation goes: Christ says his betrayer is among them, and they turn to one another and say “It couldn’t be me, I was with Christ from the very beginning!” “Yeah but I was there with the multiplication of the loaves!” “That’s nothing, Christ called me first!” “But I have done more!” The desire to identify the betrayer quickly becomes a holiness spiral. It stops being about Christ and begins to be about themselves.

I can also imagine Judas throughout this conversation, sweating bullets, tactfully trying to avoid getting entangled in this discussion. I can imagine Jesus staring him down, and Judas being very focused on the crumbs on his plate and how they are arranged.

25 And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. 26 But you not so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is the leader, as he that serveth. 27 For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is it not he that sitteth at table? But I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth:

Christ rebukes the holiness spiral by calling them to servant leadership. “If you want to be great, serve your neighbor!” I especially like how Christ discusses who is greater: “Is it he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? The guy sitting, right? I am here as he that serves.”–to me, there is an implied threat there. “When I come back, it will be as he that sitteth at table.” Christ does not say that he that serves is greater, but affirms that he that sits is greater. But none of us, in this life, can be greater than the Lord, and the Lord came first to us as he that serves, so we must imitate him in service. When He comes again to judge the living and the dead, our service will very tangibly be service to the King who sitteth at table, but who first came to us to teach us how to serve.

28 And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: 29 And I dispose to you, as my Father hath disposed to me, a kingdom; 30 That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Christ affirms that their work and effort is not for nothing. “Guys, guys, relax. You all have been with me through hard times.”–he reminds them that their reward is eternal. Not in this life, will they sit on thrones, but in the next. “Lay up your treasure in heaven” but quite tangibly Christ tells them what their heavenly treasure will be. This also could be construed as the founding of the Church on Earth, essentially: The Kingdom of God, under the chair of Peter. Because of Peter’s pivotal role in the Kingdom to come, Christ continues:

31 And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

33 Who said to him: Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death.

34 And he said: I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me. (…)

I didn’t realize this was in scripture–it’s either often overlooked or it is a unique feature of the Douay-Rheims translation: that Satan desired to have Simon Peter. Essentially, Christ is saying that he saved Peter then and there, perhaps in a negotiation similar to Job. The price negotiated perhaps was that Satan would be allowed to tempt Peter but not to destroy him. Peter’s peacetime faith is strong, but when the moment of trial came he was weak and abandoned the Lord. Christ’s prayers perhaps protected him from Satan but did not protect him from stumbling. Christ admonishes Peter to, once he repents and converts–once he turns around–to get back to work and reinforce the faith of everyone else.

These are my thoughts.

O Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.

AMDG

CCCIX – Reflections on Luke 22:61

I have been reading through a little pocket Bible which includes the New Testament (Gospels, Acts, epistles, Apocalypse) plus Proverbs and Psalms plugged in at the end. It was this project which took me to a closer reading of Matthew earlier, and I have been putting off finishing Luke because the crucifixion is a spiritually and emotionally difficult scripture to read. Today (the day I write this, a little before I publish this article), I got through it, and Luke 22:61 stuck out to me.

And the Lord turning looked on Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, as he had said: Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

Particularly what struck me was the beginning: “And the Lord turning looked on Peter.” The scene is set where Christ is being judged before the crowd and Peter follows a ways off to watch the proceedings. In my mind, I imagined something like a small stadium or amphitheater where Christ is at the Center and Peter is in the back row, trying to be inconspicuous. And yet, when the crowd turns on Peter and he denies Christ, even from a distance away Christ knows where to look to catch Peter’s eye.

The reason this stuck out to me is because it can be hard to pick out individuals from a crowd. Yet–when you are the one on the field and your parents, your spouse, your children, your friends are the ones in the crowd, cheering you on, you know exactly how to pick them out. You’ll find them even if you don’t know beforehand where they are going to be–to you, the people you love are instantly recognizable, even from a distance, by their silhouette and body movements and clothes. This is true enough to become a trope in movies–little Johnny looking into the stands and drawing inspiration for the climactic final play from his dad who finally showed up to the big game.

Christ knows each and every person in the crowd, personally. He knows their names, the names of their family. He knows where they live, he knows what they do. Of course He does–He created them. But there are few He called His friends, and Peter was one of those gracious few. Christ could name everyone in the mob that accused Him, but Peter He could pick out from the crowd. And when the cock crew, Christ knew what Peter had done, and found him in the crowd, as one can only find ones loved ones, and made eye contact.

I am not so naive as to think I am incapable of the sin of Peter–but I do hope I am capable of the contrition of Peter. When Christ catches my eye in the crowd, will He see a loved one, who gives him strength–or a denier, who disappoints Him in His hour of need?

O Lord, Jesus Christ, have mercy upon me, a sinner.

AMDG

CCCVII – Harsh Doctrines

A harsh doctrine practiced with kindness: this is not a formula for hypocrisy, but the secret of all ancient, rich, and mature civilizations.
-Nicolás Gómez Dávila (Don Colacho)

48 I am the bread of life. (…) 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.(…) 59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?

62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? (…) 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him. 66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
– John 6:48-67

18:20 And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous. 22 (…) but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord. 23 And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? 24 If there be fifty just men in the city, shall they perish withal? and wilt thou not spare that place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein?

(…) 26 And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.

(…) 31 Seeing, saith he, I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord. What if twenty be found there? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.

32 I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.

19:24 And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. 25 And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth. 27 And Abraham got up early in the morning and in the place where he had stood before with the Lord, 28 He looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country: and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace.

29 Now when God destroyed the cities of that country, remembering Abraham, he delivered Lot out of the destruction of the cities wherein he had dwelt.
–Genesis 18:20 to 19:29

7 But increase you and multiply, and go upon the earth, and fill it.

8 Thus also said God to Noe, and to his sons with him, 9 Behold I will establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you: 10 And with every living soul that is with you, as well in all birds as in cattle and beasts of the earth, that are come forth out of the ark, and in all the beasts of the earth. 11 I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth. 12 And God said: This is the sign of the covenant which I give between me and you, and to every living soul that is with you, for perpetual generations. 13 I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be the sign of a covenant between me, and between the earth. 14 And when I shall cover the sky with clouds, my bow shall appear in the clouds: 15 And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh.
–Genesis 9:7-15

14. Certainly many remarkable authors, adherents of the true philosophy, have taken pains to attack and crush this strange view. But the matter is so self-evident that it is superfluous to give additional arguments. It is impossible for the most true God, who is Truth Itself, the best, the wisest Provider, and the Rewarder of good men, to approve all sects who profess false teachings which are often inconsistent with one another and contradictory, and to confer eternal rewards on their members. For we have a surer word of the prophet, and in writing to you We speak wisdom among the perfect; not the wisdom of this world but the wisdom of God in a mystery. By it we are taught, and by divine faith we hold one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and that no other name under heaven is given to men except the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth in which we must be saved. This is why we profess that there is no salvation outside the Church.
–Ubi Primum, Pope Leo XII, 1824

AMDG

(Previously)