Fun with Greek!

My little Latin lessons went over so well here, I thought we'd have a little fun with Greek as well!

Here are some Greek words that you don't know you know, along with their English etymological counterparts.

The basis for this study is the Prologue to St. John's Gospel (with a few extra words thrown in for good measure).

***************

Arche (ar-kay): "Beginning." Think of words like "archaic."
Logos: "Word, speech, teaching." As in "logic."
Theos: "God." As in "theology," which is the study of God.
Zoe (dzo-ay): "Life." As in "zoo," or "zoology."
Phos: "Light." As in "photons," "photography," or "phosphorous."
Apostello: "Sent." As in "apostle" or "apostolic."
Marturia: "Witness." As in "martyr."
Kosmos: "World." As in "cosmic," or "cosmology."
Haima: "Blood." As in "hematology."
Sarx: "Flesh." As in "sarcophagus" (literally "eating flesh") or "sarcasm" (literally "to bite the flesh")
Charis: "Grace." As in "charity."
Doxa: "Glory." As in "doxology."
Exegeomai: "Reveal, declare." As in "exegete."
Phone (fo-nay): "Voice." As in "phonograph," or "telephone."
Kardia: "Heart." As in "cardiac."
Huper: "Above." As in "hyper."
Dunamis: "Power." As in "dynamite."

Trinitarian Soul-Stamp

I'm still working through this idea, and that's why I'm writing about it ... writing something out makes me think through it more clearly, and cements it better in my mind.

These are some thoughts passed on to me by my friend Jon - I'll try to reproduce them in a way that makes sense, so that it makes better sense to me.

How do we formulate a judgment? That is, how do we choose one thing over another?

There is an "order of being" that comes into play here.

1) Existence (the "thing" proposed to us)
2) Intellect (the application of Reason to the "thing")
3) Will (the actual choice, based on the discovery of the Intellect)

This is the proper order of things.

Something is proposed to us; say, a glass of water. In the right and proper order, we would apply our Logic and Reason to this glass of water and think through our choice to either drink or not drink. After the Intellect had sifted the necessary data - in the proper order of things - our Will would then choose according to what our Intellect had revealed.

In this case, we have a glass of water; our Intellect reasons that this glass of water is healthy, that we are thirsty, that this water would benefit us; and then our Will submits to the Intellect, and we reach out to grab the glass and take a drink.

Existence; Intellect; Will.

That is the Trinitarian stamp upon us.

These three things actually correspond to the three persons of the Trinity, if you think about it.

Existence = God the Father, who is Existence itself; He says "I AM WHO AM."

Intellect = Jesus Christ, who is the Divine Logos, that is, the "logic," the Divine "reason."

Will = The Holy Ghost, who prompts and assists the Will to make proper choices

Thus, when we make our choices in this order: E, I, W - we reflect the Holy Trinity and live in conformity with the Truth.

As my friend pointed out, a whole series of choices, according to this pattern, would look like this:

EIW EIW EIW EIW EIW EIW EIW EIW ... etc.

Now, Satan is ever-determined to smudge, smear, and vandalize the image of the Trinity - wherever he finds it.

We image the Trinity in our married lives, when we give our love to our spouses in such a way that a "third person" proceeds from us as a result - Satan mars this image by introducing contraception, thus damaging the Trinitarian reflection.

The Trinity is imaged in the Holy Mass, in many ways - I will point out one: the Kyrie consists of nine invocations, three Kyries to the Father, three Christes to the Son, and three Kyries to the Spirit. It's a perfect cube of threes - perfectly Trinitarian. In the New Mass, this image has been defaced, since the Kyrie is now 2, 2, and 2, instead of 3, 3, and 3. Instead of nine invocations, we now have six - the significance of which I hardly need to explain.

So how does Satan destroy the Trinity's image in this matter of choosing and making judgments? By inverting the right order.

Consider again the proper order:

EIW EIW EIW EIW EIW EIW

What would the reverse of that be? Since we must always start with Existence, the inverted order would be:

EWI EWI EWI EWI EWI EWI EWI ...

That is, the thing Exists first, then we choose it by our Will - and only then do we apply the Intellect, not to arrive at a sound judgment, but to rationalize our already-determined Will.

This is the order of choosing in the Luciferian mode: choose what you will, when you will, and rationalize as necessary.

This is, indeed, how most people make their choices today. They determine something first, then make excuses or invent reasons for doing so. They decide beforehand what is Truth, and then use their Intellect to find ways of side-stepping what is really true.

So remember the proper order: Existence, Intellect, Will.

Anything less than this is a Satanic inversion.

The Incarnational Church

The truth of the matter is this: the eternal God, the almighty God, the God who is outside of all time and space, the God who is immortal and invisible actually became both mortal and visible, entered into time and confined Himself to space, emptied Himself, took on human nature, and became the only eternal being to intersect with the temporal world.

That is what the Incarnation means.

It means that this uncontainable source of existence bound Himself up in flesh and blood, so that nature could itself become a conduit of grace. It means that spit and mud can cure blindness. It means that the touch of human fingers can cure deafness. It means that a man's robe can be touched and heal a disease.

Now, tell me this: why would God do all of this - this Incarnation thing - only to stay on the earth for 33 years, and then return to heaven so that life on earth goes back to business as usual?

This was the centerpoint of all Human history - do you mean to tell me it did not leave a major lasting mark on the earth?

No, not at all - the Incarnation is still with us, because the Body of Christ is still with us. The Church, of course, is the Body of Christ - and as the Body of Christ, it does what the Human body of Christ did while on the earth - it acts as a conduit of eternal grace by providing a material/temporal pipeline from heaven to earth.

Protestantism cannot comprehend this, for some reason.

They do not seem to realize that everything they deny of the supernatural and miraculous in Catholicism (often calling it "magic" or "superstition") is pittance when compared to what they themselves affirm about the Incarnation.

You won't accept transubstantiation - that what looks like bread can actually be, in substance, Jesus Christ's own Body - but you will accept the Incarnation - that what looks like a man about to breathe his dying breath is actually an immortal God?

Is that logical?

And how is it that I, a mere man, can speak a word ("God, forgive me") and my sins may be absolved - yet you won't accept that God could so authorize another man so that he can speak a word and bring about the same result?

The Christian faith is Incarnational. What is Eternal did once, and does still, operate through what is natural and temporal.

This is the amazing thing - that Jesus' Body on earth, the Church, is able to continue His work in the world, in His very name and with His very power. The power over nature, the power to work miracles, the power to forgive sins - because this Body is Christ's Body, and not someone else's body. The Church is one with Christ, not separate from Him - why wouldn't She be able to do as He did?

And how is the Incarnation denied first and foremost? By denying the very symbol of the Incarnation: the Madonna and Child. The woman who from all eternity was chosen by God to be the Holy Tabernacle of the Presence of God - she is removed from the picture in so many places, and her role is shuffled to the closet. Small wonder, then, that the other "woman" in the equation is also removed: Mother Church. She is turned into a non-entity.

Interesting, isn't it, how this has affected other aspects of Protestantism? They attempted to sever the marital bond between Christ and His Bride by setting up an alternate "Bride"; is it any surprise that they also now sanction human divorce and remarriage, in spite of the fact that Our Lord (and all of Christendom after Him) has prohibited it?

Or, having stripped their religion of Motherhood, is it so strange to see that their places of meeting are lacking a certain feminine touch? They seem to favor stark rooms that would better describe bachelorhood than the beautiful and ornately decorated houses of worship that betray a Mother's influence.

The Christian faith is an extension of the Incarnation; men can forgive sins; relics can bring healing; water can bring blessing and interior cleansing; oil can seal the soul; bread can become Body; blood, sweat, and tears can sanctify the soul.

Who would even want to deny any of this? Who would so wish that none of this were true, that they would argue vehemently against it?

Reconstructing the Apostolic Church

As you can see, worship and liturgy are on my mind today.

What makes no sense to me is these people who want to recapture the simplicity of the Apostolic Church in the New Testament.

First of all, there is precious little data in the New Testament about the liturgical practices of the Early Church. Maybe one or two verses.

Second, didn't Our Lord say that His Church was like a mustard seed, beginning small and eventually growing to much larger size? The Apostolic Church was the "infant" Church, so why the fascination with wanting to return to our infancy? Do these same people advocate wearing diapers and sucking on pacifiers, or living on a diet of milk and liquid rice cereal?

What is laughable on a personal level is somehow laudable when applied to the Bride of Christ.

You want to reconstruct the Early Church's liturgy? Then read some Church history. Read the liturgical texts of the Early Church, read St. Justin's description of the Church's liturgy, read St. Hippolytus' texts, and so on. But don't stop there - the liturgy has organically developed, like the tree growing out of the mustard seed. It has slowly become more and more beautiful, more complex, more ornate - more befitting a tree than a tiny seed.

Again, why this perverse desire to see the tree reduced again to a sapling, or to a seed?

Here's a hint: the early Church did not structure their Sunday service around a 45-minute sermon.

Another favorite: people who think that meeting in each other's homes is better than meeting in church buildings, because it's more "like the early Church."

Uh-huh.

Well, yeah, if we had the threat of government soldiers crashing our liturgy at any given moment and executing all of us, I think we would be smart to start moving the meeting location to a new house every week - keep the killers guessing.

But without soldiers to chase you around, this whole house-church thing is kind of silly and boring.

So I try to be helpful. When someone tells me they've started meeting in a house church because it's "more like the early Christians," I offer to make it more authentic for them - I'll get a gun and try to find out where they're meeting, and if I find them, I get to start shooting. That would make things truly authentic, and since we're trying to re-create the early Church, let's go all the way, ok?

How Shall We Then Worship?

Is it just me, or is "worship" becoming more and more the plaything of our culture?

In the Novus Ordo Mass, there are endless lay-led committees and parish councils that meet every month to decide how they're going to spice up the liturgy. Decisions have to be made - what kind of music will be sung, whether that music will be performed by the choir, the guitar band, the children's choir, the bell choir, etc., what color banners will be hung, what kind of decorations will be used in the sanctuary - all of this is geared towards making the liturgy a fully-integrated five-sense experience.

Put another way: it's all about creating the right ambience and atmosphere, so that I - the audience - will stay interested and enjoy my liturgical experience.

In Protestant circles, much the same thing is going on. Books are being written and published on how to market your church to today's culture, lectures, seminars and weekend workshops are being given on the same subjects, and pastors everywhere are making changes to their Sunday format - do we bring in mood lighting or not? Do we use a worship band or a small choir or maybe both? Hymns or praise choruses? Longer sermons, or shorter sermons interspersed with lay-led testimonies and such? Do I wear a tie or go for the more "approachable" look of a polo with khakis?

Once again, the focus here is the same: how to shape the Sunday service so that it appeals to today's culture.

And this is right about where I get off the boat and start swimming for solid ground. Keeping up with Modern Man's tastes is an impossible task, so I really don't get why pastors are even willing to start going down that road.

I am a part of "this culture." And I have a message for pastors who are trying to keep their "worship" culturally relevant: you can't keep up, so please stop trying.

Your worship bands will never be as good as secular bands.

Your light shows and sound systems will never be the same quality as what I can find at the local bar.

Your khaki and polo gestures will never be as approachable as the friends I already have at work and on the golf course - and they're more "real" than you, because they're not putting on a show for anyone.

Your banners and decorations will never in a hundred years match what I can find at my local spas and retreat houses - if I want relaxation for my five senses, I'm going there.

I do not go to Church for any of those things - not one of them. I do not go to Church hoping that the Church has finally found a way to mimic the secular world as closely as possible. In short, I do not go to Church to seek and find a "baptized" (and greatly sub-standard) version of what I can find in the world the other six days of the week.

When I come to Church, I get one hour to recollect my thoughts and try to realign my life - six days in the world always knocks me slightly off balance. The image of the merry-go-round is appropriate: you experience less and less motion the closer you move to the center of the merry-go-round. Sunday is my day to find the Center and Source of all things, and move back towards Him.

I do not want to be entertained, and even if I did want entertainment, it is certainly not what I need. What I need - what we all need - is to escape the me-centered world I live in and learn again, if only for 60 minutes once a week, what it means to take someone (rather, Someone) else's desires into consideration.

Everything else in my life is tailored to please me - surely the Sunday liturgy, the work of the people that is offered to God, is the exception here? Surely this is the one place where I must learn that the universe does not revolve around me and my desires?

Again, everything about my life is in constant flux, always progressing and changing - this is a fact of the culture. But surely it is at Church that I can find stability? Is this not the one place I can go where I am certain I will find that which is immutable, that which transcends the culture and - precisely because it is above time - remains relevant for all people of all ages?

I want to find the mysterious here, the other-wordly, the supremely transcendent. I want to - I need to - ascend to the highest heights here, in this place, for this one hour. But how can I do that if the Church is bent on taking all that is transcendent, all that is holy, all that inspires reverence, silence, and awe, and dragging it down to my banal level?

On the contrary! Do not bring these holy mysteries down to my level, but rather, make me climb up until I have ascended to their level. Let them be fixed and immovable, and make me get beyond myself by coming to them.

I say it again: when I come into Church, it ought to be an experience unlike anything I will find anywhere else in my Monday-through-Saturday, 9-to-5 secular life.

This is where I ought to find people dressed in their best - in clothes that they don't wear on an everyday basis. I say this to my own shame, because I regularly decide that "business casual office-wear" is "good enough" for my weekly appointment with God.

This is where the music ought to be unlike anything I will find on my local radio stations during the week.

This is where language itself ought to transcend the profane, every-day speech that I hear and use with my fellows. As one writer so succinctly put it, I ought not to speak to God in the same language I use when speaking to my mailman.

This is where decoration and ambience should be light years beyond what I will find in my home, or - for the love of God - in my dentist's office. If the best the Church can put together is a few white-washed walls and some potted houseplants, this is a sure sign that we have entered an age of crisis. The only periods in the history of the Church when people settled for minimalism were those periods when Christians were being persecuted and needed to be able to get in and out of their services quickly. A plant here, a table there, that will do when the Roman soldiers might be at the door in a moment; but when there is no danger, is this all we will offer to God?

I listen to my radio all week (actually, I don't, not personally) and I hear banal, 4-chord pop songs that lack originality or creativity; must I be subjected to this same drivel on God's own Holy Day, in His own Holy Place?

Ah, but this is what the culture has come to accept, so mustn't we meet them where they are? Not at all! Show them something better! Show them something that is transcendent and not bound by a given period of time of cultural preference! Do not the Psalms encourage us to "go up" to the Holy Place? Is this not why Jerusalem's Temple was built on a high mountain? God's worshippers were taught by the terrain itself: you must ascend if you desire to worship God - but we tell Modern Man, "no, you stay right where you are - we'll bring this down to your level."

The problem is, as I stated already, that the Church was never meant for this, and She fails miserably at trying to mimic the world. Christian rock music is inevitably three years behind the current secular trend, and always severely inferior in its quality; Christian novels are always below par when it comes to creativity and writing style; the Christian sub-culture is just embarrassingly pathetic when it tries to compete with the world.

The same goes for the world, by the way: when the world tries to provide what only the Church can offer, it's usually a terribly substandard imitation - laughable, in fact.

So, give it up already. I don't need your worship bands - the musicians are amateurish, and the music is insipid; I don't need your mood lighting and decorations - I find my own four walls at home far more inspiring than this sterile "waiting room" you've concocted; and I don't need your polo-and-khaki approachability or your small-group settings - my golf buddies, friends at work, and occasional therapy sessions are far more effective.

What I do need is transcendence; I need to see that you take God so seriously that you reserve certain things for His House alone; my local museum insists on silence - the Church should do no less; I need to see things at Church that are not duplicated outside of Church: incense, candles, chants, the administration of the Sacraments, gold vessels, ornate altars, breath-taking beauty in the architecture, vestments of the finest quality - something that tells me that you have saved your absolute best (in every respect) for this day, for this hour, for this God.

Otherwise ... why do I need you?

What About St. Ligouri?

I have had this happen to me before, where a Protestant reaches for the most extreme example of Marian devotion available - the writings of St. Alphonsus Ligouri - and tries to make the case that the Catholic Church ascribes to Mary qualities that are peculiar to Christ alone.

This passage from Quigley's book was most entertaining on that score:

*******************

[My opponent] quotes passages from the Fathers which assert that God alone is to be adored, that Christ is the One Mediator between God and man, and that all our trust is to be reposed in Him alone. This he says contradicts the "Roman doctrine" on the Blessed Virgin!

Now, I fear this argument proves too much for the Vicar, because it goes towards demonstrating that St. Ligouri himself did not admit the Roman doctrine. And as I am most heartily willing to accept the strongest language he has quoted from the Fathers, or which they have ever used on the subject, it proves that I also reject the Roman doctrine. Yet, if this conclusion is false, how can the premises be true? Let us look at the argument.

Major premiss; "No one who says that all his hope is in Christ can admit the 'Roman doctrine' on the Blessed Virgin."

Minor premiss: "But the Fathers quoted by the Vicar say this." Therefore they do not admit the "Roman doctrine."

The Vicar has proved the minor premiss, which no Catholic ever dreamed of denying; where has he or any of the brood of Littledale & Co. condescended to prove the major, the very subject, be it observed, that he has introduced into this discussion? Nowhere!

I can, however, prove the truth of the contrary proposition, by referring to any of our devotional writers. I open at random the "Soliloquy of the Soul" by Thomas a Kempis. He says of our Lord:

" ... To Him, above all, should every intention, every action, speech, reading, prayer, meditation, and speculation be directed. Through Him salvation is given unto thee and life eternal is prepared for thee."

And again, a few pages farther on:

"For I know that my life and conversation is not such, as I may dare to put any trust in myself: but this is my hope and my consolation, to place my trust and my rest in the price of Thy precious Blood, in which I place my whole repose."

Your Catholic readers will probably be astounded at the information the Vicar has put together as passages from the Fathers, containing the above doctrine as decisive proof against us. Why! we are bound by the Vatican Council to say anathema to whosoever will not receive this doctrine.

But I forget myself. The question is, whether Thomas a Kepmis, after using the language just quoted, could honor the Blessed Virgin in the "Roman" fashion. I turn a few pages and find these words addressed to our Lady:

"Do thou, O most pious mother, vouchsafe to look upon my littleness, for thou canst assist me in many ways, and warm my heart with plentiful consolation amidst my afflictions. When, then, I am girt about with afflictions or temptations, I will presently without dread have recourse unto thee, because mercy is there more ready where greater grace abounds."

This, I suppose, the Vicar will allow to be "Roman doctrine." And if so, it is clear that persons holding the Roman doctrine may still use the language of the Fathers respecting our Divine Lord. But it may be supposed, rather he charges it against us, that we have left off using this language. Let him open a very common Prayer Book, the Garden of the Soul. He will find there that -

"We must believe that neither mercy, nor grace, nor salvation either can or ever could, since Adam's fall, be obtained any otherwise than through the death and passion of the Son of God."

Or again, look at another common book amongst us, the Manual of Devotion. He will find that -

"The Church of God teaches us to put our whole confidence in the merits of Jesus Christ. He is our only Savior, the One Mediator between God and man, as the apostle tells us. It is in His lifegiving Blood alone that we can hope for mercy and grace and salvation."

But what about "St. Ligouri" and "The Raccolta"? Well, in the Saint's address to the reader of "The Glories of Mary," he says: Our Divine Lord "offered and paid the superabundant ransom of His precious Blood, in which alone is our salvation, life, and resurrection." The italics are the Saint's. Again, the Raccolta has: "O, most compassionate Jesus! Thou alone art our salvation, our life, and our resurrection."

Is it not, then, a wretched mockery, and does it not betray the most disgraceful ignorance of Catholic belief, to quote passages from the Fathers, not one whit stronger than those from St. Ligouri and the Raccolta alone, and thence to argue the diversity of belief between the Ancient and "Modern Roman Church"? (Quigley, pp. 139-141)

On Dealing with Protestant Objectors

An instructed Catholic is simply a giant in knowledge of the Christian religion compared with such men, and he feels uneasy in combat with dwarfs. This is no mere extravagance or affectation, but literal fact.

A Catholic may be unable through want of habit or reading, through indisposition or inability to handle details, to answer readily or clearly to those thousand little petulances which a read adversary may launch by the hour; and a learned Protestant will often fancy he has "shut him up," the real fact being that the Catholic is "shut up" by the stupendous non-acquaintance of his opponent.

He may give some general answer to such popular objections as St. Bartholomew's, or "The Gunpowder Plot"; he may speak wisely on Littledale's "Plain Reasons," "Bishop Strossmayer's speech at the Vatican Council," or "The Impious Utterances" of "St. Ligouri" and "The Raccolta," but, because his creed is a logical synthesis, he feels all the time how superficial it all is, and that what he really has to do is to begin at the beginning, to discuss what is meant by Christianity, and what the very theory of the supernatural involves.

This he cannot do in a moment. (Quigley, Mary the Mother of Christ in Prophecy and its Fulfillment, p. 61)

I'm Not Arguing with You

I really have reached a breaking point. It's becoming clearer and clearer to me as I keep having interactions with people: I'm not interested in arguing with you. I'm not interested in debating with you whether or not what I believe is true is actually the truth.

Now, if you want my opinion on something, I'll be happy to share it. If you need some advice, I'll be willing to let you know what I think. If you're curious about the Catholic Faith and want to be informed, I'm ready to start yapping.

But I'm not going to argue. It's pointless.

Even Our Lord didn't bother to engage His detractors. He simply spoke the facts, and moved on; in many cases, He also called them what they obviously were: hypocrites, a brood of vipers, sons of the Devil, etc.

There's a truth at work here, a basic principle: the will is the final obstacle. I can convince your intellect - but I cannot force your will to assent. That is your free choice; always was, always will be.

And if your will refuses to follow your intellect, then your intellect will actually be forced to submit to your will - even though somewhere inside you is a voice saying "you know this is the Truth," your will overrides this voice and forces your intellect to do strange things in order to avoid the obvious conclusions.

I have no time for those kind of games. You either have good-will, or you don't. If you don't, then I'll pray for you, but ... go away. Come back when you actually want to hear what I have to say.

This spans issues of both faith and morals.

I was just speaking with a friend the other day who has been making some terrible moral choices. Of course, he doesn't see it that way. Fine. Go live your life the way you want to live your life - just do it somewhere else, because I really want no part of that.

We make compromises over the silliest things.

If a complete stranger came up to me and started insulting the Blessed Virgin, I'd walk away. I wouldn't listen to it. I would not feel the necessity to be "friendly" with this person, or engage them in a polite debate.

But for some reason, I do these very things when the person speaking is a family member or a long-time friend. Why?

It doesn't make sense to me - and I'm having less and less patience for these sorts of things.

Maybe I'm sensing that this is not my ultimate vocation. My vocation is as a husband and as a father, not as a missionary. It's not up to me to "make" Catholics by converting people who live down the street, it's up to me to "breed" Catholics by making sure that my own children understand and love the faith.

Not that I won't talk to those outside my immediate sphere of influence - of course I will. But I won't feel it is my obligation to engage in lengthy debates with these people; either you want the Truth, or you don't. If you do, I'll tell you about it; if you don't, then God help you, but I'm done talking about it.

I keep drawing the analogy - because I have train tracks running through my back yard - of someone who sits on the tracks, oblivious to the train whistle in the distance. I would yell and scream at such a person, warning them that they're about to be blown into oblivion - but darn it, when that train gets about 50 feet away, I'm going inside. I don't want to be any part of that.

Call me unsympathetic. I call it not throwing what is holy to dogs and swine.

St. Cyril Says ... (on Baptism and the Holy Ghost)

More lectures from St. Cyril of Jerusalem ...

*****************

This Holy Ghost came down when the Lord was baptized, so that His dignity (that is, the one who was baptized) might not be hidden; as John says, But He who sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, 'Upon whomsoever you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, the same is He who baptizes with the Holy Ghost. But see what the Gospel says; the heavens were opened; they were opened because of the dignity of Him who descended; for he says, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and lighting upon Him: that is, with voluntary motion in His descent. For it was fitting, as some have interpreted, that the primacy and first-fruits of the Holy Spirit promised to the baptized should be conferred upon the manhood of the Saviour, who is the giver of such grace. But perhaps He came down in the form of a dove, as some say, to show a figure of that dove who is pure and innocent and undefiled, and also helps the prayers for the children she has begotten, and for forgiveness of sins; even as it was figuratively foretold that Christ would be thus manifested in the appearance of His eyes; for in the Canticles she cries concerning the Bridegroom, and says, Your eyes are as doves by the rivers of water.

Of this dove, the dove of Noah was partially a figure, according to some. For just as in his time there came salvation by means of wood and of water, and the beginning of a new generation, and the dove returned to him in the evening with an olive branch; so also, some say, the Holy Ghost descended upon the true Noah, the Author of the second birth, who unites the wills of all nations, of whom the various kinds of animals in the ark were a picture: - Him at whose coming the spiritual wolves eat with the lambs, in whose Church the calf, the lion, and the ox eat in the same pasture, as we behold to this day the rulers of the world guided and taught by Churchmen. The spiritual dove therefore, as some interpret, came down at the time of His baptism, that He might show that it is He who, by the wood of the Cross, saves those who believe, He who in the evening should grant salvation through His death. (Catechetical Lectures, XVII, 9)

A Prophet-able Study

Who were the prophets, and what was their message?

History is everything is this regard. If you don't know that the prophetic books fit in right smack dab in the middle of the books of Kings, you're going to be lost.

This always confused me as a youngster. The Bible is not a chronological book in the sense that the book of Psalms historically takes place after the book of Esther - it doesn't; nor does Isaiah take place after 2 Kings, even if it does come after 2 Kings in the actual order of books in our Bible.

So, knowing the history of what was happening in Judah and Israel (they are two different kingdoms, you know) at the time that Isaiah prophesied will really help you to understand what he was talking about and why.

And once you understand the literal and historical message of Isaiah to the kings of his day, then you can start to apply that literal/historical message in an allegorical way to the future.

This is the problem most people have, the mistake most people make: they think that Isaiah (and all of the prophets) were primarily predicting stuff that would happen thousands of years from now - stuff that still hasn't happened. Not so. They were predicting the future, certainly, but the immediate future.

For example, when Isaiah says "behold, a virgin [HEBREW: 'young woman'] will conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel," he was not - on a primary and literal level - speaking of Jesus Christ. That prophecy came true within Isaiah's lifetime, and within the lifetime of the king to whom that prophecy was given.

That literal and historical fulfillment, however, is itself only a partial fulfillment - because it only fulfills the prophecy on a literal level. The greater meaning of the prophecy is the birth of Christ - and so, even though that is the allegorical meaning of the prophecy, it is the ultimate meaning of the prophecy. The literal conception and historical birth of a child in Isaiah's time, then, becomes a concrete and historical sign, a living prophecy in itself, that points forward to a greater fulfillment.

It bends the mind, doesn't it?

This is why I'm convinced that God does not write history like this: --------------------->

That's linear. I think God writes history like a spiral. It winds its way outward, definitely heading towards a termination point - but as it winds outward, it keeps passing familiar territory. Think of a vertical line that passes through the spiral ... if I start in the center of the spiral, and trace the spiral outwards, I will cross that vertical line several times - but always a little further out on the spiral. I will never cross the vertical line at the exact same point on the spiral - thus, history does not repeat itself; but as I get further out on the spiral, I hear echoes of history, and I see parallel images.

Where was I going with that?

Oh, right. So you can't just read the prophets and go running off, willy-nilly, into futuristic predictions of what will happen in the End Times. You have to know how those prophecies were already fulfilled in their historical context - because then the historical fulfillment will itself become your living prophecy, your basis from which to understand the future-future fulfillment.

Sometimes a prophecy can be fulfilled more than twice. Isaiah prophesied serious chastisement for Jerusalem, and it happened. It happened the first time in 586 BC, when Babylon took them out; but that historical event was only a prophecy itself, pointing to 70 AD, when the Romans took Jerusalem out for good. So that's already two levels of historical fulfillment. But allegorically, I think Jerusalem is a picture of Rome - the Vatican - and some of our Catholic prophecies do indeed say that the Vatican itself will undergo a material destruction (see St. Malachy's prophecy of the "last pope").

Ok, really, I do have a point here ... something useful, maybe.

Start with Isaiah.

He prophesied from about 739-681 BC - that is, he started prophesying about 15 years before the Northern Kingdom was decimated, and he stopped prophesying about 100 years before the Southern Kingdom was destroyed.

That'll give you some historical context.

The kings who ruled during Isaiah's career were: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.

You can read about Uzziah in 2 Chr. 26, and in 2 Kgs. 15:1-7, where he is called "Azariah." His reign is covered in Isaiah 1-6.

2 Kgs. 15:5-38 and 2 Chr. 27:1-9 give the story of Jotham, son of Uzziah. His reign does not appear to involve Isaiah at all.

The story of Ahaz is told in 2 Chr. 28, and 2 Kings 16 - he is given a lot of coverage, so that should tell you something of his importance in the history of things. He is mentioned in Isaiah 7.

Finally, Hezekiah's story is told in 2 Chr. 29 - 32 (yes, four whole chapters) and in 2 Kgs. 18 - 20. His name appears in Isaiah by chapter 36.

A few other things to keep in mind:

* "Judah" is the Southern Kingdom.
* "Israel" is the Northern Kingdom.
* "The House of Jacob" is just another way of saying "the Northern Kingdom."
* Samaria was made the capital city of the Northern Kingdom during King Omri's reign, c. 876-869 AD - so when Isaiah speaks of Samaria, he is speaking of the capital city of the Northern Kingdom
* Ephraim was the larger surrounding tribal territory that encompassed Samaria and Beth-el, which is where the first Northern King (Jeroboam) set up a place of worship for his kingdom - so when Isaiah says "Ephraim," again, he is speaking of the representative tribe of the Northern Kingdom

I would also recommend using a map of the Israelite/Judah territories. That way, when Isaiah mentions some city or land, you can see where it is in relation to Judah and Israel.

Alright ... happy exploring.

Friday Fish Fry

Friday ... a day for penance.

If you're a Traditionalist, you are probably still following the old Church discipline of abstaining from meat. Good for you.

If you're a "Vatican II Catholic" (as if the rest of us aren't?), then you're probably going to eat meat today because "Vatican II changed all that."

I have something to say to both of you.

First, a bit of background.

Up until 1966, eating meat on Friday was a mortal sin. Period. That discipline has been lifted, so that, you may still abstain from meat on Friday if you wish, but if for some reason you need to eat a hamburger, it's not a mortal sin. Why? Because you're not violating a Church Law, you're violating a personal law - and you are authorized to "bind and loose" your own personal penances any time you wish.

What happened in 1966? Pope Paul VI placed the authority of binding and loosing the Friday abstinence laws into the hands of local bishops' conferences, but still said:

"By divine law all the faithful are required to do penance."

"... it is the task of episcopal conferences to: ... Substitute abstinence and fast wholly or in part with other forms of penitence and especially works of charity and the exercises of piety."

Further, the current Code of Canon Law says:

"All Christ’s faithful are obliged by divine law, each in his or her own way, to do penance ... All Fridays throughout the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and times throughout the universal Church ... Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year ..." (Canons 1249-1251)

So what is the current rule for the US? The USCCB has said:

"Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year ... we give first place to abstinence from flesh meat. We do so in the hope the Catholic community will ordinarily continue to abstain from meat by free choice as formerly ... we emphasize that our people are henceforth free from the obligation traditionally binding under pain of sin in what pertains to Friday abstinence, except as noted above for Lent." (Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence, 22, 24, 25)

Alright. So to the "Vatican II Catholics," I say this: your bishops have expressed the hope that you will continue, of your own free choice, to fast from meat on Fridays. If you do not choose to follow this particular and specific form of penance, the universal law still stands: Friday is a day of penance. So if you're eating meat, then ask yourself: what regular penance have I substituted in place of abstaining from meat?

Too many Vatican II Catholics think that the Friday abstinence was just lifted - that's all. Poof, gone. Hardly any of them know that 1) the option of eating meat on Fridays was introduced, but meat abstinence was given "first place" in preference, and 2) that some kind of Friday penance is absolutely binding.

Now, to the TradCats, I say this ... examine yourself. Beware of the Pharisaical tendency to follow the letter of the law, but forget the spirit of the law completely. The purpose of abstaining from meat on Friday is not just to skip eating meat for a day; the purpose is to adopt a penitential attitude throughout the day, and reflect on Christ's Good Friday sufferings.

In other words, if you're turning down hot dogs all day, but then you go out at night to gorge yourself at an all-you-can-eat Fish Fry, you stay out late, you don't add some kind of devotion (an extra decade of Sorrowful Mysteries, Stations of the Cross, etc.) - you've kind of missed the point.

Yes, I'm talking to me. But also you.

So really, my brief reminder to both TradCats and neoCats is the same: Friday is for penance (both in spirit and in body) and prayer - are you honoring that fact?

New Articles?

If you visit my site very often, you are aware of the fact that I haven't uploaded any major articles in quite a while.

I'm still thinking thinking some things through in terms of what I want to be writing about. I'd like to be writing about things that are helpful to Catholics, and will be helpful to Catholics long after Russia gets consecrated and Christ becomes King of nations.

Mostly I'm working on Scriptural meditations and studies, which is probably what I love to do the most. My newest e-book, 100 Verses Every Catholic Should Know, is complete, save for the introduction and a few patristic quotes that I wanted to add.

I've also got a longer meditation on St. John 6 that I just need to polish up and post - I think regular readers of mine will enjoy this reflection, especially those who enjoyed my meditation on the Wedding at Cana.

Finally, I'm working on a rebuttal - by request, no less (I wasn't aware that apologists accepted requests) - of something Michael Scheifler wrote about Gen. 3:15 and the "he shall crush"/"she shall crush" question. That should be interesting.

Problem is, when I finally get enough free time to actually work on some of these things (and I usually need a good 2-3 hour block of time to really give myself to the task), I'm tired and want to relax - read, listen to music, etc. I don't want to write, because that kind of writing is exhausting.

Maybe I need to start taking donations so I don't have to work full time - can start giving myself to apologetics.

Except ... I don't believe in that, frankly. We have a glut of "career" apologists today, and I just don't see that as having any precedent in Church History. Those who make their living off the Catholic Faith are - as St. Paul says - those who are preachers of the faith. Priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. I can't imagine that, while St. Paul and the rest were going around being professional bishops and priests, there would have been laymen running around from Antioch to Ephesus to Byzantium to Rome giving "talks" about the Faith. I don't think laymen were meant to live off the Gospel; I think we were meant to work. Heck, even St. Paul occupied himself with tent-making when he wasn't preaching and administering the sacraments.

There you go, then. I don't want to do this full-time. I just need a little more time to do this well.

Anyway - keep your eye on the site in the days to come. There will be more content coming, but in the meanwhile, this blog is a nice alternative outlet for voicing my less-than-polished thoughts.

More to come. Always more to come.

The Muddled Mind of the Modernist

I have been working for the past few weeks on a chapter that I'm contributing to Robert Sungenis' (Catholic Apologetics International) upcoming book, Not by Biblical Criticism Alone - and I have to say, I cannot bend my mind enough to really understand the Modernists.

Their world is jello.

No, seriously, hear me out ... reading Modernist Scripture studies is like walking into a room that is packed full of jello - wall to wall, ceiling to floor. It's thick, it's hard to move, there's no kind of solid footing, there's no substance ...

Mostly I'm reading Fr. Raymond Brown on various subjects, including New Testament Christology and also the subject of the Virgin Birth/Bodily Resurrection.

A lot of Traditionalists want to make this a black-and-white issue. "Fr. Brown denies x, y, and z!" But usually, he doesn't. It's never that simple when you're dealing with a Modernist.

For example, Fr. Brown does not deny the Virgin Birth or the Bodily Resurrection of Christ - but he does suggest the possibility that maybe the question could be entertained momentarily that our understanding of what these dogmas might mean is slightly inadequate, and in a certain sense could be re-examined and re-formulated in a way that is more historically accurate and culturally helpful.

And then he goes after both Scripture and Church Dogma with a razor-sharp scalpel, and attempts to slice away all the historical assumptions that attend the dogma - he boils the dogma down its most specific and precise form. For Brown, the question is not "what does the dogma say," but "what does the dogma leave open for discussion?"

So, for example, in the dogmas surrounding the Virgin Birth, Brown contends that we are never told exactly, in a precise way, how the biological conception of Christ took place. All we are bound to believe is that, in some sense, Christ was "born of a virgin" - that says nothing about how He was conceived.

Oh, yes, we know He was "conceived of the Holy Ghost" - but that is primarily a spiritual formulation, and does not impose itself on us in a historical or biological way (I am purposefully speaking in Brownish jargon now, so you get some sense of how "out there" and abstract he can be).

Slippery, isn't it? You could say, "But Fr. Brown, you're denying the Virgin Birth!" And I guarantee you he - if he weren't dead right now - would be very quick to reply, "Oh no, no, no, I never said that!"

So I have to be careful here. I want to do this right - I don't want to write a wholly reactionary and knee-jerk chapter for Sungenis' book, a chapter that just flails and foams at the mouth about how Brown denied every dogma of the Church. That wouldn't be fair. That would also be far too easy.

I have to play Brown's game. Brown doesn't like quick and easy, black and white, dry or wet; he was a major fan of taking a "heavily nuanced" approach, and seeing that certain formulations were "far too simplistic."

Fine - let's play the "complex" and "nuanced" game. I'll present his position fairly, and still show that his general approach (wishing to reduce every dogma to its most minimalistic meaning, asking whether the facts of the dogma are in harmony with the history of Christ, thinking he can apply Bib-Crit methods not only to Scripture, but also to Magisterial pronouncements, etc.) is wrong - is even condemned by the very Magisterium he wants to deconstruct.

Darn these Modernists ... they're impossible to pin down on anything. Their very principles - that everything is subject to evolution and change - prevent them from writing anything with certainty or definitiveness. A scholar should collect the relevant data, present the evidence, and make a definite conclusion based on the facts. A Modernist just collects all the disparate data, present a multi-faceted picture, and then says to the read, "perhaps all of it is true, perhaps none of it is true - you decide for yourself, but take care to make a very nuanced decision."

The perpetually open mind ... never closing firmly upon anything.

Ugh. What a way to live.

Ancient Catechism: On God and the Soul

Let there first, then, be laid (as a foundation in your soul) the doctrine concerning God: that God is One, the only unbegotten, Who has no beginning, change, or variation; He was not begotten of another, nor does He have another who will succeed Him in His life; He neither began to live in time, nor does He have an end, forever. Learn that He is both merciful and a Judge, so that if you ever hear a heretic say that there are two Gods, one who is a Judge, and another who is merciful, you should immediately remember what you were taught, and perceive the poisoned arrow of heresy.

For some have impiously dared to make a distinction and separate the One God in their teaching: and some have said that one God is the Creator and Lord of the soul, but another God is Creator and Lord of the body; a doctrine that is simultaneously absurd and impious. For how can a man be one servant of two masters, when our Lord says in the Gospels, No man can serve two masters? There is only One God, then, the Maker of both souls and bodies: One Creator of heaven and earth, the Maker of both Angels and Archangels: the Creator of many, but the Father before all ages of only One - His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom He made all things, both visible and invisible.

This Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not confined in any place, nor is He smaller than the heaven; rather, the heavens are the works of His fingers, and the whole earth is held in His grasp: He is in all things and around all things. Do not think that the sun is brighter than He is, or equal to Him: for He who formed the sun must necessarily be incomparably greater and brighter. He foreknows the things that are yet to be, and is mightier than all, knowing all things and doing as He wills; not subject to any necessary sequence of events, nor to nativity, nor chance, nor fate; in all things He is perfect, equally possessing every virtue, neither diminishing nor increasing, but always the same both mode and conditions; He has prepared punishment for sinners, and a crown for the righteous.

Having seen, then, that many have gone astray in various ways from the One God - some having deified the sun, which means that when the sun sets, they must go through the night hours without God; others deifying the moon, so that they have no God by day; others deifying other parts of the world; others the arts; others their various kinds of food; others their pleasures; while some, lusting after women, have set up an image of a naked woman in high places, called it Aphrodite, and worshipped their own lust in a visible form; and others who are dazzled by the brightness of gold have deified it and other kinds of material - but if you lay as your first foundation in your heart the doctrine of the unity of God, and trust in Him, He roots out simultaneously the whole crop of various idolatries and the error of the heretics: lay, therefore, this first doctrine of religion as a foundation in your soul by faith.

...

After the knowledge of this venerable, glorious, and all-holy Faith, learn next what you yourself are: that as man you are made of two components, soul and body; learn that, as we said recently, the same God is the Creator of both soul and body. Know also that you have a soul that is self-governed, the noblest work of God, created in the image of its Creator: immortal because God gives it immortality; a living being, rational, imperishable, because He has bestowed these gifts: this soul has free power to do what it wills. For it is not according to your birth that you sin [1], nor is it by the power of chance that you commit fornication, nor, as some foolishly think, do the alignment of the stars force you to give yourself to wantonness. Why do you hesitate to confess your own evil deeds, and blame to the innocent stars instead? Pay no more attention, please, to astrologers; for the divine Scripture says, Let the stargazers of the heaven stand up and save you, and what follows: Behold, they will all be consumed like straw on the fire, and will not save their souls from the flame.

Learn this also: that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed no sin, but after having come in sinless[2], we now sin of our own free-will. Do not listen, I say, to any one who perversely interprets the words, But if I do the things which I do not want to do: but remember Him who says, If you are willing, and listen to Me, you will eat the good things of the land: but if you are not willing, and do not listen to Me, the sword will devour you, etc.: and again, As you presented your members as slaves to sin ... even so now present your members as slaves to righteousness unto sanctification. Remember also the Scripture which says, Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge: and, The things that may be known of God are made known; and again, they have closed their eyes. Also remember how God again accuses them, and says, Yet I planted you as a fruitful vine, wholly true: how are you now turned to bitterness, you the strange vine?

The soul is immortal, and all souls are the same, whether of men or women; for only the parts of the body are different. There is not a category of souls that sin by nature, and a category of souls that practise righteousness by nature: but both act by choice, and the essence of their souls are of one kind only, and common to all. I know that I am talking a lot, and that we have already been here a long time: but what is more precious than salvation? Are you not willing to take the trouble of getting provisions for the way against the heretics? And will you not learn the bye-paths of the road, lest out of ignorance you accidentally fall down a precipice? If your teachers think it no small benefit for you to learn these things, shouldn't you, the learner, gladly receive the multitude of things being taught?

The soul is self-governed: and though the devil can suggest, he does not have the power to force against the will. He supplies for you in images the thought of fornication: if you will it, you accept it; if you do not will it, you reject it. For if you were a fornicator by necessity or by nature, then for what reason did God prepare hell? If you were a doer of righteousness by nature and not by choice, for what purpose did God prepare crowns of ineffable glory? The sheep is gentle, but it does not receive a crown for being gentle: since its gentle quality is in its nature, and not a result of choice.

-- St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4: On the Ten Points of Doctrine (approx. 350 AD)

[1] As is clear from the rest of the lecture, St. Cyril is not denying Original Sin, or that we are "by nature, children of wrath." He is saying that we are not like the animals, who do everything purely because of their nature and never by choice - we have a choice to resist sin, so we cannot blame our evil deeds on our human nature, as if we had no choice but to act according to our nature.

[2] Again, St. Cyril is not denying the guilt of Original Sin, but here her is talking about personal and actual sins - sins that we commit by act, as opposed to the Original Sin that we inherit.

Solid Catechesis

Haven't you ever wondered what catechumens were taught in preparation for their baptisms during the early years of the Church? What did the Fathers, those closest to the Apostolic Generation, want these catechumens to know before they came into the Church?

Over the next several posts, I'd like to share a few excerpts from St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lectures, little mini-lessons to those about to be baptized.

In this day and age of the Church, when catechesis is so weak and pathetic that the pope has to beg our bishops to do better, it can't hurt to return to the saints of previous centuries and let them instruct us.

God Knows Latin

Sometimes we forget, don't we? God knows more languages than just English. How else does He hear the prayers of people praying in Russia, Cuba, China, Germany, Italy, and Japan?

It's a good exercise, once in a while, to offer Him prayers in a language you don't understand - just to remind yourself that you're not the important party in this picture, He is. It doesn't matter if you don't understand, He does.

We have to fight that instinct sometimes. The instinct that tells us that we have to be center of all of this - that if I personally can't participate in this prayer or this liturgy, then it's a waste of time for me.

But - it's not about me!

There's that really horrid "Praise and Worship" song making the rounds currently at the really hip-n-relevant Protestant churches ... "I'm coming back to the heart of worship, and it's all about You, it's all about You ... I'm sorry, Lord, for the thing I've made it, when it's all about You ..."

I have to laugh when I hear it (or cry), because this lyric which pretends to shift the spotlight away from self is almost always being performed by human beings on a "worship stage," in full view and front and center of the congregation.

So try it - try praying a prayer in a foreign language, which you don't understand. Try to offer it to God with just as much sincerity as you would if you were praying in English - which will require you to believe in faith that He actually can understand you, and does appreciate it.

Here are a few prayers you might try ...

"Our Father" in Italian

Padre Nostro, che sei nei cieli,
sia santificato il tuo nome,
venga il tuo regno,
sia fatta la tua volontà,
come in cielo cosí in terra.
Dacci oggi il nostro pane quotidiano,
e rimetti a noi i nostri debiti,
come noi li rimettiano ai nostri debitori,
e non c'indurre in tentazione,
ma liberaci dal male.
Amen.

"Hail Mary" in Latin

Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum
Benedictitu in mulieribus,
et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesu
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei,
ora pro nobis peccatoribus
nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae.
Amen.

Random Stuff

The last few days have been a blur - so much junk going on, it would be difficult to rehash it all, and not very worthwhile.

The upside is that I got a wonderful little email from a guy who is feeling very much drawn towards the Catholic Church, and wants to know what he should do. That's fun.

The cool thing, for me, is that he says he was most drawn by the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - an 8th Century miracle in which a doubting priest, while celebrating Holy Mass, saw the consecrated host and wine turn into visible flesh and blood.

This miracle is still on display in Italy, and you can go there to see it today.

There was a scientific investigation of the miracle just as recently as 1981, and the results concluded that it really was human flesh and human blood. In fact, the blood type is AB-Negative - "identical to that which Prof. Baima Bollone uncovered in the Holy Shroud of Turin."

God does these miracles for a reason - if only people would take advantage of them. Like I said, this particular miracle is still on display for anyone who wants a proof of the Catholic Church's claims. It's not like God isn't trying.

As usual ... it's Man's will that refuses to bend.

Sacro cuore di Gesu, confido e spero in te.

Addicted to Wreckage

It's official, folks. I really and truly do not care what is happening in the Novus Ordo Establishment anymore. I don't care which bishop is denying the historicity of the Gospels this week; I don't care which cardinal said this month that the Jews don't need to convert; I don't care which parish in what city is having polka Mass this Sunday.

I know there's a global-scale crisis in the Church right now - I don't need to hear any more of the details. I know them all already, by heart. And I know the standard defense for what we Traditionalists do - I can quote the last paragraph of Quo Primum by heart; I know exactly what paragraph of Mortalium Animos condemns modern ecumenism as a departure from and rejection of the true religion; I've seen all the Assisi pictures, and I know what verses in Scripture condemn inter-religious worship.

Deal Hudson of Crisis Magazine has just been caught with his pants down, so to speak; I don't care. That information isn't going to help me save my soul. That juicy little tidbit isn't going to do anything for my meditation and prayer life, except perhaps to cripple it by introducing unwanted images of Mr. Hudson's and Ms. Poppas' violation of the sixth and ninth commandments into my mental theatre.

It's gossip. Nothing more.

But for some reason, more and more Traditionalists are flocking to this sort of wreckage. We keep our ears to the ground, we scan the neo-Catholic magazines, we watch the Zenit headlines - what will the next scandal be? Will we be the first to find out about it, so we can be the ones to tell our fellow parishioners and watch them recoil in horror?

I actually had a parishioner come up to me last week and say, "Did you hear about that thing going on at St. Joseph's with the Ravi Shankar? What do you think about that?" I stared blankly for a few moments before saying, "It's horrible." What was I expected to say?! I was very, very tempted to say, "Oh, I think it's just fantastic! It's about time we started recognizing the value of listening to religious leaders from other faith traditions."

I need to go deeper than this. We're starving here, we exiles and refugees from Protestantism and/or the Novus Ordo, and the menu options are 1) "How Evil is the Indult Mass," 2) "The ADL vs. Mel Gibson, part XXXVIII," 3) "Why the New Rosary is Bad," and 4) "Is the SSPX in Schism? An Exhaustive Analysis of All Relevant Magisterial Documents."

Yes, yes, yes, all of that ... but in addition to that, how do I learn to pray better? And now that I've found the Traditional Mass, how do I extract the riches of this Mass and its symbolism - how I do I truly pray the Mass? I've done the Traditional thing and thrown out my radio and TV - what do I fill up the empty space with, and what are some Traditional family activities that would be beneficial for my home?

I guess that's what it comes down to, really. Traditional Catholicism, as it is dressed up in the "store-front" of various Traditional newspapers, books, magazines, web sites, tapes, lectures, etc., is very good at identifying what we shouldn't be doing, what things we should be getting rid of in our lives (whether objects, like TV, rock music, etc., or ideas, such as NFP, Americanism, etc.) - but rarely does it tell us what to do with these new holes in our lives.

You must avoid all of these things - that part I understand. But now that has become my life! Looking out for things to avoid; taking a critical (and even cynical) approach to everything; replacing the bad somethings in my life with idle nothings. And frankly, I'm bored. And I'm not getting any holier.

Catholicism used to be on the cutting edge of originality - leading the way in producing the brightest thinkers, the most brilliant theologians, the most talented artists, the best musicians, the best-read historians, inspired poets, and on and on ... but it seems to me now that we've become largely unoriginal and boring - reactionary even.

Where would we be without the crisis to depend upon? What would happen to our periodicals, newspapers, web sites, and touring speakers? Will they vanish when the crisis goes away? They wouldn't, if they were occupied with writing and speaking about the substance of the faith, as opposed to writing and speaking about the horrible absence of the faith.

If I have to sit back and wait for something awful to happen at Crisis, for a scandalous statement from a bishop, for a controversial book to emerge from the neo-Catholic press - I say if I have to wait for these movements from the "enemy" before I find that I have anything to say or write about, then something is wrong. Protestantism is negative and reactionary - they are the ones who define themselves by what they are against - this should not be a character trait of Traditional Catholicism!

You'll notice I haven't added any new articles to my site in quite a while. I'm out of things to say - that's the long and short of it. I've already told you how bad the Novus Ordo Mass is, and I've told you from several different viewpoints. I've disagreed with the pope on a few points, and I've taken a few neo-Catholic apologists to task. What more can I say?

I'm tired - it's tough work playing "lookout man" and watching the neo-Catholic horizon for any movement. So I'm reevaluating a few things. What do I really want to read about and study in my spare time? What do I really want to write about? I want to learn more about Catholic devotion; I want to learn more about Our Lady; I want to learn more about how Catholic theologians and Church Fathers read Scripture.

In short, I want to study, read, and regurgitate through writing how to be a good Catholic, as opposed to how to not be a neo-Catholic.

Let's start dealing with the universal and eternal, things that will be relevant long after the crisis has ended, and stop worrying so much about the temporal stuff that's going to be ancient history just as soon as Russia gets consecrated.

Oh, and .... someone say a prayer for Mr. Hudson, please.

When Church and State are Divorced

To the blinded Catholic citizens of America who still think that separation of Church and State is a good thing, I offer this evidence to the contrary ...

********************

Christian Protestors Get the Boot from Ballpark Security During Phillies Game

By Jim Brown
August 10, 2004

(AgapePress) - Five members of a Philadelphia-based Christian activist group were thrown out of a Philadelphia Phillies game on Tuesday night. The group was there to protest what had been billed as "Gay Community Day" at Citizens Bank Park.

The game began with a homosexual men's chorus singing the national anthem and a lesbian throwing out the ceremonial first pitch. Then during the fifth inning, the Repent America group unfurled a banner which read: "Homosexuality is sin, Christ can set you free." Michael Marcavage, director of Repent America, explains what happened next.

"Within a few moments, a security officer approached us and demanded that we take the banner down," he says. "Moments later, two homosexual men stood up and they began to passionately kiss in front of our banner -- then two lesbian women stood up and did likewise as the crowd cheered them on."

After three homosexuals began tugging on the banner, Marcavage says he was tackled by "physically abusive" security guards as he tried to prevent the theft of his banner. "It went from baseball to tug-of-war to football as I was tackled to the ground by a security guard for attempting to prevent the theft of our banner," he says. "The security guards were acting extremely irrational, and physically escorted us out of the ballpark."

Officials then detained Marcavage for ten minutes, claiming the content of his group's message was causing a riot. But he says it was the Christians that ended up being ejected from the game. "They decided they were going to remove us from the stadium instead of just those who are acting disorderly."

Repent America had been outside the stadium before the game, handing out gospel literature and displaying banners urging the Phillies organization to stop its promotion of homosexuality. Marcavage reports that a group of more than a dozen people refused to attend the game when they learned of the pro-homosexual theme of the evening, and were refunded their admission fees. He says two men from that group even rescued one of the signs from someone who attempted to steal it. "The police stood idly by [during that time]," Marcavage says.

Marcavage believes something must be done to prevent families from being exposed to public acts of homosexuality. "This is really opening up a forum where children are being ushered into these events, unaware, and being exposed to these lewd acts and riotous behavior. It's just unacceptable," he says. "There needs to be something done in a court of law that would allow us to be able to have our viewpoint expressed just as the other groups."

Repent America has reportedly been in contact with a Christian legal group and is considering filing a lawsuit claiming the group's First Amendment rights were violated when they were ejected from the ballpark.

********************

In a truly Catholic America, this would never have happened. The Gay Pride group would have been the ones ushered out of the park, because our country's Catholic laws would prohibit "free speech" when that speech openly contradicts God's Divine Laws.

The Church cannot force people to stop believing Sodomy is right - but She certainly can and should - through the Civil Government, which should ever be sitting at Her feet and learning the Truth - forcibly prohibit people from publicly scandalizing society by making their erroneous views known to all.

You think this country practices Religious Freedom? I've said it before, but it bears repeating - and this event proves me right: "Freedom for All Religions" means "Freedom for No Religion," which in turn means "Freedom for Atheism."

That's why the Christians at this ballpark were not allowed to publicly express their religious views.

Still think this is a free country?

Not until Christ is King of Society. Not until the Church and the State are wed.

Here is the model for America:

"And Jehoash [the king] did what was right in the eyes of the LORD all his days, because Jehoiada the priest instructed him." (4 [2] Kings 12:2)

May Christ be King of all.

Was America Once Catholic?

I wonder how many United States citizens are aware of the Catholic roots of this country?

GASP!

Did he say "Catholic roots"?!

Well, there must have been, at some point. Consider some of these U.S. city names:

St. Michael, AL
Santa Rosa (Holy Rose, or St. Rose [of Lima]), CA
Sacramento (the Sacraments), CA
San Jose (St. Joseph), CA
San Diego (St. Diego d'Alcala), CA
Santa Monica (St. Monica), CA
San Bernardino (St. Bernard), CA
San Francisco (St. Francis), CA
Santa Ana (St. Anne), CA
Los Angeles ([Queen of] the Angels), CA
San Angelo (Holy Angel), TX
Corpus Christi (Body of Christ), TX
San Antonio (St. Anthony), TX
San Marcos (St. Mark), TX
Santa Rosa (see above), NM
Santa Fe (The Holy Faith), NM
Las Cruces (The Cross), NM

The city of Los Angeles actually used to have a much longer name: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles - that is, The Town of the Queen of the Angels.

Now you know.

Where is the Prodigal Son? (An Appeal to the Lost)

The facts are undeniable at this point, statistically speaking - conversions are at an all-time low in the Catholic Church, and this, ever since the Second Vatican Council.

As the decades wind down to bring us face-to-face with the inevitable Final Battle between Good and Evil, it seems that the window of God's Grace through which men used to find the truth of Catholicism is getting smaller and smaller.

In this way, it seems the Church is walking exactly in the footsteps of Her Divine Husband. When was it easiest to recognize Our Lord as being truly divine? At the high point of His ministry, when He was healing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, etc.

When was it most difficult to see Him as being divine? Right near the end ... when He was bloodied, bruised, weak, and letting His life leak out of Him like any other mortal man would.

This is the Church, now, you see. She is experiencing the Passion of Christ in Her own body, which of course, is none other than the Body of Christ. His physical body suffered in agony - His mystical body must go and do likewise.

Who would convert now? The Church is in total disarray. There is an unheard of liberal faction in the Church - when has this ever been permitted before? The very men who would have been excommunicated 100 years ago are now promoted as professors in Catholic universities, accepted into the priesthood, even elevated to wear the red robes of the College of Cardinals.

What a confusing time!

Those who cling to the Traditions of the Church are persecuted, run underground, slandered and vilified by their own bishops ... who has ever seen anything like this?

In the middle stands the majority of souls in the Church, trying to maintain a "middle ground," all the while not realizing that there is no middle ground - you are with Christ or you are against Him; you are friends with the world or you are friends with God. But who to follow? The liberals who challenge every conceivable teaching of the Church, yet are still ostensibly (visibly, anyway) "in union" with the pope? Or the radical right-wingers who refuse to give up the traditional teachings of the Church, who refuse to practice anything but the traditional devotions and worship of the Church - and who, for their uncompromising stance, are accused by their bishops of being "not in union" with the pope?

***********************

I tell you, it makes being a Catholic apologist almost impossible. Imagine the conversation! ...

Yes, I want you to believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ, infallible in her teachings, and indefectible in her orthodoxy - oh, and by the way, once you've converted, I'm going to ask you to stay away from every Catholic parish in your city and instead drive 2 hours to a Latin Mass, and I'm going to warn you to be critical of anything your bishop or the pope says regarding conversion.

You must leave your Protestant mindset and submit to the Vicar of Christ - that is, when he teaches things in line with Catholic Tradition, which he rarely does at the moment.

Who would take me seriously?

Then again ... who would have taken me seriously in 33 AD? Imagine that conversation ...

Yes, you must believe that this Jesus is God, the divine son, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity - oh, and by the way, that's Him there on that cross, about to die. Yes, I know immortal deities aren't supposed to die, but please just trust me ... in three days, you'll see.

I can't explain it, but this is how God works. His mercy extends to the very last minute, but as we come closer to that defining moment when every man must decide whose side he is on, the blind will only get more blind. God will hide the truth from them, concealing it a little more each day.

The Church is in eclipse, it is true - but this is precisely God's judgment on an unbelieving world. You wouldn't come and believe while the Church was a spotless and shining beacon of truth - so that witness is slowly being dimmed. It will ever shine, but in the last days, its light will be but a flicker.

You had your chance.

The Eastern Orthodox have had nearly 1,000 years to get it straight. The Protestants have had 500 years to repent and come back home. God has shown mercy and patience to the Nth degree, practically bending over backwards to show the world the truth.

Count the signs since the Reformation alone! Did He not give the world St. Francis de Sales? Oh, but he lived in the 16th century, so what good is that now? Are his writings not preserved even today? Good God, for less than $50 you can have the witness of this saint before your eyes! His several short tracts in The Catholic Controversy are enough to convince any honest man of the truth, provided that man is not already been handed over to judicial blindness; and his Introduction to the Devout Life is enough to take that new convert into the path of sanctity once he has seen the sense of the first book mentioned.

Both books are available today, perhaps at $15 a piece. I would happily purchase them for you if you promised to read them with an open mind!

But moving on, what about Our Lady of Siluva, whose miraculous apparition resulted in the conversion of thousands during the aftermath of the Reformation? Have you never heard of her? Discharge your duty to seek the truth, then, and read about her!

Go back in history even further, if you will. No sooner had Luther and Calvin wrought their destruction than Our Lady mercifully intervened - did she not appear in 1531, in the very throes of the Reformation, as Our Lady of Guadalupe? Did she not leave evidence of the miracle by imprinting her image on the cloak of Juan Diego? Independent critics, secular and religous alike, have verified that this image cannot be explained by natural causes, and this very same image can be seen today at the basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City!

And what of Our Lady's apparitions at Lourdes in the mid-19th Century? These apparitions resulted in TWO miracles! Not only have the miraculous water-baths at Lourdes been the cause of many supernatural healings, but the young saint to whom Our Lady appeared - St. Bernadette - is now on display in Nevers, France, as one of the few "incorruptible" saints of the Church.

That is, although she died decades ago, her body has not experienced decay. You can go to Nevers, France and see it for yourself! Proof that the Catholic Church is the Church of miracles, granted power from God in order to authenticate Her divine mission.

As if all of this were not enough, Our Lady appeared again in Fatima less than 100 years ago. Her final apparition there in October of 1917 was accompanied by a miracle - a miracle witnessed by 70,000 spectators, both secular and religious!

Yes, even in today's climate of confusion and disorientation, the Truth remains there for anyone who will do their part - as they are obliged by God to do - and look for it.

What does Our Lord say? Ask. Seek. Knock. Get out there and perform due dilligence, humbly asking in all sincerity to be shown the Truth. Those who ask, receive. Those who seek, find. Those who knock find the door being opened.

The trouble today? People are lazy. People are selfish. People are, above all, prejudiced and not given to a love of truth.

How are they lazy? They refuse to seek out the answers. A trip to Lourdes or Guadalupe should settle the matter - but, gosh, that would cut into our family trip to Disneyland. So the Mouse wins out over the Blessed Virgin - laziness.

How are they selfish? They expect God to knock them over the head, as if somehow they deserve special treatment. What He has revealed has been revealed for all. All have the equal opportunity to see the truth, not only revealed plainly in Scripture, but in the documents of history, in the writings of brilliant saints (such as St. Francis de Sales), and in the miracles of the Church that are still preserved for us today. What more do you require?

Well, some insist on more. Some insist on receiving their own personal Fatima, or Lourdes; they will not believe until God sends them a miraculous apparition or a miraculous sign - as if they alone in all the earth deserve special treatment, special graces, out-of-the-ordinary signs from God.

What selfishness and arrogance! They should be the ones crawling before God and begging Him to make them worthy enough to receive the Truth - instead, they presume themselves already worthy of signs and wonders, and insist that He come groveling to them with miracles before they will condescend to believe His Truth.

And how, finally, are they prejudiced? The word is a funny one: pre, meaning "before," and judica, meaning "to judge." They judge the case before they hear it. They purposefully look for reasons to not believe all that they see and hear, and are inordinately predisposed to give credence to the most unlikely excuses, so long as it gives them a reason to reject the Truth.

This is in the nature of Truth and Error. Truth is one; Truth is singular; Error is legion. The sky is blue - that is the truth, the only truth. But to say the sky is red, or green, or purple, or yellow, or orange - just now I have spoken five distinct and unique errors, none of them being true.

So it is with men considering the Catholic Faith - the truth is there, but it is singular. The errors and excuses which will present themselves, on the other hand, will be infinite. Only a deep love of Truth for the sake of Truth will cause a man to embrace the Catholic faith, even against his love of comfort.

Why do I pit truth against comfort?

Because it is the case - following the Truth will get you martyred every time. You may suffer an instantaneous and bloody martyrdom, or most likely you will suffer a prolonged and dry martyrdom (verbal persecutions, strange looks, etc.) - but either way you will be martyred.

Error is always easier to follow, is always more pleasurable in its immediate consequences. Sin is tempting precisely because it is pleasurable, and this applies to intellectual sin just as much as physical and corporal sin. Virtue, just as much as Truth, will present itself clearly as the obvious choice - but in a quiet sort of way; the multitude of vices and errors will shout for your attention and flash their wares before you in order to entice you away.

Which will you follow?

Men just do not love Truth the way they used to. Used to be that Truth was synonymous with honor, and it was considered a great disgrace to embrace an error or to follow a dishonesty purely for the sake of convenience. Such a thing would be detestable to an honorable Man of yester-year.

This is why a man would engage in polite and public debate! He knew that, if his opponent was an honest and virtuous man, he would gladly suffer the humiliation of having to publicly admit his error, for the sake of obtaining and holding to the Truth.

Today? Forget it! I get emails all the time from Protestants who want to "scrap" with me - but these are not men who are fond of truth. These are men who are fond of arguing, and even fonder of feeling as though they have "won" a "fight." They love their own egos, not the Truth.

They are not alone in this. There are even a good number of Catholic apologists today who are more interested in carving another notch on their "victory" wall than they are in seeing a fellow soul come to embrace the Truth. They love to extol the quality of their own arguments, and more than this they love to talk to other Catholics about their past "victories," when they used such-and-such an argument and "blew away" their opponent. These two classes of men deserve each other.

Meanwhile the world languishes on. Men love prejudice rather than Truth; Men are lazy; the Church is less and less the shining beacon it ought to be; the window of grace gets smaller and smaller; time continues to run out.

Which raises the question: why are you reading these words, right now? You didn't have to read this far, did you? But you did. Why? Do you suppose that God is even now extending a moment of grace to you, a moment that you are free to either accept or reject? Do you realize that in ten minutes, you will be killed in an unforeseen accident?

You won't?

How do you know? You don't. That's the point. Why reject a moment of grace now, when you have absolutely zero assurance that another moment such as this will be yours in the future? God promises to forgive you as soon as you repent; He does not, however, promise you repeated opportunities to repent. You have this moment, and perhaps this will be your last. What will you do with it?

Do you wonder what you should do? Find a priest who will uncompromisingly give you the Truth, the full and undiluted Traditional teaching of the Holy Church - if you wish to test him, you can ask him one simple question: "Father, must I join the Catholic Church in order to be saved?" If he says yes, then your search is over. If he says no, thank him, and keep looking for a priest who won't sell you short.

But find that priest, and then ask him to hear your confession; renounce your errors and swear before God to cling to everything the Catholic Church teaches. Go and buy yourself a $2.50 Rosary and start invoking the prayers of the Mother of God. Find a Traditional Mass where you can receive the Most Holy Eucharist while kneeling in adoration. Start living a life of penance to make restitution for the many years you have wasted.

Go ahead - seize this moment of grace and spend every last drop of it to show God you're not totally ungrateful for His mercy.

Or will you ignore Him yet again, causing Him to say as He did in the gospels, "You fool! This very night your life will be demanded of you!"

That's your choice; it always has been. But please don't say that I didn't at least do my best to warn you.

St. Francis de Sales, pray for us.
Our Lady of Siluva, pray for us.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Our Lady of Lourdes, pray for us.
OUr Lady of Guadalupe, Patroness of the Americas, pray for us.
St. Bernadette, pray for us.
All you holy saints and angels, pray for us.
Sacred heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Who Shall Crush?

"Y schal sette enemytees bitwixe thee and the womman, and bitwixe thi seed and hir seed; sche schal breke thin heed, and thou schalt sette aspies to hir heele."

Anyone who has spent some time learning about the history of various translations of Sacred Scripture will recognize the above as coming from the pen of none other than John Wycliffe, also known as the "Morning Star of the Reformation."

Odd, isn't it, that in his translation of Genesis 3:15, he should translate to the effect that the woman would be the one to crush the serpent's head?

I thought so anyway.

Our Lady and the Incarnation

"'God sent his Son, made of a woman.' Christianity, therefore, is the religion of the Incarnation. All there is in it proceeds from, depends on, and clusters around that ineffable mystery, in which the design of God in creation - the deification of the creature, or his elevation to perfect union with God - is consummated.

The devotion to Mary grows out of the Incarnation, as does the Church herself, and tends, we think, to keep alive faith in that crowning act of the Creator. If we would express Christianity as a whole we must symbolize the Incarnation, and the only perfect symbol possible is that of the reality which the Magi saw - the Madonna and Child.

And why is it the only symbol of the Incarnation? Because the Incarnation means that God is man; but how can we express the truth that God is man except by showing that he has a mother? In his divine nature he has no mother; then if he has a mother he is man.

Whence the Creeds do not merely say that Christ is the Son of God, or that the Son of God was made man, but affirm that He was 'born of the Virgin Mary'; 'Incarnate of (or from) the Virgin Mary,' - thus setting forth the same divine Person as at once the Son of God and the Son of Mary. That is, they show us the Incarnate God in his Mother's arms, they symbolize the Incarnation by the Madonna and Child." (Richard F. Quigley, Mary the Mother of Christ in Prophecy and its Fulfilment, pp. 61-62, bold markup added)

What about the Angels?

I'm really starting to wonder why more people - myself included - don't have a healthier devotion to the Holy Angels, especially their guardian angel.

After all, Scripture certainly seems to give them a prominent role. Just think of how many times God sends His angels to relay a history-changing message to His people. I'm trying to think now of even a few books of the bible that don't mention angelic activity.

... God places His angel at the gate of Paradise to protect it

... Jacob sees angels ascending into and descending from the heavens on a ladder.

... Jacob wrestles with an angel.

... Three angels come and visit Abraham to warn him about Sodom's coming destruction.

... God's angel goes about in Egypt to slaughter the firstborn sons.

... An angel appears to Joshua to commission him.

... An angel tells Samson's mother that she will have a son.

... Isaiah sees angels surrounding God's throne.

... An angel tells Our Lady that she will be the mother of the Messiah.

... An angel tells St. Joseph that he should take Mary as his wife.

... An angel warns St. Joseph to take the Holy Family into Egypt to avoid Herod's slaughtering soldiers.

... An angel tells St. Zachary that his wife will bear St. John the Baptist.

... An angel comes to strengthen Our Lord in His wilderness temptation.

... An angel comes to comfort Our Lord in His agony in the garden.

... An angel announces the Resurrection to the disciples at the tomb.

... An angel strikes down Herod in the book of Acts.

... Angels administer all of the judgments in the book of the Apocalypse.

... An angel casts Satan out of heaven in the Apocalypse.

The bible also tells us many things about the ongoing activities of the angels.

Angels are Ministers of Salvation
Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation? (Heb. 1:14)

Angels Guard and Protect Us
For he will give his angels charge of you to guard you in all your ways. 12 On their hands they will bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone. (Ps. 91:11-12)

Angels Execute the Final Judgment
So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. (Matt. 13:49-50)

Everyone Has a Personal Angel
See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven. (Matt. 18:10)

Angels Attend Holy Mass with Us
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering. (Heb. 12:22)

Angels Offer Our Prayers to God in Heaven
And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne. (Rev. 8:3)

Angels Learn about Christ through the Church
To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. (Eph. 3:8-10)

The fact that the angels are called in Heb. 1:14 "ministering spirits" who "serve" those who are to be saved is interesting. The adjective "ministering" is the Greek word leitourgika, and the noun "serve" is diakonian. You should recognize both of these words: the first is the word from which we derive our word "liturgy," and the second is the word from which we derive our word "deacon."

Finally, the verb "sent" is the word apostellomena, which we know today as the word "apostle." Is it not interesting that in this one passage the angelic job description is given in terms that describe the Church's liturgy and hierarchy? They are "apostles," they are "deacons," and they are "liturgical" ministers.

They are like the invisible soul behind the visible body of our priests - they minister alongside the priests, to administer salvation to us.

St. Thomas Aquinas, following the opinions of many other Church Fathers (St. Augustine, St. John Damascene, Origen, St. Gregory the Great), taught that angels were placed over the heavenly bodies to govern them: "we must assert that the angels possess an immediate presidency ... only over the heavenly bodies ..." (ST, I, 110:1)

The Fathers believed, in relation to this cosmological understanding, that Lucifer was the angel who was given to rule over earth (along with the angelic "footsoldiers" who were under his command) - this is why he is variously called in Scripture by St. Paul and by Our Lord, "the god of this world," or "the prince of the air."

The angels and demons are engaged in a cosmic battle for souls, at every moment of every day. That means that your guardian angel (or even angels, plural) are constantly fighting for you on your behalf, not only protecting you from bodily harm, but warding off the attacks of demons.

My personal theory is this: we choose to commit sin. Therefore, the demonic attacks we experience every day are ultimately dependent upon our willing surrender. When we turn to our guardian angels for help in those moments of temptation, we are turning our will against the demon and choosing to do the good; this gives our angel(s) the "permission" and the strength to beat back the demon(s). Thus, in a way, our prayers are what provide our angels with ammunition, empowering them to win the battle with the demons.

So cultivate a devotion to your angel. Begin each day by greeting your angel and asking for his help; ask him especially to learn how to listen for his promptings; enumerate specifically the battles you are trying to win, and ask the angel to help you succeed in these specific areas.

Every sin has its demon - of this I am firmly convinced. This is why we pray to be delivered from "the spirit of lying," or "the spirit of fornication." We know from stories of real-life exorcisms that all demons have names as well, and these names are often the sin itself: one demon is named "pride," one is named "lust," and so on.

So name the demons you are expecting to come your way, and warn your angel that those specific demons are coming; not that he doesn't already know, but once you've named them, you are more aware of them yourself, and you will be better prepared to do battle.

You think you don't do battle every day? If so, then that probably means you're being defeated every day and just don't realize it. St. Paul says: "For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." (Eph. 6:12)

There's no easier enemy to defeat than one who doesn't even know he's in a war, so remind yourself of this frequently. I am convinced that if we could see the spiritual realm that underlies the physical, we would see just how badly scarred and damaged our souls are after a day of war with the demonic hosts.

By the way, every angel has a name as well. Psalm 147:4 says "He determines the number of the stars, he gives to all of them their names." Wait, that said "stars," though, didn't it? Yes, but remember what we've just said about the relationship between the heavenly bodies and angels! The Book of Job actually links the stars and the angels together explicitly by means of Hebrew parallelism:

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? ...

when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38:4, 7)

See the parallel? "Sang together" = "shouted for joy," so also "morning stars" = "sons of God" (a common term in the book of Job to refer to angels, c.f. Job 1:6, Job 2:1).

So all the angels have names as well. What is the name of your angel? Perhaps if you cultivate a healthy devotion to him, you'll find out - if not on this earth, then certainly in heaven.

Pay attention to your angel! He's a "ministering spirit" sent to help you obtain salvation.