We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
– So ends the Declaration of Independence, making July the 4th the date on which thirteen British colonies officially proclaimed their separation from the British Empire. Recognition of that independence was not instantaneous. The colonies had to back up their words by arms. Six years later, after much bloodshed and sacrifice all sides involved in the Revolutionary War, the British Empire had to humble itself and recognize defeat. The Treaty of Paris (1783) guaranteed the American Colonies a place of their own on the international scene. The British Empire, however, did not end. It reorganized itself and turned its gaze upon other lands, other peoples to control (Africa, Australia, the Middle East, and India), while looking forward to the day they believed would come, when the American experiment would falter and the colonies could be reclaimed for the British crown.
How did such visions of grandeur enter into the psyche of what would otherwise be an insignificant island-nation? To tell that story, we must turn to the time of Queen Elizabeth. It was one of her advisors, sometimes known as the first 007, who came up with the plan: John Dee.
So many people think that once they pick up a text, they can simply read it and understand what it says. They think there is little to no interpretation going on when they engage a text. It means what it says, and what it says is what they get out of it. They do not understand that, in the process of reading a text, a reader is going through several interpretative processes, creating a meaning for the text itself. Now, on a subjective level, the meaning the person gets out of the text cannot be said to be wrong - what they get out of the text truly is what they get out of it. But on the other hand, they are doing more, they are transforming the text into a specified, objective meaning, and that meaning may or may not be what the author intended. If it isn’t, then something is wrong, miscommunication is going on, and in one major sense, the reader’s interpretation must be said to be in error. This is why C.S. Lewis once suggested that literary criticism is best done after the author is dead: at that time, the author won’t be able to contradict the meaning placed upon their text by some outside source. Since the author is the originator of the text, they have the final authority to determine whether or not one’s application of their text is proper or not, although if it is not, there could be many explanations for this problem, including how the text was written. Yet, probably more often than not, the problem lies in the fact that an author has many preconceived notions they are using as they write, some which they might make conscious in the text, but many which they do not. The author might not even be conscious of them. That means, in any text, there is always something lost in communication; there is always some mystery left behind it which only the author can reveal.
The Feast of Sts Peter and Paul is one of the most important, and yet most glossed over, feasts of the Church Year. Yet, it should be easy to see its value. Sts Peter and Paul are the two most significant Apostles in the New Testament, and their ecclesial ministries end together with their martyrdoms in Rome. Despite previous conflicts against each other, they die united for Christ, embracing each other in love, recognizing each other as providing an authentic voice of Christ’s desires for the Church. They merge their authority together into one, forming a new Apostolic See, the See of Rome. And since it exists as the continuation of the authority of the two most important Apostles of the early Church, the See of Rome becomes, as it were, the heart which lovingly directs the Church throughout time. It is no wonder that St Irenaeus, writing in the second century, would declare the church at Rome as the church which all other churches must heed: Read the rest of this entry »
Although this art of logic has manifold utility, still, if one is learned only in it, and ignorant of aught else, he is actually retarded, rather than helped to progress in philosophy, since he becomes a victim of verbosity and overconfidence. By itself, logic is practically useless. Only when it is associated with other studies does logic shine, and then by a virtue that is communicated by them. Considerable indulgence should, however, be shown to the young, in whom verbosity should be temporarily tolerated, so that they may thus acquire abundance of eloquence. The minds of the immature, even as their [growing] bodies, must first be [well] fed, lest they become emaciated. Thus, by means of plenty of nourishing food, they can put on weight and acquire strength. During this stage, the flesh is allowed to luxuriate to a degree that might [otherwise] be considered excessive. At a later age, the surplus fat of the young will be sufficiently burned out and purified by the exertion of labor, the burden of responsibility, and the strain of work. As students mature and grow in understanding, our tolerance of unrestrained verbosity should diminish, and the impudence of sophistry (which Aristotle calls ‘contentious,’ but we refer to as ‘deceitful’ or ‘cavilling’) should be suppressed. It is the duty of those who have the title and function of teachers to see this. However, rules alone are useless. Theoretical principles must be consolidated by practice and assiduous exercise, except perhaps where a disposition has already been transformed into a habit.
– John of Salisbury. Metalogicon. trans. Daniel D. McGarry (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1971), 244-25 (IV:28).
As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind? Why then did you go out? To see a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, those who wear soft raiment are in kings’ houses. Why then did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, `Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.’
Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and men of violence take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come (Matt. 11:7 - 14).
Among those born of women, no man is greater than St John the Baptist. Such words can easily lead one to confusion. Is not Jesus, because of the incarnation, a man born of a woman? Should not Jesus therefore be greater than John? Is he now to be seen as John’s inferior? Read the rest of this entry »
How does one present a movie about the life of Genghis Khan? With the often contradictory and questionable biographical material we have, which do you show and which do you gloss over? Those questions, of course, will be answered differently depending upon how much of the Khan’s life you want to show; for Sergei Bodrov, in his 2007 movie Mongol, the answer was clear: show the Khan’s path to ascendancy, and end with the battle that gave to him effective control over all his Mongol kinsmen.
“The final revolution cannot occur unless the Church becomes charged with the energies of the Holy Spirit. By her very nature, the Church cannot sanction any canonized social norm and this is why she acts with the greatest flexibility in regards to local circumstances. Yet, if the Word of God consoles, it also judges. This explains the certain detachment of the Church’s clairvoyant witness. She condemns all compromise and conformism, but her penetrating realism unmasks and confronts the demonic elements. The universal and most pertinent task before us is to place the goods of this earth at the disposal of all people, without depriving them of religious and political freedom. It is the problem of wealth and not really the poor who covet this wealth. In a technological and free market civilization, a poet, a thinker, a prophet — all of these are considered useless beings. Artists and disinterested intellectuals already constitute a new form of the proletariat. For sure, above all, by an obligatory international taxation, it is necessary to suppress material hunger. It is also necessary to consider those who hunger and who know that it is not by bread alone that mankind lives. It is most urgent to affirm the primacy of culture and the spirit of finesse. Modern society needs to protect poets and prophets, and while accepting demons out of respect for freedom, we ought equally to reserve a place for angels and saints who are just as real as other people and the demons. To doubt that we human beings might be capable of mastering not only the cosmos but ourselves, would be to renounce the dignity given to us as children of God. It is precisely to this world of ours, closed to everything but itself, that the assurance of faith is given in order to penetrate the walls and manifest the invisible presence of he Transcendent One, to raise the dead and move mountains, to cast the fire of hope for the salvation of all and to connect this world and its emptiness to the ‘Church, full of the Trinity.’”
–Paul Evdokimov, “Culture and Faith,” pages 195 - 215 in In the World, of the Church: A Paul Evdokimov Reader. trans. Michael Plekon and Alexis Vinogradov (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 207 - 8.
Hans Küng is an interesting figure. Early on in his career, he produced some fine theological works – his study on Karl Barth was recognized as an important Catholic work on Barth. However, as has become apparent throughout his life, his theological problem is the same as many others: he over-idealizes the advances of the Enlightenment, and uses its ideals to judge and criticize religious tradition. He doesn’t use it to only become self-critical within Catholicism, but he also uses it to engage and criticize any and all world religions. Obviously, elements of the Enlightenment helped provide important correctives in society, but, if the Enlightenment project is followed through to the end, not only does the positive value of religious difference vanish, but also the kinds of things the Enlightenment wanted to remove, such as the intolerance which leads to violence, return. But now they are far worse than before, because they have been entirely secularized. After all, once grace and the supernatural underpinnings of society have been removed, then what happens in the world, such as the rise of violent nationalism leading to world wars, is difficult if not impossible to overcome.
It is because of this that one needs to pay careful attention of Küng’s criticism of Islam in a recent speech in London. His criticism of Islam is simple: it’s “stuck in the Middle Ages,” and it has not gone through the reforms of the Enlightenment. Read the rest of this entry »
Recently, a new translation of the Bible has been published, and it is one that people might want to consider obtaining for themselves: The Orthodox Study Bible. Yes, one might own a previous edition, but it was only the New Testament and the Psalms and it contained only a few study notes to help the reader. Now, the Bible is complete, and it provides an important contribution to the English speaking world by offering a new, modern translation of the Septuagint for the Old Testament.
The East views the Septuagint as an inspired translation of the Tanakh, as superior to the later Masoretic Text, and as the text which is to be used for the Old Testament. Of course it is known that the New Testament writers used it (not exclusively, to be sure; there are some quotes which reflect the proto-Masoretic tradition). But what people who are unfamiliar with the Septuagint do not know is that the texts of several books of the Tanakh differ in the Septuagint from the later Masoretic texts; sometimes it is only minor differences, sometimes it is major. Read the rest of this entry »
The world we live in is a fallen world. Until the eschaton, it will never find perfection. This fact should not mean that we can be lazy and give up working for the betterment of the world. No, we should always strive for perfection, even if we know it is unattainable. In a sense, however, it is attainable and indeed, Christians in their experience of Christ at communion do encounter it and find it for one great moment at the Lord ’s Table.
Christians should always have their eye on the end, on perfection, while realizing the state of the world they live in. They must understand what the world is like, and how powerful evil can be and is in it. But they must engage the world. They can’t turn their backs on it. Such a gnostic response is always the response of a coward. Yet they must be realistic; what they can do for the world is good, even if it is limited. If they engage politics, it means they must understand that no political position will be perfect in and of itself. They can expect no politician or political idea to fix all earthly problems. More importantly it means that when engaging politics, they will be engaging a fallen structure, and they will have to make deals with people who do evil. Read the rest of this entry »
Even apart from the liturgy, church life in the East has never become an exclusively clerical preserve. Lay theologians and preachers, permanent deacons and subdeacons, lay representation in the government of the Church are all common. And the Eastern clergyman, generally married, does not belong to a social class above his flock. Go into any Greek village in the cool of a summer evening, and you will find the local papas having an ouzo with the men of his flock, a villager distinguishable from his fellows only in coiffure and dress. Chanceries in the East are always overflowing with the laity, peasant and merchant as well as dignitary, who have come to seek a favor, redress a grievance, or to pay their respects.
This inevitably has its effect on worship, which in the East has remained a true leitourgia or public service of the whole community. Read the rest of this entry »
In this interesting article, there is the discussion of how masses are being outsourced to India because the number of priests able to say mass in the United States cannot keep up with the requests being made.
While it is good that these masses are indeed being said, I wonder if there is another aspect to the story which has not been told yet: capitalism. In today’s consumeristic society, is it wise to “outsource” masses like this? Does it not make the mass seem like another commodity to buy and sell? I hope not.
Hans Urs von Balthasar, despite the fact he didn’t want to label himself as a theologian, is one of the most important theologians of the 20th century. There are, of course, a considerable number of people who can, and should be, given this label, but when one considers the number of people who have engaged theology in the 20th century, it is still a rather exclusive list.[1]Von Balthasar is one of the most difficult theologians to engage, in part because of how prolific a writer he was (one can get a 200 page bibliography listing all of his works), but also because he wrote in a style which often confuses many a reader as to what point he is trying to make. The more one reads his writings, the more one can understand these points, but it takes awhile before one becomes acquainted with his style enough to pick them up. Read the rest of this entry »
Fr. Pfleger will return to the St Sabina’s on June 16th, with “no restrictions” except, of course, ones which are imposed upon all priests, that they are now allowed to discuss political candidates at the pulpit.
I certainly hope other priests understand the point which has been made with Fr. Pfleger, and all abuse of their priestly position, from any side of the political spectrum, will be treated equally.
“The public,” writes Orrin Klapp, “indeed, is usually ignorant of its heroes. There are several reasons for this: First, at the time of emergence of a hero the public usually has little opportunity for making direct observations; second, actions have a permanent advantage over traits in commanding interest and attention; third, the public usually infers the traits of a hero from the thing he has done.“[1] What Orrin Klapp wrote about heroes explains how and why the legends about Constantine and Ashoka developed. They are religious heroes; they were seen by their contemporaries as having done something great because, through their own conversion, they helped convert their empires to their new faith (although neither specifically required it, they certainly encouraged others to follow their example. They also did what they could to give their new religious affiliation every advantage they could, donating funds and resources to its leaders, even if not to the extent that the legends suggest).
What has become one of the most difficult things for Westerners to understand is that Islam is not a monolithic religion. There are many ways Islam has manifested in history, both in its normative forms, but also in its secondary and under-represented forms. Just as it would be wrong to form one’s understanding of Christianity by looking to Christian slave-owners in the 19thcentury (even if they could have appeared as normative to many looking to the Christian faith at that time), so it is wrong to form one’s understanding of Islam based upon 21stcentury radicals. Just as it is wrong to read an anti-Catholic polemical tract to understand Catholicism, so it is wrong to read anti-Muslim polemical tracts to understand Islam (even though the tracts will indeed “quote from legitimate sources” they will do so carefully, cherry-picked for the most shock value, and without a legitimate hermeneutical approach to help the readers properly understand the context of the quotes themselves). It is for this reason that one must approach Islam from Islamic sources if one wants to understand it. This doesn’t mean one will have to accept all that one reads, nor that one can’t be critical after you have studied it: but you will then be able to be critical of something which is true and representative of the faith, not something made up. It is in this spirit that I offer up the rather unusual, although controversial, writings of Muhammad Sa’id al-’Ashmawy, as put into the book, Against Islamic Extremism: The Writings of Muhammad Sa’id al-’Ashmawy. Ed. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban (Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press, 2001).
Despite the tremendous importance that the conversion of Constantine had for the Roman Empire, it seems that his story was often put to use to convince other rulers throughout the nations to convert to Christianity. It was believed that if a king converted, his people would follow. “To cite Constantine as an example of a ruler whose fortune decidedly turned for the better after his conversion offered clear advantages to the Roman Church in its attempt to convert pagan and barbarian rulers.“[1] Yet, his story was well known by the people, especially as his legend was told and retold throughout the centuries. With his mother, his feast day in Byzantium was to be placed upon May 21st. Even when his story was not used to create new converts, it was used, like other stories told about the saints, to help encourage a healthy Christian worldview so that Christians would not have their sense of reality challenged, and therefore, would have no reason to leave their faith.
Significant to the Constantinian legend is the way Constantine relates himself to the Church in it. Read the rest of this entry »
In the anteroom of heaven each of us will be purified until he has acquired the disposition of perfect poverty. If every dispute about mine and thine or about the penalty, reprimand, judicial discernment or reversal of judgment that is one’s due under law; if every possible distinction between mine and thine and every claim on God or neighbor, on whatever grounds it is based and whether it is raised in one’s own name or in that of a neighbor or of some universal world justice - if these ideas and concepts that have flourished in the domain of private ownership have not been relinquished on earth, they will have to be burned away in the fires of purification. But the hardest lesson to be learned there, the lesson that those who have been preoccupied with right and justice in this world will have to struggle to accept, is that there is no distinction between mine and thine even in matters of guilt; that they must see in every sin, by whomsoever it has been committed, an offense against the eternal love of God; and they must be disposed, therefore, to do penance, as long as may be deemed necessary by God, for every sin no matter who is its perpetrator. For it is impossible to enter heaven with a love less perfect than that of St. Paul, who, for the sake of his kinsmen, would gladly have borne their lot of being anathema from Christ (Rom 9:3), thus imitating the disposition of the Lord, who redeemed the world and established Christian love by a suffering that asked, not about the justice of the punishment, but about the grace that allowed him to suffer. This, then, will be the ultimate and absolute poverty of heaven: We will be purified of all thoughts of justice or retribution and ‘the justice of God’ will be ‘made manifest independently of the law’ (Rom 3:21), according to the law of the unfathomable mercy of God, in which all justice is superabundantly filled.
–Hans Urs von Balthasar, The ChristianState of Life. Trans. Sister Mary Frances McCarthy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1983), 127.
Archbishop Romero’s pastoral letters have much to say on Marxism, why the Church rejects Marxism, why the Church’s social doctrine must not be confused as being Marxist, and yet also why elements of Marxist thought can be cautiously used to help inform Christians who, following their duty to the world, are trying to make it a better place to live.
First, Romero is very clear - the Church must reject Marxism, but he also makes it clear people need to understand what Marxism is and what it is not. “Marxism is a complex phenomenon. It has to be studied from various points of view: economic, scientific, political, philosophical and religious. One has, moreover, to study Marxism in terms of its own history. What the church asserts, and what, in its joint message of May 1, the episcopal conference has recalled, is that insofar as Marxism is an atheistic ideology it is incompatible with the Christian faith. That conviction has never changed in the church’s history. In that sense, the church cannot be Marxist,” Second Pastoral Letter, in Archbishop Oscar Romero, Voice of the Voiceless: The Four Pastoral Letters and Other Statements. Trans. Michael J. Walsh (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2000),77. Looking at Marxism in this fashion, Romero reiterated this message in his Fourth Pastoral Letter: “Naturally if one understands by Marxism a materialistic, atheistic ideology that is taken to explain the whole human existence and gives a false interpretation of religion, then it is completely untenable by a Christian.” (145-6).
So why has the Church’s social doctrine often been confused as Marxist by its critics? Read the rest of this entry »
We can find a considerable amount of similarity in the way the legends of Constantine and Ashoka are told. Examining them, we can produce a rather simple outline which would tell the basic story of each: a wicked monarch, with some kind of deformity (leprosy for Constantine, physical unattractiveness for Ashoka) was led to a new faith after witnessing a miracle that proved its superiority.[1] After their conversion, they became a representation of righteousness (although, with Ashoka’s story, he is not seen as always being perfect - his conversion to Buddhism, although it pacified him, did not entirely remove his violent nature. This can be seen several times in the Asokavadana, most significantly, in how had his royal executioner executed).
There is no doubt that Hans Urs von Balthasar was one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century. The far-ranging scope of his interests found there way in his numerous books and articles. Even those who disagree with elements (small or large) of his thought can recognize his genius. It is for this reason that many people, supporters and detractors alike, are confused when they look into Balthasar’s relationship with Adrienne von Speyr. According to Balthasar, you can’t understand him and his theological writings without looking at her. His work was tied to her and her rather unusual and strange theological writings, often produced by Adrienne in the middle of some mystical state with Balthasar dictating and editing what she said. Theologically, she was saying much which confirmed his intuitions, often commenting on things which she should not have had any knowledge about. His own understanding of the death and resurrection of Christ, his own theology of hell, is intricately linked to Adrienne’s own experiences of the passion of Christ; during Holy Saturday, she felt as if she were sharing in the sufferings of Christ as he descended into hell. Her personal disposition and demeanor changed; one could see she was experiencing the sufferings of hell, and her consciousness reflected what one has in such a state.
The numerous quotes of Adrienne found in the final volume of the Theo-Drama proves Balthasar’s assertion that their theological destiny is tied together. And anyone reading some of her exegetical works can find reasons for why Balthasar was more than a little impressed with what she had to say. However, there is far more to this story and it is this more which can be difficult to understand and even provide one reasons to question Balthasar’s ability to judge and guide Adrienne’s mystical experiences; an example of this comes from her work, Book of All Saints, posthumously published by Balthasar and finally released in translation by Ignatius Press.
Just like with Constantine, a legend developed about the conversion of Ashoka which was quite different from reality. Even though he had produced a great number of monuments which were placed throughout India with texts that provided a great amount of insight to his life, including his conversion, no one could read them.[1]Yet, the people remembered Ashoka had created them, and their presence encouraged scholars to tell andretell what they had heard about him, making his legend one of the most important ones to come out of Buddhist India. He was known to the Indians, and to the rest of the Buddhist world, as Ashoka the Great; after his conversion, he was to be seen as a devout follower of the Buddha, who, among other things, helped establish stupa to house the relics of the Buddha as pilgrimage sites throughout the region.[2]
The story of Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism within the Asokavadanahas several layers to it. Some elements of his conversion are based upon factors from a previous life. In that life, he had met the Buddha when he (Ashoka) was a young child. Although he did not have much to give, he gave what he could: the boy placed a handful of dirt in the Buddha’s begging bowl, thinking he was giving a wonderful gift to the Enlightened One. Read the rest of this entry »
One of the things which often happens in politics is that political figures are turned into savior figures. It should not be surprising: a politician wants people to believe he or she has something important and credible to give to the nation. This means that his or her leadership will end up saving the nation in one way or another. Political talk is always about what the politician will or will not do. Political talk is always soteriological, and therefore, political talk is always dangerous. The average person tends to think that the politician who offers the most to one’s nation is the one who offers the best vision for the future. That is, politicians, to be victorious, must be (in some sense) utopian. Rarely is any other voice capable of being heard.
This explains why people gather around a politician, cheering them on as if they are cheering on some great religious figure. For politics is very religious. Politics is always eschatological. Yes, you can find people who swoon over Obama. The criticism offered to Obama because of how his followers treat him is quite wrong; in this way, we should be cautious when criticizing McCain because of the rhetoric some of his supporters offer up for him. Guilt by association is always fallacious. However, it is interesting to note that Georgia’s Republican Chairwoman claims McCain is like Christ on the cross:
“John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross,” Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. “He never denounced God, either.” (Source: ajc.com)
Despite this, I doubt anyone will make a “MessiahMcCain” blog anytime soon.
Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was an event of monumental importance; Christians believed that his baptism would be special, reflecting the significance of the event itself. It should come as no surprise that the lackluster historical reality — that Constantine was baptized more or less on his deathbed, at the end of a failed military campaign - did not follow expectations.[1] Eventually orthodox Christians saw his baptism by a heretical bishop to be totally unacceptable. This great man had called the Council of Nicea; he had to be an orthodox Christian. How could he not be? So how can he be baptized by a heretic? Once the circumstances surrounding his death were lost, it was possible for the story of Constantine’s baptism to be changed. As stated before, this was a process which took time, and it certainly was not based upon bad faith. By the time of Theodosius, Constantine had become so equated with both the triumph of Christianity and the triumph of Christian orthodoxy,[2] it was believed that his life must demonstrate both of these truths at once. The triumph of Christianity was the triumph of God’s providence; out of necessity, therefore, God’s power had to be expressed in the narratives about Constantine’s conversion to Christianity. Once the earliest records, such as those written by Eusbeius, were ignored, [3] there was ample room to create a new vision and understanding of his conversion, based often on the imagination of a hagiographical author trying to re-create what they thought his life must really have been like.
The story which eventually came about showed the powerful handiwork of God in converting Constantine and expressed the superiority of the Christian faith over his former pagan beliefs. Read the rest of this entry »
“One of the reasons women’s lives have changed is that they have been able to control their fertility, it is an important issue.“ — Cherie Blair (source: The Press Association)
It’s sad when things come down to this mentality: women, to be free women in society, need contraceptives. However, given the way society has developed, it’s quite understandable why people think in this fashion: because they want a good (freedom) but they do not truly understand what that good actually is. Read the rest of this entry »
In previous eras of world history, when an emperor or king converted to a new faith, their subjects took notice. The link between “church and state” was strong; often nations followed their ruler in their religious faith. Thus, when St Vladimir converted to Christianity, it was not surprising that he told his subjects to convert along with him: they were to be baptized or he would consider them to be his personal enemies.[1] Two of the most famous, and most important, conversions made by a ruler were those of St Constantine and Ashoka. Politically, both were trying to find ways to enlarge and unify the empires they inherited. Constantine found out that in his time that the Roman Empire was in a decline, and Roman hegemony was weakening. Although Ashoka was able to expand his empire, he had to rely upon a large bureaucratic administration to keep it together;[2] as with all bureaucracies, this meant that his empire was inherently unstable.
Although both possessed large, powerful empires, neither of their domains would last long after their deaths. Both of them tried to prevent the inevitable, but neither succeeded. One of the ways both of them tried to reorganize their empires was through their new faith: Constantine with Christianity and Ashoka with Buddhism. It was in the religious landscape where they would establish their legacies. After they had died, if not even during their lives, they became the subject of religious legend. Their conversions were used to show the truth of their respective faiths. From this, they were to become more than religious heroes, but holy men whose lives were meant to be imitated. Yet, who was it that could really imitate them? Other monarchs; their legends were used not only as evangelization tools, but also as representations of what the ideal ruler should be like.[3]
One of the most popular movie heroes, Indiana Jones, is back. While there had been talk about a fourth movie in the Indiana Jones series for years, it looked like it might not happen. There were many difficulties to get through: a script had to be written that Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Harrison Ford could all agree on, time had to be found to make it, and, as the years went on by, the ability of Harrison Ford to do another action movie was increasingly questionable. And yet, it happened. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was filmed, becoming the fourth film in the Indiana Jones series.
But, with such a long wait, and with so high an expectation for this film, does it deliver what people want?
Today the Eastern tradition (Catholic and Orthodox) honors Sts Constantine and Helen. While the West might have ignored St Constantine’s elevation to sainthood, Rome nonetheless acknowledges and accepts the East’s devotion to him.
So much has been said, and will continue to be said, about Constantine and his religious faith. I hold no doubts as to the sincerity of his faith. I do not think he was a cynical ruler using the Christian faith for political gains. If he were he could have done it so much better. He was deeply sorrowful for what the empire had done to the Christians, and worked to restore what it had taken from them in times past, something which would not have happened if he were only interested in using the Christian faith as a tool for political power.
Recently, I was graciously invited to the BENS 2008 Washington Forum. Many influential people were there, giving important speeches about the problems we are currently facing as a nation, but also, the kinds of struggles they see that the United States will have to address as the world continues to change around us. A major concern of many at the conference was the rapid increase in technology, the kind of resources needed to keep up with technological advances, and the new kinds of threats that have developed as a result. Their reflections on these topics were timely and often indicated the kind of holistic approach the United States will have to take with the rest of the world if it does not want to be left behind. But not all discussions were technological in concern. Some addressed other issues, such as Newt Gingrich, who, at the end of his session, had an interesting debate with one of the audience members on the way we should understand Bin Laden’s religious affiliation.
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12: 1 - 2).
So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven (Matthew 10: 32 -33).
In the Eastern tradition, the Sunday after Pentecost is the Sunday of All Saints. As Pentecost is tied to the ascension of Christ, so is All Saints tied with Pentecost. Pentecost brought down the Holy Spirit upon the Church, and it is through the Holy Spirit we are incorporated into the Body of Christ; it is through the Spirit we are able to become holy. The Heavenly King dwells among us and cleanses us of all stain; and it is this defilement, the stain of sin, which closes us off from participating in the divine life of the Holy Trinity. And yet the Trinity desires our participation in their love and joy. Creation was made so that we can rejoice and be glad in the glory of God. And God, a God of holiness, shares with us that holiness if we are willing to partake of it. It spreads out and dwells in those who respond to it; it is willing to include all, but, because holiness is love, it does not force itself upon others. Rather, it lets itself be known, and opens itself up to our response; if we take it in to our lives, it slowly transforms us, working to makes us perfect even as our heavenly Father is perfect. It is only because we accept it, only because we join ourselves to it, that we are able to become by grace what God is by nature. Read the rest of this entry »
We are saved in hope - a key message of Pope Benedict to the Catholic Church - is the theme of Prince Caspian. Hope, even when everything else looks bleak, provides the foundation for salvation. And, as C.S. Lewis knows so well, often the greatest hope is found in the heart of a child.
Yesterday, some people on the Catholic blogosphere commented on a statement given by Rev Jose Gabriel Funes saying that alien life could exist. The one thing I didn’t see in the news report, and the one thing which should have been reported, is that this is a long-standing tradition and viewpoint (not doctrinal nor dogmatic, but a valid theological opinion) which existed in the Church even before the Reformation. One can find this view, for example, in the works of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 - 1464). We can see this in the following quote which pre-supposes their existence: Read the rest of this entry »
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, `Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:37 - 39).
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Act 2: 1 - 4)
Pentecost is one of those great events which we Christians know and experience, and yet we cannot quite understand or explain it. The glory of Pentecost is the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Church. The history of the Church is the history of Pentecost, the history of the Spirit in the world. But that is the problem - we receive the Spirit because of the glorification of Christ; we experience the eschaton in all of its glory, and yet find ourselves still of the world, living in and through world history. The end of all things is fulfilled in Christ and experienced by us in our participation in Christ, and yet the world has not ended. The glory of God is over all the earth and yet that glory appears as if it is hidden. What are we to make of this?
That is the central theme behind David Mamet’s intriguing new movie, Redbelt. Don’t let the fact that the central character, Mike Terry (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), is a fight instructor make you think that this is your typical martial arts film. Yes, martial arts, specifically Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, are central to the story. But it’s helps form the basis by which the drama can be played. The movie is about Mike Terry and his desire to be true to himself and his ideals, even when it pushes him, his friends, and his family to the breaking point. He is used and abused by many around him; indeed, one could say his life is in shambles, and yet… there is an escape. There is a way out.
2 Comments | 
America, Eschatology, Europe, Henry Karlson, History, Magic | 
Permalink
Posted by Henry Karlson
On the last day of the feast, the great day, Jesus stood up and proclaimed, “If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, `Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’” Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
