A really nice Easter sermon. The sermon itself starts at about 50 minutes into the video.
From St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 3, a. 53, q. 1:
It behooved Christ to rise again, for five reasons.
- First of all; for the commendation of Divine Justice, to which it belongs to exalt them who humble themselves for God’s sake, according to Luke 1:52: “He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.” Consequently, because Christ humbled Himself even to the death of the Cross, from love and obedience to God, it behooved Him to be uplifted by God to a glorious resurrection; hence it is said in His Person (Psalm 138:2): “Thou hast known,” i.e. approved, “my sitting down,” i.e. My humiliation and Passion, “and my rising up,” i.e. My glorification in the resurrection; as the gloss expounds.
- Secondly, for our instruction in the faith, since our belief in Christ’s Godhead is confirmed by His rising again, because, according to 2 Corinthians 13:4, “although He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God.” And therefore it is written (1 Corinthians 15:14): “If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and our [Vulgate: 'your'] faith is also vain”: and (Psalm 29:10): “What profit is there in my blood?” that is, in the shedding of My blood, “while I go down,” as by various degrees of evils, “into corruption?” As though He were to answer: “None. ‘For if I do not at once rise again but My body be corrupted, I shall preach to no one, I shall gain no one,’” as the gloss expounds.
- Thirdly, for the raising of our hope, since through seeing Christ, who is our head, rise again, we hope that we likewise shall rise again. Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:12): “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead?” And (Job 19:25-27): “I know,” that is with certainty of faith, “that my Redeemer,” i.e. Christ, “liveth,” having risen from the dead; “and” therefore “in the last day I shall rise out of the earth . . . this my hope is laid up in my bosom.”
- Fourthly, to set in order the lives of the faithful: according to Romans 6:4: “As Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life”: and further on; “Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more; so do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive to God.”
- Fifthly, in order to complete the work of our salvation: because, just as for this reason did He endure evil things in dying that He might deliver us from evil, so was He glorified in rising again in order to advance us towards good things; according to Romans 4:25: “He was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.”
Holy Saturday is one of those holidays that for most seems to be only a gap for most people. We see the re-enactments of Christ’s passion on Good Friday and the celebrations of his resurrection on Easter. But what happened between the two?
What took place is what used to be called the “harrowing of hell”, i.e., when Christ came though the underworld (with, implicitly, the repentant thief in tow) and brought out all of those who had looked forward to his coming. It’s a topic that brings out a lot of Biblical discussion, but that’s the bottom line.
But the ones who looked forward to his coming weren’t the only one’s Our Lord interacted with. As St. John of Damascus (The Orthodox Faith, III, 29) tells us:
The soul when it was deified descended into Hades, for, just as the Sun of Righteousness (Malachi 4:2) rose for those upon the earth, so likewise He might bring light to those who sit under the earth in darkness and shadow of death (Isaiah 9:2): for just as He brought the message of peace to those upon the earth, and of release to the prisoners, and of sight to the blind , and became to those who believed the Author of everlasting salvation and to those who did not believe a reproach of their unbelief (1 Peter 3:19), so He might become the same to those in Hades : That every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under the earth. Philippians 2:10 And thus after He had freed those who had been bound for ages, straightway He rose again from the dead, showing us the way of resurrection.
In the Lord’s Prayer, we say “on earth as it is in heaven”, but this is an example of how the other place reflects earthly realities. While Jesus was on the earth, some accepted his teaching, some rejected it vehemently. When he passed through hell, it was the same thing: some had looked forward to him and accepted his teaching, others that didn’t had rejected him. Needless to say, what they thought about what he said was entirely different.
It’s the same today: some accept him, some reject him. In this life, however, we can choose; in the next one, we cannot. Holy Saturday, the “gap” that it is for many, is a good time to make the choice one way or another.
From Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, 3 q.46 a. 3:
Among means to an end, the more suitable is that whereby the various concurring means employed are themselves helpful to such end. But in this that man was delivered by Christ’s Passion, many other things besides deliverance from sin came together for man’s salvation.
- In the first place, man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love Him in return, and herein lies the perfection of human salvation; hence the Apostle says (Romans 5:8): “God commendeth His charity towards us; for when as yet we were sinners . . . Christ died for us.”
- Secondly, because thereby He set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man’s salvation. Hence it is written (1 Peter 2:21): “Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in His steps.”
- Thirdly, because Christ by His Passion not only delivered man from sin, but also merited justifying grace for him and the glory of bliss, as shall be shown later (48, 1; 49, 1, 5).
- Fourthly, because by this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Corinthians 6:20: “You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body.”
- Fifthly, because it redounded to man’s greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death.
Hence it is written (1 Corinthians 15:57): “Thanks be to God who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” It was accordingly more fitting that we should be delivered by Christ’s Passion than simply by God’s good-will.
The best way to describe this album’s style is “eclectic.” But that’s not in a contemporary sense–even for the time it came out–but in a traditional sense. “The Companions of Paul” (the group’s name in English) draw from a variety of folk styles, including French folk music (an ancestor of zydeco), bluegrass and traditional American Gospel (before the polyester suit types got into the act), which in turn have ancestry in British folk music. The result is an interesting album that would be even better if the vocals were a step up in quality from what they are.
And I doubt seriously that those who accompanied the Apostle played a banjo.
- Il a les pieds tout blancs
- Pardone leur
- Déception Blues
- Ne pense pas
- Le Seigneur souffre
- Si seulement
- Le Seigneur patiente
- Ne te moque pas
- Supporte le
When I was growing up, one of my father’s favourite expressions to get my brother and I to not stray from the path he set before us was to demand that we “get with the program”. The flip side to that was that, if we did get with the program, life would be good.
That authoritarian presentation of life didn’t always sit well with us. Part of the problem was that we were in the wrong country to make it work. Had I emigrated to a place where “the program” was more uniformly enforced, life probably would have had a more familiar feel to it. But this used to be the place where people could make choices in an open society for the kind of life they wanted to live. That’s not really the case any more; we have a more corporatist mentality where anything that stands in the way of whatever goal is fashionable at the moment is cast aside.
These days the most fashionable goal is same-sex civil marriage. Although the immediate stated objective is “equality” there are many other goals wrapped up in it, and I won’t take time to go through these. But now it’s the litmus test of a person being “beautiful and good” as the Greeks used to put it.
Before I go on, I’d like to make two passing observations:
- As a web site maintainer and one who reads his statistics, I think that the Mozilla browser deal is on the downhill run. Good as they are (and I’ve certainly used them for many years) and as successful as they have been against IE, they’re being overtaken by Chrome, both in PC’s and on mobile devices, where they really haven’t gotten off the ground. Mozilla needed to hire based on merit if they needed to survive; Eich’s fall is a major step backward in that regard.
- I felt long ago that Proposition 8 was ill-advised, and believe that the abolition of civil marriage is what’s needed in our society. I don’t support same-sex civil marriage because I don’t support the extension of a franchise I’m trying to get rid of. But since civil marriage is the necessary prerequisite of same-sex civil marriage, that leads to the next question: if Eich (or anyone else) opposes civil marriage altogether, will they be subjected to the same animus that we saw in this case? I think we’ll find out soon enough, but in the meanwhile…
What happened to Eich is reminiscent of what happened during the “Red scare” days of the 1950′s. And I don’t throw that around casually. In the 1930′s both communism and fascism had their fans–and well placed ones at that–in the United States. Fascism’s fans took it in the chops during World War II, when we were actually at war with these people. Communism’s turn came afterwards. People who thought they were in a mainstream found out otherwise. What changed was the country. The left’s teeth were set on edge by the McCarthy Era, but now that the shoe is on the other foot: things which were legitimate before (like supporting legal ballot initiatives) are now beyond the pale.
There are some in the LGBT community–Andrew Sullivan is probably the best known–who realise the nature of what has happened and are appalled by it. But there are others who take the Vince Lombardi approach to life and politics: winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing. It’s “get with the program” time for these people; a really free country, with the benefits that come with it, means nothing to them. But perhaps they should (but probably won’t) stop and consider a couple of things.
The first is that, while Eich’s experience threatens people’s ability to get and keep employment, the growth of the entitlement system makes obtaining and retaining employment less necessary than before. Today we have a government which is open in making it possible not have to work to get health insurance, which has allowed the disability program to expand to unprecedented levels, and which inflates employment figures by allowing many people to drop out of the workforce without a care of getting them back. Such a reality, which is facing those who are supposed to be entering into the workforce now, probably wouldn’t have affected a person such as Eich, but I would have taken it into consideration in my choices, and many others are doubtless of like style of mind.
Moving on, in hiring into the competitive environment we have now, we have, as Chairman Mao used to say, “put politics in command”. The LGBT community would like to humour us with the idea that promoting their equality promotes merit, but putting litmus tests like this front and centre will attract political and ideological hacks. To draw a historical example, V.I. Lenin had no problem retaining the services of Alexei Brusilov, the Tsar’s best commander in World War I, to fight the Russian Civil War. Why? Because he wanted to win. But such a sophisticated mentality is beyond the crazies of our time.
The Russian history analogy brings up another point: the LGBT community would do well to put its foot soldiers somewhere else than behind their Twitter accounts. For example, given Putin’s policy re that community, there should be “gay brigades” fighting him in Crimea, just like the leftists who fought against Franco in Spain. There should be like forces in the Middle East against those who hang homosexuals from hydraulic cranes. If you’re going to deal harshly with domestic enemies, you need to consider your foreign ones. But our current Occupant is pursuing another hippie dream of putting flowers in gun barrels, which will negate much of the “progress” going on.
Personally I’d like to see Eich cut a deal with the Chinese. They don’t care about such things; they went through their era of “putting politics in command” and like Lenin want to win. The two revolutions of the 1960’s—the social-sexual and the computer—were antithetical then and can be so again, depending upon who pulls the strings. Mozilla was the single strongest single open source alternative to the corporatist monolith on the Internet, but I guess that freedom is going to have to come from somewhere else.
(Jef 335.111) 1974?
A very nice French Christian folk album. To my mind it isn’t quite up to this (from the same label, though), but it isn’t bad either.
- Les Chalands
- Vivre Ave Toi
- Comme une Terre Desséchée
- La Feuille Morte
- Oh! Oh! Seigneur
- Ce N’est Pas Étrange
- Quand J’ai vu les Mains
- Ma Vie est Entre tes Mains
- A Bientôt!
In early February we were regaled by a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham over “creationism vs. evolutionism” which attracted more attention than it deserved. I’m tempted to move on about this except for this fawning piece in the New Republic (lefties can certainly be sycophants when the situation calls for it, something Barack Obama is greatly thankful for). Now, of course, Nye has graduated from defending evolution against New Earth Creationists to being the current darling of climate change fanatics (we’ve passed from advocacy). So, since they’re going to keep him in the spotlight, I think I will oblige.
Nye and myself have a few interlocking life threads. He graduated from Sidwell Friends school in DC (where my father started his educational career) the same year I graduated from St. Andrew’s in the land where the animals are tame and the people run wild. He went to Cornell (and from there on to Boeing) with a high school friend of mine. Nye and I both had the same major (mechanical engineering) and would have graduated at the same time except that I graduated from Texas A&M a semester early. I too went first into the aerospace industry before moving in the other direction.
But, as you will see, the similarities end soon. This is a classic case of two people who have taken the same data and come to opposite conclusions. Since Nye’s “day job” for many years was to promote science, let’s consider that in view of the hot topic in education these days: STEM education. It’s traditionally been something of a job to get Americans interested in STEM careers and the education that leads up to them. Let’s start by considering two fundamentals in favour of that career path.
The first is that STEM educated people eat and many others don’t. That’s more obvious today but it was certainly true when Nye and I were making career choices. Part of Nye’s problem is, perhaps, that he never considered a non-STEM type of career; many engineers and scientists are that way. For me, I bounced around various career options (most in the arts) until just before my senior year in prep school; for me STEM was an afterthought, which made playing catch-up as an undergraduate something of a challenge.
The second is that our civilisation, such as it is, is powered by the results of science and engineering being applied. Although we think of our present state as the demonstration of that, this fact was true in Nye’s formative years as well. In some ways, however, the interaction of that fact with the social movements of the 1960′s and 1970′s has skewed the debate about science and engineering in this country in the wrong way.
I’ve made this point before but it bears repeating: the social upheaval of the 1960′s was a profoundly Luddite, anti-technological business, from the anti-moon Luddites (who have finally triumphed in Obama’s scaled back NASA) to the attempted destruction of the computer at the Courant Institute. Those upheavals put an end to a “golden age” in STEM which were (in part) detonated by the Soviets’ Sputnik launch. That was the backdrop for just about anyone getting, for example, an engineering degree in the 1970′s, and many others went into professions that promised more money for less work and higher grades: law, business, etc. That last process continues to this day; the work (and lower grades) involved with STEM majors means that they are often left to those who value hard work and diligence, i.e., the immigrants.
Given both positives and challenges, how do we build on them and induce people to make a career in STEM? Nye’s career as the “Science Guy” has been based on an underlying assumption: if we make science “exciting” for kids, they’ll want to grow up and make a career out of it. Personally, I’ve always found “science promoters” like Nye (sadly, there are others) a little creepy and “gee-whiz” in nature. Superior pay and the technological nature of our society have worked for my family for more than a century and a half, why isn’t that enough? Americans, however, hate to promote anything from hard necessity; like John Lennon, they’d rather be dreamers, even though their dreams turn to nightmares.
Nye would do well to consider the nightmares he is promoting these days. I think it unwise that he would carry the water of people (and their disciples) who, having turned the world upside down by closing campuses (including Nye’s at Cornell) now trumpet themselves as the “scientific” élite lording over the Luddite masses. (Think: how can another Harvard lawyer really be the “scientific” President?) Thoughtful consideration of the two “litmus test” issues (evolution and climate change) will bring to light the weaknesses of such an approach.
For me, the Nye-Ham debate was a dissatisfying business. By making the debate squarely about the age of the earth, Ken Ham let Nye off of the hook about the philosophical implications of evolutionary theory. Those implications–or at least the ones that the proponents want to promote at a given time–have always been evolution’s most distasteful result. They range from Social Darwinism and Marxism in the nineteenth century to the fatalism engendered by current evolutionary biology.
Adding to the problem the evolutionists’ favourite mantra: that it’s necessary to “believe in evolution” to be scientific. The blunt truth of the matter is that there are substantial areas of science, engineering and technology for which “belief” (which makes the business a religion) in evolution is totally unnecessary for successful result. One which is significant for Nye is mechanical engineering; one can go through an education and career in same without ever having to consider evolution at all.
With climate change, it’s been understood for a long time that, everything else being equal, the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will result in a greenhouse effect and temperatures will rise. But with earth sciences there is one basic problem: nothing else is ever equal, which is why the data, to use a good Thomistic term, is not univocal. And as someone whose first degree is in mechanical engineering and his later academic specialisation is geotechnical engineering, I know all too well that mechanical engineers can easily miss the finer points of earth sciences.
Beyond that, climate change fanatics have raised justifiable suspicion about their cause by their proposed (or lack thereof) method to fix the problem they are so passionate about. When pressed for solutions, we always get the same answers: solar, wind, etc. Although these are promising, the simple truth of the matter is that, with one exception, none of these fossil fuel burning alternatives will meet the requirements of our technological society in the foreseeable future, and certainly within the horizon that climate change fanatics normally live in. That exception is nuclear power, the bête noire of environmentalists for nearly half a century, even though Greenpeace’s founder has found peace with it.
The only way, using the limited options the fanatics place in front of us, we’ll get to where they want to go is to return to a poor, primitive state that makes the fifty square metre apartment look luxurious. There’s nothing particularly scientific about that. Fanatics characterise their opponents as “anti-science” but why should their opponents believe them? Science got us into this mess, why can’t science get us out of it?
That’s a question that Nye, if he were true to his original profession, would be asking, and asking intently. It bothers me that so many in the scientific and engineering community have rolled over to the highly unscientific powers that be these days. Nye, like the Imitation Foreign Devil, is playing up to those who trashed his first profession in times past. I don’t think the result will be as rosy as he would like to think.
One of the frustrating things about our culture is that everyone “markets” what they do as brand new. That includes Christian music. Music leaders, composers, and publishers would like to think that the move away from “traditional” Christian hymnody (and they usually fail to define “traditional”) is all recent and the music they produce is the “vanguard” of this new move.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. The move away from hymns is one that’s been going on for a long time, and one of the pioneers in this move was Pauline Mills.
She was at the centre of modern Pentecost (and the Charismatic Renewal) in the last century: healed under the ministry of Smith Wigglesworth, a Pentecostal pastor’s wife, and the mother of Dick Mills, whose prophetic ministry is well-known. She wrote a variety of songs, the most famous being “Thou Art Worthy,” which appears on this album.
This album has something of a “homemade” feel to it. She plays the piano and sings, and with the occasional “amen” corner that’s just about it. But it’s enough. She wrote many songs and choruses taken directly out of Scripture, which was regarded as a novelty but which actually antedates “traditional” hymnody, as any student of Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox music knows.
For those of us who were involved in Charismatic prayer groups in the 1960′s and 1970′s, this album will evoke many memories. Because she flows from one song to another, the album is recorded in two continuous tracks, with “Thou Art Worthy broken out separately.
- Track 1
- When You Know He Cares
- He Is The Great I Am To Me
- The Rock Holds Me
- A New Breath of Fresh Air
- My Haven
- With Security I Sing
- Behold I Will Do A New Thing
- Track 2
- If My People Will Only Pray
- I Will Extol Thee, My God
- When You Walked In
- Magnificat ( Song of the Virgin Mary)
- Thou Art Worthy
- The Desert Shall Rejoice
Personal note: in 1989, my wife and I went to a CBN event in Nashville, where her son Dick prophesied that we would have the opportunity to give counsel to those in the upper reaches of our society. I’d like to think that this site is a fulfilment of that, but I’ll leave that up to you.