Pope Francis’ Prayer to Our Lady, Untier of KnotsHoly Mary, full of God’s presence during the days of your life,
you accepted with full humility the Father’s will,
and the Devil was never capable to tie you around with his confusion
Once with your son you interceded for our difficulties,
and, full of kindness and patience you gave us example of how to untie the knots of our life.
And by remaining forever Our Mother,
you put in order, and make more clear the ties that link us to the Lord.
Holy Mother, Mother of God, and our Mother,
to you, who untie with motherly heart the knots of our life, we pray to you to receive in your hands (the name of person),
and to free him/her of the knots and confusion with which our enemy attacks.
Through your grace, your intercession, and your example,
deliver us from all evil, Our Lady, and untie the knots that prevent us from being united with God,
so that we, free from sin and error, may find Him in all things, may have our hearts placed in Him, and may serve Him always in our brothers and sisters. Amen.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Untying our Knots
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Scott Hahn Appreciation
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Fatima: 5 Blasphemies against Mary
********TAKEN FROM FATIMA.ORG
It
is also true that the gravest sins against the Most Holy Virgin are
first of all sins against faith. This important lesson must be kept in
mind.
“When I was in the chapel with Our Lord part of the night of May 29-30, 1930 (we know that it was her habit to make a holy hour from eleven in the evening to midnight, especially on Thursday evenings, according to the requests of the Sacred Heart at Paray-le-Monial), and I spoke to Our Lord about questions four and five, I suddenly felt myself more intimately possessed by the Divine Presence and, if I am not mistaken, this is what was revealed to me:
“My daughter, the reason is simple. There are five types of offenses and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
- Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
- Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity.
- Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize Her as the Mother of men.
- The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother.
- The offenses of those who outrage Her directly in Her holy images. “Here, My daughter, is the reason why the Immaculate Heart of Mary inspired Me to ask for this little act of Reparation ...”
It
is also true that the gravest sins against the Most Holy Virgin are
first of all sins against faith. This important lesson must be kept in
mind.
Terms of Agreement
We are often, in this modern economic world, presented with words when partaking in a media product or online service of Terms & Service Agreement.
Well, Here, I will show the Terms we use to explain our service to God.
I will show how simple language should, in theory, take down Protestant idea of Sola Fide apart from Law.
But Faith is important! The Catholic Church teaches that one must have Faith in Works, it is niether faith or works alone.
For example:
“It doesn’t matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man way from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” Wormwood (The Demon), “The Screwtape Letters”, C.S. Lewis
Jesus knew this. That is why He instituted Confession, Gospel of John 20:21-23. Jesus knows to go up a slope we must walk up, take action! Otherwise, the force of the slope overtakes us. That is why it is important to do. Life is more than what we believe or have faith in, we must live fully, and live fully in Christ. Yet, faith is vital as no action is a faithful act without faith, you must believe that walking up the slope helps before you can walk up the slope
SO FAITH IS VERY CRUCIAL, BUT HERE IS EVIDENCE OF OUR LEGAL LANGUAGE
1.) THE VERY BOOKS IN THE BIBLE ARE CALLED TESTAMENT IN ENGLISH:
The Greek word (pronounced) dee-ath-ay-kay means a disposition, the act or means of disposing of something, as in a will. It is variously translated as either "covenant" or "testament," which is interesting because they differ in meaning in English usage i.e. covenant means "a written agreement between two or more parties to perform some action" while testament means "a legal document declaring a person's wishes regarding the disposal of their property when they die." While the Greek word is closer in meaning to the English word "testament," the Biblical usage of it blends "covenant" and "testament" in a way that the full Scriptural meaning is only made clear by the use of both.
I heard it said, that this word used in Greek from Aramaic, is unquestionably identified as a legal term. That when used, no one doubts the legal claim in it.
2) JESUS IS A JUDGE? A JUDGE OF WHAT? FAITH ALONE. A JUDGE JUDGES ACCORDANCE TO LAW
Well, Here, I will show the Terms we use to explain our service to God.
I will show how simple language should, in theory, take down Protestant idea of Sola Fide apart from Law.
But Faith is important! The Catholic Church teaches that one must have Faith in Works, it is niether faith or works alone.
For example:
“It doesn’t matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man way from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” Wormwood (The Demon), “The Screwtape Letters”, C.S. Lewis
Jesus knew this. That is why He instituted Confession, Gospel of John 20:21-23. Jesus knows to go up a slope we must walk up, take action! Otherwise, the force of the slope overtakes us. That is why it is important to do. Life is more than what we believe or have faith in, we must live fully, and live fully in Christ. Yet, faith is vital as no action is a faithful act without faith, you must believe that walking up the slope helps before you can walk up the slope
SO FAITH IS VERY CRUCIAL, BUT HERE IS EVIDENCE OF OUR LEGAL LANGUAGE
1.) THE VERY BOOKS IN THE BIBLE ARE CALLED TESTAMENT IN ENGLISH:
The Greek word (pronounced) dee-ath-ay-kay means a disposition, the act or means of disposing of something, as in a will. It is variously translated as either "covenant" or "testament," which is interesting because they differ in meaning in English usage i.e. covenant means "a written agreement between two or more parties to perform some action" while testament means "a legal document declaring a person's wishes regarding the disposal of their property when they die." While the Greek word is closer in meaning to the English word "testament," the Biblical usage of it blends "covenant" and "testament" in a way that the full Scriptural meaning is only made clear by the use of both.
I heard it said, that this word used in Greek from Aramaic, is unquestionably identified as a legal term. That when used, no one doubts the legal claim in it.
2) JESUS IS A JUDGE? A JUDGE OF WHAT? FAITH ALONE. A JUDGE JUDGES ACCORDANCE TO LAW
judge
1.
a public officer authorized to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the administration of justice.
2.
a person appointed to decide in any competition, contest, or matter at issue; authorized arbiter: the judges of a beauty contest.
4.
an administrative head of Israel in the period between the death of Joshua and the accession to the throne by Saul.
5.
3) JESUS AS JUDGE IS SAID TO BE JUST, AND THERE WILL BE THOSE WHO WILL KNOW HIS JUSTICE
(especially in rural areas) a county official with supervisory duties, often employed part-time or on an honorary basis.
3) JESUS AS JUDGE IS SAID TO BE JUST, AND THERE WILL BE THOSE WHO WILL KNOW HIS JUSTICE
In reference to Jesus' Justice: i.e. Awarding the righteous
"Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these,
you did not do it to me" (Mt 25:45b). The compelling final line says it all, "And these
will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Mt 25:46).
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Morality : Human v. Animal
In a debate with Archbishop Pell of Australia, Richard Dawkins said that he despised Darwin moral thought, ' the survival of the fittest. ' Rather odd as he affirms everything else about Darwinism, except the moral code of it. So does he then love Darwinism, if he rejects the 'code of Darwinism?'
This is Richard Dawkins idea of morality:
This morality sounds glorious, we are humans, and we progress.
So, then, are the less progressed humans of 400 years ago, less human?
For ANY morality to be true, it must be ageless. The same form of morality must be true to all of humanity, not humanity of a certain age. It otherwise limits humanity, and if it limits one's humanity, then can it be thought of as the same humanity?
Is this true? Or we any or more human than our great ancestors?
Is a baby any less human than an adult? Is a 5 year old any less human than a 15 year old? So is progression the true basis of morality?
Morality must be true to one human as another, or there is no morality. There is no morality without absolute morality, as there would be no case for right and wrong if there is no true sense of right and wrong. Any one's right could be any one's wrong. Thus the idea of morality is unnecessary, and Mr. Dawkins distaste for Darwin morality may just be true, more true than progressive morality anyway, or we are not talking about the same humanity, thus what good is a moral code, if changeable?
To find that morality is unnecessary, is to say that humanity is unnecessary. To say that humanity is unnecessary is to say that people do not matter. If morality does not matter, human actions do not matter.
But what is morality?
Is it being nice? Is it 'feel-good?' Is it treating everyone nice?
No! That is too simple, and life teaches us that there isn't always 'nice' or 'fun' in morality.
Morality is LOVING TRUTH. LIVING TRUTH. EXPRESSING TRUTH.
Morality is living, loving, and expressing yourself to your truest nature.
Morality is True Love! Not love of the experiences, but love of creation itself.
This is why human and animal nature is not the same, because we do not have the same expression of our nature. We do not have the same nature to love. Otherwise, we could be tricked by the natural happenings of the beastly kingdom, and see chaos in humanity.
To love yourself, is to love your truest self. If you do not know your truest self, what then do you truly love? An idea of self. Loving an idea is not the basis of morality.
I may think the idea of the color red is nice, but it does nothing for my true self. It is only an impression. Impressions do not convey truths, just by definition.
So one who does not love themselves, may have the impression that they will love a new nose, a new arm, a new face. Is this loving their true selves? No it is re-creating themselves, and thus they transfer the love of thyself into a love of an impression of thyself
Where do we learn about our true selves?
Through our nature. Humans and animals share a form of education, by trials. Trials teach us something to our intellect. Both humans and animals have intellect.
An animal knows what is hot by the experience they learned through the trial of touching something hot, and in their intellect they can perceive hot things. Humans have this experience too. But humans are reasonable animals, meaning we are aware of not only the creation of things, but the things of creation. We are not only aware of the material creation, but we are aware of the chemistry of creation. We see this in our language, through words describing things like 'a lion' or 'a bad tooth.' We claim without realizing it, a universal truth of a bad tooth not being good.
By name giving and language, we describe and identify creation. Not only in simple ideas, but we describe non-material things, such as love, longing, desire, thought, math, and the self.
We also use the word, morality.
So to consider as question, 'Or animals immoral?'
No! They are living by their natural codes. That natural code is material, and non-reflective. They are TRUE to their creation.
They are wonderfully unconscious to what they do not see.
Do they know mother other than the presence of their mother? Does a snake whose mother abandons them, ever know that they are from their mother?
Does an orphan know the word mother? Yes, of course. They learnt the concept of mother through others, this is distinctly human.
Humans are to reflect and use reason, and it is RIGHT to do this as this is a part of their creation, their nature.
But, to be true to one's nature, one has to have honest explanations of the human nature. Dishonesty is irrational. If a blue sharpie is called red, then what is the honest nature of blue? Is blue not blue? So just because a human in their intellect CAN call something different than what it is, does not mean that doing so is honest to their nature. A human is rational. Rationalism must be based on something true in order to rationalize it, otherwise all ideas of what is rational, is dishonest.
So Human morality is only based on their True nature of their being. It is loving their true creation, living their true creation, and expressing their true nature.
If morality was only being nice, being kind, and loving, the animal kingdom is far from nice.
In fact, we learn from the animal kingdom what life is without identifying our human nature. It is material, it is harsh, it is unabashed in wickedness and cruelty.
Only when we reason and reflect as humans, can we find our moral truths.
So one is not 'good' for the sake of 'good,' but one is true human for the sake of the truth of the creation of human.
Responsibility is work. Responsibility is demanding.
If we do not clean up our rooms, our kitchens, and our selves, we live in a chamber of dust, mites, and disease.
Indeed, immorality is poison. Just as we know about biological truths of calories and things which are too poisonous to eat, i.e. the truth of what we intake. Morality is that same code, but for the truth of our being. We are to love what we are as our truest selves.
We CAN be immoral, just as much as we can eat that which is dangerous, but it doesn't mean it will be a good thing to do.
We must take on the responsibility of being human. We must reflect. We must love our humanity for what it is and not what it is for us.
Morality is not being nice, morality is being true.
Christians believe that God came to this world, to suffer with us in immortality, but also to give us the light to the right path to our nature and purpose of creation.
Christian morality taught the west, that ALL are equal in the eyes of the Lord. Equal not in the sense of human ideas of position and possession, as we can see this is not true. But equal in reason, Equal in value, and Equal in a life sharing experience of Good and Truth.
So for a Christian, it is very important to understand true love, as we learn true love, we learn how to love ourselves truthfully, which is moral.
For man to be Equal, man must have an Equal Truth !
We can examine this idea of loving truth, living truth and expressing truth in the seven deadly sins as we see what is good in it, but then we see how we CAN do more than we are supposed to.
So we understand, morality not as what we want to do, or what we even can do, but what we OUGHT TO DO to be truly healthy in our humanity!
Morality is not nice, it is not kind, it is REAL. It is TRUE.
Morality is ageless, a certain truth, as creation itself contains a certain truth. Otherwise there is no creation as it is not true
The Wise is one who loves what is everlasting, the fool is one who loves what does not last.
In all these truths, I presented to you, they are true by their nature, and can exist without their extreme expressions.
Without humanity there is no you. But humanity still exists without you.
Without hunger, there is no gluttony. But hunger still exists even without gluttony.
Without sex, there is no lust, But sex still exists even without lust.
Without possessions, there is no greed. But possessions still exist even without greed.
Without desires, there is no envy. But desires still exist even without envy.
Without distaste, there is no wrath. But distaste still exists even without wrath.
Without love, there is no vanity. But love still exists even without vanity.
Without rest, there is no sloth. But rest still exists without sloth.
Without the self, there is no pride, no gluttony, no lust, no greed, no envy, no wrath, no vanity, and responsibility. But without the self, humanity still exists.
The Truth can be hard to face, but it will set us free. It will not set us free of the individual, as that would not be honest freedom, it will set us free from harm. Only in Truth, will we be free of harm.
This is Richard Dawkins idea of morality:
This morality sounds glorious, we are humans, and we progress.
So, then, are the less progressed humans of 400 years ago, less human?
For ANY morality to be true, it must be ageless. The same form of morality must be true to all of humanity, not humanity of a certain age. It otherwise limits humanity, and if it limits one's humanity, then can it be thought of as the same humanity?
Is this true? Or we any or more human than our great ancestors?
Is a baby any less human than an adult? Is a 5 year old any less human than a 15 year old? So is progression the true basis of morality?
Morality must be true to one human as another, or there is no morality. There is no morality without absolute morality, as there would be no case for right and wrong if there is no true sense of right and wrong. Any one's right could be any one's wrong. Thus the idea of morality is unnecessary, and Mr. Dawkins distaste for Darwin morality may just be true, more true than progressive morality anyway, or we are not talking about the same humanity, thus what good is a moral code, if changeable?
To find that morality is unnecessary, is to say that humanity is unnecessary. To say that humanity is unnecessary is to say that people do not matter. If morality does not matter, human actions do not matter.
But what is morality?
Is it being nice? Is it 'feel-good?' Is it treating everyone nice?
No! That is too simple, and life teaches us that there isn't always 'nice' or 'fun' in morality.
Morality is LOVING TRUTH. LIVING TRUTH. EXPRESSING TRUTH.
Morality is living, loving, and expressing yourself to your truest nature.
Morality is True Love! Not love of the experiences, but love of creation itself.
This is why human and animal nature is not the same, because we do not have the same expression of our nature. We do not have the same nature to love. Otherwise, we could be tricked by the natural happenings of the beastly kingdom, and see chaos in humanity.
To love yourself, is to love your truest self. If you do not know your truest self, what then do you truly love? An idea of self. Loving an idea is not the basis of morality.
I may think the idea of the color red is nice, but it does nothing for my true self. It is only an impression. Impressions do not convey truths, just by definition.
So one who does not love themselves, may have the impression that they will love a new nose, a new arm, a new face. Is this loving their true selves? No it is re-creating themselves, and thus they transfer the love of thyself into a love of an impression of thyself
Where do we learn about our true selves?
Through our nature. Humans and animals share a form of education, by trials. Trials teach us something to our intellect. Both humans and animals have intellect.
An animal knows what is hot by the experience they learned through the trial of touching something hot, and in their intellect they can perceive hot things. Humans have this experience too. But humans are reasonable animals, meaning we are aware of not only the creation of things, but the things of creation. We are not only aware of the material creation, but we are aware of the chemistry of creation. We see this in our language, through words describing things like 'a lion' or 'a bad tooth.' We claim without realizing it, a universal truth of a bad tooth not being good.
By name giving and language, we describe and identify creation. Not only in simple ideas, but we describe non-material things, such as love, longing, desire, thought, math, and the self.
We also use the word, morality.
So to consider as question, 'Or animals immoral?'
No! They are living by their natural codes. That natural code is material, and non-reflective. They are TRUE to their creation.
They are wonderfully unconscious to what they do not see.
Do they know mother other than the presence of their mother? Does a snake whose mother abandons them, ever know that they are from their mother?
Does an orphan know the word mother? Yes, of course. They learnt the concept of mother through others, this is distinctly human.
Humans are to reflect and use reason, and it is RIGHT to do this as this is a part of their creation, their nature.
But, to be true to one's nature, one has to have honest explanations of the human nature. Dishonesty is irrational. If a blue sharpie is called red, then what is the honest nature of blue? Is blue not blue? So just because a human in their intellect CAN call something different than what it is, does not mean that doing so is honest to their nature. A human is rational. Rationalism must be based on something true in order to rationalize it, otherwise all ideas of what is rational, is dishonest.
So Human morality is only based on their True nature of their being. It is loving their true creation, living their true creation, and expressing their true nature.
If morality was only being nice, being kind, and loving, the animal kingdom is far from nice.
In fact, we learn from the animal kingdom what life is without identifying our human nature. It is material, it is harsh, it is unabashed in wickedness and cruelty.
Only when we reason and reflect as humans, can we find our moral truths.
So one is not 'good' for the sake of 'good,' but one is true human for the sake of the truth of the creation of human.
Responsibility is work. Responsibility is demanding.
If we do not clean up our rooms, our kitchens, and our selves, we live in a chamber of dust, mites, and disease.
Indeed, immorality is poison. Just as we know about biological truths of calories and things which are too poisonous to eat, i.e. the truth of what we intake. Morality is that same code, but for the truth of our being. We are to love what we are as our truest selves.
We CAN be immoral, just as much as we can eat that which is dangerous, but it doesn't mean it will be a good thing to do.
We must take on the responsibility of being human. We must reflect. We must love our humanity for what it is and not what it is for us.
Morality is not being nice, morality is being true.
Christians believe that God came to this world, to suffer with us in immortality, but also to give us the light to the right path to our nature and purpose of creation.
Christian morality taught the west, that ALL are equal in the eyes of the Lord. Equal not in the sense of human ideas of position and possession, as we can see this is not true. But equal in reason, Equal in value, and Equal in a life sharing experience of Good and Truth.
So for a Christian, it is very important to understand true love, as we learn true love, we learn how to love ourselves truthfully, which is moral.
For man to be Equal, man must have an Equal Truth !
We can examine this idea of loving truth, living truth and expressing truth in the seven deadly sins as we see what is good in it, but then we see how we CAN do more than we are supposed to.
So we understand, morality not as what we want to do, or what we even can do, but what we OUGHT TO DO to be truly healthy in our humanity!
- Gula (gluttony) Food is good. We are to love food because it gives us energy and nutrition to live. We are to live by food. And we are to express the good of food by cultivating it on our farms. But to abandon the good of food for energy to a self impression of food. We lose energy, we become fat and lazy, We lose the TRUTH of food as a life source of energy, thus the good of food.
- Fornicatio (fornication, lust) Sex is good. We are to love sex because life would cease to exist without it. We are to live in a way that sex is good as it gives us life. We are to express the truth about sex to others so others know that sex is by nature good. But if we lose the 'good' of sex, then it is only in our self impression that sex is a possession, and people are not only beautiful creations, but beautiful objects for our own use. A woman who not only uses sex as an event for the self, but also destroys the beauty of the creation it creates, is denying the great wonders of humanity!
- Avaritia (avarice/greed) Obtaining is good. We are to love obtaining as if we do not obtain we can neither use it for good or value it. We are to value what is good and obtain it. We express this when we obtain something and then give it away with our free will. We can only give or use something when we possess it ourselves, this truth is important when we express the possession, not as our own, but as something we can offer for a good. Giving it away to others to possess, or giving it away to borrow for others to enjoy as they enjoy your personality. To withhold something completely as one's own and continually obtaining more things in that way, both devalues that which is possessed. The value of something is only valuable when 'on the market.' If we hold something, and seek to obtain, obtain, then we lose the value of the possession, the good of possession, because of one, it is not for others to value, thus it becomes invaluable, and two, when we have so much we devalue and maybe even forget what it is we actually have thus making the concept of greed almost obsolete in itself and we are engrossed in possessions that they are no longer enjoyed, losing the good and use in them.
- Superbia (hubris, pride) The greatest sin, as all other six deadly sins are underlined by pride and selfishness. We are to love ourselves, we are to live in way that expresses True love of self, and not an impression of love that is untrue. For example, extreme individualism, denies the fact of our creation, as it is self-possessing, and not self-reflecting of our parents, grandparents, all the way to the very first human, in other words we have a false sense of self as we do not share in our humanity with others. We are human before individuals, not individuals before human!
- Tristitia (sorrow/despair/despondency) This is envy. In being envious, we are being sad. We are to live joyful in our creation. Loving what we are, not what we wish we are. In envy, we want to deny others the ability to experience what they should love, live, and express. We want to take it away from others. This is a sin which cries out, that we do not know our True nature, as we have all we need, but our false impressions of need and life, makes us disasters of our own Truths, and we want to destroy our truth by taking from others. It is in the very code of humanity, that when we are against humanity, we are sad as we are against ourselves in humanity.
- Ira (wrath) Taste is good. When we have good taste it is good. When taste becomes distaste, which becomes detest, we lose the value and greatness of taste. As taste is suppose to quench our hunger, not make us hungry. When we love what is distasteful, we hate what is tasteful. When one detests another, they hate their good taste and are hungry to destroy it. Expressing taste is good, but expressing a distaste for taste leaves us to hate good taste.
- Vanagloria (vainglory) Love is good. We are to love love as it is good. We are to express a good love. True love is loving the other, because we love them for them and not for what they do for us. When we love the outside world for our own sake, we lose what is great about love, and love in ourselves. Love is to be shared, and a sharing love is one which allows all to express love. When we love only ourselves, we neglect ourselves and others of sharing in that love.
- Acedia (sloth) It is good to rest. Rest means that we have been working. It is good to work, as work is living. Rest is also living, as we need to rest to preserve. Indeed, the expression of rest is that we have been living and working. Sloth is not rest, sloth is not working. Sloth is non action to do no action. Rest is a good deed in order to work more.
Morality is not nice, it is not kind, it is REAL. It is TRUE.
Morality is ageless, a certain truth, as creation itself contains a certain truth. Otherwise there is no creation as it is not true
The Wise is one who loves what is everlasting, the fool is one who loves what does not last.
In all these truths, I presented to you, they are true by their nature, and can exist without their extreme expressions.
Without humanity there is no you. But humanity still exists without you.
Without hunger, there is no gluttony. But hunger still exists even without gluttony.
Without sex, there is no lust, But sex still exists even without lust.
Without possessions, there is no greed. But possessions still exist even without greed.
Without desires, there is no envy. But desires still exist even without envy.
Without distaste, there is no wrath. But distaste still exists even without wrath.
Without love, there is no vanity. But love still exists even without vanity.
Without rest, there is no sloth. But rest still exists without sloth.
Without the self, there is no pride, no gluttony, no lust, no greed, no envy, no wrath, no vanity, and responsibility. But without the self, humanity still exists.
The Truth can be hard to face, but it will set us free. It will not set us free of the individual, as that would not be honest freedom, it will set us free from harm. Only in Truth, will we be free of harm.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Fatima: what the 'OTHERS' say
The miracle of Fatima is fantastic.
But it has not converted the world, has it.
Here is what others are saying, although the Jesuit priest does not seem to take sides in hand, but I think you can see he is implying divine intervention.
I think some of these critiques are forgetting that these are young children at a time in Portuguese history where the Church was persecuted and they predicted a date.
So it could be said, even a natural explanation of the event, can not account for the miracle of timing.
Critical evaluation of the event
No scientific accounts exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have "danced", and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than forty miles out from Cova da Iria[26].
It has been alleged that the fact that an unspecified "miracle" had been predicted in advance, the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied nature of the observers as including both skeptics and believers alike, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any causative factor, all reasonably preclude the theory of a mass hallucination[27]. That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometers away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria[27].
Visionaries claimed that the apparition now known as Our Lady of Fatima had promised in July, August, and September, that a miracle would occur on 13 October 1917 "so that all may believe". Pio Scatizzi, S.J. describes events of Fatima and concludes
The… solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere… there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon …Either all the observers in Fatima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention[28].
Stuart Campbell, writing for the 1989 edition of Journal of Meteorology, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear yellow, blue, and violet. In support of his postulation, Mr. Campbell reports that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983. Mr. Campbell's article does not attempt to provide evidence that might explain the reported zigzagging of the sun towards the earth[29].
Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claims that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun[30]. He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. A sundog is, however, a stationary phenomenon, and would not explain the reported appearance of the "dancing sun". Nickell suggests an explanation for this and other similar phenomena may lie in temporary retinal distortion, caused by staring at the intense light and/or by the effect of darting the eyes to and fro so as to avoid completely fixed gazing (thus combining image, afterimage and movement). Nickell concludes that there was
likely a combination of factors, including optical and meteorological phenomena (the sun being seen through thin clouds, causing it to appear as a silver disc; an alteration in the density of the passing clouds, so that the sun would alternatively brighten and dim, thus appearing to advance and recede; dust or moisture droplets in the atmosphere, imparting a variety of colors to sunlight; and/or other phenomena).
Paul Simons, in an article entitled "Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fatima", states that he believes it possible that some of the optical effects at Fatima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara[31].
Kevin McClure claims that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, as similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. Kevin McClure stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research he had done in the previous ten years[32].
Leo Madigan believes that the various witness reports of a miracle are accurate, however he alleges inconsistency of witnesses, and suggests that astonishment, fear, exaltation and imagination must have played roles in both the observing and the retelling. Madigan likens the experiences to prayer, and considers that the spiritual nature of the phenomenon explains what he describes as the inconsistency of the witnesses[33].
Author Schwebel claims that the event was a supernatural (but non-miraculous) extra-sensory phenomenon. Schwebel notes that the solar phenomenon reported at Fátima is not unique - there have been several reported cases of high pitched religious gatherings culminating in the sudden and mysterious appearance of lights in the sky[34].
It has been argued that the Fatima phenomenon and many UFO sights share a common cause[35], or even that the phenomenon was an alien craft[36].
Protestant commentators do not generally accept the miraculous nature of the phenomenon, and that some (principally evangelicals) accept the supernatural nature of the phenomenon, but ascribe it to Satan rather than God[37].
Many years after the events in question, Stanley L. Jaki, a Benedictine priest and author of a number of books attempted to reconcile science and Catholicism, proposed a unique theory about the supposed miracle. Jaki believes that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle[38].
The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930. On 13 October 1951, papal legate Cardinal Tedeschini told the million gathered at Fatima that on 30 October, 31 October, 1 November, and 8 November 1950, Pope Pius XII himself witnessed the miracle of the sun from the Vatican gardens[39].
Controversies of Recent Development
The anonymous website PortCult[40] alleges that a photographer named Judah Ruah was present on 13 October 1917, and that he reported that he did not see the miracle of the sun that day. However this allegation is unsubstantiated by any reference to a citation, and no such allegation of such a report by anyone named Judah Ruah or by any photographer, can be traced back beyond the creation of the aforesaid website. The website further alleges that reporter Avelino de Almeida was a Catholic, however again citing no support. Avelino de Almeida's articles in O Século prior to 13 October 1917 had been to satirize the events[41].
In 1992, the Documentae da Critica de Fatima was published, containing documents whose authenticity cannot be traced and accounts which appear to dramatically contradict the well-known accounts published closer to the actual events.
But it has not converted the world, has it.
Here is what others are saying, although the Jesuit priest does not seem to take sides in hand, but I think you can see he is implying divine intervention.
I think some of these critiques are forgetting that these are young children at a time in Portuguese history where the Church was persecuted and they predicted a date.
So it could be said, even a natural explanation of the event, can not account for the miracle of timing.
Critical evaluation of the event
No scientific accounts exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have "danced", and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than forty miles out from Cova da Iria[26].
It has been alleged that the fact that an unspecified "miracle" had been predicted in advance, the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied nature of the observers as including both skeptics and believers alike, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any causative factor, all reasonably preclude the theory of a mass hallucination[27]. That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometers away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria[27].
Visionaries claimed that the apparition now known as Our Lady of Fatima had promised in July, August, and September, that a miracle would occur on 13 October 1917 "so that all may believe". Pio Scatizzi, S.J. describes events of Fatima and concludes
The… solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere… there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon …Either all the observers in Fatima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention[28].
Stuart Campbell, writing for the 1989 edition of Journal of Meteorology, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear yellow, blue, and violet. In support of his postulation, Mr. Campbell reports that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983. Mr. Campbell's article does not attempt to provide evidence that might explain the reported zigzagging of the sun towards the earth[29].
Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claims that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun[30]. He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. A sundog is, however, a stationary phenomenon, and would not explain the reported appearance of the "dancing sun". Nickell suggests an explanation for this and other similar phenomena may lie in temporary retinal distortion, caused by staring at the intense light and/or by the effect of darting the eyes to and fro so as to avoid completely fixed gazing (thus combining image, afterimage and movement). Nickell concludes that there was
likely a combination of factors, including optical and meteorological phenomena (the sun being seen through thin clouds, causing it to appear as a silver disc; an alteration in the density of the passing clouds, so that the sun would alternatively brighten and dim, thus appearing to advance and recede; dust or moisture droplets in the atmosphere, imparting a variety of colors to sunlight; and/or other phenomena).
Paul Simons, in an article entitled "Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fatima", states that he believes it possible that some of the optical effects at Fatima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara[31].
Kevin McClure claims that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, as similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. Kevin McClure stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research he had done in the previous ten years[32].
Leo Madigan believes that the various witness reports of a miracle are accurate, however he alleges inconsistency of witnesses, and suggests that astonishment, fear, exaltation and imagination must have played roles in both the observing and the retelling. Madigan likens the experiences to prayer, and considers that the spiritual nature of the phenomenon explains what he describes as the inconsistency of the witnesses[33].
Author Schwebel claims that the event was a supernatural (but non-miraculous) extra-sensory phenomenon. Schwebel notes that the solar phenomenon reported at Fátima is not unique - there have been several reported cases of high pitched religious gatherings culminating in the sudden and mysterious appearance of lights in the sky[34].
It has been argued that the Fatima phenomenon and many UFO sights share a common cause[35], or even that the phenomenon was an alien craft[36].
Protestant commentators do not generally accept the miraculous nature of the phenomenon, and that some (principally evangelicals) accept the supernatural nature of the phenomenon, but ascribe it to Satan rather than God[37].
Many years after the events in question, Stanley L. Jaki, a Benedictine priest and author of a number of books attempted to reconcile science and Catholicism, proposed a unique theory about the supposed miracle. Jaki believes that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle[38].
The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930. On 13 October 1951, papal legate Cardinal Tedeschini told the million gathered at Fatima that on 30 October, 31 October, 1 November, and 8 November 1950, Pope Pius XII himself witnessed the miracle of the sun from the Vatican gardens[39].
Controversies of Recent Development
The anonymous website PortCult[40] alleges that a photographer named Judah Ruah was present on 13 October 1917, and that he reported that he did not see the miracle of the sun that day. However this allegation is unsubstantiated by any reference to a citation, and no such allegation of such a report by anyone named Judah Ruah or by any photographer, can be traced back beyond the creation of the aforesaid website. The website further alleges that reporter Avelino de Almeida was a Catholic, however again citing no support. Avelino de Almeida's articles in O Século prior to 13 October 1917 had been to satirize the events[41].
In 1992, the Documentae da Critica de Fatima was published, containing documents whose authenticity cannot be traced and accounts which appear to dramatically contradict the well-known accounts published closer to the actual events.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
A Gathering of Humanity
This message is short, but hopefully resonates.
IF any one were to have a dinner, and invite the following for a conversation:
Einstein, Socrates, the pharoah Ramses, Confucius, Simon Bolivar, Martin Luther King, Jr., Napoleon, Shakespeare, and Nelson Mandella
Which topic could you possibly talk about to all of them together without teaching them anything about the modern world? What could you speak about so they understood your positions and influences?
Hydrogen? Social Justice? Communism? Genetic engineering?
NO ! As far as I can think, we can talk about, responsibility, simple mechanics, ideas of community, ideas of the differences of men and women, cute babies, and DEATH and RELIGION.
These things are UNIVERSAL, AGELESS
But it is not what we seem to talk about these days, we seem to talk about things we love which are things that come and go through the ages.
IF any one were to have a dinner, and invite the following for a conversation:
Einstein, Socrates, the pharoah Ramses, Confucius, Simon Bolivar, Martin Luther King, Jr., Napoleon, Shakespeare, and Nelson Mandella
Which topic could you possibly talk about to all of them together without teaching them anything about the modern world? What could you speak about so they understood your positions and influences?
Hydrogen? Social Justice? Communism? Genetic engineering?
NO ! As far as I can think, we can talk about, responsibility, simple mechanics, ideas of community, ideas of the differences of men and women, cute babies, and DEATH and RELIGION.
These things are UNIVERSAL, AGELESS
But it is not what we seem to talk about these days, we seem to talk about things we love which are things that come and go through the ages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)