Skip to main content

Offerings Of Many Kinds

I went outside. The sun did seem to make things better. I do not know if I am still slightly ill, or if those friendly byproducts just simply do not clear from the body of a person like myself, but I have a light cough. The worst of the illness was two weeks ago. I feel fine, it's just annoying. And I worry that something worse may occur. I wonder how much Dayquil or whatnot you can take before it's a concern. Should I see a doctor? What will he or she do that I haven't tried?

So there was that in prayer. And the acquaintance who has many hurdles in his attempt to study in America. And the heart-wound that won't seem to heal. I feel like the Lord is the only one who is for me on that one. But I thanked Him for the day, for the sun and for grace. I just walked along and prayed. I talked with the saints and the Blessed Mother, because I wanted to. And we do that. I appreciate liturgical prayers of many kinds; the worst error is to spurn them out of some sense of passion. And yet, to know God and our holy friends are right there is so good. You can say whatever you wish, so long as it is good.

And I suppose I need to give Him my moments in a steady way, to seek Him in all things, even through difficulty. But I did relish the perfection of the moment; the most natural and correct thing was to pray. I am learning: Pray even when you do not wish to. And yet, don't fail to do it when you do wish to! He had told us to go in our rooms and close the door, but He did not say what the room was, nor that you needed a door. I think Jesus means to say that we should be with the Father, for his sake and our own, and not to please others. I tell you because we are friends, and perhaps you have struggled to pray like I do.

It was a good day. And yet I marvel how easily joy and sorrow mingle. I wonder if I am crazy, because I have joy, and yet trouble is never far. I think of myself as very optimistic, but it is also true that I can imagine unceasing tears, and that does not seem wrong. You know? And I cannot do theology and let a phrase pass without a definition: "fallen world" and "fallen nature." I am Catholic, after all. Forgive me if truth compels an insistence upon precision. Because we cry out for the good, though it is true we cannot reach it alone. Even if we should say that we are double-minded, there is a difference between our finitude, and our wickedness, between nature and grace. I digress.

There is a strong chance that I love you in some way, if you are reading this. You might be very close or very far. In any case, I miss you sometimes. I'm glad you are you. I'm glad we can share something good in this life, so beautiful and so hard.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un