Skip to main content

A Few Incoherent Ramblings

As important as the truths of faith are, and vital as it may be to try to reclaim our culture such as it is, sometimes we are reminded that people just don't know much. Even if they darken the conscience by sin, people often need friendship and acceptance as a basis for coming to terms with their need before God.

On the other hand, some people have used this as a substitute for preaching the gospel, or they believe the two things are synonymous. They are not.

Still others value comity so highly that they fail to hold anything at all in the end. They don't know any truth more important than the warm feelings they cherish. They are indeed pleasant. Yet I don't think the yet to be redeemed would say, "Feel free to smile and hold my hand on the way to Hell."

Things to think about. But that reality in the extreme is why I appreciate the work being done at Called to Communion so much. They are not sheep-stealers or Catholic triumphalists; they are actually fighting against those things that threaten the basis of knowledge of God Himself. If you knew them personally as I do, some of you would not be so quick to pass judgment. I digress.

St. Peter tells us to give a reason for our faith precisely because he knows that faith without reasons (and reason) isn't worth much. But God valued the mind of man (all-inclusive)--no, the whole of man--that He became man to save us. The message is this: It really did happen. God has the dirt on his feet to prove it.

So if I ask you a direct question about how you know what you know, I expect an answer. This isn't for sporting fun; the very truth borne to the world concerning the Word Incarnate is at stake. I would not lose Him for anything, certainly not for pride, or career, or tribal loyalty. Bear that in mind. I'm not in the mood for the theological equivalent of the United Nations. [Where comically inept and corrupt people talk about solving problems while making them worse?--ed.] Exactly.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

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...

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...