Hilary Clinton's RFK Comment

Yesterday, Hilary Clinton made a comment to the effect that RFK was assassinated in June. The comment came immediately after a reference to her husband going into June in the early 90's. The comment clearly was in the context of presidential nominees going into the summer without dropping out of the race; yet, for some reason, she immediately was accused of insensitivity towards the Kennedy family.

This is nonsense. Any sensible person can see that the comment was meant to say that presidential candidates still have a chance in the primaries well into the summer. I'm not a supporter of Clinton; in fact, I can't stand her. However, I think that the charges against her in this regard are nonsense.

Now, Hilary's comments on Bosnia are a different matter.

Crime and Punishment: Murder Scene

I'm reading Crime and Punishment. I'm at the point where Raskolnikov viciously murders the old woman (the pawnbroker). I don't think I've read such a violent scene since the murder scene in Richard Wright's Native Son. In fact, reading this scene and all of Raskolnikov's inner stream of thoughts recalls to my mind the similar stream of thoughts of Bigger. I wonder if Richard Wright read Crime and Punishment and was influenced by it.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner

If you are going through hell, keep going

Thus said the esteemed Winston Churchill. I thoroughly agree with it, yet I am too exhausted right now to expound on it.

Anaphora Prayer: "We offer You, Yours of Your own, in behalf of all and for all"

This prayer comes from the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy. Most people, when they look at this prayer, notice the offering of "Yours of Your own" to God, and recognize that the prayer is talking about the sacrificial offering of Christ at the altar.

What struck me today, as I listened during Divine Liturgy, was the latter portion: "in behalf of all and for all." Who are the "all"? Does all mean all members of the Church? All persons living on earth? All persons on earth and those deceased? Or, does all refer to something more encompassing than man alone, such as all creation?

Certainly the redemption of man is the main concern of Christ in his sacrificial offering. This is clear in Christ's priestly prayer, just before he offers himself up (John 17). However, it should be noted that redemption affects not man alone but all creation. The New Covenant brings forth a New Creation in which all things are made new. The Bread and Wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, and God's divine energies permeate and transform all things unto him. I believe St. Irenaeus said something similar with his theme of "recapitulation" of all creation into Christ. St. Paul, even earlier, writes: And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. (Ephesians 1:9-10)

Good Video on Catholic Liturgical Crisis

I've read several books and articles dealing with the problem of the New Mass of the Roman Rite. Many of these works assail the New Mass and its "innovations" as originating only in the 1960's. Many of these works are written in a caustic tone, and expressly uphold the Tridentine Latin Mass as far superior in every way to the New Mass.

These two videos, together forming a single production, do a great job in laying down the theological foundation for the changes made to the Mass--or rather, the introduction of a New Mass--following Vatican II. The producer of these videos is neither polemical nor triumphalist in his presentation of the divergences of the New Mass from the traditional Mass of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

Part 1

Part 2

Nietzche the End-All?

I often marvel at a trend in modern thinking to place Nietzsche at the pinnacle of modern philosophy, at least in the area of morality. It as though with Nietzsche's "A-ha!" experience with Christianity that a vast curtain has arisen and man now sees himself in his true form.

The most recent example I've found of this happened today, when I purchased Crime and Punishment. Although the work is well-known for its profound Christian sense in relation to the difficulties posed by life, the publishers make no mention of this but only, on the back cover, tout the work as a prelude to the work and thought of Nietzsche.

Moleskin Journals

I only have about 10 more pages left in my Moleskin Journal. This is my second Moleskin Journal. The first one I filled by the beginning of last summer.

If you plan on keeping a journal, I highly recommend using a Moleskin. Although Moleskins are slightly more expensive (around $19-20) than some journals sold at the bookstore ($4-10), the Moleskins hold up much better. The binding has not fallen apart on me for either my present or my last Moleskin. Also: Moleskins last for about a year, at least for me; and I write entries quite frequently and of considerable length. My first entry in my present Moleskin is July 9, 2007. So, by the time I completely fill in this Moleskin, it will be about 10-11 months of entries. Not bad.

Anglican Summit Approaching

280 conservative Anglican bishops will hold a summit in Jerusalem to deal with issues that increasingly are dividing the Anglican communion.

The Lambeth Conference, a meeting held every 10 years to address unity, and expected to be attended by some 800 bishops, is just around the corner.

There is speculation that the conservative bishops in Jerusalem will boycott attendance of the Lambeth Conference. If this becomes reality, the Anglican Church may experience the greatest split since its inception.

You may read the full story here: Conservative Anglican bishops call summit

These events affect not only the Anglican Church but Western Christianity in general. Whereas Christianity in Europe and North America generally has taken a more liberal route, in the hemispheric South traditional Christian values is on the rise.

While You Were Sleeping - Casting Crowns

Casting Crowns, while an evangelical Christian band, has produced many great songs.

The following is one of my favorite:

While You Were Sleeping

I've been listening to this song daily, during my commute to work. I usually alternate between this song and "Does Anybody Hear Her," another song with a good message. The best line in While You Were Sleeping, "As we're sound asleep about philosophies that save the trees and kill the children." They hit the problem right on. And the fact that they glide through it makes it even more impressive.

Serbian Pascha

Check out this video:

Hristos Vokrese

It's the Orthodox Happy Song!

To see the other happy song, go here:

I'm So Happy, Hokus Pick

Pope's Visit Inspires Spike in Seminary Applications

Check it out:

New York seminary applications

One wonders how many will complete formation and become ordained.

"His blood be upon us and on our children"

Such was said by the Jewish crowd gathered before Pilate and recorded by Matthew (Mt 27:24–25). Many non-Christians and even some Christians today impugn the inspiration of this verse, believing as they do that this is an early example of anti-Semitism in the Christian Church. According to this way of thinking, the writer of this verse, be it Matthew or some redactor, has it out for the Jews: The Jews killed Christ, and their punishment in 70 AD at the hands of the Romans is God's wrath for what they did some forty years earlier: crucify God.

I long thought this to be the proper interpretation of this verse. And indeed, it is possible that this be the interpretation of some early Christians: because they deny and even crucify Christ, the non-Christians Jews are forever under God's curse. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Jewish Temple, and God fulfilled Jesus' prophesied in wrath when the Romans tore down the Temple brick by brick.

But, all this is now very odd to me. Up to this point, I always have read this verse, that is, "His blood be upon us and on our children," as a CURSE: the people taking upon themselves the guilt and consequent punishments for the unjust murder of Christ. Old Testament references would seem to suggest this. Just a few days ago, however, the thought struck me: this verse is a curse, but, in a paradoxical sense, is in truth a BLESSING!

Before you think me crazy, consider the words concerning Caiphas, the high priest, in Jn 18:14: Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. Verbal irony here abounds: Caiphas counsels this because he believes by the death of Christ the people will be saved from error. Yet, there is a second meaning, unbeknownst to Caiphas: the death of Christ will be the true salvation of Israel. May not Mt 27:24-25 also be an instance of verbal irony? In this verse, there are two important points: firstly, the calling of blood; and secondly, the calling of blood on future generations.

Where else do we see blood in the New Testament? The Blood of the New Covenant. Christ's Blood, in the Eucharist. The Apostle John writes, "we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). Christians have fellowship to the greatest degree when they commonly partake in the Eucharist, the same Blood that Christ shed on the Cross and even before the final Trial, when already Christ had been flogged and crowned with thorns. If you draw your attention to the second portion of Mt 27:24-25, the blood on future generations, you will find another significant link to the Old Testament. God's early promise to Abraham is key: Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them...So shall your offspring be. (Gen 15:5) God blesses not only Abraham but his descendants as well. Future generations, offspring--it is the same idea; the Covenant extends beyond the initial persons blessed to their children. Interestingly, when God curses in Genesis, after Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit, God only curses the Serpent and the ground; he does not curse Adam and Eve, and the sufferings God enunciates are only mentioned in reference to Adam and to Eve; no direct mention is made of their descendants or offspring. When the suggestion is made of future generations, in Adam naming his wife Eve ("mother of the living") it is the opposite of what is expected. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and are suffering the consequences of their actions; and yet, immediately after their entrance into a fallen world filled with death and dying, Eve brings forth not the dead but the living. Who but the Theotokos, the New Eve, brings the true Light and Life into the world? I digress.

In the light of all the above, interpreting the Jewish crowd at the Trial as representative of the Jews in a collective sense is not detrimental to Jews but in fact affirmative and life-giving: even though the Jews present at the Trial reject Christ, God has not forgotten them, and He in fact He blesses them with their own words. The Gentile Romans stand rather clueless as to Jesus' identity. The Jews know who He claims to be, but they do not accept it...at least not at this point in the narrative; Christ will soon arise from the Dead. God is in control all along. As Christ says to Pilate: you have no authority except that given from above. Salvation truly comes from the Jews, since they are the ones whom God blesses with the Blood of his only Son.

I could write more, but I do not want to become too speculative, and I will defer to anyone who can show me in the wrong in some or several points. I will end with the words of Paul: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree". (Galatians 3:13)

Giorgio Vasari's The Lives of the Artists

Check this book out:

Giorgio Vasari's The Lives of the Artists

I just picked it up about a week ago. I studied English Literature in college, and this book would have been a great resource for me, had I known about it. Giorgio Vasari provides short biographies on the great [Italian] Renaissance artists, including Fra Angelico, Fra Filippo Lippi, Donatello, Raphael, Michelangelo, and Leonardo, among many other lesser-known artists. These artists feature so frequently in works of English poetry and other English (and other European) fiction, that knowledge of these individuals is, in my estimation, invaluable to a better understanding of the written English tradition, and to European tradition in general.

Papal Infallibility

Papal Infallibility: it is a dogma of the Latin Church; belief in it is necessary if one is to be orthodox. It is a settled matter, and rejection or disagreement concerning it can entail serious consequences (e.g. the removal of Hans Kung's teaching faculties at a Catholic university). It is to be believed by all Catholics, but is it really understood by all Catholics? Is it even understood by the ones who proclaim and continue to proclaim it as dogma?

Orthodox Christians have long contested inflated papal claims as alien to the Church of the first millennium, when East and West were one. Protestant Christians, although on different grounds and for different reasons, have likewise rejected papal claims, even going so far as to reject what the Orthodox do not: the Petrine Primacy associated with the Papacy. (The Orthodox are willing to acknowledge a Petrine Primacy, although in the sense of priority and equality amongst the other Apostles.) Latin Catholic scholars approach the Papacy from two major vantage points. One group of scholars feels it necessary to identify and prove, from early Church history and from the New Testament writings themselves, that the bishop of Rome exerted a superior authority, and even a universal jurisdiction, over the bishops of the other early Christian churches. Another group, more sensibly in my opinion, admit that examples of papal superiority and universal jurisdiction are wanting in the early centuries of the Church. Whereas the first group takes the view that the Papacy "was a'll there" in fullness of power in the beginning, and only needed time to more fully manifest its true nature, the second group takes the Papacy from the angle of development. There is development according to the first group, yes, but the chief difference seems to me to be this: whereas the first group seems to think that papal powers were fully understood by the earliest of the bishops of Rome, the latter seem to think of these same papal powers as only partially known by the earliest bishops of Rome, including Peter (believed to be the first bishop according to Latin Catholics). Pope Pius IX, in the 55th section in his (in-)famous Lamentabili Sane, which was written to combat Mondernism, especially as it affected matters of Biblical theology, condemns the following proposition: Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him. (source: http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df07ls.htm) This condemnation is interesting, since it does not pinpoint what exactly is meant by primacy. Orthodox Christians could even say that Peter recognized he had a certain primacy amongst the Apostles. But if one takes "primacy" in the sense it has acquired by Roman decisions, then it would seem that Rome condemns anyone who rejects the notion that Peter fully knew that he had a superior authority--that is, one above and over the other Apostles.

Theological niceties aside, Papal Infallibility only creates more confusion than it solves. Now: ask any reasonable Latin Catholic and he or she will tell you that the confusion comes from poor catechesis, and indeed there is some legitimacy in this argument. Many Catholics today, in the U.S. and elsewhere, barely known the essentials of the faith. Catechesis is heavily needed amongst Latin Catholics today. Yet, this reality aside, there is another reality: infallibility is too often wrongly equated with inerrancy. What is the difference? In Latin Catholic teaching, infallibility is a grace given by God to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. Infallibility therefore applies to the college of bishops as a whole, and more precisely, to the Roman Pontiff who heads them. Infallibility applies only to matters of faith and morals. It does not apply to matters of personal preference. The Pope and the College of Bishops cannot with infallibility declare, "God roots more for the Steelers than for Broncos," since this has really nothing to do with what must be believed and what has always been believed. Inerrancy applies to no human person or group of human persons. Jesus Christ, a divine person, is inerrant: he never made or will make an error. The Holy Scriptures are inerrant because the Scriptures are the Word of God, and God speaks and reveals only the Truth. But, while no reasonable person will reject this distinction between infallibility and inerrancy, what does one find in the Latin Church, but the tendency to affirm inerrancy in defense of infallibility. In my opinion, this is best seen in the Latin Catholic apologetic of pointing to the historic bishops of Rome and their long track of orthodoxy.

While it is true that the vast majority of Roman bishops of the first millenium were orthodox, not all were always orthodox as Roman bishop; at least one fell into the grievous error of Monothelitism: Pope Honorius. Yet, the tradition continues: the Roman bishops never taught error. The Roman Pontiffs were preserved by the Holy Spirit from publically teaching error. This never has been declared as dogma, and yet it is a tradition no less potent than papal infallibility. The Pope is infallible because of, or dependent on, his own inerrancy in matters of faith and morals. He speaks the truth and not error because within himself, and at all times, the Catholic beliefs are safeguarded from heresy.

Of course, there is a counter-current in today's Catholicism: ultra-traditional Catholicism--independent Catholics and to a lesser extent, the SSPX, who believe the Pope can fall into heresy, or at least grievous error. In fact, the platform for many of these Catholics today is just that: Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI affirmed that which was non concurrent with the constant teachings of the Catholic Church. In fact, and so far as I'm aware, the SSPX to this day still distinguishes true obedience (to the inerrant truths of the Catholic Church) from a false obedience (to false traditions pushed on people in the pews by erring Popes).

As a final note: the Papal Infallibility claim is, like many things in Latin Catholicism, unnecessary. If the Church has always and everywhere believed it, then why the need for a declaration? Unless, of course, it was never really believed in the first place, or believed in a "less-developed" sense that now needs an updated confirmation from on high to be believed properly, as the Church understands it. Some Latin Catholics say: Papal Infallibility is not superfluous; it's necessary, for without the Pope there would be so much confusion and uncertainty concerning what the Church believes. I always enjoy hearing this, because on the outside it does make sense: any good institution needs a good CEO. BUT, the Church of Christ is not an institution modeled after the empire, but the mystical body of Christ. One does not side with the emperor, but with the Truth that continues to be taught by the bishops of the Orthodox Churches. It would be easy if all we had to do was side with one bishop forever; it would be easy if we could all "be saved" and not fear the possibility of Hell. Yet, this was not the reality of the early Church; it is not the reality of the Church today. True Christianity, the Church, and the battle for it against heterodoxy has and always will be a great struggle, albeit one guaranteed by the words of Christ himself: the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Cardinal Kasper's Call for Anglicans

Cardinal Kaspar, the Catholic president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, has spoken: the Anglican Church must decide whether to become full-fledged Romans (or Orthodox) or to go Protestant. The approval of homosexual unions and the ordination of women are two recent actions by Anglican bishops that distance the Anglican Church from traditional Christianity.

The full story may be found here:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000273.shtml

God is Good, but what does this mean?

The priest at my church has asserted, as do other Orthodox I've read and heard, that God is Good. I completely agree with this. This is the teaching of the Church since the beginning, and can even be seen in God's abiding love for the Israelites during the Old Covenant. Where I am having difficulty understanding God's goodness is when it comes to suffering. According to "A prayer in time of trouble," found in my Antiochian Pocket Prayer book, "[A]ll trials of this life are given by Thee for our chastisement, when we drift away from thee, and disobey thy commandments." Does this then mean that every suffering I have is sent by God? Perhaps I did not understand my correctly (which is quite possible) but the way he was speaking made it sound as though God does not harm us in any way--that our sufferings are not of God. If all suffering is of God for our chastisement, then what of horrendous sufferings--such as the Holocaust, the Gulags, wars, chronic illnesses, and so on. Did God send these for our chastisement? Recently, I have read a book on Father Isidore, a simple Russian monk. At one point in the book, Fr. Isidore tells a sickly monk that he should rejoice in his illness, since his illness shows that God loves him. Perhaps I am not thinking correctly, but I always saw sufferings as the work of the Devil, perhaps transformed by God to our benefit, but nonetheless the work of the Devil working in a fallen world.

My priest never has spoken of God's wrath, or God's anger, but only of God's mercy. Now, I come from a Roman Catholic background, and although the "Hell homilies" no longer are vogue in Roman Catholic churches today, I know that, until recently, there were, and still may be found in some traditional churches. Yet, from what I can tell, the Orthodox do no really concern themselves with the "wrath of God," of God's "righteous anger" at man for sin. They focus instead on God's mercy and the need to repent, not because God is angry and will destroy us if we don't, but because it is what we need to do to receive forgiveness.

Newman's Turning Moment

John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890) was a prominent Victorian essayist and theologian. Working as an Anglican scholar-pastor, Newman studied the works of the early Church and became convinced that the Church of England, of which he was a member, was not the early Church of the Apostles. He outlines the various discoveries that led to his conversion in his famous Apologia Pro Vita Sua, written after the integrity of his conversion was challenged by a certain English gentleman (whose name eludes me).

I do not intend here to review Newman's decisions in detail. Certainly, I believe he was right-on in certain regards, especially in his evaluation that Protestant sects really were simply a regurgitation of ancient heresies. What I intend here to focus on is the "sign," not that which convinced him that the Anglican Church was not Catholic, but that which confirmed for him which he already suspected. The sign of which Newman speaks in his book (APVS) is the Jerusalem Archbishoporic. There were little to none Anglicans in Jerusalem, and yet the Anglican Church decided to set up an Archbishoporic nonetheless. To whom was this archbishop to minister? With no Anglicans in the area, the only other Christians were Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. An Anglican archbishop, therefore, was serving, as though in communion, non-Anglicans, those whose beliefs differed from the formal teachings of the Anglican Church, as found in documents such as the 39 Articles. Newman had a small fit over this and makes special place for it in his book rather than simply alluding to it.

Nowadays, were this reason published in an Apology, it would be laughed off. While doctrinal agreement amongst Protestant groups has not been established, many Protestant groups of varying beliefs inter-commune. I will not mention the horrors that have swept across the Anglican and Episcopal communions.

I honestly do not understand the Church of England--or the Anglican Church. It sometimes touts itself as the "Middle Way"--neither too Protestant to the point of rejecting the sacraments and Church tradition, nor too Catholic to the point of believed superstition. Yet, its members do not seem to be affected by the divergence of belief, even when there is disagreement of essentials. Newman was a member of what became known as the High Church--emphasizing liturgical and traditional prayer. Considering the widening varieties of Anglican expression that have since Newman's time widened, it is no surprise that Newman and other Anglicans would leave the Anglican communion.

Jesus Made God at Nicaea?

This at least appears the claim of Richard E. Rubenstein, professor at George Mason University and author of several books dealing with the Church and philosophy. I read his book Aristotle's Children this past December, and I found it to be an informative read; I have yet to read his book When Jesus Became God. I do want to read it, however, especially in light of what I have found in my own studies. The fact is: besides Scripture, there are several Church Fathers (even ones that become associated with heterodox movements) that identified Jesus as God. Not simply "like" God but God.

Judging from the reviews of Rubenstein's book on Jesus (which may or may not be entirely accurate) Rubenstein identifies the Arian Christians as those who did not believe Jesus to be God (in opposition to the supporters of Athanasius, who believed Jesus is God). This is a gross over-simplification and even misleading. The Arian Christians did not deny Christ's divinity. They too would say that Jesus is God. The debate between the Arians and those who later would be called Nicene Christians was not over the question of whether or not Jesus was divine, but how to articulate this divinity. Arius, desiring to maintain the Father's place, held that the Son was begotten by the Father but in such a way that he was "created" before all ages. The Son was still first of all creation and indeed was created before time and ranked above all creation. The Son, in short, is still God, just not, as the Nicenes would define, homoousios, or partaking in the same divine substance as the Father. The debate, as I understand it, mostly concerned the relationship of the Son with the Father. It was the Nicenes (and not the Arians) who pinned on the Arians the belief that Jesus is not God, for from the Nicene standpoint, the Arians, by their faulty theology, actually did not believe Jesus is God. In the eyes of the Nicenes, as mouth-pieced by Alexander of Alexandria and later by his successor, Athanasius, the Arians simply reduced Jesus to the level of a creature; perhaps the greatest creature, but a creature nonetheless.

In any case, I'm interested if Rubenstein makes any note of the heresy of Artemon. Who? Yes, Artemon. Eusebius of Caesarea, our only major chronicler of the early Church and a reluctant acceptant of the Council of Nicaea (he tended towards Arius) describes this heresy in some detail. He defines the errors of this heresy: asserting that the Saviour is merely human, merely a man. Interestingly, Eusebius' discussion touches on the very suggestion that I believe Rubenstein probably makes in his book: that the early Christians saw Jesus as man (perhaps a super-man) but not as God. This, according to Eusebius, was the heresy of this group (who claimed the same), but Eusebius mentions (as modern-day apologists do) that Christian writers going back to the time of the Apostles are to be found speaking of Christ as God--included in Eusebius' referenced list are Justin, Militiades, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Clement, among others, all of which write of Jesus as both God and man. For more information, see chapter 28 of Book 5 of Eusebius' History of the Church.

I'm not a Patristics scholar, but it should seem to me that, rather than argue belief in Jesus is God as a gradual development that did not exist in the early Church, it would be more reasonable to take a "multi-strand" approach--as several scholars already have taken regarding the Gnostic Christian question; the notion that a Low Christology of Adoptionism worked alongside a higher Christology that marked the subliminal divine nature of the Son. But whatever the case, the evidence as I've seen it suggests that believe that Jesus is God has early roots, can be traced to the Apostolic Fathers, and should in no way be seen as an innovation in the early 4th century. Now: Jesus is "one in substance" with the Father. This I can better understand as an "innovation," although I do not agree that the truth behind the definition is an innovation. I look forward to reading Rubenstein's book, once I have the time (after I finish my job this year).

Missing the Rust Belt

Having lived in an environment of utmost opulence for the past 10 months, I must say, I miss the Rust Belt, or at least what I experienced of it for two years. Sure, this area has a lot to offer: restaurants of every stripe, stores, malls, easy-access dry cleaners, pharmacies and so on. Even a certain degree of international culture, if one goes to the right places. Yet, something is missing here, and I miss that, whatever it is. The grass is greener here. The trees are lush. No chipped paint anywhere; everything is new. I've never been opposed to newness though. When in college, I was in an environment where the grass was very green, the surrounding fields lush, and the new houses quite new. Something else is missing. Perhaps it is nature. There are several parks here, some offering extensive trails. I've been on these trails, but still, it's not the same. Perhaps it's my own mentality, my own perspective of things--knowing as I do that these enclaves of nature are really artificial, well-tended as they are by park crews. I've often thought it is something in the people, something missing from the people here. Or perhaps, to put it in a different, less self-centered light, perhaps it is I who am lacking that which everyone else here has. I don't know. I just know that, whenever I go to a store, a restaurant, a cafe, a library, there is a disconnect. Not a negative disconnect necessarily but a definite one nonetheless. I'm wondering if it has to do with the fact that I did not grow up in a large suburban environment, or a rich one, that I grew up away from a new center of American growth. I have not made any new friends down here. The ones I have down here are the ones I had before coming.
In that respect, I am glad to leave here in the near future.

The Rust Belt has its downfalls: low income, lower job demand, and higher crime (although gang activity is on the rise here). But what I liked about the Rust Belt, when I was there, was the mellowness of it all. Some may call to mind the dilapidated buildings and see it as stagnation. But for me, and it perhaps it is the medieval in me, I see this as charm, and even a snapshot of history. And nature. Yes, there is the industry, some collapsed, some collapsing; but nature is still to be found. Nature once tamed is now left free, for lack of funds. There is corruption, but there is freedom. A connection with the real world, but a distance from all its hyper-activity. And the churches. For some reason, the churches of the Rust Belt suffer less desecration than those of healthier urban areas. High altars remain in many Catholic churches. Mighty cathedrals and cathedral-like churches, built in economically prosperous times, still stand, triumphantly above everything else.

El Cinco De Mayo

Hoy es el cinco de mayo! I remember my last real 5th of May celebration. It was about four years ago, at the El Rodeo in Lancaster, PA, and, if I remember correctly, I went with one of my friends, a number of students, and the Spanish professor. It's amazing the number of Mexican restaurants that have popped up over the past decade. Growing up, I don't remember a single Mexican restaurant, except Taco Bell, but that does not count. Nowadays, one can easily find an El Rodeo, a Rancho Grande or, if these are too distant, a Chipotle. In any case, I may walk to the Chipotle up the road, just to see what is happening, if anything.

Misquoting Jesus

I have yet to pick up the by now well-known book, Misquoting Jesus. When it was first published, I wanted a copy, but only expensive hardbacks were available, and I had no desire to spend that much money on a book of which contents I already could judge from reading other similiar books. Bart D. Ehrman has joined the ranks with other Biblical and early Christian scholar (Crossan, Pagels, Funk, Spong, etc.) whose works are popularized through outlets such as Borders and Barnes and Noble.

I suppose I do not have much more to write on the subject. I find it interesting, even tragic, that books of this ilk dominate the market in bookstores, and yet are by far the minority opinion of scholars. A few years ago, I read the book Hidden Gospels by the esteemed historian Philip Jenkins. The book helped clarify the issues in Biblical scholarship today and the various fallacies of the "Jesus Seminar"-minded scholars. Shortly thereafter, I also read Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus, which was very informative as well. Jenkins looks at the issue from a historical perspective. Johnson takes on the issue from the perspective of a theologian although he certainly incorporates history.

Experience of God in the Orthodox Church

Many Christian groups tout their special relationship with God--experiencing God in a living, true way. Some, Pentecostal, speak of God giving them prophesies and having the Holy Spirit working through them in the Speaking of Tongues. Others, such as found amongst the evangelical Protestants, claim to "know" God in a personal way (God speaks to my heart). As a Roman Catholic, I found much of this to be over-emotionalism. I then held (and still do, albeit differently) that one knows God through prayer. This is what was found in the CCC and what was commonly held by Catholics. But I knew that the Catholic Church was much more subdued than the Protestant churches. Yes, Catholics experience God, but there are different degrees of experience of God, and usually only the great saints (or those in a great life of sin who are suddenly knocked off their horse) experience God in a extraordinary way. Not all Protestants though focus on the "extraordinary" made "ordinary." Many Lutherans, as I'm finding out, focus on the working of grace in everyday circumstances, not in "supernatural" oddities.

The Orthodox have, what I think, to be the soundest understanding of experiencing God. One experiencing God in the Liturgy, in the mysteries--in short, in participating in God's energies. In an interesting way, while the Orthodox do not shy away from the possibility, even the multitude, of healing miracles, be they of soul, body or both, they are very wary of visions and the such that, in the Western way, seem to be more easily accepted as having a divine source. In Orthodoxy, visions and dreams of angels, deceased spirits and the like are more often than not seen as the artifice of the Devil rather than of holy source. Sometimes the visions are of God, but not in all or even most cases. I notice that in Roman Catholicism there is some hesitation in believing personal revelations, as in the case of Bayside prophesies, Maria Valtorta, etc. However, even this considered, recognition of the possibility of diabolical influence is not as prominent. This is especially the case when the theological issues are not as present: e.g. spirits claiming to be purgatorial spirits in need of prayer, spirits of the saints appearing, angelic appearances, etc. Perhaps I am wrong, but this has been my experience. Eastern monastic writings have a strong influence on the East, and it may be this influence that makes the East more wary of these encounters.

The End is Near

Of my present job that is. My last day is June 9. I'm counting down the days. I teach..., high school students. I won't go into all the reasons why I'm not returning, but I must now decide where to go next. I do not believe I'll go into teaching students again, unless it be college students, and then only in the distant future. Perhaps I should go to another country, teach students (who want to learn) how to speak English. I have several friends who have just done that.