Our Lady’s Message At Recognised Apparition Sites Is Essentially The Same!

Yesterday, 13th July, was the 97th anniversary of Our Blessed Lady’s most important messages imparted at Fatima to the little seers. It included the terrible vision of Hell “where poor [unrepentant] sinners go”. 

Shrine of Our Lady, Akita.

Shrine of Our Lady, Akita.

In 1998 it was revealed that Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) made the astonishing remark to the Philippine ambassador to the Vatican that the messages of Fatima and Akita “are essentially the same.” It was not the first time that someone in a position to know provided such crucial hints. By examining certain aspects concerning the Fatima and Akita revelations, we will find abundant proof that the entire message of Fatima, especially the Third Secret, is of universal and apocalyptic proportions.

In 1984, just before retiring at a venerable age, the diocesan Bishop of Niigata, Bishop John Shojiro Ito, in consultation with the Holy See, wrote a pastoral letter in which he recognised as being authentically of the Mother of God, the extraordinary series of events that had taken place from 1973 to 1981 in a little lay convent within his diocese, at Akita, Japan. In June 1988, the then Cardinal Ratzinger approved the Akita events as “reliable and worthy of belief”. Hence in Akita we are dealing with a Church approved intervention of the Blessed Virgin Mary as sure in this respect as LourdesFatima, or La Salette.

In 1973, in Akita, Japan, Our Lady spoke to a nun long afflicted by various illnesses and almost totally deaf, Sister Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa: “The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God.”

The first message received by Sister Agnes Katsuko Sasagawa on 6th June, 1973, was a call for prayer and sacrifice for the glory of the Father and salvation of souls. The second message, 3rd August, 1973, was for prayer, penance and courageous sacrifices to soften the Father’s anger.

Weeping statue of Our Lady at Akita

Weeping statue of Our Lady at Akita

The third message on 13th October, 1973, the actual anniversary of the final visions and miracle of Fatima is as follows: As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son. Each day, recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and the priests. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their Confreres. The Church and altars will be vandalised. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. The demon will rage especially against souls consecrated to God…”

In his pastoral letter approving the events of Akita as supernatural, the Bishop of Niigata said: “After the inquiries conducted up to the present day, one cannot deny the supernatural character of a series of unexplainable events relative to the statue of the Virgin honoured at Akita (Diocese of Niigata). Consequently I authorise that all of the diocese entrusted to me venerate the Holy Mother of Akita.”

Concerning the messages, His Excellency said: “As for the content of the messages received, it is no way contrary to Catholic doctrine or to good morals. When one thinks of the actual state of the world, the warning seems to correspond to it in many points.” His Excellency explained that he had taken eight years to give this judgment because of the importance and the responsibility in question. “The Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith has given me directives in this sense,” the Bishop said, “that only the bishop of the diocese in question has the power to recognise an event of this kind.”

The events of Akita have been confirmed by definite miracles, two of which are cited by the Bishop in his pastoral letter. While the warning given by Our Lady at Akita is terrible, the message, as the Bishop points out, is basically a repetition of the Message of Fatima. Our Lady stressed the importance of praying the Rosary, and above all of accepting from God whatever He may send in the course of each day . . . whatever suffering . . . and to offer it up in reparation for so many sins committed throughout the world at this time. Our Lady begged especially for prayers for bishops, priests, and religious, and for reparation before the Blessed Sacrament. Our Lady said: “I have prevented the coming of calamities by offering to the Father, together with all the victim souls who console Him, the sufferings endured by the Son on the Cross, by His blood and by His very loving Soul. Prayer, penance, and courageous sacrifices can appease the anger of the Father.”

To the little Japanese religious community of Akita Our Lady asked that it “live in poverty, sanctify itself and pray in reparation for the ingratitude and the outrages of so many men.”

At Fatima the Angel of Portugal had urged the three little seers to pray and adore the Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, “in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which He is offended.”

miracle%20sunSr. Lucia had spoken of the Blessed Virgin’s anguish and sadness at Fatima, “caused by the offenses of God and the punishments which menace sinners”, as the reason behind the great sacrifices of her cousins Francisco and Jacinta, because in all the apparitions of the Most Holy Virgin, they always saw her very sad. “This sadness, this anguish which we noted in her, penetrated our souls. This sadness is caused by the offenses against God and the punishments which menace sinners…” The other thing which sanctified these children was to see the vision of Hell.

To Father Augustin Fuentes, postulator of the causes for beatification of Francisco and Jacinta, Sr. Lucia said: “Father, that is why my mission is not to indicate to the world the material punishments which are certain to come if the world does not pray and do penance beforehand. No, my mission is to indicate to everyone the imminent danger we are in of losing our souls for all eternity if we remain obstinate in sin.”

On two different occasions, Sr. Lucia of Fatima had intimated the Third Secret’s connection to Divine Revelation when she stated it was in the Gospel and the Apocalypse (and she specified chapters 7-12) – “Read them!”

The third part of the Message of Our Lady Lucia concluded: “will be very sad for everyone, not one person will rejoice at all if beforehand the world does not pray and do penance.” She would also write many times to reliable witnesses of a ‘diabolical disorientation’ in the Church and the world of which Our Lady warned her.

Could the prophesies of Fatima and Akita concerning the turmoil in the Church be playing out in our present times?

Our Lady's Tears at La Salette

Our Lady’s Tears at La Salette

It is interesting to note how the prophecies of the weeping Madonna at La Salette in south-eastern France in 1846 to the two children, Melanie and Maximin, are not unlike those at Fatima and Akita. Although the secrets imparted to the children have never been fully revealed, we know they contained a warning of terrible consequences that would befall mankind, devastating wars and famines, if they continued to turn from God. (As Our Lady would later reveal at Fatima, “War is a punishment for sin”.) She urged the children to pray and be obedient to their Faith, summing up the great evil of our times – human pride. Her message was for all times and all places, but particularly was it meant to show how false was the idea that man no longer needs God. Melanie and Maximin never achieved the practice of “heroic virtue” like the children of Fatima did, but they remained constant in the Faith and never denied the Vision of Our Lady of La Salette. After a thorough investigation, the Bishop of the diocese was satisfied that the appearance was authentically supernatural; Pope Pius IX would approve devotion to Our Lady of La Salette and his successor, Pope Leo XIII, built a great basilica on the mountain.

Although the apparitions of Garabandal in the 1960’s have never been officially recognised by the Church as being of supernatural origin, it is interesting to also note how very similar the apparent messages Our Lady gave the four young seers are to those at Fatima and Akita. They speak of the necessity of prayer and penance too, with a grave warning of the coming crisis within the Catholic Church and the betrayal of so many of her ordained clergy! A future great chastisement and a miracle were also promised at Garabandal. These will be announced beforehand by Conchita, one of the seers, and are yet to take place.

Many will be asking, “why is Our Lady appearing at so many places to impart the same teachings and warnings?” The obvious answer must be because She is truly our Heavenly Mother, and She loves us with a patient, suffering Mother’s love. Her Immaculate Heart, so intimately united with the Sacred Heart of Jesus, weeps to see the wrong path so many of her children are taking. She wants to guide us back to her Divine Son Who shed His Precious Blood for our Salvation. “Oh children, listen to me!” (Our Lady’s words at Garabandal.)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to Our Lady’s Message At Recognised Apparition Sites Is Essentially The Same!

  1. toadspittle says:

    “As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead.
    This seems to be at direct odds with the assertion that God loves us all, and forgives us all our follies.

    “..Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. “
    Clearly indiscriminate. Do we really need an indiscriminate God? How do we justify that? I wouldn’t set my dogs on fire, however wicked they had been.
    Does that make me more merciful than God? Apparently.
    …Or is this “taken out of context,” as usual?“

    “War is a punishment for sin”.”
    How about “just” wars?

    Like

  2. M P P says:

    http://www.marypages.com/PontmainEng1.htm
    “But please pray, my children; God will soon hear your prayers: My Son is waiting for you.”

    Our Lady at Pontmain

    Like

  3. JabbaPapa says:

    the assertion that God … forgives us all our follies

    ???

    Do you have a source for this strange claim ?

    Does that make me more merciful than God? Apparently

    ???

    Quite apart from your usual degree of hubris, obviously NO, as any even diagonal perusal of your continual criticisms and acid witticisms would quickly reveal …

    Like

  4. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad is just a fool-born maggot-pie a someone once said. I think it was Shakespeare.

    Like

  5. toadspittle says:

    You are right, Jabba. I should have left the last six words off. After writing, I began to think that “follies” was the wrong word, anyway.
    Because God clearly does no such thing.
    And yet, To understand all is to forgive all.
    Or is it?
    To merit eternal damnation, we’d have to “understand” eternal damnation: that is to say, be entirely aware of the extent of the fate to which we would still willingly consign ourselves.
    Not so easy for mere mortals.
    That’s why I forgive my dogs everything, even though even I don’t understand all the dopey things they do.
    …It’s my metier.
    So, I don’t think I’m more merciful than God. What I do think is that we are reading God wrongly.
    He’s not as bad as we make out.

    Like

  6. kathleen says:

    “War is a punishment for sin

    Perhaps Toad would prefer it if Our Lady had said “war is a consequence of sin”, but in the end it would mean the same thing. 😉
    Toad, I’m sure you don’t need me, or anyone, to tell you what the original causes were for any of the wars in the history of Mankind. Just a look at the recent ones in the 20th century for example will give you plenty of evidence to confirm Our Lady’s words. To put it in simple words: when men let greed, hate, envy, vengeance etc. get the upper hand in them, bad things will follow. When understanding, peace, charity etc. reign, there will be no conflict, no war.
    I have just finished reading a book by Fr. Andrew Apostoli, “Fatima for Today”, in which he goes into great detail explaining the messages of Our Lady at Fatima, and how extremely relative they are for us at this very time we are currently living. I recommend it to you.

    Yes, there is such a thing as a “just war”, for men have a right to defend themselves and their families. That doesn’t mean that the original fight (war) was not resulting from sin though.

    Like

  7. Fine article. Thank you. The messages of Our Lady seem to coincide so well with the feeling that many people have these days, that if our species is to avoid disaster, human society simply cannot continue as it is, not in America, not in Europe, not in the Middle East, not anywhere. Oremus pro ecclesia et pro toto orbe terrarum.

    Like

  8. toadspittle says:

    “Perhaps Toad would prefer it if Our Lady had said “war is a consequence of sin”, but in the end it would mean the same thing. ;-)”
    …No it wouldn’t. It is not for Toad to put words in Our lady’s mouth – I will leave that to Kathleen, who has just done so – because “punishment” and “consequence” are very different words, and we cannot substitute one from the other without dire consequences.
    The consequence for living a God-fearing, saintly, Christian life is, or so we hope, eternal bliss.
    Hard to see how that might “mean the same thing” as a punishment.

    Is our famous “Just War,” of which we all approve – a consequence of sin?
    Or a punishment for it?

    Like

  9. toadspittle says:

    “To put it in simple words: when men let greed, hate, envy, vengeance etc. get the upper hand in them, bad things will follow.”

    No argument there, Kathleen.
    And when men roast and behead one another over a difference of opinion as to whose god is the real one – bad things will also follow.
    (I’m sure you meant to say that yourself, but forgot.)

    Like

  10. kathleen says:

    But Toad, war is a punishment for sin. We punish ourselves by our wickedness and selfishness. Innocents pay the price of the “sins of the fathers”; it has always been that way. You reap what you sow, etc. Anyway, I’m not going to argue with you anymore over this; I’m pretty sure you know what I meant to say.
    (Where’s The Raven when one needs him… to give Toad another lesson in the meaning of words?)

    “And when men roast and behead one another over a difference of opinion as to whose god is the real one – bad things will also follow.”

    Exactly! So you had better go and preach this piece of Toad-wisdom to our, er, Muslim brethren… if you dare to that is. Watch your little green head! 😉

    Like

  11. toadspittle says:

    It would appear the Muslims are more interested in cutting off Christian heads, rather than those of toads, nowadays Kathleen. So, you might need to be more careful than I.
    Still, “the jihad” might not get round to Surbition for years yet.
    Of course religious murder has had different flavours in the past.
    But we only go there when it suits us, don’t we?.
    What goes round – comes round, as GKC often remarked – when he’d had a few.
    And, of course war is a punishment for sin. When did I ever suggest it wasn’t? War is sin. What the story seems to be suggesting is that it’s God’s punishment for sin.
    Although it’s not clear if “the fire falling from the sky” will come from Heaven. or from a drone.
    Doesn’t matter all that much which – I suppose.
    “(Where’s The Raven when one needs him… to give Toad another lesson in the meaning of words?)”
    Words mean exactly what we want them to mean. No more , no less. (H. Dumpty.)

    Like

  12. JabbaPapa says:

    Words mean exactly what we want them to mean. No more , no less. (H. Dumpty.)

    Then you’ve just destroyed the entirety of your own argument.

    Like

  13. Tom Fisher says:

    I struggle with these apparitions.

    Hundreds of millions of people died unnecessarily in the 20th century because of man-made famines, warfare, persecution, and genocide.

    The majority of the human population is not Christian, still less Catholic. None of those responsible for the horrors of the century were influenced by these apparitions or by those who believed them.

    So why would divine intervention in a century of horrors take the form of Marian apparitions?

    Like

  14. kathleen says:

    @ Tom

    “None of those responsible for the horrors of the century were influenced by these apparitions or by those who believed them.”

    That is true Tom… and indeed, that is the problem.
    Just think how different things would have been if Christians alone had taken heed of Our Lady’s words at Lourdes, La Salette, and most especially, Fatima (where the evils of the October Revolution were starting to stir).

    Although the statistics show that atheistic Communism* with its satanical ideology has been the cause of the greatest genocides of the 20th century, two of the most notorious murderers of the “century of horrors” – Hitler and Stalin – were of Christian upbringing, yet both renounced their faith and became its bitter enemies.

    * If the Christians in Russia had truly lived as such, even Communism might never have risen there.

    Like

  15. mkenny114 says:

    Tom,

    The point of the apparitions is to appeal to Catholics to repent and pray for forgiveness, and because of the deeply Catholic principle that our intercessory prayers can be effectual for others, not just ourselves, this collective repentance and prayer can a.) make reparation for the sins of others, and b.) be a sign to others outside the Church of their need to repent for their sins also. The requests made in the apparitions are of course not enough, and require a response from us which is not usually forthcoming (at least not in great numbers).

    As for why divine intervention in such a violent century should take the form of Marian apparitions, the article itself I think gives the answer when it says:

    ‘…because She is truly our Heavenly Mother, and She loves us with a patient, suffering Mother’s love. Her Immaculate Heart, so intimately united with the Sacred Heart of Jesus, weeps to see the wrong path so many of her children are taking. She wants to guide us back to her Divine Son Who shed His Precious Blood for our Salvation.’

    It is part of Mary’s vocation to experience great compassion for the ways in which her children are leading themselves astray, and wounding the heart of her Son (which her heart is irrevocably linked to through both familial bonds and deep currents of grace). Presumably she is chosen to appear to us in this way because we may respond better to this motherly love.

    As to why God should not intervene in other, more direct, ways, I suppose this is just like asking why He doesn’t intervene in great wars and suchlike in general (intervene to end them anyway – we don’t know what unseen acts of intervention there may have been in various cases). The answer to this, I would think, is that it would make the life of free creatures somewhat farcical if every time we got ourselves into a mess God swooped down and temporarily removed our free will, causing us to stop being sinful (or turned our swords/guns/etc into jelly).

    That’s the way I see it anyway 🙂

    Like

  16. toadspittle says:

    Don’t ask awkward questions, Tom.

    “Then you’ve just destroyed the entirety of your own argument.”
    …Of course I have, Jabba – that’s the whole point.
    If Kathleen (or you, or anyone) thinks the words, “punishment,” and “consequences,” are synonymous – then so they are – for those who think they are.

    A sad state of affairs, it might seem. But then, who really cares, anyway?

    Like

  17. mkenny114 says:

    Toad,

    I’m pretty sure Kathleen didn’t mean that the two words are synonymous all the time, but just that in this instance they refer to the same thing – i.e.; that our sins have consequences (in this case war) and that those consequences are also punishments for our sins. This seems pretty clear from what was written, and its context.

    Like

  18. kathleen says:

    “Don’t ask awkward questions, Tom.” ???

    You said that Toad, not me (or anyone else for that matter).

    I thank Tom for his question… even if for nothing else, then that it prompted that excellent reply from Michael.

    Like

  19. Tom Fisher says:

    The answer to this, I would think, is that it would make the life of free creatures somewhat farcical if every time we got ourselves into a mess God swooped down and temporarily removed our free will, causing us to stop being sinful (or turned our swords/guns/etc into jelly).

    mkenny,

    We’re not talking about God interfering in a cricket match. An infant starving to death in the Russian countryside, or herded into a gas-chamber in Poland, isn’t a “free creature” that has “got itself into a mess”.
    I’m sorry but your response reminds me of the worst aspect of C.S. Lewis’ theology — his tendency to imagine humanity as a collection of naughty schoolboys.

    Like

  20. mkenny114 says:

    Tom,

    Sorry to have given the impression that I in any way take lightly the sufferings of others – this is very much not the case. I do see how my choice of language could possibly have given that impression, but it certainly wasn’t my intention.

    However, I still stand by my general point, that I find it hard to imagine a world where God steps in and stops wars, etc, making much sense in the context of a world created with free human beings (who are creatures – not sure what the problem with that is) that God would always have known to be able to choose wrongly, and with sometimes terrible consequences.

    Perhaps it might help if you could suggest how you conceive of God intervening in situations like those you mention in your reply above? I for one can’t imagine how He might do so myself, but if you could provide an example or two, it might shed some light on the matter and I’d be able to see better where you are coming from on this.

    Like

  21. kathleen says:

    I don’t agree Tom.
    The tragic examples you give just underline how truly terrible and horrific are the consequences of our sins. This is what Man’s Free Will, put to bad use, has brought about, and this is why we are being warned time and again by Our Blessed Mother of the desperate need to turn back to our Faith to put a stop to these outrages that bring so much suffering to the innocents, and lead those responsible on the path to Hell. The root evil is always men disobeying the commandments of God and leading selfish hedonistic lives.
    If we had not been endowed with Free Will, we would just follow our animal instincts and be unable to choose our behaviour or be capable of either good or evil… IOW, we would be more like robots than creatures made in the “Image and Likeness of God”.

    This may sound simplistic, but put in a nutshell this is what it is all about, i.e. when we declare to God “non serviam”, the devil becomes our “god”, and misery, suffering, famine, war, death of the innocents etc. will ensue.

    Like

  22. Tom Fisher says:

    Perhaps it might help if you could suggest how you conceive of God intervening in situations like those you mention in your reply above? I for one can’t imagine how He might do so myself, but if you could provide an example or two, it might shed some light on the matter and I’d be able to see better where you are coming from on this

    mkenny,

    For me the problem is that I can accept that all Creation, and especially humanity, must journey towards God in freedom; constant intervention on God’s part would effectively annihilate the distinction between God and the created world. — And as a Christian I accept the logic of the incarnation, and the Church. — But I find these Marian apparitions that we hear so much about to be rather question beggingly ad hoc. Does that make sense?

    Like

  23. Tom Fisher says:

    The root evil is always men disobeying the commandments of God and leading selfish hedonistic lives.

    Kathleen, I absolutely agree. And I do see your point

    Like

  24. mkenny114 says:

    Tom,

    Yes that makes sense, but I thought that, given your previous comment, you also objected to my point about God’s intervention in such cases undermining the freedom that He bestowed upon us in the first place (and, as you rightly say, effectively annihilating the distinction between God and the created world). If not, then we agree, so that’s that sorted 🙂

    As for the ‘ad hoc’ nature of the Marian apparitions, I don’t see them as being so myself. Just because it would not be fitting for God to intervene directly, as discussed above, that doesn’t mean that He cannot warn us (through Our Blessed Mother) of the continued consequences that our evil actions have. Warning us in this way, and calling us to repentance, in a way that we are moved to intercede for others, does not undermine our free-will, and seems to me be one of the few ways God can intervene positively without doing so. The number of the apparitions is, as the article makes clear, due to the particularly sinful and violent nature of the twentieth century.

    Like

  25. toadspittle says:

    “However, I still stand by my general point, that I find it hard to imagine a world where God steps in and stops wars, etc, making much sense…”
    Oh, really, Michael?
    Makes perfect sense to me.
    If I were God, I’d stop wars pronto.
    Wouldn’t you?
    (Might let a bit of minor sin continue, of course.)

    But then, we are told God deliberately created a world which He knew from the get-go was going to be riven with sin and war.
    Go figure, as they say in N.Y. Why bother creating such a rotten old world?
    Mysterious ways, I suppose.

    If someone said to me, “This is the tree of knowledge – don’t go near it,” my first instinct would be, “Out of my way, I’m grabbing that apple.” Wouldn’t anyone’s?

    Like

  26. mkenny114 says:

    The point is Toad, that if you (in this hypothetical situation) did step in and do so, it would make nonsense out of the decision to create a free world in the first place. As you point out yourself, God did indeed know the consequences of doing so, but presumably He had good reasons for going ahead and doing it anyway. We, as finite creatures, could never possibly know the fullness of His purposes, but I think it is plain enough just from the mundane perspective that our world is not JUST riven with sin and war – there are countless acts of goodness, kindness and even self-sacrificial love that pass by every day, and we only give them less attention a.) because they don’t make good news, and b.) acts of sin, injustice, etc are rightly an affront to our sensibilities, whereas acts of goodness, etc rightly strike us as the correct way of living.

    As for whether I would make straight for the tree of knowledge as soon as someone told me not to, I’d like to think I wouldn’t be quite as eager as you think you would be. Plus, it would of course depend on who told me not to 🙂

    Like

  27. toadspittle says:

    “Perhaps it might help if you could suggest how you conceive of God intervening in situations like those you mention in your reply above? “
    Perhaps an all-powerful God could create a world where those situations did not arise in the first place?
    God could, I suppose, easily make a world without, say, earthquakes, tsunamis and malaria if he wanted – and we would be just as “free” as we are now to live in it, and still do kind things, or commit adultery and start wars, just as we do now. But it would be a “nicer” world.
    Of course, the world is remarkably pleasant for some people already.
    You and I are incredibly fortunate to have been born where we where, and at the right time.
    About 99 percent of humans are not so lucky. It’s all a crap shoot.
    …Which apparently is all right with God.
    I question that. No more than that: just question.

    Like

  28. toadspittle says:

    “God did indeed know the consequences of doing so, but presumably He had good reasons for going ahead and doing it anyway.”
    Not very convincing reasoning, Michael.* How can we know if His reasons were any good at all? The results certainly weren’t.
    “We, as finite creatures, could never possibly know the fullness of His purposes, “
    Yes, He works in mysterious ways, doesn’t He?

    * my previous comment was also principally addressed at him. But anyone can play.

    Like

  29. Gertrude says:

    Oh Toad. I think God gets the blame for 99.9% of the situations that are created by ….. us. Then, when we realise the consequences that our own free will has made, we say ‘why didn’t you stop me?’ or ‘undo my mess please’ or ‘it wasn’t really my fault’. On a grander scale, when disaster strikes, famine, earthquake, flood or any of the other catastrophes that inflict our world, we say to God – ‘why didn’t you prevent it?’.
    Has it never occurred to you that man is the greatest instigator in various ways, of most of the disasters that happen?

    Like

  30. GC says:

    Over on “Strange Notions”, Fr Robert Spitzer SJ has been running a series of 4 articles on such weighty matters.

    Why Virtue Requires an Imperfect World

    Like

  31. toadspittle says:

    “Has it never occurred to you that man is the greatest instigator in various ways, of most of the disasters that happen?”
    I don’t believe that, Gertude. I believe disease and natural events, like floods, have killed millions more than wars, and similar man-made events ever have. Think of God’s famous flood, for one.
    I might be wrong, though. Impossible, I suggest, to be sure.

    Nevertheless, man has certainly made this planet a far, far nastier place than it need have been.
    And, no, I personally don’t blame God for even a particle of it.

    It’s not as if He invented leprosy, or the Haiti earthquake, is it?
    Only insane humanity is guilty.

    Like

  32. Frere Rabit says:

    There were some musings on Toad in “Another Place” earlier today, with some people indicating they don’t read CP&S because it is dominated by Toad’s rantings. I admitted it was my fault entirely that Toad was given his exalted position here. In 2010 I managed to persuade the majority of CP&S founders that the voice of dissent (“Moratinos” from the old Damian Thompson blog) was a Catholic dissenting voice we should include.

    He’s still going strong but most CP&S founders disappeared a long time ago. Well done, Toad… If anyone is still reading the comments. 🙂

    Like

  33. JabbaPapa says:

    If I were God, I’d stop wars pronto.
    Wouldn’t you?
    (Might let a bit of minor sin continue, of course.)

    You appear to conceive of God as being some sort of angst-ridden Marvel superhero.

    Like

  34. JabbaPapa says:

    Perhaps an all-powerful God could create a world where those situations did not arise in the first place?

    Thank you for this latest declaration of your love for the most cynical breed of destructive voltairian atheism — now, could you perhaps post something a little less trite next time round ?

    Second-thinking God ? I mean, do you really imagine your intelligence to be of such a fine calibre that it must so easily surpass that of the Creator of Reality ?

    cripes, you’re like some kind of mystical back seat driver !!!

    Like

  35. JabbaPapa says:

    God could, I suppose, easily make a world without, say, earthquakes, tsunamis and malaria if he wanted

    NOT that I was seriously expecting you to have paid ANY attention whatsoever to any counterpoints that have ever been made to you, but it’s nevertheless still rather tiresome to see the same old same old trite toadian “arguments” of a somewhat Dawkins and Dan Brown nature being trundled out again and again and again as the repetitious example a kind of Pavlovian surdity of the atheistic mind …

    Like

  36. JabbaPapa says:

    About 99 percent of humans are not so lucky

    Undoubtedly, you can support this latest of your bizarre statements with more information than is contained on the label of any typical bottle of vino tinto

    (My own is a “Las Corazas” Terranillo Tinto Noble 2012 from Fuente-Alamo BTW … )

    Like

  37. toadspittle says:

    Calm down, Jabba. You’ll need all your strength for your walk.
    Don’t waste it doing your nut about poor old Toad. Not worth the frothing rage, I suggest.

    “About 99 percent of humans are not so lucky…”
    No, you are correct – that’s just a guess on my part.
    If you like, I’ll make it 98 percent.

    (And Mine’s a G&T.)

    Like

  38. johnhenrycn says:

    Frere Rabit (who dat?) says:
    “He’s still going strong but most CP&S founders disappeared a long time ago. Well done, Toad… If anyone is still reading the comments.”

    Time to let the dead bury their dead, as Someone once said.

    To suggest that most founders of this blog left a long time ago (debatable) implies that the remainder are held in less regard than those who departed like you. There’s been new blood here over the past 2 years or so since you left – not that I’m happy you did – and whatever disdain you might have eldritch commenters, to talk down the effectiveness of a blog you left to others is low.

    Like

  39. toadspittle says:

    Still, the import of Rabit’s comment is disturbing. Must brood on it.
    Disconcerting to think I might be inhibiting people on CP&S.
    All good, knockabout, harmless fun, I thought.

    Like

  40. mkenny114 says:

    Good Morning Toad,

    You seem to be conceiving of God’s omnipotence in an entirely arbitrary sense – i.e.; that because He can do anything, He can therefore also do things that are incoherent, or even logically impossible (like making a square circle). To create a world which is different from God, rather than just an extension of His being, necessarily entails that world being subject to change, and to make a world where discrete individual things and beings exist entails that those things and beings will interact – sometimes positively, sometimes not.

    It is logically possible to imagine a world where such things never interacted with one another, or were pre-programmed not to interact in destructive ways, but it is highly debatable as to whether this would be a world worth creating, as it would a.) have no real integrity of its own, acting according to pre-determined dictates, and b.) would not be sufficiently different from God to be Creation in any meaningful sense – the universe would be reduced to a sort of grand-scale train set, instead of the free, independent world that it really is.

    It is also very hard to imagine (to imagine sensibly at least) a world where lots of isolated beings, prevented from interacting with one another and their environment, could be capable of any meaningful relationship, let alone ones of love. This latter point leads me to the other issue you raise – that of 99% of people being utterly miserable. I would have serious doubts about this ‘statistic’, but even if it were the case that 99% of people lived in terrible conditions, it does not necessarily mean that 99% of people were miserable – in fact, I would suggest there is far more despair and discontent in the coddled world that we live in than in more disadvantaged parts of the world.

    This is not to diminish the great suffering that does indeed exist in the world, only to say that you seem to want to paint the world a lot blacker than it really is. As I mentioned before, there are countless acts of goodness out there that go unnoticed, and the only reason bad things stick in the mind more is because they are an affront to our sensibilities (and rightly so). Having said that though (and with reference to the other issue of natural evil), it is clear from any sober assessment of the world around us that more suffering is created by human action than by natural disasters – the latter stick in our minds more, because of the grand scale on which they sometimes occur, and because we have so little control over them, but the vast majority of evil we witness in our lives is that caused directly or indirectly by human sin.

    Finally, as to how we can know that God’s reasons for creating were good ones, well we know it on other grounds don’t we – although grounds you would no doubt reject. From philosophical reflection on the nature of reality we can surmise that the universe must have a cause, that this cause must be omnipotent and omniscient, and that it must be associated with the transcendent values we apprehend in our lives (truth and goodness) – so that we also surmise God is not just good, but the Good, the source of all goodness. On top of this we have God’s own revelation of Himself, most fully in Jesus, whose very life displayed the essential character of God, and which He showed to be one of infinite compassion and love. On those grounds (which, as I say, you will most likely reject some, if not all, of) we can then have good reason to think that God had a good reason to create.

    Like

  41. kathleen says:

    @ the earlier comments from Frere Rabit and JH

    Yes. If I remember rightly there were ten of us who originally started up Catholicism Pure & Simple four years ago now. The ten of us originals were: Frere Rabit, Mundabor, Benedict Carter, Teresa, The Raven, Gertrude, Brother Burrito, mmvc, Joyfulpapist and moi. That, as you can see, means that five of us, out of the original ten, are still here! 🙂

    We were all Catholic refugees from Damian Thompson’s blog on the Daily Telegraph, that notwithstanding some fascinating and relative topics on Catholic issues, had become totally infested with angry trolls. The DT moderators seemed to favour the trolls over the Catholics, something we could never work out why. In any case, it made any type of normal on-line conversation quite impossible, so the idea was to start up our own blog where comments could be moderated, and thus the churlish, uselessly abusive ones could be weeded out. That still allowed for those who “disagreed” room to place their views here, to then be discussed in a civil way.
    Many of our old friends from the DT (like JH) continued to discuss topics and comment here.

    One of these commenters was our teasing, exasperating, annoying in the extreme… but (I have to admit) lovable Toad. 😉

    The “hard work” for setting up this blog was mostly done by Frere Rabit and Teresa, (with plenty of good advice and help given by Gertrude and internet expert, Brother Burrito,) for which we were all very grateful.
    Mundabor very soon left us to start up his own blog – he works far better alone.
    A disagreement led to the departure of Frere Rabit and Benedict Carter soon after that. The rest of us carried on for a couple of years until first Joyfulpapist left (she was very busy with her own blog and other commitments) and then Teresa (work issues) also departed.
    We were then delighted to include GC on the Team, who had always been a long time on-line friend and commenter from the early days too.

    After Frere Rabit’s comment at 18:59 yesterday, and JH’s loyal defense of CP&S, I thought it would be a good idea to give those unknown to the blog a brief run through our “history”. 🙂

    Like

  42. toadspittle says:

    Long and thoughtful answer,Michael. Thank you.
    “You seem to be conceiving of God’s omnipotence in an entirely arbitrary sense – i.e.; that because He can do anything, He can therefore also do things that are incoherent, or even logically impossible (like making a square circle).”
    No, I don’t think God can do illogically impossible things. By definition, no being can.
    That rules out miracles, as far as I’m concerned. Walking on water (as in Pasolini’s very interesting film*) for example, is I would suggest logically impossible.
    You doubtless disagree. You will say, “It isn’t impossible, because Jesus did it.” So, round in circles we go.

    Creating a world without disease or earthquakes seems neither incoherent nor unthinkable. Although – the world as it currently exists – is “organised” with treacherous (for life) tectonic plates slipping about like Charlie Chaplin on ice, killing people in large bunches, and deadly bacteria lurking in every polluted water supply – so presumably, we will just have to put up with the pesky nuisances.
    Do our best to cope.
    …Keep our fingers crossed.

    * (Very thought-provoking. Pasolini loves faces, doesn’t he? And “Life of Brian,” – type crowd scenes? The Massacre of the Innocents came dangerously neat to farce, for me.)

    Like

  43. mkenny114 says:

    Toad,

    No I don’t think miracles (such as walking on water) are logically impossible, and it’s not just because Jesus did it. Walking on water does indeed go against the normal way in which human beings and water interact, but their interacting differently in this case is not a logical impossibility. It is not logically impossible that the properties (such as density) of water, or of man, might change, and given that it is the Lord of all Creation who imbued nature with certain properties in the first place, I would say that He is well within His rights to temporarily change or suspend them.

    Another example to illustrate the difference between logical impossibility and probability, is given by ‘Old Gil’ in his book Orthodoxy, where he points out that a ball, dropped onto the floor, bounces back upwards, then down, then back up to a lesser height, etc, until it stops. This is our daily experience, and we would be surprised to see it bounce off at a funny angle, or keep bouncing to the same height indefinitely, but it is not illogical that it might do so, only outside ordinary experience. And miracles are, almost by definition, out of the ordinary.

    If creating a (free and sensible) world without earthquakes is coherent and thinkable, perhaps you could suggest how this might be done? I personally find it very hard to see how a material world, existing in time and space, could exist (and be coherent) without processes of change and interaction between individual objects, both animate and inanimate. I am though, very open to suggestions of how this might be possible 🙂

    Like

  44. Roger says:

    Here we go again this World, Wars, Miracles etc.. Its the same old trite arguements. Social Injustice etc.. etc..
    Look at the Holy Sacrifice Of the Mass and what it is Calvary.
    What do we see? Look at the brutatlity, the hatred, the cruelity. Look at the Blood the Agony!
    There is the answer to those who talk of War and Sin and the world.
    Look at what the world did to the Sinless One! Then remember The World, The Flesh and The Devil.
    You want a Paradise on Earth? Then follow the Sinless One and you will rapidly discover that His steps lead to Persecution, Denial, Hatred. In fact He told Us this would happen to those who followed Him.
    Stop whinging Pick Up your Cross and Follow Jesus and Mary.

    Like

  45. Frere Rabit says:

    Thank you Kathleen for your recap of the history: that will probably fill in the gaps in JH’s knowledge. He seems to think I “left” CP&S, while the reality is I continue to comment on a regular basis as you can all see. If not so regularly, maybe a busy life explains that!

    The Toad agenda, as obviously understood by Toad, is to constantly debunk Catholicism. If this is seen by some to be a positive contribution, so be it. Toad and I have argued the toss over several years, and we know each other well enough, so my comments make no difference to me or to him.

    My main concern – echoed by others – is that the tone of the CP&S comments is too often clouded by a nonsensical and repetitive circularity, mostly revolving around Toad’s intellectual boredom which expresses itself in a disdain for traditional Catholicism, while at the same time maintaining a fascination with its benefits. This hook provides bait for people who think they can convince him… And on it goes.

    As I said, mea culpa.

    (And JH my earlier comment was not an invitation for your ill-informed and johnny-come-lately comment, thanks.)

    Like

  46. kathleen says:

    Dear Roger,

    To whom are you directing your comment of 12:58?
    As far as I can see, the article and all the following comments (bar Toad’s of course) were in no way denying either the existence and raison d’etre of miracles, nor any of the Church’s Doctrines.
    In fact most commenters have emphasised their importance, as also the understanding of the purpose of Our Lady’s apparitions.

    Like

  47. kathleen says:

    My main concern – echoed by others – is that the tone of the CP&S comments is too often clouded by a nonsensical and repetitive circularity, mostly revolving around Toad’s intellectual boredom which expresses itself in a disdain for traditional Catholicism…”

    Rabit, not long ago I received an e-mail from a friend of CP&S asking me why on earth we allow Toad such a free reign to do just that (^), and questioning whether we should not consider this could be detrimental to our blog. I conferred with my Team-mates about the e-mail – we were worried – and Toad got put into “moderation”… for at least the second time! He took the disgrace pretty well (I must admit) and just continued with his prolific writing of comments. He toned them down, so after a few weeks when he seemed to have learnt his lesson, the ban was lifted.
    He can be appalling, repetitive, boring, bone deaf to everyone’s patient explanations (hi Jabba & Michael!) and downright offensive to faithful Catholics.
    He can also be extremely witty, perceptive, interesting and loyal to his pals here.
    Trouble is: we are so used to this “black sheep” of the family now, no one appears keen to kick him out. 😉

    Altogether, a paradox! So, “How do you Solve the Problem of Toad?”

    And nobody blames you for his presence here!

    Like

  48. johnhenrycn says:

    Every court needs a jester.

    Like

  49. johnhenrycn says:

    The widow-queen of Portugal
    Had a Toad for a jester,
    Who entered the confessional
    Disguised, and there confessed her.
    “Father,” she said, “thine ear bend down –
    My sins are more than scarlet:
    I love my fool – blaspheming clown,
    And common, base-born varlet.”
    “Daughter,” the mimic priest replied,
    “That sin, indeed, is awful:
    The Church’s pardon is denied,
    To love a fool is unlawful.
    “But since thy stubborn heart will be
    For him forever pleading,
    Thou’dst better make him, by decree,
    A man of birth and breeding.”
    She made the Toad a duke, in hope
    With Heaven’s taboo to palter;
    Then told a priest, who told the Pope,
    Who damned her from the altar!

    – after Ambrose Bierce

    Like

  50. Roger says:

    What are these messages? Akita, Fatima, Lourdes, La Salette?
    Heaven has always spoken through seers, prophets etc.. The very sacraments themselves are Heaven talking through and using Men/woman.
    Prophecy’s are conditional BUT the question is whether the responses fulfil the conditions required.
    In the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima I find a parrallel with the BOMB on Japan and hence Akita.
    Nuclear points to the Physical Sun and those processes taking place within the Sun.
    But there is also another Fire in the book of Daniel and Associated with the Babylonian Exile. The Babylonian exile now pertaining to the Faith. That Fire preserved the three and destroyed their executioners. Also we have that Fire Called down by Elias. Divine Fire (Hell and Purgatory = Fire). So there are deep warnings behind Fatima and Akita. Warnings which have been whitewashed away. But the real question is has Man satisfied Heavens Conditions.
    Akita is a frightening prospect and we are are meant to consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Akita and Fatima are linked as is I suggest Japan and Fatima.
    The BOMB came out of WW II. Mature reflection is required.

    Like

  51. Frere Rabit says:

    “And nobody blames you for his presence here!”

    That’s a relief.

    Like

  52. toadspittle says:

    Toad is quite lost for words.

    Fools have always had their honourable place in the halls of the mighty (such as CP&S), of course – but when people start being nice to me, instead of metaphorically boxing my ears, I begin to wonder where I’m going wrong.

    Like

  53. JabbaPapa says:

    hmmmm, actually I disagree with both of you concerning Miracles.

    Miracles are not “impossible” nor similar — they are unexplainable.

    Michael provides a very thoughtful comment, but he is mistaken, albeit slightly as well as unintentionally, that the structures of Creation are somehow preventative of God’s action — it is a very slight fallacy, but it does nevertheless implicitly posit a limitation upon God on the basis of Physics etc, except that these are no more than our understanding of how the world turns, rather than being the actual causes themselves.

    It is nevertheless the case that we live in a universe that appears to be intelligible.

    In a way, God could be conceived as being either the First Cause, where the totality of the physical laws were considered as second causes — or (in a manner more coherent with the current scientific model) as the Zero Cause, where the central laws of reality were considered as first causes (caused themselves by God), and the various processes generated by these as being the second causes which are the ones that cause observable material phenomena.

    Whichever — God transcends causality, but He also maintains it — so that a divine intervention that were to occur in the material realm could be described as a direct causation from the Zero Cause which would then necessarily cause first cause reactions, which are then themselves causes of second causes and the consequences of these second causes would then occur within measurable reality. None of this would in any way require Him to take action only in an observable manner at the time and location of the material phenomena in question ; but also, none of this is of any consequence regarding His miracles that do NOT occur as material phenomena, but occur instead in the realm of the Spirit.

    The underlying point of the above is NOT that I’m attempting in any way to explain the unexplainable — but to point out some basic reasons why it is hopeless to imagine that it should ever become explainable in any way whatsoever.

    That we live in a stable world with stable laws is the necessary prerequisite of our freedom, however — as you stated very well yourself, Michael. God provides us with our freedom precisely by refraining from any divine interventions that would be in blatant contradiction with the cosmic law.

    He has chosen to make us mortal — and so we will all suffer and we will all die, which suffering is increased manifold by our sin and by our knowledge of evil. But He has also endowed us with eternal divine souls, that He calls to Him both in this reality and in the Kingdom. The necessity that our incarnated souls must suffer pain and death so that these souls can truly be free has been meditated upon by many writers throughout the Millennia — it is silly to just brush this away on the basis that one particular sort of material pain or destruction happens to be more uncomfortable than others.

    Toad’s error is (as usual) less subtle :

    No, I don’t think God can do illogically impossible things. By definition, no being can.

    1) God is not “a being” ; He is Being Itself

    2) 99% of sentences starting out with whichever variation of “God can’t” are intrinsically illogical, by virtue of denying without reason nor cause the very primary Attributes of God Himself (there are a few clever and usually extremely abstract exceptions)

    3) Most importantly, you are AGAIN positing logic as being superior to God, whereas logic is nothing more than some structures that are contained in the minds, the writings, and the culture of mankind — logic has no material existence in reality, so that it governs nothing whatsoever in reality in the first place, except what we make there ourselves — because it is only a tool of understanding and of thought. The Islamic and Illuminist and Masonic (etc) viewpoint that God and logic are the same is NOT supported by the discoveries of neuroscience nor modern linguistics, demonstrating that logic is a proiduct of thought rather than the opposite.

    Like

  54. toadspittle says:

    What a magnificent comment from Jabba. (No irony.)
    Though I would suggest “inexplicable” is more subtle and graceful?

    However, when he states: “That we live in a stable world with stable laws is the necessary prerequisite of our freedom, however …. …. God provides us with our freedom precisely by refraining from any divine interventions that would be in blatant contradiction with the cosmic law.”

    But unsubtle beings, like Toad, (who are legion) will surely ask: Then what is a miracle if it is not a “…blatant contradiction with the cosmic law.”? What is, say, walking on water? Or turning wine to blood with a few words?

    “…logic is nothing more than some structures that are contained in the minds, the writings, and the culture of mankind..”
    An observation that can equally be applied to religion – and, indeed – God himself.
    In fact it also applies to music and mathematics and our sense of sin or virtue – so maybe describing it as “nothing more than,” is a bit cavalier?
    To take the notion further – Kant* says it applies to the best we can make of the world itself – to put it, admittedly, rather crudely and unsubtly?

    *And he ain’t chopped liver.

    Like

  55. toadspittle says:

    Not the most explicable comment Toad has ever made.
    Sorry.
    Basically, Kant says we can never “know” the world. All we can “know” is the impressions of it we receive in our minds.
    But maybe we should leave that sort of thing to one side.
    Otherwise we will become P(hilosophy)P&S. Pronto. And we don’t want that. Do we?

    …And, line 12, @03.23, maybe should read:
    “An observation sceptical folk might equally apply to religion – and, indeed – God himself.”

    Like

  56. johnhenrycn says:

    Sayeth the Rare Bit:
    JH my…comment was not an invitation for your ill-informed…johnny-come-lately comment

    Like

  57. johnhenrycn says:

    Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humour? I had meant to post this paean to our dear Rare Bit, self-styled ‘Founder’ of CPS, instead of the above one (meant for my wife):

    who, au contraire Kathleen’s assurance that he (Rare Bit) is not to blame for Toad’s presence, confesses above at 18:59 on 16 July 14 that: “it was my fault entirely that Toad was given his exalted position here.’ Lord have mercy, what a puffed up pretender.

    Like

  58. johnhenrycn says:

    Sigh

    Like

  59. toadspittle says:

    The exalted shall be brought low. (Henry Miller.)

    Like

  60. johnhenrycn says:

    May HM Revenue and Customs catch you deducting your sheep as an entertainment expense.

    Like

  61. JabbaPapa says:

    It’s hard to see how the Source of the Cosmic Law could break the Law — no more than, in a fully monarchical political system, any acts of the Monarch could possibly be considered illegal.

    Miracles, in the theology, are often described as Acts of Creation occurring inside created reality ; which is why they can appear to be incoherent with the existing order of things – even though all Acts of God are necessarily part and parcel of the cosmic law, this remains obedient to God’s Will and not the other way round.

    Like

  62. Roger says:

    If you follow modern science and the Big Bang you will catch the following. When the laws of physic breakdown! In other words States where the Laws of Science cease to apply.
    Creation is on going because Souls for instance are being created etc..
    But this contradicts a finite materialist Universe.
    Miracles are because of high Laws that are not Constrained by the so called Laws Of Science. Man isn’t God. Adam and Eve became self conscious. Self is Man’s problem it is also His prison. Think Man is created to live for ever. Man’s tragedy is this infinite creature entrapped in a material existence and the certainty of material Death.
    But Our Lord has conquered that Death and opened Heaven again.
    The greatest tragedy is spiritual Death not material Death. Because a dead Soul has already rejected Love (Heaven) and is logically Hell bound.

    Like

  63. toadspittle says:

    “It’s hard to see how the Source of the Cosmic Law could break the Law — no more than, in a fully monarchical political system, any acts of the Monarch could possibly be considered illegal.”

    …Which is a very good reason indeed for rejecting a fully monarchical political system. Can you Imagine what capers King Charles and Queen Camilla might get up to under such nightmarish circumstances?

    What you are saying, Jabba, I suggest – is it’s as if I was playing chess with God, and he moves his rook diagonally, and I say, “You can’t do that!” – and He says, “Yes I can – it’s my chess set, and I can do what I like.”

    Like

  64. mkenny114 says:

    Hello Jabba!

    Actually I agree with you that God is not limited by the ‘laws’ of His creation, and I had intended to allude to that with Chesterton’s example of the bouncing ball. It is a very fine distinction to make, but although I would not say that anything like ‘the laws of nature’ actually exist in a real sense, as if they were something riveted into creation, and upon which God had to depend, I would also maintain that God did make the world in such a way that regularity and rationality are in some way built into its fabric, so that it might reflect something of His nature (i.e.; the Logos can be seen in part through the many logoi we abstract from the natural world and by the workings of our reason).

    Aside from this though, my main contention was only that miracles can be said to be in some way consonant with that pattern of regularity and reason we see in the natural world – that, although they are not explicable in normal terms (i.e.; in terms of what we call the ‘laws of nature’) they are nevertheless not an affront to our sense of what is logically possible, and thus simultaneously remind us that a.) we are subject to God, not to a set of impersonal laws, and that b.) whilst He may sometimes to choose to act in ways that transcend those regular patterns of the natural world, He does not do so in a way that makes non-sense of them. This latter point is where Toad, I am sure, will disagree 🙂 , but I do maintain that the miracles performed by Our Lord, whilst being ultimately inexplicable in terms of the way we normally perceive the world to operate, were not contrary to logic itself.

    As to whether logic is itself just our way of apprehending the world around us, but doesn’t have any positive reality itself, I would agree that there is not an IDENTITY between our reasonings about the world and the Truth, as contained in the ‘mind’ of God (who of course does not contain truths in the plural, being perfect in His simplicity and thus not containing and parts of any kind), but I would be reluctant to go as far as saying that statements such as ‘2+2=4’ and ‘if something is true in one sense it cannot also be false in the same sense’ are purely constructs of human minds. Logic certainly is not superior to God, but I would suggest that it represents something that participates in the divine reality, or is a dim reflection of it, otherwise how could we trust that any of our reasonings (so all of natural theology for example) gave us a true account of reality?

    P.S. Re comment at 4pm on July 17th, Hello Kathleen! 🙂

    Like

  65. JabbaPapa says:

    Michael, mathematics are a human construct having no actuality in reality — in reality, 1+1 does not equal 2 ; it equals 1+1

    of course, mathematics are an extremely good (and still improving) mirror of the perceptions that we have of reality and of how we therefore understand it, but ultimately every single subatomic particle exists in its own as a singularity ; our mathematics simply provide us with a useful means of ignoring that fact for whichever technical purposes and particular needs.

    Like

  66. JabbaPapa says:

    Oh, just because nothing a full Monarch can do is not illegal doesn’t mean it can’t be wrong — but no fully monarchical system can exist without the counterbalance of the popular consent, implicit or explicit.

    I was not discussing Tyrannical nor Dictatorial political systems, because in those systems the monarch can indeed act in a blatantly illegal manner — the difference between these systems and the monarchical is that the monarch is both source and guarantor of the law, whereas the tyrant or the dictator is established in a fundamentally extra-legal manner.

    Like

  67. Roger says:

    Modernism has forgotten the ominipotence of God. God is hierachical, but that doesn’t imply perfection of virtue simply because of hierachical status.
    A hierachical social structure is essential and of course follows from the (Adam and Eve0 Father Mother (family) unit that Heaven places before Us.
    But Akita and Fire from Heaven. Miracles and the Dance Of The sun witnessed by 70000 at Fatima. Fatima is a Old Testament miracle in 20th Century for which Science has no answer.

    Like

  68. mkenny114 says:

    Jabba,

    Whether mathematics (or rather whether numbers) have any actuality in reality is itself not a question that has been settled, philosophically speaking, so we can’t say conclusively that they are just a human construct. However, whilst I’d be inclined to agree with you that it doesn’t/they don’t exist in a real sense, what I am concerned with is whether statements such as 1+1=2 do reflect an ultimate rationality that exists in reality, and which reflects the mind of God (speaking metaphorically of course, given that, as I said before, God has no parts).

    If mathematical statements, or logical principles like the law of non-contradiction, do not allow us to participate to some extent in what is necessarily true, then how can we have any confidence that we are speaking meaningfully about the world, let alone God?

    As for your statement that:

    ‘…ultimately every single subatomic particle exists in its own as a singularity ; our mathematics simply provide us with a useful means of ignoring that fact for whichever technical purposes and particular needs.’

    I have to confess that I am not able to grasp what point you’re making here, most probably because I don’t understand the bit about every single subatomic particle existing in its own singularity. Could you explain what you mean by this please? The only thing I can guess at is that you mean that there are only particulars, and no general principles (of quantity or anything else) – i.e.; nominalism. If so, I’d have to say I disagree, and see nominalism as a very dangerous school of thought, but otherwise I just don’t understand! 🙂

    Like

  69. toadspittle says:

    “Whether mathematics (or rather whether numbers) have any actuality in reality is itself not a question that has been settled, philosophically speaking, so we can’t say conclusively that they are just a human construct.”

    Surely, for all practical purposes, we can? No minds, no numbers. I say “minds,” rather than “humans,” because I suppose dolphins, chimps or the inhabitants of the planet Zog, might use numbers.
    “…how could we trust that any of our reasonings (so all of natural theology for example) gave us a true account of reality?”
    How indeed? Maybe we simply can’t. Particularly regarding “Natural Theology.” “Unnatural Theology”, however, i.e. Revelation Theology – is a different matter.
    Anyway, take revelation away from theology, and what’s left? Nothing, naturally. Rumours, maybe.

    Like

  70. mkenny114 says:

    But Toad, this is precisely the point at issue. To say ‘no minds, no numbers’ and use that as a basis for the truth of such is to use your conclusion as a premise, which is circular reasoning.

    Similarly, to assume that we can’t use our reason to give us a true account of reality is to adopt a particular position on the matter already, it is not an argument for that position. That our apprehension of the existence of the transcendentals, for example, is not valid, presupposes that we cannot discern such things from our daily experience, filtered through our reason. That’s fine (sort of ) in and of itself, but one cannot use this as a reason for discounting such claims – it is tantamount to saying ‘we can’t reason to a valid account of reality…because we can’t’

    Anyway, I’m afraid I must dash now, and am away until Monday, so I won’t be able to respond to any follow-ups until then (should you have any). Ta ta for now! 🙂

    Like

  71. Pingback: The messages of Fatima and Akita “are essentially the same” | The Biblical False Prophet Has Arrived

  72. JabbaPapa says:

    toad — numbers have no location, dimensions, mass, energy, nor anything else — they have no material existence

    it’s rather ironic that many who profess their refusal to believe in God on the basis that His existence cannot be proven in a laboratory nevertheless have an unshakable faith in the existence of both logic and mathematics, despite an identical inability to prove the material existence of these.

    The law of non-contradiction is similarly undemonstrable — and as a matter of fact, when I was still a computer programmer I needed to break it with some frequency in order to get some programmes to simply work as expected — and these weren’t gaming programmes or other such refined esoterica, this was stock management stuff and similar software for the management of hard, physical reality.

    And no, Michael, not nominalism, nor idealism either — verbalism (which was the third Classic pre-Socratic tradition of Ancient Greek Philosophy).

    Like

  73. toadspittle says:

    No, indeed – we don’t have to bother trying to “prove” the material existence of numbers, logic, or mathematics, Jabba – because they plainly haven’t got any.
    Neither has God, I’m told. So no point in trying to “prove” that either.
    They are all “in the mind,” for sure. Whether or not they exist outside it, is debatable at best.
    …So we are in complete agreement.
    On this. I suggest.
    Russell said the reason he didn’t believe in God was simply that there wasn’t enough evidence – not enough to suit him, anyway.
    Takes all sorts, dunnit?

    Like

  74. JabbaPapa says:

    You reproduce the exact argument that I was scorning ; and you’ve understood my sarcasm backwards too, it would seem.

    No, toad, God is not just “in the mind” — why do you so stubbornly keep on repeating this argument of yours that you have no evidence for either ? Does your logic, which most certainly DOES only exist in your mind, lead you to such a belief ?

    Some of God’s Miracles occur in outside material reality, which I have been able to witness for myself BTW — this is not compatible with the suggestion that He is a mere figment of one’s imagination.

    Whereas your belief that God is “in the mind” is most certainly a figment of your own imagination.

    Like

  75. JabbaPapa says:

    As for God’s physical existence, those who told you He has none haven’t really thought it through, have they — Jesus Christ during His earthly existence most certainly had a physical body, just for starters.

    Like

  76. kathleen says:

    “Christians are right: it is Pride which has been the chief cause of misery in every nation and every family since the world began. Other vices may sometimes bring people together: you may find good fellowship and jokes and friendliness among drunken people or unchaste people. But pride always means enmity- it is enmity. And not only enmity between man and man, but enmity to God.” – C.S. Lewis

    Was Lewis thinking about Toad when he wrote this?

    Like

  77. toadspittle says:

    Do you really think I’m God’s enemy, Kathleen? Crikey.
    I’d have to be convinced He was ‘real’ before I could feel any sort of enmity to Him. And I’d also have to believe He does, or allows, all the awful things He’s credited with. Which I don’t.
    I’m antagonistic to some of the ideas attributed to Him, but they cannot be correctly attributed, I think. But I might be wrong.
    It seems to me He may turn out to be rather nicer, and more tolerant, than Catholics seem to think. But who knows?
    Just look at “Father Z” today! One step off the straight and narrow – and eternal damnation!

    Jabba is right to chastise me. I ought to have said the idea of God exists in the mind, which it does. So when an Atheist says, “There is no God,” he has the idea of God in his mind.

    This regardless of whether God, or triangles, or the number seven, exist materially anywhere else, or not.

    Like

  78. mkenny114 says:

    Jabba,

    Thanks for the clarification. However, this still doesn’t leave me any wiser re what you were talking about when you brought up ‘…every single subatomic particle exists in its own as a singularity…’ etc. Could you explain (as, aside from the nominalist view I can’t see what you’re implying there, and I can’t see what verbalism has to do with it either – though obviously it applies to the rest of what you’ve been talking about)?

    Also, I would repeat my earlier question as to what implications all this has for our being able to speak truthfully about reality (if the concepts we so rely on to do so have no participation in ultimate reality)?

    Not sure what situations one would have to break the law of non-contradiction in really, but as to whether it is demonstrable or not (depends upon what you mean by this of course), the very point at stake here is whether there are certain principles of logic that we assume before we do any thinking about anything else – i.e.; we don’t demonstrate them, they are axiomatic.

    Like

  79. toadspittle says:

    “…the very point at stake here is whether there are certain principles of logic that we assume before we do any thinking about anything else – i.e.; we don’t demonstrate them, they are axiomatic.”
    Whether? Well, you can put me down as a yes, here, Michael.
    Yes, a triangle has three sides – No, the King of France is not bald, – Yes, that two and two make four, (in English-speaking countries at least) is true, but also tautological. No, toads can’t be both green and red at the same time. Yes, all non-black things are not ravens.
    All a priori, axiomatic, Or I’m a philosopher.

    “Not sure what situations one would have to break the law of non-contradiction in reality,”
    Toad still stubbornly clings to miracles as being the Ethopian in the fuel supply.*

    *Hat tip to W.C. Fields.

    Like

  80. mkenny114 says:

    Toad, I am both heartened and shocked. Pleased to see you endorsing such things as axiomatic truths, but shocked as I thought this went against your rigorously agnostic methodology (in fact, I’m sure I saw Kant’s epistemic divide being endorsed earlier up this very thread!)

    Nevertheless, certainly an encouraging state of affairs to see you recognising the existence of objective truth and the operations of human reason. I am sure you have good reasons for placing limitations on that reason though (c.f.; the many comments about our inability to discover anything meaningful in the realms of natural theology for example), but this is progress indeed 🙂

    Like

  81. toadspittle says:

    Well, tip-top, and tickety-boo, Michael.
    …From the truth of water boiling at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level – to the truth of the the idea of Infinite Punishment for people who are granted only Finite Knowledge – is but a small step for mankind, perhaps?

    “Rigorously Agnostic”? The fact that I can’t fathom whether God is a man, or a woman, or a cloud of smoke, or just an idea in Jabba’s head – doesn’t mean I’m incapable of crediting, for example, that a bachelor is an unmarried man, or that a tridecahedron has thirteen faces, does it? (Even more than Rabit!)

    That would make my “left-wing, liberal,” ideas even screwier than they already are.

    Very little about Toad is “rigorous,” – certainly not his morals – except perhaps, his determination not to be rigorously positive about metaphysical events, or the outcome of the 7.55 at Windsor tonight – even though he gives “Sword of the Lord”* a fractionally better chance – at 12-1, than the book would suggest.

    *Nice name for CP&S fans.

    Like

  82. mkenny114 says:

    Erm, yes well, maybe relentlessly agnostic might have been a better way to put it then 🙂 Certainly selectively so anyway – the same rules of logic apply when dealing with metaphysics and epistemology as they do when testing the boiling point of water after all.

    Nevertheless, my annual attempt at humour seems to have failed, so I shall retire back to the lab for now and continue the research! I’m assuming that humour, like most things, requires empirical proof of some sort, of course 🙂

    Like

  83. JabbaPapa says:

    Well, none of those things are actually axiomatic, toad — axioms are declarative of more fundamental truths than such as those, though the triangle one is very close.

    Michael, nominalism and idealism have it in common that there exist categories of objects that are identical to each other — the notion that every subatomic particle is a singularity defies nominalism, because it refuses to accept the basic nominalist axiom that names designate categories of reality ; and it defies idealism, because it refuses to accept the notion that a primaeval idea can be a category of reality.

    The notion of the unicity of every single thing is antithetical to both sides of the argument in the classical philosophical debate — it is not incompatible with the verbalist position.

    Verbalism posits that the locus of truth is language ; hence not only that truth is of a basically human nature (from our POV), but also that reality and truth must necessarily be distinct from one another — which must require that all realities are singular, whereas what we consider to be true is of a linguistic nature. Now, of course, In Initium erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Verbum erat Deum — so that the linguistic nature of truth is also incompatible with any relativistic interpretation of what the truth must be, because the Truth resides in and with the Word of God.

    This statement of a singularity, or unicity, of each subatomic particle is simultaneously a statement that each particular can be truthfully discussed in its particular singularity, but also that neither names nor ideas are the source of truth but that language can only ever be descriptive but not prescriptive thereof.

    I do not mean to say that all language can thereby be seen as truthful — language is shared between us, and is not simply individual ; so that the truth (from our own limited points of view) is what we agree with among ourselves rather than what any of us may say individually. Whereas the Revelation is verbal, and is received by us as and in language — in Verbalism, then, Truth is considered as being located in accurate dialogue, both interpersonal as well as the dialogue between consciousness and reality, wherein each singular reality is correctly represented into words and thoughts.

    This divinely inspired linguistic dynamic is the origin of understanding.

    Like

  84. toadspittle says:

    Well, I’m not really a “proper” philosopher.

    But I diffidently suggest Jabba and Michael should get dogs and take them for walks.
    And let the subatomic particles take care of the subatomic particles.

    But, how can we then “test” God – to see what He’s made of, JH – the way we can test water?

    Like

  85. mkenny114 says:

    Jabba,

    Thanks for the detailed response! However, despite its detail, I am still not sure if it really answers the main question that I was asking – namely whether or not the things we say about ultimate reality participate at all in that reality itself. I agree that truth as articulated by us is not identical to Truth in and of itself, and that ‘language can only ever be descriptive but not prescriptive thereof’, but if there is no sense in which the way we talk about truth (especially in terms of things we consider to be axiomatic) actually correlates with ultimate reality, then we cannot talk meaningfully at all.

    Also, I am a little confused as to your statement that ‘the locus of truth is language’ – surely the locus of truth is in God, especially if we consider language to be inadequate in describing truth/reality. This leads to another point of confusion for me, which is that truth and reality must necessarily be distinct from one another. If by this you mean that our approximations to truth (expressed and known in language) are distinct from reality, then I would agree (with the caveat that although they are distinct, there must be some point of contact between them, so that we may know by analogy). If not though, I have to confess that I don’t understand the distinction.

    Basically, I agree with your concluding paragraph that we discover Truth in accurate dialogue, both between ourselves and between consciousness and reality, but am still unsure as to the implications of what you have said previously for our ability to actually know something of Truth. In those previous statements, I got the impression that you believed human descriptions of ultimate reality to be somewhat illusory, even misleading. But it’s more than possible that I may have just got the wrong end of the stick earlier on!

    P.S. Could you give a couple of brief examples of those cases in which you had to break the law of non-contradiction? I am intrigued, as I had always thought this a fundamental truth.

    Toad,

    I don’t think getting a dog and taking it out for a walk would be a good idea – in my experience this only gives more room for reflection on subatomic particles and whatnot 🙂

    As for ‘testing’ God, to see what He’s made of, this is only a problem for those who limit their ways of knowing to empiricism (i.e.; logical positivists and materialists). Such a decision narrows one’s field of understanding substantially, and requires either a lot of fudging and/or intellectual dishonesty to maintain with any semblance of coherence. Personally I don’t think it’s worth it in the long run.

    Like

  86. Tom Fisher says:

    This statement of a singularity, or unicity, of each subatomic particle is simultaneously a statement that each particular can be truthfully discussed in its particular singularity, but also that neither names nor ideas are the source of truth but that language can only ever be descriptive but not prescriptive thereof.

    Sorry, but that sentence is an assault upon the English language. It is a grandiose monument to obfuscation. It’s an impenetrable morass of half formed thoughts…… etc. 😉

    Like

  87. toadspittle says:

    “As for ‘testing’ God, to see what He’s made of, this is only a problem for those who limit their ways of knowing to empiricism (i.e.; logical positivists and materialists). Such a decision narrows one’s field of understanding substantially, and requires either a lot of fudging and/or intellectual dishonesty to maintain with any semblance of coherence.”

    Well it certainly would – if anyone was dopey enough to try it.
    The thing about walking dogs (well, six of them, anyway) is that I’m so busy trying to stop them trying their own dopey things I don’t have time to contemplate subatomic particles and their inherent, though doubtless riveting, problems.

    Kant says we cannot know ultimate reality – only our individual sensory impressions of it.
    …If I read him right. And who knows that?

    Like

  88. toadspittle says:

    I agree with Tom. It’s getting positively Hegelian round here.
    ….We were all much happier,and more comfy, with paedophile priests – then with subatomic particles.

    Like

  89. mkenny114 says:

    ‘Kant says we cannot know ultimate reality – only our individual sensory impressions of it.’

    Yes, and I disagree with Kant – it was precisely this driving of a wedge between us and ultimate reality that has led to such an impoverishment of philosophy thereafter, and a concomitant narrowing of humanity’s horizons. Might be why there’s so much despair about these days; but then, I might be wrong 🙂

    Six dogs is an impressive number – my mother has three, and I always found myself hard pushed to control them (especially when they were younger), so I see what you mean. However, I do find that there is a wonderful moment of clarity that emerges, when you’ve given up shouting after them, the adrenaline recedes, and you stop catch your breath and take in the world around you with a renewed sense of appreciation for and heightened sense of existence – that’s when the subatomic particles kick in!

    Like

  90. JabbaPapa says:

    I srrroowww a sub-atomique parrticule in your djenerrall diréctionne ….

    Like

  91. toadspittle says:

    Well, Michael, Manny would likely reply he was not driving a wedge, but indicating a state of affairs, as he saw it. And I think he had a point.
    But whether he can be held responsible for the contemporary climate of angst, I would strongly question, in view of the Categorical Imperative, if nothing else.
    And would do so probably on an alternative, less light-hearted, forum to CP&S.
    I am inclined to lay the blame at the feet of Fox News, FaceBook, and the Fanatical Muslims, myself.
    …And the Monty Python Team, of course.

    Agreed about the impoverishment of philosophy, though.
    I’d put it down to too many eggheads immuring themselves in the ivory tower of linguistics since the war.

    Like

  92. mkenny114 says:

    ‘I’d put it down to too many eggheads immuring themselves in the ivory tower of linguistics since the war.’

    Yep, I’d go along with that. The only qualification I would make is that philosophy has (or had become – there have been some signs of resurgence over the last thirty years or so) become nothing more than quibbling over linguistics because of that Kantian wedge. If we can’t know anything objectively about ultimate reality, then it doesn’t really leave philosophers much else to talk about, other than what we might mean by words/what words mean/what are words/what is meaning/etc.

    At least Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus had the courage to face up to the implications of this cutting ourselves off from the Great Beyond. Many of their contemporaries, and most of their successors seem to have taken refuge in precisely the ivory tower that you mention. As for Kant, it is of course very likely that he didn’t see himself as driving a wedge, but that is very much what he did, and whether one agrees with his basic position or not, it is very hard to deny the depth and breadth of his influence.

    But anyway, whilst I can’t help seeing all this as very relevant subject matter myself, maybe it is a better topic for KP&S 🙂

    Like

  93. toadspittle says:

    Yes, Michael. Let’s philosophise, by all means. And add Schopenhauer to the short list of “courageous” ones.
    “At least Nietzsche, Sartre and Camus had the courage to face up to the implications of this cutting ourselves off from the Great Beyond. “
    Though I’m inclined to think it takes more courage to contemplate a future with eternal damnation (yawn! boring Toad!) or even eternal bliss in it – than one with the mere prospect of utter annihilation.
    Anyway, I like Arfer saying, “…once you’re over the hill, you pick up speed.”
    …Though his thoughts on suicide would not be well received here. And I’m sure you know Camus claimed to not be an Existentialist, or even a philosopher.
    Did admit to being a pagan, though.

    Like

  94. mkenny114 says:

    Yes, old Al certainly did claim not to be an Existentialist (or indeed, any kind of philosopher), though I think that was probably the least convincing of his claims, given that he spent quite a lot of time struggling with the question of existence!

    Out of the lot (and yes, Schopenhauer is a good addition to that list too) I always felt a bit more sympathy for Camus, even to the point of feeling sorry for him, as he seemed to desperate to be able to locate meaning somewhere, even if he also managed to reject on other grounds any possible candidates for its location. Like his mate Sisyphus, he struggled on with his project, even though the terms of engagement admitted of no end to the struggle. Good goalkeeper (or L’Etranger) too apparently.

    Like

  95. toadspittle says:

    The bottom line then for us, Michael – is without God – can there ever be “meaning” of any meaningful sort?
    All depends what you mean by “meaning,” I suppose – as H. Dumpty, the great Pragmatist, might have said.
    I believe we can make or own lives sufficiently meaningful in a variety of ways which do not involve God. (Music, Art, Dogs, Stamp-Collecting, Tap-Dancing, Goal-Keeping, etc.)
    …You most likely do not.

    Like

  96. mkenny114 says:

    I indeed do not, as you have suspected, believe that ultimately there is any meaning of any meaningful sort without God, no (and neither did Sartre et al, as I’m sure you know). Whilst I agree that music, art, etc are all activities that feel meaningful, they all ultimately seem to me to point beyond themselves to a bigger picture of some sort (it is obviously at this point that one has to decide what shape that ‘bigger picture’ takes).

    At the end of the day, I would submit that it doesn’t matter how meaningful any of these activities appear to us – if there is no ultimate point to any of it, then they are all equally futile and regardless of how they make us feel, they are operating in a context of purposelessness and meaninglessness. I do not say that these things ARE futile of course – quite the contrary – only that that is what they would ultimately be without any greater purpose for our existence, any transcendent horizon to our lives (i.e.; God).

    It is precisely the willingness of Sartre et al to face up to the implications of a godless world that I find so admirable, and so sorely lacking in most of today’s atheism, which seems to consist mostly of shouting ‘You’re wrong!’ and then ignoring/misrepresenting any evidence to the contrary.

    Like

  97. kathleen says:

    Fantastic comment @ 11:05 Michael!
    Yes, everything beautiful and good is indeed just a pointer towards the Ultimate Beauty and Good.
    Without actually saying so, you have described so succinctly the futility and meaningless of the existence of those who declare “there is no God!” St. Augustine says, “our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee [God]”, for Whom we were created, and nothing in this world can ever do more than satisfy us fleetingly, leaving us empty and disquiet afterwards. Only God – and our Faith, Hope and Trust in His promises – is capable of giving us that longed for Peace and Joy in great measure, and a desire for fulfillment of it one day in Heaven.

    Toad – take a look at Michael’s recent explanatory articles on this subject, especially the one he posted today:
    http://journeytowardseaster.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/what-is-our-true-end/

    Like

  98. toadspittle says:

    Agreed, it was a fine answer from Michael, Kathleen. And I will get on the link.
    Good stuff recently, on here.
    A lot of people consider Sartre second-rate Heidegger. Not me. Don’t care much for J.P.’s later attitudes, though.

    Like

  99. mkenny114 says:

    Very kind of you both! And thank you Kathleen especially, both for the excellent follow-up and for posting the link to my blog (some very welcome advertising!) 🙂

    As an aside, I’ve just noticed that what I am now typing will be the 100th comment on this article. Blimey!

    Like

  100. mkenny114 says:

    P.S. Kathleen, I’ve just noticed that our last two comments have received ‘thumbs down’, for what reason I am not entirely sure, but I did read some of the exchange on another thread the other day regarding a recent spate of thumbs down being given for no apparent reason. Any clues to what’s going on yet?

    Like

  101. kathleen says:

    It really was an excellent article Michael. And your blog is great and very informative on everything Catholic.

    Yes – we have at least one troll looking regularly in here recently, giving thumbs down to any comments either criticising the savage islamic terrorists, ISIS, and all those professing solid Catholic teachings. (Only Toad gets “thumbs up” for his usual debunking of Catholicism!) So either this troll is a terrorist sympathiser, or an anti-Catholic lurker. (Actually I was quite rude to this troll on the “Chaldean Patriarch….” thread.)

    But as JH wisely said, it is simply “water off a duck’s back” and we should laugh it off. It’s also a sign we are doing something right – if such a nasty individual doesn’t like our orthodox views! 🙂

    Like

  102. JabbaPapa says:

    I really cannot agree with any who might suggest, even tangentially, that linguistics might be boiled down to babble nor philosophy to mind games.

    Like

  103. johnhenrycn says:

    Dear Jabba, even if I was a stylite able to surpass St Simeon’s record of 37 years sitting on a wooden platform on top of a pillar, I could never hope to reach up and grasp your wisdom.

    Like

  104. JabbaPapa says:

    Thank you for yet another pointless comment, jh

    Like

  105. mkenny114 says:

    Thank you again Kathleen – very kind of you indeed 🙂

    As for the troll and their thumbs, I agree – best thing is to laugh it off. Nevertheless, it is odd, to say the very least, that someone should spend their time (anonymously) criticising straightforward statements of Catholic teaching, and (even more strange) criticising statements of support for those suffering persecution under ISIS’s reign of terror (not sure how they think this has been misrepresented either)!

    Anyway, as you say , it is most likely a sign that CP&S is doing something right, and in the long run says more about the ‘mystery troll’ than anything else. Btw, I didn’t think what you wrote on the Chaldean Patriarch thread was rude, just a bit high-spirited, which is understandable given the bizarre and quite offensive things written about the ISIS situation on another thread by someone who if not the troll in question, is certainly sympathetic to their views!

    Like

  106. Mary Anne says:

    “Glory to God in the highest, and, peace on earth to men of good will” On a cold winters night, in a poor rude cave in Bethlehem a great light shone forth and grace was poured into the world as the angels filled the sky singing in beautiful harmony these simple words for mankind. The King was born who was to walk the earth for 33 years preaching of the glories of grace given to the human will who would will to seek truth which gives order rather than the chaos of hell. Viva Cristo Rey!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s