Feast of Oscar Romero, Archbishop of San Salvador, Martyr, 1980 Commemoration of Paul Couturier, Priest, Ecumenist, 1953 Continuing a read more

Feast of Oscar Romero, Archbishop of San Salvador, Martyr, 1980 Commemoration of Paul Couturier, Priest, Ecumenist, 1953 Continuing a short series on prayer: Even if all the things that people prayed for happened -- which they do not -- this would not prove what Christians mean by the efficacy of prayer. For prayer is request. The essence of request, as distinct from compulsion, is that it may or may not be granted. And if an infinitely wise Being listens to the requests of finite and foolish creatures, of course He will sometimes grant and sometimes refuse them. Invariable "success" in prayer would not prove the Christian doctrine at all. It would prove something more like magic -- a power in certain human beings to control, or compel, the course of nature.

All Christians believe in divine sovereignty but some are not aware that they do, and mistakenly imagine and insist that read more

All Christians believe in divine sovereignty but some are not aware that they do, and mistakenly imagine and insist that they reject it. What causes this odd state of affairs? The root cause is the same as in most cases of error in the Church--the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men, and a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic. People see that the Bible teaches man's responsibility for his actions; they do not see how this is consistent with the sovereign Lordship of God over those actions. They are not content to let the two truths live side by side, as they do in the Scriptures, but jump to the conclusion that, in order to uphold the biblical truth of human responsibility, they are bound to reject the equally biblical and equally true doctrine of divine sovereignty, and to explain away the great number of texts that teach it. The desire to over-simplify the Bible by cutting out the mysteries is natural to our perverse minds, and it is not surprising, that even good men should fall victims to it.

Pride has a greater share than goodness of heart in the remonstrances we make to those who are guilty of read more

Pride has a greater share than goodness of heart in the remonstrances we make to those who are guilty of faults; we reprove, not so much with a view to correcting them, as to persuade them that we are exempt from those faults ourselves.

It is in vain, 0 men, that you seek within yourselves the cure for your miseries. All your insight only read more

It is in vain, 0 men, that you seek within yourselves the cure for your miseries. All your insight only leads you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good. The philosophers promised them to you, and have not been able to keep their promises... Your principal maladies are pride, which cuts you off from God, and sensuality, which binds you to the earth; and they have done nothing but foster at least one of these maladies. If they have given you God for your object, it has only been to pander to your pride; they have made you think that you were like Him and resembled Him by your nature. And those who have grasped the vanity of such a pretension have cast you down into the other abyss by making you believe that your nature was like that of the beasts of the field, and have led you to seek your good in lust, which is the lot of animals.

Feast of John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, Teacher, 407 We assemble not in the church to pass away read more

Feast of John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, Teacher, 407 We assemble not in the church to pass away the time, but to gain some great benefit for our souls. If therefore we depart without profit, our zeal in frequenting the church will prove our condemnation. That so great a judgment comes not upon you, when ye go hence ponder the things ye have heard, and exercise yourselves in confirming our instruction -- friend with friend, fathers with their children, masters with their slaves -- so that, when ye return hither and hear from us the same counsels, ye may not be ashamed, but rejoice and be glad in the conviction that ye have put into practice the greater part of our exhortation. Not only must we meditate upon these things here -- for this short exhortation sufficeth not to eradicate the evil -- but at home let the husband be reminded of them by the wife, and the wife by the husband, and let an emulation obtain in families to the fulfilment of the divine law.

The very uniqueness of the Resurrection as a historical event always causes problems when we try to describe it, just read more

The very uniqueness of the Resurrection as a historical event always causes problems when we try to describe it, just as it did for the original writers. Nevertheless, the background to the New Testament is one of expectation of resurrection, and only the historical rising-again of Jesus makes sense of the narrative in this context.

Commemoration of Samuel & Henrietta Barnett, Social Reformers, 1913 & 1936 Evil can be interpreted as guilt only read more

Commemoration of Samuel & Henrietta Barnett, Social Reformers, 1913 & 1936 Evil can be interpreted as guilt only where human existence is understood as personal, and that means where the existence of man is understood to be in responsibility to the Divine Thou. This is the depth of human distress, that we are separated from God, that our communion with Him is destroyed, that man has emancipated himself (has taken himself out of the hand of God) and has become independent, his own master.

The trouble with some of us is that we have been inoculated with small doses of Christianity which keep us read more

The trouble with some of us is that we have been inoculated with small doses of Christianity which keep us from catching the real thing.

Men say, "How are we to act, what are we to teach our children, now that we are no longer read more

Men say, "How are we to act, what are we to teach our children, now that we are no longer Christians?" You see, gentlemen, how I would answer that question. You are deceived in thinking that the morality of your father was based on Christianity. On the contrary, Christianity presupposed it. That morality stands exactly where it did; its basis has not been withdrawn, for, in a sense, it never had a basis. The ultimate ethical injunctions have always been premises, never conclusions. Kant was perfectly right on that point at least, the imperative is categorical. Unless the ethical is assumed from the outset, no argument will bring you to it.