Tag: featured

The Great Divorce: Preface

Leave a comment

Summary

Lewis opens the book by referring to “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell” by William Blake (1790’s). Jack says that the temptation to wed the two is perennial, to turn evil into good without renunciation. Instead, getting to Heaven requires that we will let go of some things: “You cannot take all luggage with you on all journeys;…If we insist on keeping Hell (or even Earth) we shall not see Heaven: if we accept Heaven we shall not be able to retain even the smallest and most intimate souvenirs of Hell.” However, what we must give up will ultimately have been utterly insignificant! Not only that, when we look back, Earth will be seen to be a preliminary region of either Heaven or Hell.

Jack ends by emphasizing that this story is simply a fantasy, “an imaginative supposal”, which he is using to communicate spiritual truths. It is not a strict theology of what happens to us after death.

Questions

Q1. What was the inspiration behind this book?

Q2. In what ways do you think people imagine we can wed Heaven and Hell?

Q3. From Mere Christianity, how did Lewis understand the nature of evil? How does this demonstrate the problem with trying to wed Heaven and Hell?

Q4. What does Lewis mean when he says that we can’t take all luggage on all journeys? To what is he referring when he talks about leaving behind a “right hand” or “right eye”? How does this relate to the conception of the Christian transformation described in Mere Christianity?

Q5. According to Lewis, if we go off-track, what must we do to get to our destination? If we get the wrong answer to a sum, what should we do?

Q6. What will happen if we insist on keeping Hell, or even Earth?

Q7. From where did Lewis get the idea of unbreakable matter?

Q8. Is Lewis describing what he believes the afterlife is like?

Index | Next Chapter

Ch-ch-chain…Chain of Fathers*

Leave a comment

A while ago I wrote a post where I listed all the resources I draw upon each week in the composition of my commentary on the Sunday Mass Readings. I realized today that I forgot to mention one very important resource: the “Catena Aurea”.

So what is this “Catena Aurea”? I first heard about it on an episode of the world’s greatest podcast, “Catholic Stuff You Should Know”. The Catena is a book, a Scriptural commentary whose name, when translated from the Latin, means “Golden Chain”.

Mr. T pities the fool who don’t read the Catena!

Read more

Questions for 1, 2 & 3 John

2 comments

Before I left San Diego, I went through all the Johannine epistles (1, 2, 3 John). Here are the questions we devised:

1 John

72. Who wrote this letter?
The Early Church identified it as John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. This would explain the preservation of the letter as well as the numerous parallels with John’s Gospel and the Book of Revelation. In recent years some have suggested that it is a disciple known as “John the elder”, a character from the Early Church about whom we know relatively little.

73. When was this letter written?
It was probably written after the publication of John’s Gospel, sometime in the 90s.

74. To whom was it written?
Probably to the Christians around Ephesus where John is said to have settled.

75. Why was this letter written?
Primarily to respond to a heretical, schismatic group. These could have possibly been Docetists, Gnostics, Cerinthians or possibly even converts from Judaism. The issue seemed to surround the nature and identity of Christ. John spends most of the letter talking about the authentic fellowship with God.

76. What are some of the words which John uses a lot in his writings?
Life, death, light, dark, beginning, abide, …

2 John

77. To whom is this letter addressed?
It is addressed to “the elect lady and her children”. Although this could have possibly been an actual person, it is more likely that John is speaking of a neighbouring Church is sisterly, feminine terms.

78. What is the main content of this letter?
John is writing to a sister church. He encourages them and warns them of the antichrist

79. Who is the antichrist?
According to John, anyone who “will not acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh”.

3 John

80. To whom is this letter addressed?
It is addressed to “the beloved Gaius”. He is most likely in the leadership of the one of the local congregations.

81. What is the main content of the letter?
A man named “Diotrephes” is exalting himself, refusing to accept John’s authority, refusing welcome to those John sends and excommunicating anyone who does so.

1-16 | 17-27 | 27-42 | 43-52 | 53-57 | 58-67 | 68-71 | 72-81

Catholic View of Salvation

Leave a comment

Quite some time ago I remember reading an article at Called To Communion where I was presented with the positive case for Catholic salvation and I had my mind blown. I hadn’t realized quite how many non-Catholic concepts had crept into my brain.

During this past Lenten season I sent an email to Nick over at Nick’s Catholic Blog. Nick writes a lot on the subject of justification so I asked him to write a post putting forward the positive case for the Catholic view of salvation. The Protestant identity is often a negative one i.e. “Not Catholic” and I didn’t want to see Catholic soteriology go in the same direction i.e. “Not Sola Fide”. Here’s what he wrote:

Nick

If you’d like to understand more about the Protestant Reformed view of salvation and Penal Substitution, Joe recently did an article on this subject over at Shameless Popery.

Epicurians and Stoics

Leave a comment

Yesterday, during our Acts of the Apostles Bible study, we read the section in Acts 17 where St. Luke talks about St. Paul’s interaction with some philosophers in Athens:

“While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him” – Acts 17:16-18

Who were these “Epicurean and Stoic philosophers”? What did they believe? All will be answered in the video below:

So, the Epicureans were founded by Epicurus. They believed that things are “good” and “bad” based upon whether they give pleasure or pain. The Epicureans were negative hedonists, attempting to eliminate desires since Epicurus regarded it as a kind of pain. His followers didn’t fear death because once you’re dead no harm can come to you.

Zeno was the founder of the Stoics. They determined “good” and “bad” based upon whether something was seen as virtue or vice. Pleasure was seen as a vice and was therefore to be avoided. Unrealistic expectations were seen as the source of grief in life.

My 12 for 2012

2 comments

I wrote earlier about my New Year’s Resolutions. One of the items was “Complete Reading List”. Here are the books I’ve selected:

My Reading List

I’m sure this little bundle will inspire a blog entry or two…

The Church and the New Media – Brandon Vogt
The Path of Life – Cyprian Smith OSB
I’m Not Being Fed! – Jeff Cavins
Jesus of Nazareth – Pope Benedict XVI
Rediscover Catholicism – Matthew Kelly
Godless Delusion – Patric Madrid & Kenneth Hensley
The Passion of Jesus Christ – John Piper
How To Listen When God Is Speaking – Mitch Pacwa, SJ
Father Brown of the Church of Rome – G.K Chesterton
Jesus Among Other Gods – Ravi Zacharias
The Story of Christianity – Justo Gonzalez
Philosophy For Dummies – Thomas Morris

I will be beginning with the one at the top of the pile The Church and the New Media which I recently won in a competition over at the author’s blog, The Thin Veil. Thanks Brandon! 🙂

1 2 3 … 137