Crowning in Marriage
Next month I get married. In the Byzantine Church we are “crowned” in marriage and the service is quite a bit different from what you might expect. So, to help those attending, I’m building up a list of resources…
Tag: featured
Restless Heart Podcast Launched!
Today is the the Feast Day of St. Christopher, the patron Saint of travellers, and St. James, the patron of the Camino De Santiago, so it seemed like an appropriate day to launch a new podcast, “The Restless Heart”. Each week on this podcast I will be sitting down with my friend Nessa to discuss some aspect of the Catholic Faith.
Restless Heart – Pilot (Download)
— Show Notes —
* If you have iTunes installed, you can click here to subscribe. Alternatively, you should be able to find us in the podcast section of the iTunes Store and Google Play. If you need to setup your podcast feed manually, our feed is:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/RestlessHeartPodcast
If you have any feedback or would like to pose a question for an upcoming episode, you can always tweet us at @davidandnessa.
Taking the Mickey
It’s known as “The Happiest Place On Earth”…
Many of my fellow San Diegans have been shocked when they’ve found out that I’ve lived here for nearly two years and yet never been to Disneyland.
Well, this last weekend I finally went. I had my picture taken in front of the castle. I saw Goofy. I managed not to tut too loudly or roll my eyes or shake my head too much. I went on the rides. I managed to keep my lunch down. I bought mouse ears…
I remember once hearing Greg Proops, an American comedian who performs a lot in England, succinctly explain the difference between the Americans and the English. He said that, to understand the difference between our two peoples, one only has to look at our differing reactions to Disneyland…
The American: “Hey kids! Look! it’s Mickey! He really DOES live here! That is AWESOME! Hey, let’s go get our picture taken with him, c’mon! YEAH!”
The Englishman: “Oh please…”
The most sexist Pro-Choice Argument
Yet another person on Facebook recently told me that:
“It’s not for me or any other man or woman to place their beliefs upon a woman who should have the right to choose whether we agree or not. We will all stand before our maker if the story plays out as told.”
In response to these comments, I asked my friend whether or not he would say the same thing if he knew a mother planning on having her toddler drowned. If not, why not? As I’ve come to expect, I received no answer.
Instead I was told that my question was “wholly immaterial and inappropriate to this discussion”. I asked why this was this the case? Why was it inappropriate? Why was it immaterial? Once again, I received no answer.
I think it’s pretty clear that my friend would intervene in the situation with the toddler. The question is, why? After all, by interfering, he’d be “plac[ing] [his] beliefs upon the woman”, something which he’s apparently not meant to do. So, why interfere in one situation and not the other? What is the distinguishing factor? Why does one child demand her protection but another not merit it?
The implication here is that, unless I am directly impacted by a particular issue, I cannot comment upon its morality. That’s about as nonsensical as saying that unless you’re a plantation owner, you don’t get to comment on slavery. I have neither been the victim of sexual assault nor committed sexual assault. Despite this, I do not doubt for a moment that sexual assault is wrong and should be prevented.
The main reason I wanted to briefly blog about this conversation is because there is a deeper problem with what my friend said. He was saying that, because I am a man, I’m not even allowed to express my opinion on the morality of abortion. How is this anything other than textbook sexism? What was the basis for his dismissal of my argument? Was it the argument itself? Did he find a logical fallacy or a false premise? No, it was dismissed based on the gender of the person offering the argument. That’s a variant of the Ad Hominem Fallacy and remarkably sexist to boot!
Roman Catholics Say The Darndest Things: Part 2
A few days ago I began responding to the common reactions I hear when a Roman-Rite Catholic visits an Eastern-Rite parish for the first time. Last time I covered numbers 1-10 and today I’m going to finish the list with numbers 11-20 for “Roman Catholics Say The Dardnest Things”:
11. “What are the circles on sticks being carried around?”
These are called “rapidia” (or “flabella”). They are carried by altar servers in the Gospel procession and again when the bread and wine are brought to the altar. On them are pictures of angels. Symbolically, they remind us that our earthly liturgy touches Heaven.
Cracking the code
One of the things I really liked about “The Da Vinci Code” (ridiculous ahistorial conspiracies aside) was that it got people looking at art and architecture with greater attentiveness to symbolism. Christianity has always used symbols very heavily to express the truths of the faith and its art developed rapidly as a vehicle for this.
A few weeks ago I explained the meaning of the “IC XC” on icons, which is a short-hand for “Jesus Christ”, and earlier this week I explained the meaning of the letters which commonly appear above pictures of His mother. Today I’d like to provide a quick follow-up to another aspect of “IC XC” which you sometimes find in eastern art…
This is the painting on the front wall above the altar at Holy Angels:
How many “IC XC“s do you see?
The Four Loves – Chapter 1 (“Introduction”)
Our San Diego C.S. Lewis Reading Group will starting a new book this week, The Four Loves.
Once again I will be providing an outline of the arguments presented in each chapter, together with quotations and explanatory notes. The chapters in this book are generally a good bit longer than our previous book (Mere Christianity), so I may well experiment with the format of these posts as I work through each chapter.
Notes and Quotes
1. Lewis thought that St. John’s statement that “God is love” would provide a clear plan for this book
“‘God is love,’ says St. John. When I first tried to write this book I thought
that his maxim would provide me with a very plain highroad through the
whole subject. I thought I should be able to say that human loves deserved
to be called loves at all just in so far as they resembled that Love which is
God”
2. He therefore divided love into two types:
(a) Gift-love
“The typical example of Gift-love would be that love which moves a man to work and plan and save for the future well-being of his family which he will die without sharing or seeing”
(b) Need-love
“…that which sends a lonely or frightened child to its mother’s arms”
3. These types of love reflect both divinity and humanity
(a) Divine Love
“Divine Love is Gift-love. The Father gives all He is and has to the Son. The Son gives Himself back to the Father and gives Himself to the world, and for the world to the Father, and thus gives the world (in Himself) back to the Father too”
(b) Relation to God
“…what…can be less like anything we believe of God’s life than Need-love? He lacks nothing… We are born helpless. As soon as we are fully conscious we discover loneliness. We need others physically, emotionally, intellectually; we need them if we are to know anything, even ourselves”
3. Lewis thought he could just praise Gift-love and disparage Need-love
“I was looking forward to writing some fairly easy panegyrics on the first
sort of love and disparagements of the second… But I would not now deny the name love to Need-love… The reality is more complicated than I supposed”
In this section, Jack uses the term “panegyrics” which refers to a speech in which something is praised. He also refers to his “master, MacDonald” was an author and minister he greatly admired, George MacDonald.