Y’know that whole key/kite/lightning experiment thingie that Ben Franklin did to prove that lightning is electrical (something that seems obvious to us today)?
Well, that happened today, June 15, in 1752.
Fortunately, Franklin was insulated at the time.
Others trying Franklin’s proposed experiment weren’t.
Wikipedia notes: "Others, such as Prof. Georg Wilhelm Richmann of St. Petersburg, Russia, were spectacularly electrocuted during the months following Franklin’s experiment."
Ouch!
Reuters runs a story about a new and exciting religious coalition called "Christian Churches Together in the USA" that will include U.S. Catholics as well as a cross section of evangelical, pentecostal, mainline protestant and other denominations. In the formation stage since 2001, the group will represent a much larger group of Christians than any current ecumenical group.
So, am I just paranoid, or are the alarm bells going off in my head a rational response to this unity-through-bureaucracy movement? I’m sorry, I am having a hard time seeing the benefit of signing on to such a movement. Okay, so we are gonna "agree to disagree" on a whole raft of stuff and concentrate on working together on things like "overcoming poverty". A better recipe for mischief could hardly be imagined. I could be wrong, of course, but the giddy ramblings like this one have not exactly calmed my nerves:
Tim Matovina, director of the Cushwa Center for the Study of
American Catholicism at the University of Notre Dame, said one of the
significant things about the new group is its stated objective of not
taking a stand on something unless all member churches agree.
Often today the rank-and-file members don’t always agree with what church leaders say, he said.
Beyond that, the renewed interest in ecumenical cooperation is another
indication that "in American religion today … denominations mean less
and less," he said.
The country has a strong history rooted in
home-ruled Congregational churches, and today Lutherans, Presbyterians
and Catholics are "experiencing this Congregational dynamic where
people kind of ignore or resist what denominational leaders say, and
seek out a pastor who suits their style … what’s important is the
service."
If this is the kind of Catholic that finds the prospect of such a coalition exciting, then my instinct to go for my parachute seems wholly justified.
Apparently the group will function something like the U.N. (we can only hope). If they truly plan to "not take a stand on something unless all member churches agree" we can anticipate alot of fluffy rhetoric and not much action, which would be the best scenario.
If you’re considering a Christmas present for Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, a former Master General of the Dominican order, might I suggest a case of Ivory soap? He undoubtedly needs it for all of the mouths he apparently would like to scrub clean:
"Dogma is a bad word! But beauty has its own authority, an authority to which every human being responds, and an authority that in no way threatens. We need to find ways of disclosing God’s beauty to our contemporaries."
Of all the many quotes that could have been pulled from Vatican correspondent John L. Allen’s "The Word From Rome" column this week, which one do you suppose the National Catholic Reporter‘s webmaster chose to pull for highlighting? Fr. Radcliffe’s or this one from Pope Benedict XVI:
"[W]ithout the light of truth, sooner or later every person is in fact condemned to doubt the goodness of his or her own life and the relations that make it up, as well as the validity of his or her commitment to construct something in common with others."
No fair peeking at the story before guessing.
See Londo?
See Londo preen?
Preen, Londo, preen.
Now: See the brooch thingie that Lond’s wearing on his jacket?
I wanna know what it is.
Thing is: I’ve see other high men of state in historical pictures and illustrations wearing them, but I’d assumed that they were just pieces of jewelry of some kind.
A piece back I got evidence that they were more than that: I have reason to believe that thingies like this (in Earth history, anyway) are some kind of insignia used by political parties.
I have specific reason to think that such insignia were used by the liberal and conservative parties in England in the 19th century and that ministers of parliament would wear them to signify their party affiliation.
I’ve done some Googling, but I haven’t turned up anything on them–like what they were called.
So: Does anybody know there name or can anybody provide a link to some web info about them?
Much obliged, folks!
STARTING CAPTIONS:
Actually, it’s something called a "difference engine."
A model of one was presented today, June 14, back in 1822 to the Royal Astronomical Society.
In an accompanying paper, the inventer of the difference engine, Charles Babbage, explained how it worked and provided plans.
The Royal Society was impressed and agreed to underwrite Babbage’s attempt to build a genuine difference engine (rather than just a model).
Unfortunately, a variety of problems (including personal ones) hampered Babbage from doing this, and he was never able to complete the project. The one you see above was constructed by his son from parts in his workshop.
Now.
Why am I telling you all this?
Because Babbage’s difference engine was the ancestor of the machine you are using right now: the computer.
The difference engine was designed to automatically compute mathematical and astronomical tables (hence the Royal Astronomical Society’s interest in it). Babbage later revised his plans in an attempt to come up with a more powerful machine he called an "analytical engine" (a.k.a. "Difference Engine No. 2").
Though these machines were nothing compared to the computer you’re using at the moment, they still represented a fundamental technological shift that has changed the course of human civilization.
Actually, it’s something called a "difference engine."
A model of one was presented today, June 14, back in 1822 to the Royal Astronomical Society.
In an accompanying paper, the inventer of the difference engine, Charles Babbage, explained how it worked and provided plans.
The Royal Society was impressed and agreed to underwrite Babbage’s attempt to build a genuine difference engine (rather than just a model).
Unfortunately, a variety of problems (including personal ones) hampered Babbage from doing this, and he was never able to complete the project. The one you see above was constructed by his son from parts in his workshop.
Now.
Why am I telling you all this?
Because Babbage’s difference engine was the ancestor of the machine you are using right now: the computer.
The difference engine was designed to automatically compute mathematical and astronomical tables (hence the Royal Astronomical Society’s interest in it). Babbage later revised his plans in an attempt to come up with a more powerful machine he called an "analytical engine" (a.k.a. "Difference Engine No. 2").
Though these machines were nothing compared to the computer you’re using at the moment, they still represented a fundamental technological shift that has changed the course of human civilization.
A reader writes:
A question about grace and the Jews did they have grace? As Mary
was full of grace but Paul talks about being in the flesh before his
conversion. I know the Jewish elders were anointed by the Holy Spirit
but why would they need conversion if they already had some grace? I am
sure you can explain this to me. Thank you so much for your time.
The
Jews before the time of Christ clearly had grace. The Old Testament is
filled with declarations of God’s graciousness to his people. This does
not mean that they had all the kinds of grace that Christians do today, however.
We do read about some pre-Christian Jewish individuals
receiving the Holy Spirit, such as the seventy elders or the prophets,
but the Holy Spirit was not given generally to all believers, as is the
case with Christians (John 7:39).
Another grace that was not given at the time–at least in a general
fashion–was the regeneration of the heart that was promised with the
New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33). This regeneration of the heart,
accomplished in baptism (cf. John 3:3-5), is what makes one a "new
creation" in Paul’s terminology (2 Cor. 5:17), and thus what causes the
Christian to be no longer "in the flesh." Christians are thus given
additional spiritual resources in combatting sin that were not given
generally in the prior age.
This does not mean that there was no general grant of grace to
pre-Christian Jews. There was, as the Old Testament abundantly
demonstrates.
As to why conversion would be needed for one who already had some grace, there are two answers:
1) To obtain the additional graces now being given, and
2) To fulfill God’s requirements. If God gives new public
revelation, men are obligated to accept it. If he thus sends his Son
and reveals him to be the Messiah, men are obligated to accept that
even if they were already right with God. Culpable failure to do so
will result in one losing the grace one has.
The situation is somewhat analogous to what happens if the pope
defines a dogma. Dogmas are not new public revelation, but the
situation is analogous. If a person is a faithful, grace-filled
Catholic prior to the defintion and then the pope defines a dogma,
acceptance of the dogma becomes obligatory, and if one culpably refuses
to accept it then one rejects the virtue of faith and sins mortally.
One thus loses the grace one had.
Bottom line: In order to be in a state of grace, one must be willing
to accept the authoritative teachings of God. If a prophet gives a new
teaching as public revelation, one must accept it to remain aright with
God. If the pope clarifies a teaching through a dogmatic definition,
one must also accept it to remain aright with God. Being right with God
is not a permanent state that nothing can alter. One must be willing to
accept the progressive unfolding or deepinging of God’s teaching to
remain in a state of grace, for otherwise one is rejecting God’s
authority as a teacher and the means by which he has chosen to teach
(be they prophet or pope).
A reader writes:
What does it mean when in Matthew 5:19, it says, those who do away with the least of my commandments and teaches others to do so will be least in the Kingdom of heaven? I would think they wouldn’t even get into the Kingdom of heaven.
Your perplexity on this point is understandable. Let’s look at the passage:
17: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18:
For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota,
not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
19:
Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches
men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does
them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20:
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes
and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
This is one of the harder passages in the Sermon on the Mount. At the most general level, Jesus is giving an assurance that he has not simply come to overturn the Law of Moses. If we took verse 17 in isolation, it would sound as if he’s reaffirming the binding authority of the Law of Moses and that’s all there is to it. But then he seems to soften the statement in verse 18, allusing to the idea that the Law (or some of it) may pass away once "all is accomplished." The question is: What needs to be accomplished or fulfilled for this passing away to take place?
One possibility is the whole course of God’s plan of the ages. This would mean that the Law of Moses would be binding on the Jewish people (it was never binding on Gentiles) until the end of the world. While this would be a plausible interpretation of the verse taken by itself, the interpretation runs into difficulties once we hit the book of Acts, where God clearly suspends some of the dietary aspects of the Mosaic Law by abolishing the distinction between clean and unclean animals (see Acts 9). In St. Paul’s epistles, he indicates further that the Law of Moses is no longer binding on Jewish individuals and even says he himself is not under the Law of Moses but the Law of Christ.
This suggests that we are to look for something on a nearer-term time horizon as the fulfillment Jesus spoke of that allows the Law of Moses to be modified. If you look at p. 162 of Good Pope Benedict’s most excellent book
you’ll see him suggest what is the standard interpretation of the passage:
Christ does not comes as a lawbreaker. He does not come in order to declare the Law invalid or meaningless. . . . Christ comes in order to complete it. But that also means, in order to lift the Law up onto a higher level. He fulfills the Law in his suffering, in his life, in his message. And now what happens is that the whole Law finds its meaning in him. Everything that was intended by it, everything it aimed for, is truly realized in his perosn.
That is why we no longer need to fulfill the Law according to the letter, in the way its prescriptions regulate eveything down to the last detail. Our fellowship with Christ means that we are in the sphere where the Law is fulfilled; where it has found its true place; where it is quite literally "lifted up" to a higher level, that is, both preserved and at the same time transformed.
What the pope–then a cardinal–articulated in this passage is not dogmatically defined teaching, but it is the standard way of interpreting what Jesus says: Through his teaching, life, and death and resurrection, Christ provided the fulfillment needed for a modification in the Law of Moses to take place, meaning that even Jewish individuals today are not bound by it.
This provides important background for verses 19 and 20. In verse 19 he gives what is a rather soft-edged statement that makes it sound as if a person could relax the precepts of the Law and still remain "in the kingdom of heaven" (i.e., be saved).
He may indeed mean this. It is possible for people, in innocent ignorance or even with partial culpability, to water down the requirements of God’s law and yet not lose their salvation. In modern terminology, they would sin venially by doing so, but only venially.
In verse 20, though, Jesus makes a harder-edged statement, speaking of the need for our righteousness to exceed that of the Pharisees or we won’t get into the kingdom of heaven at all (i.e., not be saved). This may also be what he means. It may be that being called "least in the kingdom of heaven" means "not saved," but this is not clear and is not the natural interpretation of the phrase.
My suspicion is that Jesus meant the former interpretation, not the latter: That one can relax the lesser commandments of the Law and diminish one’s standing in the kingdom through venial sin. The example of the Pharisees is still salutory, though, because Jesus viewed them as also watering down the commandment of God, only they were watering down very important ones, like the duty of honoring one’s father and mother. He specifically criticized them for this in Matthew 15.
Now, you’ll note that in the last couple of paragraphs, I’ve been speaking in a rather loose manner as if we today would be relaxing commandments of the Law. In reality, the Law he was talking about was still the Law of Moses, and he was addressing the situation of people living in his own day. If they prematurely relaxed what the Law of Moses required then they would suffer the consequences he mentions.
Since nobody today is bound by the Law of Moses, that doesn’t apply to us directly, but the principles involved still do: God still has a law, called the Law of Christ in the New Testament and "the New Law" in theology, and if we water down its precepts in a way that constitutes venial sin then we will have our standing in the kingdom diminished thereby. If we utterly abograte them in a way that constitutes mortal sin, we will not make it into the kingdom any more than the Pharisees Jesus spoke of did.
Dale Price of Dyspeptic Mutterings waxes indignant on the expectations of the Choir-Robed Masters in the Church Loft that thou shalt sing:
CRM: "Many Catholics still find singing in church a problem, probably because of the rather individualistic piety that they inherited. Yet singing has been a tradition of both the Old and the New Testament. It is an excellent way of expressing and creating a community spirit of unity as well as joy. Ephrem’s hymns, an ancient historian testifies, ‘lent luster to the Christian assemblies.’ We need some modern Ephrems — and cooperating singers — to do the same for our Christian assemblies today."
DP: "Ah, yes — one of the great evils of our time — individualistic piety! I suppose I should be thankful that the commenter didn’t mention fish on Fridays, too. The Borg Collective approach to liturgical reform is bent on stamping that out. You see it in the diktats from the liturgy offices demanding that the faithful Keep Standing and Singing, Dammit! after receiving the Eucharist. Resistance is futile — you will experience renewal. Thou shalt not engage in private prayer in the liturgy.
"Nope — no can do. I need time alone with God, and I’ll take that time, thank you. After that, you can hit the spinner and try to tell me where my hands and feet go next (red dot, blue dot) in the remarkably creative interpretation of the rubrics, thanks."
Personally, I rather like singing — whether pew mates like to hear me sing is another question — but I can completely understand why not many join me from the congregation in doing so. The melodies are difficult to learn within the first verse or so, and sometimes the lyrics are downright embarrassing. For example, I absolutely refuse to sing about consubstantiation (e.g., "Supper of the Lord"). However, the upside to knowing well the lyrics to popular contemporary hymns is the ability to play the Catholic version of annoying your friends with rounds of "It’s A Small World." One round of "Table of Plenty" is plentiful enough to stick in a friend’s head for the rest of the day. So, if you get a banal hymn stuck in your head, share the misery:
"Come to the feast of heaven and earth,
Come to the table of plenty!
God will provide for all that we need,
Here at the table of pleeeennteeeee!"
You’re welcome.
