In the modern world, the new orthodox view is that above all other truths Catholicism especially is false. In the vitriol that spews out from the new atheists it is clear that the one thing they really cannot tolerate isn't a belief in God but a belief in Catholicism.
I suspect that the hate that is felt is due to a sneaking suspicion that Catholicism is a truth that transcends our ordinary understanding of things. Nothing can be so intolerable as the fact that truth is not subjective but actual and real.
I saw one You tube video where the person speaking said that it sounded arrogant when the Church said it was the true Church. Of course it is only actually arrogant if the Church is demonstrably the true Church and it is. It is my hope that these opinions incite someone to a similar tirade, I am truthfully amused by them :)
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Why Esperanto
I have been fond of Esperanto for a number of years. It is almost as interesting a language as Latin is to me. It was invented by LL Zamenhof about 150 years ago and is a constructed language that gets its vocabulary from Latin, Greek, and Germanic languages. Its grammar is extremely straightforward and regular but it actually sounds fairly nice when spoken (and is fairly natural to use).
It has a reputation for only being used by geeky homosexual political progressives. I am not homosexual or politically progressive (more of a moderate in my mind) but I am geeky enough. The idea behind the language was to have an easy to use auxiliary language that everyone could learn and use. To me it is a good idea but people spend a lot of their time slamming on it. JRR Tolkien was a fan of the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto
People who are English speakers have a hard time understanding the need for an auxiliary language because in some sense they are in a privleged position where their language is in wide use.
Once upon a time Latin filled this role, but admittedly Latin is difficult for many people to pick up. I still do not feel like I have mastered the language and I have been studying it off and on for close to 20 years. Esperanto is actually easier to speak and understand than Italian by an order of magnitude. It took me about 20 hours of study to get good enough at it that I could read any Esperanto text, at this point I think I am probably conversant enough in it to use it routinely.
It has a reputation for only being used by geeky homosexual political progressives. I am not homosexual or politically progressive (more of a moderate in my mind) but I am geeky enough. The idea behind the language was to have an easy to use auxiliary language that everyone could learn and use. To me it is a good idea but people spend a lot of their time slamming on it. JRR Tolkien was a fan of the idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto
People who are English speakers have a hard time understanding the need for an auxiliary language because in some sense they are in a privleged position where their language is in wide use.
Once upon a time Latin filled this role, but admittedly Latin is difficult for many people to pick up. I still do not feel like I have mastered the language and I have been studying it off and on for close to 20 years. Esperanto is actually easier to speak and understand than Italian by an order of magnitude. It took me about 20 hours of study to get good enough at it that I could read any Esperanto text, at this point I think I am probably conversant enough in it to use it routinely.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Randomized Republic
It was a few months ago when I first heard about this concept, and I have been waiting for the lunacy of it to become apparent to me, but it really hasn't. I was discussing with a coworker about how to get better representation in congress for average people. Most folks, as is commonly known, are not far right or far left. He suggested that we might actually get better representation if we were to randomly select people for congress, basically draft them.
It has a number of advantages and I can't get them out of my head.
1st) More representative of the population at large, it could end up being more democratic.
2nd) Eradication of career politicians.
3rd) Eradication of the power of the Democratic and Republican parties.
4th) Muting or elimination of the effect of special interest groups in the process.
Anyway I am fully aware of there being many reasons why this could never actually work, but the idea is strangely appealing to me.
It has a number of advantages and I can't get them out of my head.
1st) More representative of the population at large, it could end up being more democratic.
2nd) Eradication of career politicians.
3rd) Eradication of the power of the Democratic and Republican parties.
4th) Muting or elimination of the effect of special interest groups in the process.
Anyway I am fully aware of there being many reasons why this could never actually work, but the idea is strangely appealing to me.
Sola Scriptura is Simply Wrong
Sola Scriptura is one of those traditions that just will not go away. It is ironic because it is certainly the most unscriptural of all traditions and it aims to do what it actually inadvertently destroys namely the authority of Sacred Scripture itself. Fundamentally Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is formally and material suffficient for all Christian doctrine. The Catholic Church allows for, and arguably teaches, that Scripture is materially sufficient.
One must understand the difference between material and formal sufficiency and that is fairly easy to explain. Imagine a pile of wood, bricks, bags of concrete, land, glass windows, tiles, etc... organized neatly in piles on a lot of land. At that point you would have everything you needed for a house so you would have all that was materially sufficient for it. However, to get from the pile of building materials, to an actual house a lot of other things are necessary in order to actually get to a house. These would include of course the architect, builders, planners, money, and various other things. Once all of the things were in place then all that was FORMALLY necessary for a house would be in place.
The Church denies that the Scripture itself is formally sufficient for doctrine. For example Scripture itself does not contain a list of the Scriptures that it should contain. The list of Scriptures is reliant on tradition and church teaching in order to exist. At the very least it is necessary to have this list and therefore Sola Scriptura is on its face false. In addition there are many other things in which the Scripture attest to the truth of doctrines but those doctrines are not fully clear in Scripture. Almost all of the things that divide Protestants and Catholic fall into this category.
Protestants are correct that tradition can lead to error as Sola Scriptura is the greatest example of that principle, but Scripture itself is from out of Apostolic Tradition. Scripture is a subset of what we are to believe not the whole of it. We are to do as Saint Paul recommended and that is to hold to all that came from the Apostles by word of mouth or by epistle.
One must understand the difference between material and formal sufficiency and that is fairly easy to explain. Imagine a pile of wood, bricks, bags of concrete, land, glass windows, tiles, etc... organized neatly in piles on a lot of land. At that point you would have everything you needed for a house so you would have all that was materially sufficient for it. However, to get from the pile of building materials, to an actual house a lot of other things are necessary in order to actually get to a house. These would include of course the architect, builders, planners, money, and various other things. Once all of the things were in place then all that was FORMALLY necessary for a house would be in place.
The Church denies that the Scripture itself is formally sufficient for doctrine. For example Scripture itself does not contain a list of the Scriptures that it should contain. The list of Scriptures is reliant on tradition and church teaching in order to exist. At the very least it is necessary to have this list and therefore Sola Scriptura is on its face false. In addition there are many other things in which the Scripture attest to the truth of doctrines but those doctrines are not fully clear in Scripture. Almost all of the things that divide Protestants and Catholic fall into this category.
Protestants are correct that tradition can lead to error as Sola Scriptura is the greatest example of that principle, but Scripture itself is from out of Apostolic Tradition. Scripture is a subset of what we are to believe not the whole of it. We are to do as Saint Paul recommended and that is to hold to all that came from the Apostles by word of mouth or by epistle.
Latin Program
I am kicking this blog off today with a demonstration of a program I just recently wrote that is called "Latin Catholic Prayers". The purpose is to help Catholics (and others that are interested) to memorize prayers in Latin and English. The program is also suited to memorize pretty much anything else (for example scripture). The link to the distributable is in the link section.
This is the main screen. The use should be straight forward. First select one of the prayer lists under "Select Prayer List" then select one of the prayers in that list by selecting the prayer under "Prayer to Test". At that point pressing the "Play Latin Audio File" will play a recording of that prayer. If you wish to see the prayer printed out press the "Show Prayer" button if "Mode of Operation" is "Latin" the prayer will print in Latin if it is "English" it will print out in English instead.
If you want to get the grammar for any part of the prayer highlight that part of the prayer then click the "Show Grammar" button. You can select any given word up to the whole prayer.
The final important feature is the ability to quiz the prayer. The quiz function just presents a randomized list containing 4 unique words from the prayer, one of which is the next word in the prayer. Selecting the next correct word results in that word being displayed in the prayer, the choice being counted as correct, and a new 4 word choice being presented. The choices continue to be presented until all words are tested.
Of course if you are in English it tests the English prayer instead. Most of the prayers are drawn initially from "Treasury of Latin Prayers" also listed in the Latin Links section of the blog.
This is the main screen. The use should be straight forward. First select one of the prayer lists under "Select Prayer List" then select one of the prayers in that list by selecting the prayer under "Prayer to Test". At that point pressing the "Play Latin Audio File" will play a recording of that prayer. If you wish to see the prayer printed out press the "Show Prayer" button if "Mode of Operation" is "Latin" the prayer will print in Latin if it is "English" it will print out in English instead.
If you want to get the grammar for any part of the prayer highlight that part of the prayer then click the "Show Grammar" button. You can select any given word up to the whole prayer.
The final important feature is the ability to quiz the prayer. The quiz function just presents a randomized list containing 4 unique words from the prayer, one of which is the next word in the prayer. Selecting the next correct word results in that word being displayed in the prayer, the choice being counted as correct, and a new 4 word choice being presented. The choices continue to be presented until all words are tested.
Of course if you are in English it tests the English prayer instead. Most of the prayers are drawn initially from "Treasury of Latin Prayers" also listed in the Latin Links section of the blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)