Gospel of St. Matthew Bible Study - Lesson 5

Notes from class covering the fifth chapter of St. Matthew's gospel.
Topics are the Sermon on the Mount - Beatitudes.

Father Echert saved the punch line to the end of class and that is that the overall message of the Beatitudes is that we will be satisfied, but not here. Things will be made perfect, but not yet. Up to this point, the Israelites were expecting the Savior to come and create a glorious kingdom on earth where he would reign like a typical king and things would be perfected and they would be satisfied. When Jesus came and said, "Whoa, not so fast. Not here, not now," they were angered and this is part of the reason they sought to crucify Him.

The fifth chapter starts out with the Sermon on the Mount, which is believed to be an area just to the north of the Sea of Galilee. It was not a mountain, like Mount Sinai, but more of a hill (or even a natural amphitheater as Jeff Cavins mentioned during last year's study). Parallels are drawn between Jesus and Moses. Moses went up on Mount Sinai to receive the law and Jesus preaches His new law from the top of this mountain. Previously, only Moses, as the mediator, could touch the Holy Mountain or God would strike any living thing dead. Jesus is the new mediator. The previously hidden sacrifice of the temple is now far more visible and accessible. The veil will be torn in two, so there will be more access, but still the altar is holy and the priest alone is allowed on the altar and in the tabernacle (makes you pause and think about the EMHCs. If only Moses was allowed to touch the Holy Mountain and others would be struck dead, what is in store for those EMHCs that unworthily, pridefully and haphazardly distribute Communion? I wonder if they understand the GRAVITY of what they are doing and the HONOR of being in the presence of the PERFECT SACRIFICE. I am sure much is expected of them and I hope they are cognizant of it.) Although God is now more approachable and accessible, He is still to be given His rightful place.

Jesus' new law supersedes and perfects the Mosaic Law. He BUILDS, not replaces, the moral commandments of the Mosaic Law. The Old Covenant, as St. Paul says, is obsolete. The ritual law pass away, but NOT the moral laws. The prior ritual laws were there because the people needed them (like children need structure) because they had been unfaithful over and over. God set them apart for their own spiritual well-being and gave them these ritual laws to help them remain faithful. Now Jesus is coming and doing away with these rituals (more childish ways) and calling His disciples to perfection.

From our class notes, it says that Catholics see the Sermon on the Mount as a call to perfection. Others see it as an impossible ideal or an interim ethic view. The theory of the impossible ideal is a 16th century reaction to the perfectionist view and it was pronounced by, who else, Martin Luther. The Sermon on the Mount is designed to teach that the law condemns the entire human race. No human being can claim never to have gotten angry, never to have had lustful thoughts, never to have coveted, etc. Luther believed that Jesus' teachings are designed to show Christians their own inability to save themselves, and to cause Christians who realize this to throw themselves on God's mercy. Albert Schweitzer developed the interim ethic view. The Sermon on the Mount is the product of failed apocalyptic enthusiasm that imagined the kingdom of heaven to be no more than a few years away -- describing how Christians are to live while waiting for the dawn of the celestial kingdom. Schweitzer believed that the kingdom never came and that Jesus, in a strange and desperate attempt to force God's hand, got himself crucified and died without rising again. Have at 'er, there Albert.

Jesus being on the mount also parallels David and Mount Zion. Father didn't talk about this at all, but from our class notes it mentions that the OT prophets "understand the Davidic covenant to be an expansion and development of the Mosaic covenant. The covenant mediated through Moses establishes a nation, while the covenant with David establishes a kingdom to rule not only the people of Israel but all the Gentiles as well." Jesus has now come to establish His Church, which includes the Israelites and the Gentiles. Some symbolism that Father didn't mention is that the mountain is indicative of the high standards of the New Covenant. Moses brought the law down from the mountain to the people; they weren't able to ascend or meet God at His level, showing that the Old Covenant was a lower form of law and is now superseded by the New Covenant, perfected and exemplified by Jesus.

Father mentioned the Beatitudes mean blessing or even happiness, although he cautioned about interpreting it as happiness because it could lead to poor understanding. Happiness can be spiritual or temporal. The will or soul is content in having acquired some good or "rest" (these ideas are from St. Thomas' Summa Theologica). A good may NOT be an objective good (Father's example was bank robbing, the robbers are "happy" they got the loot, but it isn't a good). Sin seeks a "perceived" good or a good disproportionately. The saints were able to perceive "goods" and put them in the correct order (spiritual goods above temporal). They were willing to give up a temporal (temporary) good for a higher spiritual (eternal) good. We are given the grace and conscience to discern a false good from a true good. This is why it is important to form your conscience correctly. The Beatitudes speak about spiritual blessings - higher ordered goods (supernatural) and speak of postponing temporal blessings until we enter Heaven.

St. Luke's gospel has a similar account, often called the "Sermon on the Plain." Scholars argue whether the events are the same or not. Father mentioned that Jesus preached for three years and undoubtedly said the same thing over and over, so the accounts could be of different events. He likened it to giving a homily at three different Masses on the same day. The message would be the same, but the actual words used may differ slightly. For example, Luke's gospel account mentions, "Blessed are the poor," but Matthew's says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit."

As Jesus started preaching, he sat down, which is the typical posture for a Rabbi to use when teaching and speaking from authority.

An aside that Father didn't mention is that the Beatitudes follow a specific pattern, with each blessing building on the prior and the beatitude of spiritual poverty being the foundation of all the others. The first seven beatitudes correspond to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Poor in spirit means we are called to humility and aware of our need for God's grace and mercy. Wealthy or impoverished people can both be spiritually poor; spiritually dispossessed of material and worldly goods.

Those who mourn doesn't just mean mourning for the dead. It means to mourn our sins against God, humanity and original sin that brought this separation from God upon us. We are aware of the just punishment of God and accept it. Father said it could be read as those who "mourn over sin."

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Father said that this is a "condition of Heaven." We must pray for our enemies and their salvation, must forgive, not judge. He cited some passage from Shakespeare (maybe Karen will know this) in Hamlet where the murderer held off killing the King because he heard the King say a prayer of remorse and figured the King was, at that moment, in a state of grace. The murderer wanted to wait until the King was no longer in the state of grace to kill him to ensure his damnation. Pure evil!

"Blessed are the peacemakers" doesn't have much to do with being a pacifist. Father mentioned that when Jesus appeared to His apostles, He didn't get all fire and brimstone about getting back at the folks that crucified Him. The first thing He said was "Peace be with you." He was giving them God's peace and showing that through what He did, mankind can be reconciled with God and we are to spread the message of this peace (reconciliation with God) to others.

"You are the light of the world." Indicates what must happen in the Church, we must be a beacon in the world, evangelizing by our example, doing good works. The Israelites often failed and adopted the ways of the pagans around them instead of converting them, so God had to isolate them. In the Old Covenant, there were physical walls of the cities to keep the pagans/Gentiles out. In the New Covenant, there are spiritual walls that we are to use to keep out the way of the world, but we are to be examples, lights, to draw people in by what they see.

"For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." The scribes and Pharisees were the ones who most perfectly kept the covenant. They went overboard and applied the strict laws that were meant for the priests to all. Jesus is saying that they paid great attention to the temporal and we should have as much zeal for the spiritual.

Although Father didn't mention it, verses 21-48 are called the "Six Antithesis" where Jesus says, "You have heard it said...but I say to you..." Here He is showing He is the new Moses and the lawgiver of the New Covenant. Within these verses, Father said, it shows we will be judged for INTENTION too, not just actions as in the Old Covenant. More is given in the New Covenant and more is expected. There is a new standard and God will provide the grace to resist.

Verse 22 uses the word "fool" but Father said the correct translation is moron. You are not to call someone a moron (which comes from the Greek "moronos" or something phonetically like that!) but even St. Paul calls unfaithful people "fools" in Corinthians.

In verse 38, it says "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." This is OT justice and was perfectly acceptable to God. It did limit what you could do, since you were only allowed one tooth, not two, for that would be vengeance. The punishment had to fit the crime. The New Covenant tells you to turn the other cheek. We are now called to charity, which transcends justice. God will take care of the justice, we are to concern ourselves with charity.

Next week we don't have class, but come back the following Thursday for Chapter Six.

Diversions on a cold day

I didn't want to be the last one on my block to do this...

1. YOUR ROCK STAR NAME: (first pet & current car)
Shalom Civic

2.YOUR GANGSTA NAME: (fave ice cream flavor, favorite cookie)
Chocolate Chocolate Chip

3. YOUR “FLY Guy/Girl” NAME:(first letter of first name, first three letters of last name)
M Lam

4. YOUR DETECTIVE NAME: (favorite color, favorite animal)
Green Kitten

5. YOUR SOAP OPERA NAME: (middle name, city where you were born)
Therese St. Paul (Is that a religious name or what!??)

6. YOUR STAR WARS NAME: (the first 3 letters of your last name, first 2 letters of your first)
Lammo

7. SUPERHERO NAME: (”The” + 2nd favorite color, favorite drink)
The Blue Coke or The Blue Margarita if you want an alcoholic drink

8. NASCAR NAME: (the first names of your grandfathers
Michael Mark or Mark Michael

10.WITNESS PROTECTION NAME: (mother’s & father’s middle names )
Anne John

11. TV WEATHER ANCHOR NAME: (Your 5th grade teacher’s last name, a major city that starts with the same letter)
Smith Stockholm

12. SPY NAME: (your favorite season/holiday, flower)
Spring Mallow

13. CARTOON NAME: (favorite fruit, article of clothing you’re wearing right now + “ie” or “y”)
Strawberry Shirtie

14. HIPPY NAME: (What you ate for breakfast, your favorite tree)
Croissant Evergreen

15. YOUR ROCKSTAR TOUR NAME: (”The” + Your fave hobby/craft, fave weather element + “Tour”)
The Genealogy Sunshine Tour

Encounters at that farpoint of the continuum

Further musings on whether Matthew was the first gospel written or if Mark was.

I tell you, my father was a sage. If there ever was a difference of opinion (Catholic dogma aside), he would say, "Well, you know, we can't all like chocolate ice cream." So true, dad. (I think he was a vanilla man.)

Well, chocolate ice cream is my favorite, but on the following subject I think I'm falling into the "Matthew is earliest camp."

I did manage to get the New Jerome Biblical Commentary from the UST library and read the chapters on the Synoptic Problem and the Q Source. I also, over the weekend, just started reading Fathers of the Church, by Mike Aquilina. And, along with the Jerome Commentary, I checked out One Gospel from Two, Mark's Use of Matthew and Luke, by David Peabody (with Cope & McNicol), just to balance out Jerome.

Here's my take on things, considering I'm NOT a theologian, not a biblical scholar, and I have only taken a few weeks of the bible study (which doesn't really address this issue. In fact, the issue popped up based on a slightly-more-than-off-hand comment that Father Echert made), read a few chapters in the Jerome Commentary and the intro and a little bit more from the One Gospel from Two book. My summation of these books is that this issue isn't going to be resolved in this lifetime (certainly not by me) and it could be argued until the end of the world without anyone budging an inch. From the sidelines, it seems that the Matthew camp says one thing and cites its passages, the Mark camp says the opposite and cites some other passages. He said - he said, in a sense. This did nothing for a non-biblical scholar like myself, other than to make my head hurt, confound me and make me wish I had never endeavored to climb this contentious mountain.

However, this doesn't mean I haven't resolved things in my own mind. Remember chocolate ice cream, folks. This is my opinion and this hurdle is something I cannot get over, so am making a conclusion based on this stumbling block.

My stumbling block is that I don't believe in Q. Also known as the "Q document." (Sorry, John de Lancie, yours was a great character.) I am a Quatheist.


A bit of background on the Q document from Wiki:

The recognition of 19th-century New Testament scholars that Matthew and Luke share much material not found in their generally recognized common source, the Gospel of Mark, has suggested a second common source, termed the Q document. This hypothetical lost text —also called the Q Gospel, the Sayings Gospel Q, the Synoptic Sayings Source, the Q Manuscript, and in the 19th century The Logia— seems most likely to have comprised a collection of Jesus' sayings. Recognizing such a Q document is one of two key elements in the "two-source hypothesis" alongside the priority of Mark.

The two-source theory is the most widely accepted solution to the Synoptic Problem, which concerns the literary relationships between and among the first three canonical gospels (the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke), known as the Synoptic Gospels. Similarity in word choices and event placement shows an interrelationship. The synoptic problem concerns how this interrelation came to pass and what the nature of this interrelationship is. According to the two-source theory, Matthew and Luke both used the Gospel of Mark, independently of one another. This necessitates the existence of a hypothetical source in order to explain the double tradition material where there is agreement between Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark. This hypothetical source is named Q for convenience.

Mike Aquilina's book did far more to advance my opinion than the other two books and Mike's book didn't even address this issue. It showed that the early Fathers were very concerned with showing a continuation, a hand-off, between the Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers, and from the Apostolic Fathers to the next generation on down. These Fathers clearly touted their connections to the Apostles as proof of their validity, established clear lines in their pedigrees and built their reputations. They painstakingly developed early churches and liturgies, reading from the Apostles during Mass from the moments these words were placed on paper. They were very, very careful to preserve the incredible and infantile Church that was now in their hands. They used the weapons they had at their disposal to combat heresy, disobedience and confusion. These weapons were the gospels and books of the New Testament.

So, who then was the author of Q? Why would such an important book of the New Testament, that two other gospel writers supposedly relied on, not appear anywhere in the written or oral history of the Church? Why was this important book lost or not preserved, especially by the Fathers? Why would not even a fragment of the book remain when we have scores of other Gnostic gospels that exist? Why wasn't this book in the canon, since it must've been inspired to a large degree to have two other inspired authors rely so heavily on it? Why wasn't this book used as part of the liturgy when even books of lesser "importance" (those written by early church Fathers, martyrs and saints) were put forward to be included in the canon and were heavily used in the 1st century liturgies?

There are other more scholarly arguments in the One Gospel from Two book, but these are the questions that plague me and make, in my mind, the existence of Q implausible.

The Fathers handed down a vast Catholic Tradition to the subsequent generations, all the way down to the 1500s when a German, Martin Luther, appeared on the scene and decided the way things had been done previously were in error. The Fathers also handed down the Matthew first idea until the 1800s when another German decided what had been previously believed was wrong. I know, this isn't a real argument, but why should we suddenly abandon an idea that was held for nearly two millenia, especially by Fathers who actually knew the Apostles?

The idea of Markan priority, from what I understand, is not completely dependent on Q, but the ideas are heavily interwoven. At this stage, I just have a hard time believing that not even a shred is known about Q, except a 19th century hypothesis.

Knowing humans as thou doth, Captain, wouldst thou be captured helpless by them? - Q

With stops at Purgatory and all points beyond

Although it's hard to believe, November, the month for remembering the Poor Souls, is quickly approaching. Numerous saints have been visited by the Poor Souls, often asking them for prayers or Masses so that they will be released from Purgatory, or like St. Perpetua, who saw her younger brother as he was released from Purgatory because of her prayers.

I have no doubt that the Poor Souls can come to us to plead for prayers or to thank us for our fidelity and assistance.

Scorch marks from a Poor Soul on The Imitation of Christ, Rome

One of my favorite blogs, Our Lady's Tears, has had several great posts about Purgatory. She encouraged me to write this post about my father's experiences.

My father was a Third Order Carmelite for many, many years. He had a wonderful devotion to Our Lady and the Poor Souls. He said the Daily Office and a daily rosary. Most afternoons, my father could be found laying on the couch in the living room, deep in prayer. Often times, because of how long he had been lying on the couch and how still he was, I thought he was asleep. However, he was just busy with his daily prayers; many of the prayers were for those who had petitioned him with their intentions.

Before his death, my father told me of an experience he had while in prayer. He was, like he normally was, laying on the couch in the living room saying his rosary. He became aware of a presence, that he described as female, across the room from him, although he could not see it with his eyes. He said the presence moved towards him and even though he was laying on the couch and it wasn't physically possible, he said it felt like the presence hugged him with so much love and gratitude that it was suffocating. So overwhelmingly beautiful and incredible that it was suffocating. The instant my father acted like he was suffocating, the presence was gone. I could tell my father was disappointed he reacted as he had and that had brought about the quick departure of the Poor Soul.

I know my father had various experiences in his life and was not quick to talk about them. I would bet I am the only one he ever told this experience to, primarily because I believe he thought the soul that visited him might be my mother. Although he didn't say it, in his typically understated way, I could tell that the mention of the presence being a woman held great weight in what he was trying to convey to me.

If it was my mother, what an incredible gift that would be to both of them.

My father had one other experience with the Poor Souls that he told me about, but he didn't tell me much about it other than he was aware of a soul thanking him and being grateful. That's all my father would say as he was very humble about talking about things like this.

The Poor Souls are in need of Masses and our prayers. A great blog dedicated to them is Friends of the Poor Souls. Start preparing now for your November novenas.

_____________________________________

Prayer of Saint Gertrude the Great

DICTATED BY OUR LORD TO RELEASE 1,000 SOULS FROM PURGATORY EACH TIME IT IS SAID

Eternal Father, I offer Thee the Most Precious Blood of Thy Divine Son, Jesus, in union with the Masses said throughout the world today, for all the holy Souls in Purgatory, for sinners everywhere, for sinners in the Universal Church, those in my own home and within my family.
Amen.

The Book of Irreverent Revelation

The Letter to the Obvious

Britney Spears lost custody of her kids, may check into a posh celebrity rehab and missed her day in court because she was too busy getting a Frappuccino at Starbucks.

Senator Larry Craig isn't going to resign.

Marion Jones took steriods.

The City of St. Paul is planning to tear down the luxury river front condos, also known as the jail.

The Vikings lost...to the Packers.

If your kid ever pushes someone, it will be the daughter of your bible study group leader.

If your 82 year-old aunt ever gets locked out of the house, it will be as soon as the kids finally are taking a nap.

Don't listen to your husband when he tells you that you don't need to prime paneling before you paint it.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, like picking up toys and thinking that they will stay in the bins this time.

Sometimes, what you assume is water, really isn't.

Have a good weekend everyone. We're on our way to close up the cabin.

Down the chimney

Today I will be making the Christmas gift list for my husband's family. We used to draw names, but then the family started to get so large and people weren't always in the same place at one time that I was elected to do this because I mentioned that you could just throw the names in Excel and use the random number generator and create a list of givers and recipients.

I don't know if my husband's family really believes I do this random number deal and that it's all legit. Some have complained that they got the same person as last year. Well, there are only about 15 people in the list and there are restrictions placed on who can buy for who (parents can't get their own kids, kids their own parents, so with only four different families, the actual number of people any one person can get is very limited.)

Parents still buy gifts for their kids and kids for the parents, but back before the family got sooooo large (sarcasm folks, this is a very small family compared to mine) everyone bought gifts for everyone else. Huge expenditure. Finally, practicality and reason set in and the name drawing scenario reared its ugly head. We now get a name and have to buy that person a $35 gift. In some families, they have a limit of $10 and it has to be a NON-practical gift. The limit had been $25, but people complained they couldn't buy a nice gift for such a measly amount.

However, everyone was still expected to by my nephews gifts. The amount of presents they received at Christmas (from everyone!) was obscene. Literally, a mound of presents sat in the middle of the room just for my nephews to devour.

It is happening with my own kids. I have put limits on things and asked that people buy the kids books and other items we need for homeschooling, but still this materialism is rampant. Actually, in this family materialism substitutes for love in many ways. The grandparents want to show everyone they are loved by buying everyone gifts they cannot afford, gifts that are charged on their credit card and don't get paid off for years.

As much as it irritates me that they do this, it would irritate me if they didn't. What an odd Catch-22. I don't expect big expensive presents for my kids, but I do expect a present. When did this happen to me? It's a case of they bought my nephews huge, massive, expensive and obscene presents and they better at least get my kids something. Not a big something, but something. Maybe I do sense that their giving is a form of love because they are kind of emotionally distant and disconnected otherwise.

For Christmas I want this idea to disappear. I was raised in a big family. Our grandparents (mom's side) were wonderful and showered us with love, but they didn't buy us gifts outside of one at Christmas. I used to have to thank my grandmother on my dad's side for the two dollars she sent me at Christmas, one for my birthday and one for my Christmas gift. I don't want my kids to become materialistic OR to have any expectations of others that I seem to have been infected with lately.

Maybe, this year, I should find an old antique copy of "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens, my most all-time favorite book, and give that as my present to whomever I am expected to buy a present for.

Hopefully, they will read it and regift it to someone, and gradually less materialism will surround Christmas.

Gospel of St. Matthew Bible Study - Lesson 4

Continuing with my notes from class. Father covered the fourth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew today. Not as many notes this week. This chapter deals with Jesus going out into the wilderness/desert to fast for 40 days/nights before He begins His public ministry. Here we find the devil tempting Him.

Some contrasts and similarities are highlighted in this chapter.
We see the temptation and obedience of Jesus strongly contrasted against the disobedience of Israel.
Both Israel and Jesus are called God's son.
Both Israel's and Jesus' temptations are preceded by a baptism.
Jesus is tempted for 40 days/nights, and Israel for 40 years. From our bible study last year, we learned that the number 40 is indicative of a period of testing.
And, Father mentioned that the Gospel of Luke does not have the three temptations in the same order. Not significant, just making note of it.

The 40 days are commemorated by the Church at Lent.

Big theme: Jesus is the New Adam, the New Moses and the New Israel. Jesus has come to reverse the curse of Adam (from St. Paul's epistle to the Romans).

Adam (and Eve) was made sinless and was not inclined to sin. This is part of what makes his sin so terrible.

My question is, if Adam, Eve and Mary (along with Jesus) were all created without sin and had no concupiscence or inclination to sin, what would cause Adam and Eve to sin, but not Mary (or Jesus)? They all had free will. If Adam and Eve were perfectly happy, what would make them sin? I guess, similarly, what would make the angels sin since they had perfect knowledge of the consequences of their decision? From my post yesterday, the answer to the angels is pride, and this seems to hold true for Adam and Eve, who want to be like gods. (Higher than all reconciliation must the Will will, which the will to power is - Nietzsche)
I don't get the distinction. If Jesus was never able to sin and neither was Mary (I was told this by a veddy veddy orthodox priest that Mary had free will and was conceived without sin, but she was "preserved" from sin.) what's the deal with Adam and Eve? (Off on a tangent here.)

Father said that if the devil was not in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve would've (could've?) remained sinless, but God allowed the devil in. Hmmm. Then Father went on to discuss a bit about the fallen angels, and once again, I could swear he's reading my blog (which isn't the case, but quite a coincidence...again). He talked about the envy of the angels, which I mentioned in my post from yesterday. Father said that the fallen angels are eager to tempt souls out of envy; their never-ending envy of humanity and the happiness that they cannot have. Well, guys you knew what you were doing when you rebelled. Guess misery does love company.

Father said angels can't change their minds, God gave them grace and the knowledge they would need to make a decision for all time (irrevocable).

Adam and Eve are not just creative tools used by the prophets in the bible, but Church teaching is that they were real and are our forefathers. Further, the representations of Jesus in modern movies (Father was hinting at the DaVinci Code) that show Jesus having lust for Mary Magdelene are pure fantasy because Jesus never had ANY inclination to sin.

Significant to note that when Jesus was in the wilderness fasting for 40 days and nights, he suffered terribly. It wasn't just hunger from missing dinner, it was hunger that only was possible to endure because God sustained Him. Any other human would've died weeks prior. Strong parallels are being drawn here between this suffering and the agony in the garden. We see in both cases Jesus is tempted, suffered terribly and is ministered to by angels. These are the only two times this happens. Father noted these two events of incredible suffering are like "bookends" of the public ministry of Jesus.

Curiously, we come to the devil and see a not-so-well-known reason for him tempting Jesus. The devil has limited knowledge and power. It is well beyond ours, but it was amusing to hear how limited the devil is. The reason the devil tempted Jesus is that the devil was well aware of scripture, he knew God had promised a Savior that would crush the devil's head. He had a strong feeling that his number was up. Previously, he had tried, unsuccessfully, to eliminate "the line of the woman," so he was interested to find out who Jesus really was. He was UNCERTAIN if Jesus was the Son of God. His temptations, in part, were to get to the bottom of the question and find out for himself if this was the one who would be his undoing. The devil is not omniscient. He can observe but is limited to what God allows him to know. He cannot go into a soul or intellect, he cannot read our mind. The devil cannot "see" divinity (hey, this relates to the "evening knowledge" from my post yesterday!).

As far as the temptations go, the devil wants him to perform a miracle by turning a stone into bread. Father said that while the devil could make a stone look like bread, he cannot change a stone into bread because this is a creative act and only God can create. (Performing a miracle here would tip off the devil as to who Jesus really was.) Father mentioned that the devil is appealing to a good here, which is bread would satisfy a hunger, but mixes lies with some truth. Here Jesus is able to overcome the temptations that the Israelites weren't, with Jesus quoting scripture from Deuteronomy that points back to the warnings given to the Israelites for disobedience. The test shows that earthly things are not the goal, but the Bread of Life.

The second temptation, where Jesus is to throw himself down and have the angels save him, represents the human desire for fame and notoriety, "'He will give his angels charge of you', and 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a STONE.'" Father noted that the word scandal means to trip on a stone. Interesting.

While Jesus tolerated the above temptations, when the devil tells Jesus to bow down and worship him and he will give Him all the kingdoms of the world, Jesus won't put up with blasphemy, since you are to worship God alone, and tells the devil to "Begone." This temptation represents our desire for power.

During the temptations, Jesus quotes from Deuteronomy. From the Catechism regarding the significance, "The evangelists indicate the salvific meaning of this mysterious event: Jesus is the new Adam who remained faithful just where the first Adam had given into temptation. Jesus fulfills Israel's vocation perfectly; in contrast to those who had once provoked God during forty years in the desert, Christ reveals himself as God's Servant, totally obedient to the divine will."

Peter was also called Satan in Matthew 16:21 because Peter wanted to do his own will not the will of God.

Jesus, after the death of John the Baptist, withdrew to Galilee. Here is where the tribes of Zebulun and Naptali had been before the Babylonian Captivity. Not much is left of the Jews here since it has been nearly 700 years since the captivity (721 BC). Jesus goes here to begin his ministry, indicating that He has come to restore the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24) and begin to undo the curse.

Many of the disciples had been followers of John the Baptist and had heard and learned about Jesus. They probably had meet Him and sat and listened to Him preach prior to the event we find in the gospel, where Jesus calls them (Peter and Andrew) and they IMMEDIATELY follow Him. Father said the synoptic gospels wanted to stress the urgency, but it wasn't as if they had just seen Jesus for the first time. They went from disciples to apostles; they would represent Jesus at some point.

When Jesus begins His ministry, He began "teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and infirmity among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them." Father mentioned that the devil now knows Jesus is GOD and Jesus is beginning to displace the devil where ever He goes by healing the sick and undoing the curse.

Stay tuned for next week, Chapter 5.

I ain't

People, people, people. Ya need to quit putting these quizzes on your blogs because I keep taking them. Stop the insanity!!




See, I'm not so nerdy. Once you get past the science and math categories, I'm surprisingly normal.

As seen on Tara, The Highly Dorky Nerd Queen's, blog.

A night without day

I had a friend in college who was a Unitarian. I also had a boss many years ago who was a Unitarian. My friend always wanted to talk about religion. I have wondered why she always had the conversation drift toward religion. We weren't great friends, but we had suffered through the worst of chemical engineering course work together and managed to come out on the other side working together after college. She was smart and fun, but also completely ungrounded in a lot of ways. Often, our lunch conversations ended up debating the existence of Heaven, Hell and the Devil. Really, it wasn't a debate as much as she wanted to understand what the Catholic Church believed, what I believed.

She believed in God, as do most Unitarians in one form or another, but didn't believe in the Devil. As much as she longed to understand the Devil and Hell, I longed to understand how she could believe in God, but not the rest of the set-up. It's like believing day, but not night.

"I am who am," God has clearly stated in the bible to the Israelites. The devil has somehow managed to convince people, "I am NOT." The angels were all given God's grace, but the fallen angels, through pride, would not accept God's grace.

According to St. Thomas (Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 63, Article 2):

Consequently the first sin of the angel can be none other than pride.

Yet, as a consequence, it was possible for envy also to be in them, since for the appetite to tend to the desire of something involves on its part resistance to anything contrary. Now the envious man repines over the good possessed by another, inasmuch as he deems his neighbor's good to be a hindrance to his own. But another's good could not be deemed a hindrance to the good coveted by the wicked angel, except inasmuch as he coveted a singular excellence, which would cease to be singular because of the excellence of some other. So, after the sin of pride, there followed the evil of envy in the sinning angel, whereby he grieved over man's good, and also over the Divine excellence, according as against the devil's will God makes use of man for the Divine glory.

I have heard it explained several times, all pretty much the same idea, that the test the angels underwent was they were shown that Christ would be born of a woman, a mere mortal, and they refused to accept that God would condescend so low and that He even expected the angels, who are of intellects so beyond ours, to bow down to this child.

One can only imagine the intellect of Lucifer, said to be the most brilliant of all the angels, and his complete disgust at the idea.

St. Thomas uses St. Augustine's idea of the angels having "morning" and "evening" knowledge. (Summa Theologica 1.58.6)

The expression "morning" and "evening" knowledge was devised by Augustine; who interprets the six days wherein God made all things, not as ordinary days measured by the solar circuit, since the sun was only made on the fourth day, but as one day, namely, the day of angelic knowledge as directed to six classes of things. As in the ordinary day, morning is the beginning, and evening the close of day, so, their knowledge of the primordial being of things is called morning knowledge; and this is according as things exist in the Word. But their knowledge of the very being of the thing created, as it stands in its own nature, is termed evening knowledge; because the being of things flows from the Word, as from a kind of primordial principle; and this flow is terminated in the being which they have in themselves.

St. Thomas summarizes this idea much better than I could:

The morning and evening knowledge belong to the day, that is, to the enlightened angels, who are quite apart from the darkness, that is, from the evil spirits. The good angels, while knowing the creature, do not adhere to it, for that would be to turn to darkness and to night; but they refer this back to the praise of God, in Whom, as in their principle, they know all things. Consequently after "evening" there is no night, but "morning"; so that morning is the end of the preceding day, and the beginning of the following, in so far as the angels refer to God's praise their knowledge of the preceding work. Noonday is comprised under the name of day, as the middle between the two extremes. Or else the noon can be referred to their knowledge of God Himself, Who has neither beginning nor end.

This, to me is a very interesting way to understand the knowledge of the angels, which had always been described to me as "infused knowledge." Infused to me always meant immediate or innate. This description seems to imply that angels can grow or move in understanding, moving from the knowledge of themselves (evening knowledge) to knowledge of God (morning knowledge).

Reading further in the Summa, St. Thomas discusses the will and free choice on the angels. I had learned that the angels were put to "the test," and because their intellect is so beyond ours, they understood all the ramifications, all the consequences, and had all the knowledge to make a completely informed choice, and that because of this, their choosing to serve God, or not, was irreversible and forever. No chance for regret, no repentence, no prodigal sons, no pity parties.

From the Summa (1.59.3)

Some things there are which act, not from any previous judgment, but, as it were, moved and made to act by others; just as the arrow is directed to the target by the archer. Others act from some kind of judgment; but not from free-will, such as irrational animals; for the sheep flies from the wolf by a kind of judgment whereby it esteems it to be hurtful to itself: such a judgment is not a free one, but implanted by nature. Only an agent endowed with an intellect can act with a judgment which is free, in so far as it apprehends the common note of goodness; from which it can judge this or the other thing to be good. Consequently, wherever there is intellect, there is free-will. It is therefore manifest that just as there is intellect, so is there free-will in the angels, and in a higher degree of perfection than in man.

I like St. Thomas' explanation on the knowledge of the angels since it helps me understand a bit better, like St. Patrick's analogy of using the clover to represent the Trinity. The devil lives in a perpetual night of knowledge, never choosing to look at the morning -- which is God. Almost akin to our faculties being clouded because of sin.

It's been awhile

Karen at Gem of the Ocean has been giving me lots of homework lately, including this meme.

1. Do you attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo?

Novus Ordo. St. Agnes says a great NO. They also have a beautiful Latin NO, but I don't show up there too often because of the kids. Yes, plenty of families attend, but not all kids are Latin Mass material. Some aren't even able to go unnoticed at McDonald's.

2. If you attend the TLM, how far do you drive to get there?
The nearest Latin Mass is at St. Augustine's in South St. Paul. It is about 20 minutes away.

3. If you had to apply a Catholic label to yourself, what would it be?

Catholic-in-training, still trying to learn. I'm certainly not a rad trad or a Cafeteria Catholic. I have trad leanings, but am learning that the Church is universal and has room for a lot of leeway as far as preferences go. Don't mess with the liturgy or dogmas, but if you like the NO more than the TLM, knock yourself out. As an aside, I still do think that you should dress nicely for Mass. No beach wear. Now back to the meme.

4. Are you a comment junkie?

My parents always said my mouth moved as fast as a whippoorwill's rear end, but I don't think I'm a comment junkie. Maybe the first thing I might need to do is admit I have a problem.

5. Do you go back to read the comments on the blogs you’ve commented on?

Pretty much. I've left comments on blogs and forgotten what blog I was at. It's an age thing. No, maybe it's a kids-crying-in-the-background-and-can't-concentrate thing.

6. Have you ever left an anonymous comment on another blog?

No.

7. Which blogroll would you most like to be on?

This definitely speaks to one of my axioms: Careful what you wish for. I'm happy right where I am because things are at an almost manageable level. I couldn't handle a blog with lots of action for a variety of reasons. However, if Terry would just add me to his AR blog, that would allow me to sleep better at night. I'm on his AR2 blog, but haven't gotten a promotion to AR.

8. Which blog is the first one you check?

It totally depends on my mood. I have tried to limit the number of blogs I read because it is just too much darn work to be reading blogs all day. Plus, I have kids to feed. Didn't some parents just get in trouble for being on the computer all day and not feeding their kids. Case. Point.

9. Have you met any other bloggers in person?

No. Ray from Stella Borealis has made attempts, but we have never hooked up. This is primarily because all the events were on the weekends and I'm at the cabin on weekends during the summer.

10. What are you reading?
St. Thomas, by G.K. Chesterton
Gospel of Matthew bible study
Imitation of Christ
Just got at a garage sale, When Character was King, A Story of Ronald Reagan, by Peggy Noonan

Bonus Question! Has your site been banned by Spirit of Vatican II?

Yes, but I haven't been to their site in awhile (see #8 above). I was also banned from St. Leo's.

If you have read all the questions and answers above, you are tagged for this meme.

A foggy crystal ball

For my one required college speech class, I did a speech on Graphology. A few years prior in high school, I did a speech on telekinesis. In my estimation, both are forms of divination.

According to the New Advent webpage, divination is: "The seeking after knowledge of future or hidden things by inadequate means. The means being inadequate they must, therefore, the supplemented by some power which is represented all through history as coming from gods or evil spirits. Hence the word divination has a sinister signification. As prophecy is the lawful knowledge of the future divination, its superstitious counterpart, is the unlawful. As magic aims to do, divination aims to know."

Involvement in divination will earn you a trip to confession.

My cousin, the sister, is a Graphologist. I'm not quite sure these things are compatable. Maybe graphology is an extension of a form of psychology, but it also has some fortune-telling aspects to it. I don't know if I think it is a tool that should be used to predict future behaviors, because while we may have natural tendencies and inclinations, we have the will to choose a very different course of action. God could give us the grace to overcome a vice or strengthen a virtue.

I once filled out a job application that asked me for a sample of my handwriting. I strongly suspected they were going to analyze my handwriting and refused. The job wasn't worth it to me. I've also had companies want me to take the MMPI and I refused that too. I've taken the MMPI a few times. The first time was in college because I had a psychology minor and really wanted to find out what this monster test was like. Having taken it, I really didn't want this type of information in the hands of my employer or have my answers assessed by some unknown person, with their own personal biases, who may or may not be qualified to interpret the results.

From the Wiki site:
Graphology is based upon the following basic assertions:

When we write, the ego is active but it is not always active to the same degree. Its activity waxes and wanes; being at its highest level when an effort has to be made by the writer and at its lowest level when the motion of the writing organ has gained momentum and is driven by it.

When the action of writing is comparatively difficult, the writer uses those forms of letters which are simpler or more familiar.

The muscular movements involved in writing are under the direct influence of the central nervous system. The form of the resultant writing movement is modified further by the flexibly assembled coordinative structures in the hand, arm, and shoulder; which follow the principles of dynamical systems. The specific writing organ (mouth, foot, hand,crook of elbow) is irrelevant if it functions normally and is sufficiently adapted to its function.

The neurophysiological mechanisms which contribute to the written movement are related to conditions within the central nervous system and vary in accordance with them. The written strokes, therefore, reflect both transitory and long term changes in the central nervous system such as Parkinson's disease, or alcohol usage.
The movements and corresponding levels of muscular tension in writing are mostly outside of conscious control and subject to the ideomotor effect. Emotion, mental state, and biomechanical factors such as muscle stiffness and elasticity are reflected in a person's handwriting.

One must examine the handwriting or drawing movements by considering them as movements organized by the central nervous system and produced under biomechanical and dynamical constraints. Given these considerations, graphologists proceed to evaluate the pattern, form, movement, rhythm, quality, and consistency of the graphic stroke in terms of psychological interpretations. Such interpretations vary according to the graphological theory applied by the analyst.

Most schools of thought in graphology concur that a single graphological element can be a component of many different clusters, with each cluster having a different psychological interpretation. The significance of the cluster can be assessed accurately by tracing each component of the cluster back to their origins and adapting the meaning of the latter to the conditions of the milieu in which the form appears.

I'm not a psychologist, but it seems that graphology is based on limited observations, personal interpretations (theories), and deals with the mind which is influenced by so many factors that you can't develop a test that controls for everything, with the goal being to test for one specific attribute. At best it's a snap-shot in time, at worst it's something Father will tell you to do penance for.

Matthew - Mark or Mark - Matthew

In an attempt to figure out what the 411 is on which gospel is earlier, Matthew or Mark, I checked out some links on the internet. This is not info from Father Echert, but just something I dug up while looking into the debate. I did inquire about having Father available for 5-10 minutes for questions, but I was soundly beat up about the ears for it. Not that people thought it was a bad idea, but Father Echert is a busy, busy man and is scheduled very tight. I knew this would be the response. I was told that Father is available during the monthly fellowships to answer questions. HA HA HA. I can't even listen to the homily at Mass with my kids somewhat contained in the pews, but to have them in a social hall would make things absolutely impossible to pay any attention to anything Father would say.

Maybe I'll send him a letter.

Unfortunately, this is a scholarly debate and a lengthy one at that. I think Father could probably spend an entire month talking on the subject and still not cover everything about this topic.

So, folks, here's where I am starting. Biased beginning, yes. I am looking at the argument from the premise that Matthew is the earliest, Mark drew from Matthew's gospel, and working my way from there.

Here is the link I'm looking at and there is enough here to keep me busy for a long time: Mark dependent on Matthew

(I have topically looked at the Q theory, but am going to begin with the opposite evangelist and work forewards (or backwards) from there.)

Fall colors

This weekend we will be heading to the cabin to start to close things up. The end of the season is here. Two weekends ago the leaves were already changing color quite a bit in NW Wisconsin. Hopefully, it won't be too rainy this weekend and we can enjoy the last bit of color for the year.

I was looking for info on the peak areas around MN and stumbled across this (I've only seen number 10):

10 Best Forests to See Fall Color in North America
1. The Kancamagus Scenic Byway in New Hampshire
2. The Green Mountains in Vermont
3. The Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina
4. Chautauqua and Allegheny Country in Pennsylvania and New York
5. The Laurentian Mountains in Quebec Canada
6. Ottawa and Hiawatha National Forests in Upper Michigan
7. Mark Twain Trees of Missouri
8. Independence Pass and Leadville, Colorado
9. "Lost Maples" in Texas
10. The Pacific Northwest

Why Do Leaves Change Colors?
Fall Leaf Color Change - The Waves
Fall leaf color change starts very subtly late in September and early October in temperate North America. Trees respond to such factors as autumn drying conditions, temperature change, altered sun position, and light. It takes approximately two weeks to begin and complete the fall color change so timing and a little luck are essential for the "perfect" view.

Fall color change and flow takes place as three primary waves in mixed hardwood forests. A simple flow and wave model was designed at the University of Georgia to illustrate what leaf experts call the fall color wave. This Leaf Wave Model is used to explain the movement of autumn leaf color change.

Fall Leaf Color Change - The Leaf Anatomy
The major factor influencing autumn leaf color change is the lack of water. Not a lack of water to the entire tree, but a purposeful weaning of water from each leaf. Every leaf is affected by colder, drier, and breezy conditions and begins a process which results in its own demise and removal from the tree. The ultimate sacrifice of a leaf-bearing tree is the ultimate in visual pleasure for us.

The broadleaf tree goes through a process of sealing off the leaves from the stem (called abscission). This halts the flow of all internal water to the leaf and causes a color change. It also seals the spot of leaf attachment and prevents precious moisture from escaping during winter dormancy. You just might want to view An Autumn Leaf Cross Section for more graphic details.

Fall Leaf Color Change - The Chemistry
This lack of water to each leaf causes a very important chemical reaction to stop. Photosynthesis, or the food-producing combination of sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide, is eliminated. Chlorophyll must be renewed (by photosynthesis) or be taken in by the tree along with photosynthetic sugar. Thus chlorophyll disappears from the leaves. Chlorophyll is the green you see in the leaf.

Once the overwhelming chlorophyll color is removed, true leaf colors will dominate over the receding green pigment. True leaf pigments vary with the species of tree and thus the different characteristic leaf colors. And because true leaf colors are water soluble, that makes the color disappear very quickly after drying out.

Carotene (the pigment found in carrots and corn) causes maples, birches, and poplars to turn yellow. The brilliant reds and oranges in this fall landscape are due to anthocyanins. Tannins give the oak a distinctively brown color and is the final persistent color most leaves turn before becoming part of the forest floor.

Back in Mr. Anderson's class

Thank goodness I scored 100% on this or I would feel like I would have to give back my degree...or they might even hunt me down and take it from me. Just had to do this for my own edification because I feel like I have forgotten just about everything I knew just a day ago, not to mention years ago.

It's hell to get old. My eagle vision is rapidly fading, my steel-trap memory is shot and I think the ratio of grey hair to brown is leaning towards the grey side. Not to mention the increase in weight and wrinkles with a decrease in skin elasticity.

And, I haven't even started homeschooling yet! Just think what I'll have forgotten by then. My kids AND I will need a tutor!

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 10/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

Mathetes award

Karen at Gem of the Ocean has put down the gloves long enough over the debate on the gospels of Matthew and Mark to give me this award.


Thank you!

When I first saw this, not knowing who or what Mathetes was, I thought it was some sort of math related thing, like a Math Athlete. (Goofy idea, but you can see the logic in it).

Here's what Karen had on her blog:
Mathetes is the Greek word for disciple, and the role of the disciple (per the Great Commission) it to make more disciples. I'd like to take the opportunity to award five other bloggers with this award and badge for acting in the role of a disciple of Christ. These five all share the message in their own creative ways, and I admire them all for what they do.In the spirit of this award, the rules are simple. Winners of this award must pick five other "disciples" to pass it on to. As you pass it on, I just ask that you mention and provide links for (1)this post as the originator of the award (Dan King of management by God), (2) the person that awarded it to you, and then (3) name and sites of the five that you believe are fulfilling the role of a disciple of Christ. If you know of other deserving recipients of this award, and would like to start a new string, then please post a link to where you've started in in the comments to this post. I would love for many deserving bloggers to be blessed with this recognition.

Handing this award off to the other bloggers I admire, here is my list:

(Note: I did not pick five. I have always had a problem with authority, so had to add a few more just to bend the rules a little.)

My local blogging countrymen

Terry at Abbey Roads 2: I know he hates this type of thing since it's too girly-girl for him, but I think he knows I mean it sincerely and not just to suck up like he has mentioned in many of his prior posts on narcissism, etc. Even though he probably won't carry on the awards on his blog, didn't want overlook him for this reason. Informative. Controversial. Just what the doctor ordered.

Cathy of Alex: Wish I had the snap-on-tools that Cathy does. Now I always have to wonder if my crinolin is showing at Mass. If only other Catholics got their butts off the couch and started practicing their Faith like Cathy does, the Church would be a better place.

Ray of Stella Borealis: He is the go-to guy for all things happening in the Twin Cities and helped me get up and running with my blog. Keeps us all informed about everything!

Child of Mary: A self-proclaimed introvert (NOT!), she is so introverted she actively works for MCCL and teaches CCD. Her pro-life activities and involvement are a great example.

Sanctus Belle at Our Lady's Tears: Great blog. Very helpful with lots of ideas on how to incorporate spirituality into our lives. Have recommended her site to many.

Another local (at least it's in the state) blog is A View from the Catholic Trenches: A huge group blog with lots of variety and insight. Just wish they would get the rest of the "contributors" to contribute!

Out state:

AquinaSavio at Per Te Sancta Maria: Who could go wrong picking a blog of someone discerning the priesthood. You wouldn't know he's only 17. He probably already knows more about the Faith than I ever will. Beautiful blog.

Entropy at Sphere of Influence: Entropy is just a great blogger name, but she also has a great blog. As the only other mommyish blog in my selection (OK, laurathecrazymama is included in Catholic Trenches and Child of Mary and Sanctus are also moms), I appreciate the stories of childhood joys and messes that I can really relate to.

Blog on, fellow Mathetes!

Gifts of the Magi

At bible study last Thursday, my four year-old son made a chain out of craft paper. Written on a few of the links were the three gifts he would bring the baby Jesus. I think he knows what Jesus would want more than the Magi, cuz what's a baby going to do with Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh.

The three items he would give Jesus are:

A hat
A toy car

and

A Mr. Potato Head

Sensible, practical and fun. ALways thinkin', that little one.

St. Kate's - School of Health

Announcing the College of St. Catherine School of Health

The School of Health establishes a cohesive home for the College’s array of healthcare programs and extends their scope and depth. Building upon our exemplary record of innovation and market responsiveness, the School of Health engages regional and national partners to meet urgent health, healthcare and workforce challenges.

Why a new academic and community-based initiative?

Recognizing the growing weight of unmet healthcare needs in American society, leaders at the College of St. Catherine believe they have a moral imperative and unique preparation and perspective to reshape the education of healthcare professionals.

The College has 120 years of experience in healthcare education: grounded in the liberal arts, Catholic social teaching and the 150-year tradition in healthcare of the Sisters of St. Joseph.

Our approach to healthcare education (interdisciplinary, relationship centered and community based) embraces emerging concepts of healthcare delivery.
With more than 40 percent of our 5,200 students studying in health-related fields, the College is a premier healthcare workforce provider in the Upper Midwest.
__________________________________________

In following the tradition of my family, I will NOT be sending my daughter here. My mom graduated from St. Kate's in the 1950s and refused to let me attend here. No discussion, end of story. A sad commentary on a once great order (Sisters of St. Joseph) and college.

Conversion now and Zen

Yesterday, at least I think it was yesterday, I watched The Journey Home on EWTN. The guest was Francis Beckwith who spoke about how he left the Evangelical Church and became Catholic. He had been raised Catholic, but left the Church because he became more involved in and enamored with the exuberance of the evangelical movement. He is a bright man who eventually became president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In the interview, it seemed that he never really broke with the Church, but just drifted away by initially participating in a Catholic Charismatic Renewal bible study, then attending a Jesus People Church. Eventually, he was well into the Evangelical camp, but still in tune with a lot of Catholic teachings. People even asked him why he wasn't Catholic. Recently, he re-joined the Catholic Church after reading some early Church fathers on the subject of justification. Once that key was in the lock, the rest of the Church's teachings made sense to him.

My husband is a convert from Lutheranism. Nominal Lutheranism. His parents, wanting him to have some appreciation for religion, would take him to church on Sunday, drop him off at the church steps and then go do something else for an hour. This is a real head-shaker for me. Instead of the old Borg slogan of "Resistance is futile," this was more along the lines of, "Attempts at religiousizing are futile." I shouldn't be flippant, maybe these times in church were what gave him the grounding to one day become Catholic. The more I hear the conversion stories of others, the more I see that there is no clear path to look down from this end, only the trail you see in retrospect.

It's all amazing.

My husband (back then he was just a friend) went and asked the pastor of the church he attended once in a blue moon, why Lutheranism and not Catholicism. The pastor, according to my husband, had little to say. He seemed to be resigned that one of his sheep was leaving the flock. He almost acted like he, or the church he belonged to, had been seen for what it was. The emperor had no clothes. The pastor's only suggestion to the kindly barrage of questions of my husband's, was for my husband to read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values."

Odd. Even my husband thought it was odd and left his meeting with the pastor feeling very disappointed and even sorry for the man. The pastor had had no answers to my husband's questions.

After a few meetings with my father, a great apologist, discussing Catholicism, my "friend" was certain that his leanings toward the Catholic Church were correct and he was ready for RCIA.

I still ask my husband how he "came around" to Catholicism. He said he always (ALWAYS!) had something telling him the Church was correct. He had no stumbling blocks, like the Real Presence or Mary, that he needed answers to. In fact, he had always believed, as best a nominal Lutheran could, in the Real Presence. Why Lutherans don't believe in the Real Presence was the big question the pastor couldn't sufficiently answer.

The more I hear conversion stories, the more I am amazed at God's Brownian motion through mankind. Nothing is predictable. I guess it's true that God works in mysterious ways and His ways are not our ways!

Gospel of St. Matthew Bible Study - Lesson 3

Father Echert had a great lecture today. I hope my notes do him and the subject, St. John the Baptist, some bit of justice. There is a lot here, sorry so long, but want to share what I learned. Things you hear during the gospel readings year after year and you don’t notice finally make sense. This lecture covers the third chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew.

Father started out talking about baptism. This ritual purification would’ve been very familiar to the Jews. Inside the temple was a large basin of what we would call Holy Water, or water for ritual purification, where they would purify themselves. Outside the temple were small houses for the pilgrims to use to wash themselves for ritual purity. Since it’s my understanding that Islam is an offshoot of Judaism and Catholicism, it seems this is where they must’ve gotten the notion to wash before entering the temple. An Islamic practice coming from an ancient Jewish custom. This is my opinion, not something Father said.

John the Baptist is the last prophet, the bridge between the Old and New Testaments. He is to point to the one who would fulfill the Law. There are many parallels between Jesus and John the Baptist, but I won’t go into them here (do a Google search and see what you get). Early tradition, which may be reliable, says that the parents of John the Baptist were instructed by God to place him in the wilderness early in his childhood, not at the age of 30, which is where the gospels pick up on John when he emerges from the wilderness.

This wilderness area is believed to be close to where the Essenes lived. The Essenes were a strict Jewish sect, one of three branches of Jewish philosophy (Pharisees and Sadducees are the other two). The Dead Sea Scrolls are attributed to the Essenes (connections to Kabbalah too). Father went on about how either the Essenes or followers of them later said that John the Baptist was greatly influenced by them because these Essenes were mystical, had great faith, etc., and imparted this knowledge (of Jesus, etc) to John the Baptist and that he was some sort of disciple of theirs. Father said this notion goes too far and that John may have had communication with the Essenes, but his knowledge did not come from them because John the Baptist was a true prophet (God given knowledge).

John the Baptist (JtB) dressed like a prophet and acted/spoke like a prophet. Here is the connection to Elijah and why the Jews of the time thought that JtB was Elijah. From 2 Kings 1:7-8, which is speaking about Elijah, “The king asked them, “What was the man like who came up to you and said these things to you?” “Wearing a hairy garment,” they replied, “with a leather girdle about his loins.” “It is Elijah the Tishbite!” he exclaimed.” JtB was wearing a garment of camel’s hair and a leather girdle around his waist, so no wonder the Jews thought he was Elijah, whom they had been waiting to return and had learned all about. Most Jews of the day had a very good knowledge of scripture, so this connection wasn’t lost on them.

The Jews ask JtB if he is Elijah or the Messiah and he says no to both ideas. However, Jesus affirms that JtB is Elijah (don’t have the chapter or verse on the top of my head). JtB is NOT Elijah in the strict sense (read Malachi 3), because Elijah still has to return, but John is preparing the way for Jesus when he establishes His kingdom, Elijah will still return before the end of the world, preparing the way. JtB and Elijah have similar roles, but are two distinct people. JtB is an imperfect fulfillment of this part of scripture.

The writings of Josephus give some insight into JtB and support the gospels. JtB was loved and popular with the Jews of the time. Josephus’ writings show the love the people had for JtB was very real and they were very upset with Herod for JtB’s martyrdom.

JtB has the charism of reading hearts (like St. John Vianney and Padre Pio). In Matthew 3:7, JtB encounters the Pharisees and Sadducees when he is baptizing in the Jordan River and calls them a “brood of vipers” which conjures up images from Genesis of the snake that brought about sin and wrath, since JtB is able to see them for who they really are. Great contrast between the pride of the Pharisees/Sadducees and humility of JtB. JtB was very popular but stepped aside and said to Jesus, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” (Almost along the lines of Mary’s fiat.)

JtB probably had taken the Nazarite vow, which requires that one would abstain from wine and strong drink (no wine vinegar or grape juice or grapes at all), no razor would touch their hair and they would not enter where a dead person is. JtB is quoted in Luke 1:15 as never having wine or strong drink. Also of note, is that Samson, who never cut his hair, is believed to have taken the Nazarite vow.

Back to the topic of baptism. Much could be written on this topic and is only touch lightly here. JtB is baptizing in the Jordan River and people from all over are confessing their sins. The Jordan River is the principle source of water in the region, Israel passed from Egypt through the Red Sea with Moses, but also crossed the Jordan under the leadership of Joshua (whose name is essentially the same as Jesus, meaning “one who saves.”) JtB is performing a baptism of repentance; Jesus will be the one to institute the sacrament of baptism by the Holy Spirit, which is a baptism of salvation. JtB’s baptism of repentance gives way to Jesus’ baptism of salvation.

Several OT quotes foreshadow the sacrament of baptism: Joshua 3:14-17, 2 Kings 5:1-14 and see also the Catechism 1222.

In the Old Testament, we saw the prefiguration of baptism with Noah and the ark. JtB is now surpassing the use of water for ritual purification. Because JtB is preparing the way of the Lord, we see that he is starting these baptisms of repentance for people to prepare themselves and they are also confessing their sins (Note to my Protestant friends…this is from Matthew 3:6 where it says, “…and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.”) This is only like a “ritual ablution” (as the notes from the study mention), because JtB does not have authority to forgive sin, but it certainly does prefigure the sacrament. In a symbolic sense, dying to sin and rising with Christ.

Jesus did not have to be baptized to be saved, but came to purify the waters. Notes from the study have this quote from St. Maximus of Turin, “The Lord Jesus came to baptism, and willed to have his body washed with water. Perhaps someone will say: “He who is holy, why did he wish to be baptized?” Pay attention therefore! Christ is baptized, not that he may be sanctified in the waters, but that he himself may sanctify the waters, and by his own purifications may purify those streams which he touches.” Very cool.

The Jews had an expectation that Jesus, the Messiah, would establish His kingdom here on earth. Much like a monastic king, or David, with property and wealth, the whole bit. But that isn’t what the kingdom was like, so here lies part of the problem they had in accepting Him. Father did say that just because it is a spiritual kingdom doesn’t mean it shouldn’t rule over the temporal world. It is not correct, or a right, to refuse to submit to God, who should rule over all of us. You have the free will to sin and face the consequences of that choice, but you do not have the “right” to do as you please without recourse.

Isaiah is the most quoted prophet in the New Testament.

Quotes many of the evangelists use from the Old Testament have transcendency in the New Testament (they have one meaning in the OT and a slightly different application in the NT). Some dissenters claim that in doing this, the evangelists “twisted” the OT quotes to suit their needs. Father explained that the evangelists were inspired by God to use the quotes the way they did. An example, in Isaiah 40:3 the punctuation is slightly different that that in the gospel (Matt 3:1). Matthew says, “The voice of on crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Isaiah says, “A voice cries out: In the desert prepare the way of the Lord!” Father Echert said that the meaning in Isaiah is that someone is saying to prepare a path in the wilderness for the king, which makes sense because as a king would travel, people would go on ahead of him and clear the way. Matthew was not ignorant of the gospel and was inspired to do as he did.

Father mentioned that pride will reject all grace offered by God, including the grace of faith. He also mentions that you can’t overlook serious sin, you need to confront it. This goes back to when JtB calls the Pharisees and Sadducees vipers. They claim Abraham is their father, meaning that since they are Jews, Abraham would see to it that they were saved and snatched from hell because Abraham would never allow a Jew to be lost. JtB tell them they can’t presume their “righteousness.” And, if they were followers/sons of Abraham, they would do as Abraham had commanded them instead of acting like vipers.

Another neat thing Father mentioned is that when Jesus was baptized the entire Trinity was present, just as in the Creation story. The Holy Spirit is a dove that descends on Jesus (that only JtB and Jesus can see), Jesus is God present in the flesh, and then God the Father is heard to speak saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” In the Creation story, God spoke and it was, the Holy Spirit is hovering over the waters and you have The Word (Jesus) there too. The dove signifies where our salvation is to be found (Noah sends out the dove and it finally brings back an olive branch, the dove alights on Jesus at his baptism). Re-creation began with Noah and now with Jesus.

Also, Father mentioned that in the same verse (Matthew 3:16), where the heavens opened and the dove appeared, is much more dramatic in Mark where the heavens “schism” or are torn apart, which takes us back to when Jesus died and the same type of language is used when the curtain on the temple is torn in two.

From our discussion, the Israelites at the time understood the idea of holiness to be a separation from unclean things, from the Mosaic Law, which is like a quarantine approach to holiness. Now, they are supposed to go out and “infect” the Gentiles with the love of God.

Watch of the Angel

Have bible study today, but wanted to share this. A friend sent this to me several years ago when I was pregnant.

Watch of the Angel
by Susan Claire Potts

There was no sound in the hospital
Save the din of machines:
The respirators and stomach pumps
And other medical things;

The patients lay tethered to monitors
Tubes in the arms or throats;
The nurses sat with coffee cups
Writing their copious notes.

In a cold grey room of the ICU,
A woman suffered alone,
Abandoned by her friends who had
Brought candy and gone home.

Unseen by man, the angel stood
Clothed in resplendent light;
He gazed at her who lay so still,
She who would die that night.

Awake, dear child, he said to her,
(For she was not old to him)
Contemplate the truth I speak
Before thy faculties dim:

I was sent by Almighty God
To guide thee here below
In what thou must believe and do
For the salvation of they soul;

Throughout they life I've been with thee
And never left they side;
Yet over all these seventy years
I could not pierce thy pride.

God has granted thee long life;
But this hour is the last
For thee to embrace His Sacred Heart,
Beg pardon for thy past;

That though shouldst gain Eternal Life,
St. Peter's Barque waits nigh,
Our Lord invites thee, Enter now;
He calls thee from on high.

The angel spoke, the woman groaned,
She raised her weary head,
Why do you say such things to me?
I'm going to heaven, she said--

All paths lead to God, you know,
No one road is true,
Salvation takes many forms;
You do what's right for you.

The woman turned, she closed her eyes,
She had no wish to speak,
Nor would she condescend to hear
The truth she did not seek.

The angel sighed, he bowed his head,
He cried to Heaven above:
O, Jesus Christ, O Holy God,
Save this one I love!

By Thy Most Sacred Wounds, O Lord,
Touch this stubborn heart,
Give her true hope and Catholic Faith
Before her soul departs;

Lest she perish evermore,
Lost in Gehenna's flame,
Grant her humble penitence
And the grace to call Thy Name.

The doctor telephoned her son:
There's nothing we can do;
But soft and low, the angel heard
One sweet sound: Jesu

The woman struggled then to pray,
Tears filled her eyes:
Forgive me, Lord, I caused those Wounds;
I never realized...

A moment more, her soul had flown
To meet the Crucified,
She left the room, the town, the earth
The angel at her side.

Chesterton on St. Thomas

My time at the University of St.Thomas, which was merely a college back then, taught me to appreciate St. Thomas Aquinas, who the college is named after. I was required to take three theology and two philosophy classes. Courses I took covered the early church fathers, like Origin and Eusebius; greats like Plato and Aristotle; and scripture studies. Sadly, most of it I have no recollection of. I have reread notes that I scribbled into old texts that I can’t even understand or remember writing. Back then, I was just putting in my time, taking my required classes and trying hard to not have college studies interfere with my social life.

The one thing I have always retained a faint memory of is studying the Summa Theologica. I spent one entire semester drowning in it. My kindly, orthodox and wonderful Jesuit professor gently patted my wounded intellect when I came to him for help. I really tried to understand St. Thomas down to the core of what he wrote. Sometimes, the best approach is a superficial understanding, an overview, on your initial reading and then try a second time to get more out of it. But the Summa was already consuming most of my studies and one reading was all I had time for. The rest of the class was sprinkled with stories of Sparky the Wonder Dog, a tool the professor used to help us understand various topics.

Finally, I have gotten to reading G. K. Chesterton’s book on St. Thomas. For some reason, it is a much easier read than other Chestertonian books. I had started Everlasting Man and abandoned it for St. Thomas. Chesterton, writing over 70 years ago, provides a compelling background story as to why the University of St. Thomas should never have changed the name of Albertus Magnus Hall and renamed it John Roach Center. I doubt the Board of Directors consulted the Theology or History departments about the name change. Aquinas Hall and Albertus Magnus Hall were two buildings on campus named for great men, giants really, of Church history. These two buildings stood “holding hands” across the arches for decades until new science and engineering buildings were built and the old science building, Albertus Magnus Hall, became obsolete. Funny how progress changes and erases so much.

Here’s a quote, not necessarily the best quote from the book, but one I find interesting. Chesterton draws parallels and distinctions between St. Francis and St. Thomas and then compares St. Thomas to a variety of other historical figures, one being St. Augustine. With everything St. Thomas and St. Augustine wrote, especially St. Augustine on humility, it is interesting how the following quote demonstrates a surprising lack of humility.

We must be just to those huge human figures, who are in fact the hinges of history. However strong, and rightly strong, be our own controversial conviction, it must never mislead us into thinking that something trivial has transformed the world. So it is with that great Augustinian monk, who avenged all the ascetic Augustinians of the Middle Ages; and whose broad and burly figure has been big enough to block out for four centuries the distant human mountain of Aquinas. It is not, as the moderns delight to say, a question of theology. The Protestant theology of Martin Luther was a thing that no modern Protestant would be seen dead in a field with; or if the phrase be too flippant, would be specially anxious to touch with a barge-pole. That Protestantism was pessimism; it was nothing but bare insistence on the hopelessness of all human virtue, as an attempt to escape hell. That Lutheranism is now quite unreal; more modern phases of Lutheranism are rather more unreal; but Luther was not unreal. He was one of those great elemental barbarians, to whom it is indeed given to change the world. To compare those two figures hulking so big in history, in any philosophical sense, would of course be futile and even unfair. On a great map like the mind of Aquinas, the mind of Luther would be almost invisible. But it is not altogether untrue to say, as so many journalists have said without caring whether it was true or untrue, that Luther opened an epoch; and began the modern world.

He was the first man who ever consciously used his consciousness or what was later called his Personality. He had as a fact a rather strong personality. Aquinas had an even stronger personality; he had a massive and magnetic presence; he had an intellect that could act like a huge system of artillery spread over the whole world; he had that instantaneous presence of mind in debate, which alone really deserves the name of wit. But it never occurred to him to use anything except his wits, in defence of a truth distinct from himself. It never occurred to Aquinas to use Aquinas as a weapon. There is not a trace of his ever using his personal advantages, of birth or body or brain or breeding, in debate with anybody. In short, he belonged to an age of intellectual unconsciousness, to an age of intellectual innocence, which was very intellectual. Now Luther did begin the modern mood of depending on things not merely intellectual. It is not a question of praise or blame; it matters little whether we say that he was a strong personality, or that he was a bit of a big bully. When he quoted a Scripture text, inserting a word that is not in Scripture, he was content to shout back at all hecklers: "Tell them that Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!" That is what we now call Personality. A little later it was called Psychology. After that it was called Advertisement or Salesmanship. But we are not arguing about advantages or disadvantages. It is due to this great Augustinian pessimist to say, not only that he did triumph at last over the Angel of the Schools, but that he did in a very real sense make the modern world. He destroyed Reason; and substituted Suggestion.

It is said that the great Reformer publicly burned the Summa Theologica and the works of Aquinas; and with the bonfire of such books this book may well come to an end. They say it is very difficult to burn a book; and it must have been exceedingly difficult to burn such a mountain of books as the Dominican had contributed to the controversies of Christendom. Anyhow, there is something lurid and apocalyptic about the idea of such destruction, when we consider the compact complexity of all that encyclopaedic survey of social and moral and theoretical things. All the close-packed definitions that excluded so many errors and extremes; all the broad and balanced judgments upon the clash of loyalties or the choice of evils; all the liberal speculations upon the limits of government or the proper conditions of justice; all the distinctions between the use and abuse of private property; all the rules and exceptions about the great evil of war; all the allowances for human weakness and all the provisions for human health; all this mass of medieval humanism shrivelled and curled up in smoke before the eyes of its enemy; and that great passionate peasant rejoiced darkly, because the day of the Intellect was over. Sentence by sentence it burned, and syllogism by syllogism; and the golden maxims turned to golden flames in that last and dying glory of all that had once been the great wisdom of the Greeks. The great central Synthesis of history, that was to have linked the ancient with the modern world, went up in smoke and, for half the world, was forgotten like a vapour.

The entire book can be viewed here.

Almost enough to buy a few cups of coffee

With the price of real estate going down, blogs might be a good investment. I ran the numbers again after yesterday's post that mentioned a bunch of presidents and other political folks and the price of my blog increased. I'm trying to stay under the radar with Technorati, but think once they find you, their bot always comes by your site.

My blog is worth $8,468.10.
How much is your blog worth?

Behind every man is his wife

President Clinton once made a visit to the Boeing Company. It was a big event. The news channels covered his visit and the company went all out for the visit the short time he was actually there. Metal detectors were installed inside the factory for those who got the chance to hear the President speak. I was one of the lucky ones that received a golden ticket for the event. The group I worked in was all men and all considerably older than myself. They selected me to be the one person in the group allowed to go hear the President, partly because several men in the group wouldn't have cared to hear President Clinton speak even if we all had been given tickets.

The Clinton administration started off a bit rocky, with Bill Clinton remarking that the country would get "two for the price of one." Hillary would create a "new kind of first lady" and take a prominent role in the White House. Bill and Hillary were two peas in a pod and both championed liberal politics.

With the presidential election starting to heat up, it reminded me of my bible study from last year where we learned about Solomon. I started wondering what impact wives had on the decisions their husbands made, even as president.

Solomon was greatly influenced by his wife, Pharoah's daughter, and subsequently all of his wives. They led him away from the worship of God to the worship of idols.

1 Kings 11:1-10
“Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, besides the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; of the nations concerning which The Lord said unto the children of Israel: 'Ye shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods'; Solomon did cleave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not whole with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the detestation of the Ammonites. And Solomon did that which was evil in the sight of The Lord, and went not fully after The Lord, as did David his father. Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the detestation of Moab, in the mount that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech the detestation of the children of Ammon. And so did he for all his foreign wives, who offered and sacrificed unto their gods. And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared unto him twice, and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods; but he kept not that which the Lord commanded.”


The roles of some First Ladies

Rosalynn Carter
Quoted as being personally opposed to abortion, but not in a position to decided for others, she supported abortion rights. Her husband, Jimmy Carter, also echoed this fence-sitting sentiment, citing the separation of church and state, and supports the Supreme Court decision. She frequently sat in on cabinet meetings and took the role as advisor. Rosalynn is currently a "global human rights activist," supports mental health issues, and works with her husband on Habitat for Humanity and at the Carter Center.

Nancy Reagan
By all accounts, she had a close relationship with her husband. Was against abortion, but after the death of President Reagan has urged President George W. Bush to support embryonic stem-cell research hoping it would lead to a cure for Alzheimer's disease. Also supported the Foster Grandparent Program, veterans causes, and Just Say No to drugs. Although Ronald Reagan was against abortion, he appointed two quasi-conservatives to the bench, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy.

Barbara Bush
With Barbara an abortion supporter, George H.W. Bush has supported abortion (prior to hitching his horse to the Reagan presidency) and then came out as anti-abortion while in the White House, even vetoing several abortion bills. Appointed a mixed bag to the bench, David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Barbara called for the Republican party to drop its pro-life position during the 2000 elections.

Laura Bush
While her husband, George W. Bush, has stated that he opposes abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is at risk, Laura Bush is a supporter of abortion rights. However, this presidency saw abortion restrictions as well as full funding for abstinence-only education and blocked distribution for the morning-after pill, along with appointing two Catholics to the bench, Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Looking ahead to 2008
I have never understood politicians. They want to be the leader of our country, but at the same time, they are not leaders in the strict sense of the word. They are political animals. Opportunists. Tilting to whichever way the wind blows instead of having a position and sticking to it. Listening to the advice and counsel of others has its place, but so few politicians have a plan of action and seek to carry it out. How many candidates have flip-flopped on issues for politically expedient reasons? How many sit on the fence and don't answer questions directly?

I hope our next president has a spouse who champions life and is able to get the ear of the president.

Duck season! Rabbit season!

It's duck hunting season in Wisconsin. I'm right with everyone in supporting the right to bear arms, but being in the middle of the playing field is a bit unnerving!! We were at the cabin over the weekend and could tell it was the season opener because you could hear guns going off in the not-too-distant distance. Fortunately, our cabin is fairly removed from the action, but you can still hear the shooting.

Hard to feel comfortable having the kids outside. Ya just don't get this in the city!

It seems that EVERYONE in the area was out hunting. My father-in-law used to be a big hunter and my sister-in-law and her husband are also big hunter/fisher people. For all the shooting I did as a kid, I never went hunting. Just wasn't for me.

I just wish someone could get the Canadian Geese that pooped all over our yard this summer!!

It's good to be home ;}

________________________________________________________

ELMER: (Tiptoeing through the forest) Shhhhhh! Be vewy, vewy quiet . . . I'm hunting wabbits, heh-heh-heh.
ELMER: Oh boy!! Wabbit twacks!!
DAFFY: Oh, Buggsy . . . Buggsy pal! There's a friend here to see you!!
DAFFY: Thurvival of the fittest! . . . and besides . . . it's fun!!
BUGS: Did someone knock?
BUGS: (slightly perturbed) Eh . . . what's up, Doc?
ELMER: Now I got you . . . you wabbit!! Heh-heh-heh . . .
BUGS: (Bites . . . crunch, crunch, crunch) (Mouth full) Say, Doc (chew, chew), are you tryin' to get yourself in trouble with the law? This ain't wabbit-huntin' season . . .
ELMER: It's not!?!
BUGS: No! It's duck-huntin' season!!
DAFFY: That, sir, is an inmitigated frabication!! It's wabbit season!!
BUGS: Duck Season!
DAFFY: Wabbit season!!
BUGS: Duck season!!
DAFFY: Wabbit season!!
BUGS: Duck season!!
DAFFY: Wabbit season!!
BUGS: Wabbit season!!
DAFFY: Duck season!!
BUGS: Wabbit season!!
DAFFY: I say it's duck season and I say Fire!! (Elmer fires. Daffy's bill is blown askew.)
DAFFY: Hmmmmm . . .
DAFFY: Let's try that again!!
BUGS: Okay . . .
DAFFY: I'll start it this time!
BUGS: R-right.
DAFFY: Wabbit season!
BUGS: Duck season.
DAFFY: Wabbit season!
BUGS: Wabbit season.
DAFFY: Duck season. Fire!!! (Elmer again fires, displacing Daffy's bill)
DAFFY: (Grimly) Okay . . . This time you start it!
BUGS: Whatever you say . . .
BUGS: W . . . abbit.
DAFFY: Duck! Fire!! (This time Daffy's head and bill are upside down)
DAFFY: Whatha matter . . . Everythingth upside down . . .
DAFFY: Can't make headth or tailth of thingth . . .
ELMER: Hey, you!! Come back here!!! (Tries gun only a click)
ELMER: Well, whaddaya know ... no more buwwets!