September 12, 2013

iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S


Apple has unveiled a pair of new iPhones.

Here is the iPhone 5S and 5C Official Video:


iPhone 5C
The first is the much-rumored iPhone 5C, with a plastic casing available in a variety of colors (green, blue, reddish-pink, yellow, white). Apple seems to have done its best to make the device look high quality, with the backing and sides molded of a single piece of plastic; on the hardware side of things, the iPhone 5C comes with a 4-inch Retina display, A6 processor, and 8-megapixel camera. But if Apple wants to truly compete in the midrange smartphone market, the key factor is price, and the iPhone 5C will retail starting at $99 with a two-year contract—not startlingly low, but definitely cheaper than many Apple products.

Apple is also selling its own cases for the iPhone 5C, which could peeve smaller case manufacturers. The cases feature a grid of cut-out circles, the better to see the actual iPhone’s color.


iPhone 5S
The other new Apple design, the iPhone 5S, is the company’s next-generation “hero” device. While the iPhone 5 was a radical new design, the 5S is an iterative upgrade; on the outside, it looks pretty much the same as its predecessor. The new iPhone features a new color, gold, in addition to the “traditional” black or white aluminum body.

The iPhone 5S has an A7 chip built on 64-bit architecture (capable of running 32-bit and 64-bit apps), which is pretty speedy, to put it mildly. There’s also the M7 “motion co-processor” which boosts the actions of the accelerometer, compass, and gyroscope—in theory, opening the door to more refined motion-related apps, such as ones devoted to exercise. Battery life is rated at roughly 10 hours’ talk time, 250 hours on standby.

On the camera side of things, new features include burst (snap 10 photos at once), slow motion, and an improved panorama feature.

The most radical new hardware addition, however, is probably the fingerprint lock. Instead of inputting a passcode (something a lot of people neglect to do, apparently), users can unlock their iPhone 5S via their finger. The capacitive sensor is imbedded in the device’s home button, which is constructed from highly scratch-resistant sapphire; in addition to unlocking the phone, it can also be used to authenticate an identity for buying apps from the iTunes Store.

Apple’s Touch ID is capable of reading multiple fingerprints; the fingerprint itself is never uploaded to Apple’s servers or stored on iCloud, which could satisfy a few more paranoid users. Pricing for the iPhone 5S starts at $199 with a two-year contract.

Rollout date for both new iPhones is Sept. 20, with preorders starting a week earlier.

Slashdot.org, Image: cdn.macrumors.com, Video: Apple Inc.

September 10, 2013

Apple takes wraps off cheaper, multi-hued iPhone 5C


By Poornima Gupta (Reuters)

(Reuters) - Apple Inc introduced two new iPhones on Tuesday including the "iPhone 5C" that comes in five colors and starts at $99 with a contract, priced to bring one of the industry's costliest smartphones within reach of the masses in poorer emerging markets.

Chief Executive Tim Cook kicked off the event at the company's Cupertino headquarters which also ushered in the pricier iPhone 5S. Shares in Apple, which had been in negative territory most of the morning, briefly went positive and were down just 0.5 percent at $503.48.

Cook expects Apple to ship the 700 millionth device - an iPhone or iPad - based on iOS mobile software sometime next month.

The world's most valuable technology company is trying to beat back rivals like Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Huawei Technologies Co Ltd in markets like India and China, where it is quickly losing ground.

Wall Street approves of the move to offer a more basic version of the device, although some investors warned initially that it would reduce margins and potentially tarnish a brand that has been linked to premium users since its 2007 inception.

Now they hope a bigger emerging-market presence can help reverse a 29 percent fall in the company's share price since it hit a record high of $702.10 a year ago. The selloff was fueled by fears of slowing growth and a perception that Apple's ability to innovate and shake up industries was dwindling.

The new iPhones, coupled with a belief that Apple will announce a deal with the world's largest carrier in China, have spurred investors to build bullish share and options positions in the company over the past two weeks.

Also sparking Apple's upward momentum was hedge fund billionaire Carl Icahn's revelation last month that he had taken a large position and was pushing for the company to expand its program of share buybacks.

He has said the stock may rise to as much as $700 if Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook pushed for a larger buyback. The shares were down 0.5 percent at $503.64 in morning trading. (Reuters Insider video: The big money betting on Apple link.reuters.com/seg92v)

Industry observers said Apple had not turned out a category-defining electronic device since late co-founder Steve Jobs made a bet on the iPad in 2010. Speculation revolves around a smartwatch along the same lines as Samsung's recently introduced Galaxy Gear, or some sort of TV product.

But analysts said neither was likely to generate numbers anywhere in the neighborhood of the iPhone, which supplies half of Apple's revenue and is the company's highest-margin product.

"Apple needs to demonstrate in the coming months that it has other product lines which can start to make up for slowing growth and falling margins in (the) iPhone and iPad," said Jan Dawson, a chief telecoms analyst for Ovum Research. "That's a tall order."

More immediately, Apple will get a boost if it succeeds in enlisting China Mobile Ltd in its iPhone network. For the first time, the company will host media in Beijing just nine hours after its Cupertino, California, launch, spurring speculation it will announce a distribution agreement with the Chinese carrier.

The world's largest wireless carrier serves more than 740 million users and is perceived as more amenable to carrying the popular smartphone now that profit and subscriber growth are decelerating. Net income grew just 2 percent in the quarter that ended in June.

And smaller rivals China Unicom and China Telecom, which both already sell Apple's iPhone are making headway against the market leader.

Separately, Japan's largest carrier, NTT DoCoMo, is expected to begin selling it as soon as this fall, other sources said.

One key question is whether Apple will also sell its cheaper iPhone 5C in more mature markets like Europe or the United States, heightening the risk that it will begin cannibalizing sales of the flagship 5S.

Globally, the market for cheaper smartphones priced around $300 - the iPhone 5 now starts at $649 without a contract - may grow to 900 million units by 2015, Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi estimated. Assuming Apple manages to capture just 10 percent of that market, the 5C would bring in revenue of $30 billion annually.

"The only real potential to surprise investors (on Tuesday) seems to be in the scope and velocity of a new China strategy, and any new features within iOS 7 and fingerprint scanner technology," said Barclays analyst Ben Reitzes.

"Since it missed the trend toward larger screened phones and seems poised for only incremental iPad improvements, we believe that Apple needs to prove it can innovate in software and services."

(Editing by Edwin Chan and Tim Dobbyn)

Image: Stephen Lam / Reuters, Video: Reuters



Mashable Images:
iPhone 5C




iPhone 5S




September 08, 2013

Hail Mary: September 8 - A Birthday of a Mother


Today is the Birthday of our Lady, Holy Mother Mary. We turn to her who has made God the central influence of her life. In joy, in sorrow, in light and darkness, and in glory, the life of the Blessed Mary was focused on God and on her son Jesus. And because of that, She can Love the rest of humanity, and consider Us Her children. Thanks to Her focus on Jesus, we consider brothers and sisters of Jesus are also Her children. We can learn from Her how to make God central in our lives and with God as the centre we can love freely other people, ourselves and the earth in the right way.

Here are the Reflections of His Eminence Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle, Archbishop of Manila:










September 04, 2013

Whether we ought to pray to God alone?


Prayer is offered to a person in two ways: first, as to be fulfilled by him, secondly, as to be obtained through him. On the first way we offer prayer to God alone, since all our prayers ought to be directed to the acquisition of grace and glory, which God alone gives, according to Psalm 83:12, "The Lord will give grace and glory." But in the second way we pray to the saints, whether angels or men, not that God may through them know our petitions, but that our prayers may be effective through their prayers and merits. Hence it is written (Apocalypse 8:4) that "the smoke of the incense," namely "the prayers of the saints ascended up before God." This is also clear from the very style employed by the Church in praying: since we beseech the Blessed Trinity "to have mercy on us," while we ask any of the saints "to pray for us."

The different kinds of prayer:

Three conditions are requisite for prayer. First, that the person who prays should approach God Whom he prays: this is signified in the word "prayer," because prayer is "the raising up of one's mind to God." The second is that there should be a petition, and this is signified in the word "intercession." On this case sometimes one asks for something definite, and then some say it is "intercession" properly so called, or we may ask for some thing indefinitely, for instance to be helped by God, or we may simply indicate a fact, as in John 11:3, "Behold, he whom Thou lovest is sick," and then they call it "insinuation." The third condition is the reason for impetrating what we ask for: and this either on the part of God, or on the part of the person who asks. The reason of impetration on the part of God is His sanctity, on account of which we ask to be heard, according to Daniel 9:17-18, "For Thy own sake, incline, O God, Thy ear"; and to this pertains "supplication" [obsecratio] which means a pleading through sacred things, as when we say, "Through Thy nativity, deliver us, O Lord." The reason for impetration on the part of the person who asks is "thanksgiving"; since "through giving thanks for benefits received we merit to receive yet greater benefits," as we say in the collect [Ember Friday in September and Post communion of the common of a Confessor Bishop]. Hence a gloss on 1 Timothy 2:1 says that "in the Mass, the consecration is preceded by supplication," in which certain sacred things are called to mind; that "prayers are in the consecration itself," in which especially the mind should be raised up to God; and that "intercessions are in the petitions that follow, and thanksgivings at the end."

We may notice these four things in several of the Church's collects. Thus in the collect of Trinity Sunday the words, "Almighty eternal God" belong to the offering up of prayer to God; the words, "Who hast given to Thy servants," etc. belong to thanksgiving; the words, "grant, we beseech Thee," belong to intercession; and the words at the end, "Through Our Lord," etc. belong to supplication.

In the "Conferences of the Fathers" (ix, cap. 11, seqq.) we read: "Supplication is bewailing one's sins; prayer is vowing something to God; intercession is praying for others; thanksgiving is offered by the mind to God in ineffable ecstasy." The first explanation, however, is the better.

Do the saints in heaven pray for us?

It is written (James 5:16): "Pray one for another, that you may be saved."

As Jerome says (Cont. Vigilant. 6), the error of Vigilantius consisted in saying that "while we live, we can pray one for another; but that after we are dead, none of our prayers for others can be heard, seeing that not even the martyrs' prayers are granted when they pray for their blood to be avenged." But this is absolutely false, because, since prayers offered for others proceed from charity, the greater the charity of the saints in heaven, the more they pray for wayfarers, since the latter can be helped by prayers: and the more closely they are united to God, the more are their prayers efficacious: for the Divine order is such that lower beings receive an overflow of the excellence of the higher, even as the air receives the brightness of the sun. Wherefore it is said of Christ (Hebrews 7:25): "Going to God by His own power . . . to make intercession for us" [Vulgate: 'He is able to save for ever them that come to God by Him, always living to make intercession for us.']. Hence Jerome says (Cont. Vigilant. 6): "If the apostles and martyrs while yet in the body and having to be solicitous for themselves, can pray for others, how much more now that they have the crown of victory and triumph."

The saints in heaven, since they are blessed, have no lack of bliss, save that of the body's glory, and for this they pray. But they pray for us who lack the ultimate perfection of bliss: and their prayers are efficacious in impetrating through their previous merits and through God's acceptance. The saints impetrate what ever God wishes to take place through their prayers: and they pray for that which they deem will be granted through their prayers according to God's will.

References: Summa Theologica, Vulgate, Image via google.images


September 03, 2013

“The Heresy of Charismatics' Beliefs and Practices” By: Fr. Scott Gardner


By: Fr. Scott Gardner (Sspx)
Published originally in the March 1998 issue of The Angelus magazine and Sspx.org 


Brief history of the movement
Protestant Roots
However much the Charismatics try to trace their overt manifestations of "the Spirit" to an unbroken Apostolic tradition, they are bound to fail. Some concede that the early phenomena ceased because of the "stifling" attitude of the hierarchy. Nonetheless, the fact that the charismata were not known to exist after the Apostolic Age is demonstrated by this statement of St. Augustine’s, made in the fourth century:

Who in our day expects that those on whom hands are laid so that they may receive the Holy Spirit should forthwith speak with tongues....These signs were adapted to the times. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Spirit in all tongues to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all the tongues over the earth. But that thing was done for the betokening, and it has passed away.5

Catholic "Transplant"
In 1967, during the early post-Vatican II turmoil of ecumenical frenzy and widespread apostasy, students at Pittsburgh’s Duquesne University began exposing themselves to Pentecostal influences because of spiritual aridity; they were envious of the "changed lives" among many Protestant friends and decided to pray for similar "graces." A weekend "retreat" —of sorts —proved to be the key to their answer. Various people approached various Protestant ministers, laity, and prayer groups; all received "Baptism in the Spirit" after having heretical hands laid on them in prayer.

The importance of this action cannot be overestimated. These Catholics submitted themselves to a non-Catholic quasi-sacramental rite —obviously a mockery of the sacrament of Confirmation —and the emotional thrill brought about by this sin (objectively speaking, of course) convinced them of the holiness of the entire experience. They came away as "Catholic" Charismatics, and their influence spread like wildfire all over the country —first on college campuses and then to the world at large.

If ever there were an argument for listening to the Church, this is it. The Church has warned her children to stay away from heretical "worship" for almost 2000 years because she knows what the consequences will be, both for the individuals involved and for the Mystical Body at large. Yet the CCR (Catholic Charismatic Renewal) unabashedly admits —even praises —its ecumenical, PROTESTANT roots!

Today, practically every diocese has an official Charismatic liaison office. There are Charismatic prayer groups, seminars, conventions, retreats, etc., all across the country and the world. No level of the hierarchy is without its contingent, and Charismatics are numerous among the clergy —especially the Regulars [i.e.,the monastic clergy; webmaster’s note]. As will be shown, even Rome is not immune to their influence.

Protestantism
Given the CCR’s  (Catholic Charismatic Renewal's) ecumenical Protestant roots, it should surprise no one that the Charismatics’ thinking is slanted markedly towards Protestantism. One of the hallmarks of Protestantism is the proposition sola scriptura (scripture alone), e.g., personal interpretation of scripture based on the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit." At the root of this problem lies the Charismatics’ typically Protestant rejection of Tradition as a source of Revelation. As the following quotations demonstrate, Charismatics share wholeheartedly in this dangerous teaching:

...The foundation of the Charismatic Renewal movement...is scripture. Short scripture readings are part and parcel of the action at prayer meetings....In my experience a thirst for the Scriptures is one of the great blessings of these times....Yet it strikes me as self evident that those who desire a personal relationship with God ought at least make themselves familiar with this book....Holy Spirit, inspirer of the Scriptures, inspire us with a love of your word. Lead us to the passages which will be of most effacacy [sic] in our livesand to an ever greater knowledge of the Father and the Son. [emphasis added]33

Through the centuries, the saints have agreed that relating to God intimately in prayer enables God to relate intimately to us by sharing the divine wisdom with us....As we commune with God, He communes with us. But the opposite is also true: if we open our hearts to His holy Word, an exhilarating prayerful experience of faith, hope, and love will burst forth in our souls....As one becomes more and more aware that "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" (II Cor. 3:6), eventually the Holy Spirit leads the devout soul to grasp the inner core of any given passage. Even if one doesn’t know the "exactly correct" interpretation of a passage, the devout reader should depend on the Spirit to provide insight as to the right application of it....Perhaps our problem is that we read God’s Word too much and experience it too little. There’s a great difference between memorizing passages and thinking biblically with the "thoughts of God" (I Cor. 2:11). There’s a difference between having the Scriptures lodged dry as dust in your head, and having them throbbing with soul-stirring inspiration in your heart. [emphasis added]34

Of course, Catholics know that the interpretation of Sacred Scripture belongs exclusively to the Church —which is truly led by the Holy Ghost —and not to the individual reader. The following excerpt from the proceedings of the Council of Trent explains this principle clearly, and the punishment promised to those sharing in this heretical belief and practice should give Charismatics pause, to say the least:

Furthermore, in order to curb impudent clever persons, the synod decrees that no one who relies on his own judgment in matters of faith and morals, which pertain to the building up of Christian doctrine, and that no one who distorts the Sacred Scripture according to his own opinions shall dare to interpret the said Sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which is held by Holy Mother Church, whose duty it is to judge regarding the true sense and interpretation of holy Scriptures, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though interpretations of this kind were never intended to be brought to light. Let those who shall oppose this be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties prescribed by law.35

This teaching was reaffirmed by the profession of Faith of the Council of Trent and by the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith of the First Vatican Council.36

Undeniable Contradiction
Given these comparisons of Charismatic ideas and Catholic doctrine, it should be clear that, whatever the individual adherent’s dispositions toward the Church and the Faith might be, the CCR as a whole is not a Catholic movement at all but a deception of the Devil. The average Charismatic may well deny that he holds errors concerning grace, the Holy Ghost, the external missions of the Blessed Trinity, etc., but his deliberate renunciation of intellect and will renders his implicit errors explicit.

Charismatic thinking closely parallels errors from the earlier days of the Church and frankly admires the heresies of Protestantism. Charismatics’ evolutionary idea of the Church’s magisterium guarantees that they will defend themselves against all such allegations as have been raised here by scoffing at such "pre-Conciliar" thinking. Their nearly-Protestant disregard for Tradition will lead them to an entirely Biblically-based defense of their so-called charismata, which they received, of course, after scandalously submitting themselves to a non-Catholic quasi-sacramental rite performed by heretics.

The fact that the Churchmen have not condemned the CCR will go down in history as a blight on the 20th century’s record of similar proportions to the failure of Vatican II to condemn Communism. Indeed, one may legitimately wonder whether the "Spirit" the Charismatics claim adherence to is the same as the "spirit of Vatican II," i.e., the spirit of the world.

The Catholic response: apologetics
Since the Charismatics’ beliefs and practices are undeniably based in heresy, one may be allowed a legitimate doubt concerning the orthodoxy of those who profess affiliation to the movement. Of course, only God can judge souls, but one cannot, out of motives of so-called charity, call someone orthodox whose actions and words reek of heresy. To do so would be an injustice as well as a lie equal to that of those who maintain an attitude of religious indifferentism.

"By their fruits ye shall know them," said Our Lord to His Apostles (Mt. 7:20). From the poisonous fruits of the Charismatic movement, anyone can see its inherent incompatibility with Catholicism and the grave danger it poses to the Faith. The ignorance or complicity of high-ranking Churchmen notwithstanding, one must be truthful about the movement and the danger it represents to countless souls.

Obviously, unless there is a miraculous shift in the prevailing ecclesiastical winds, the duty of fighting the blight of the CCR must remain at the level of the orthodox clergy and laity. The apologetic offense must be three-fold:
  • Catholics must study to know their Faith better, especially in the areas attacked by the Charismatics, and develop a strong, objective, liturgical piety based on this Faith —not on the experience of consolations.
  • Catholics must politely refuse to accept any discussion of the so-called charismata present in today’s Church as orthodox. True argument can only be carried out based on shared principles, and deception or prevarication on this major point will not lead to genuine advances for the truth, as today’s Catholic-Protestant "dialogues" so plainly demonstrate.
  • Catholics must know and be able to present, in simple terms, the true teachings of the Church on the sacraments, grace, the will, the nature and mission of the Church, and the charismata. Those Charismatics who consider themselves orthodox and really desire to know the truth will listen. As for those who refuse to listen, the words of St. Augustine seem most appropriate at this point:
Why does truth call forth hatred? Why is Your servant treated as an enemy by those to whom he preaches the truth, if happiness is loved, which is simply joy in the truth? Simply because truth is loved in such a way that those who love some other thing want it to be the truth and, precisely because they do not wish to be deceived, are unwilling to be convinced that they are deceived.55

Summary
The Catholic Charismatic Movement is a blighted tree bearing poisonous fruit, sown by the Devil among Protestants and transplanted into the Church after Vatican II. The delirium of contemporary Churchmen has watered it, and the lack of an adequate Catholic formation among priests and laity has cleared and tilled the fertile soil in which it has grown. More people eat of its deadly fruit yearly, and the vulnerable young, so eager for the profound knowledge of God and the sense of the supernatural denied them by the Conciliar Church, are especially at risk. A generation of children is growing up thinking of Charismatics as perfectly normal (or even superior) Catholics.

This fruit is truly a seed of destruction and one of the most perilous fruits offered to man since the first fruit offered to the first Eve by the same serpent. May the new Eve, the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whom it has been given to crush the serpent’s head, intercede for the Church and free the world from the peril in which it now lies as a result of the Catholic Charismatic Movement!


5 As quoted in William Whalen, Minority Religions in America (Staten Island: Alba House, 1971), p.179.33 Andy O’Neill, The Power of Charismatic Healing: A Personal Account by Andy O’Neill. (Cork, Ireland, 1985): Mercier, extracted by Eoin Ó Riain as "The Charism of Scripture."
34 Hampsch, (Rev. Fr. John Hampsch, C.M.F., "Getting excited about the Bible,"SCRC Vision, (Los Angeles, 1993).)
35 As quoted in Denziger, op. cit., †786.
36 Ibid., †995 and 1788.
55 St. Augustine, Confessions, Book 10, Section 23.
Image: Google.images (http://goo.gl/6eavl8)





September 01, 2013

Defining Meekness and Humility


'For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them.'  Although it is difficult to define meekness and humility let us ruminate what its essence. Pope Francis once said “Let us always remain meek and humble, that we might defeat the empty promises and the hatred of the world.” 

According to Thomas Aquinas, a philosopher. Meekness, in so far as it restrains the onslaught of anger, concurs with clemency towards the same effect. It properly mitigates the passion of anger, the vice of anger, which denotes excess in the passion of anger. Meekness, likewise, moderates anger according to right reason, wherefore it is manifest that meekness is a virtue.

The word humility signifies lowliness or submissiveness and it is derived from the Latin humilitas or, as Aquinas says, from humus, i.e. the earth which is beneath us. humility is understood also in the sense of afflictions or miseries, which may be inflicted by external agents, as when a man humiliates another by causing him pain or suffering. Humility is a repressing or moderating virtue opposed to pride and vainglory or that spirit within us which urges us to great things above our strength and ability, and therefore it is included in temperance just as meekness which represses anger is a part of the same virtue. 

Humility is the first virtue inasmuch as it removes the obstacles to faith — per modum removens prohibens, as Aquinas says. It removes pride and makes a man subject to and a fit recipient of grace according to the words of St. James: "God resisteth the proud, and giveth his grace to the humble" (James 4:6).

Thomas Aquinas explains (Contra Gent., bk, III, 135): "The spontaneous embracing of humiliations is a practice of humility not in any and every case but when it is done for a needful purpose: for humility being a virtue, does nothing indiscreetly. It is then not humility but folly to embrace any and every humiliation: but when virtue calls for a thing to be done it belongs to humility not to shrink from doing it, for instance not to refuse some mean service where charity calls upon you to help your neighbours. Sometimes too, even where our own duty does not require us to embrace humiliations, it is an act of virtue to take them up in order to encourage others by our example more easily to bear what is incumbent on them: for a general will sometimes do the office of a common soldier to encourage the rest. Sometimes again we may make a virtuous use of humiliations as a medicine. Thus if anyone's mind is prone to undue self-exaltation, he may with advantage make a moderate use of humiliations, either self-imposed, or imposed by others, so as to check the elation of his spirit by putting himself on a level with the lowest class of the community in the doing of mean offices."

I have read a masterpiece of Fr. Dimitru Staniloae, a Romanian theologian in his 'Patience with Hope Leads to Meekness and Humility' stated:

As we practice patience and are able to endure our troubles with Hope, we will find that we begin to develop humility and meekness. Meekness is a firm disposition of the mind  and is unaffected either by honors or insults.  It means to be unaffected by the disappointments which your neighbor has caused you and to pray sincerely for him.  It is the rock that arises above the sea of anger.

Meekness is not a weakness as many tend to think. It is a positive force aimed at the healing of hate. It is the meek person who is able to put himself into the shoes of others and to clearly see their point of view and understand their situation.  With meekness one is able to take into consideration many dimensions of a situation.  One who is meek has actions that are congruous with his thoughts. 

Humility is the opposite of pride.
Fr. Dimitru Staniloae defines humility as follows:
Humility is the supreme consciousness and living both of the divine infinity and our own littleness. It is at the same time the consciousness that the divine infinity pierces everything and everybody around us... As long as there is a trace of pride in us, we lack the thrill of contact with God; we lack the profound consciousness of a deeper relationship with God, and neither do we make others feel it. Only the humble lives in the immeasurable depths, full of mystery, in God. The humble person, far from becoming poor, embraces the infinite more than anybody else and offers it to others.

If he only accepts this role of being nothing but a reflector and a receiver of divine light, he has a tremendous destiny: that of living with the infinite. If he is ashamed of this role and is filled with his own smoke, he can no longer see anything even in himself.

St. Paul urges the peoples saying 'cum omni humilitate et mansuetudine cum patientia subportantes invicem in caritate' (Ephesians 4:2).


References:
Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas
Patience with Hope Leads to Meekness and Humility; Fr. Dimitru Staniloae



August 29, 2013

Who's 'Totoy Brown'?


(Philippines) Ric delos Santos or popularly known as 'Totoy Brown', the interesting dota and headphone-wearing turned a nationwide meme sensation has been given a special prominence and attention. The man behind the famous worldwide meme.

Totoy, who found web fame for having his face covered all over about every famous personality, was featured by TV show Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho on GMA 7.

The TV show team found the now 18 year old Totoy, labouring hard as a tricycle driver as well as farming in San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija the Philippines. While the super famous photo used to cover was actually taken when he was 12. (photo clip)



The TV show, 'Totoy-Brown' episode, was aired last Sunday, August 25. The segment also featured eyeball portion with female internet counterpart and loveteam 'Neneng Brown'.

The amazing thing is that Totoy is ready to be ridiculed and bullied online just for the entertainment of the people.



Watch 'Totoy Brown' episode of the TV show Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho.




Here are some of Totoy's memes:



 
 






















Images: from Facebook, Twitter


How God is known by us, according to Thomas Aquinas


It would seem that some people give themselves the mandate and the mission to proclaim what is God, speak and act on their own authority, and seemed like they know God's acts. Here, Thomas Aquinas narrates philosophically and theologically about how God is known by us:

As we attain to the knowledge of simple things by way of compound things, so must we reach to the knowledge of eternity by means of time, which is nothing but the numbering of movement by "before" and "after." For since succession occurs in every movement, and one part comes after another, the fact that we reckon before and after in movement, makes us apprehend time, which is nothing else but the measure of before and after in movement. Now in a thing bereft of movement, which is always the same, there is no before or after. As therefore the idea of time consists in the numbering of before and after in movement; so likewise in the apprehension of the uniformity of what is outside of movement, consists the idea of eternity.

Further, those things are said to be measured by time which have a beginning and an end in time, because in everything which is moved there is a beginning, and there is an end. But as whatever is wholly immutable can have no succession, so it has no beginning, and no end.

Thus eternity is known from two sources: first, because what is eternal is interminable--that is, has no beginning nor end (that is, no term either way); secondly, because eternity has no succession, being simultaneously whole.

The idea of eternity follows immutability, as the idea of time follows movement. Hence, as God is supremely immutable, it supremely belongs to Him to be eternal. Nor is He eternal only; but He is His own eternity; whereas, no other being is its own duration, as no other is its own being. Now God is His own uniform being; and hence as He is His own essence, so He is His own eternity.

Some arguments say; For Chrysostom (Hom. xiv. in Joan.) commenting on John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time," says: "Not prophets only, but neither angels nor archangels have seen God. For how can a creature see what is increatable?" Further, everything infinite, as such, is unknown. But God is infinite, Therefore in Himself He is unknown.

Further, the created intellect knows only existing things. For what falls first under the apprehension of the intellect is being. Now God is not something existing; but He is rather super-existence, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore God is not intelligible; but above all intellect.



Further, there must be some proportion between the knower and the known, since the known is the perfection of the knower. But no proportion exists between the created intellect and God; for there is an infinite distance between them. Therefore the created intellect cannot see the essence of God.


On the contrary; It is written: "We shall see Him as He is" (1 John 2:2). It seems that the essence of God can be seen by the corporeal eye. For it is written (Job 19:26): "In my flesh I shall see . . . God," and (Job 42:5), "With the hearing of the ear I have heard Thee, but now my eye seeth Thee."

For it is written: "We know that when He shall appear, we shall be like to Him, and [Vulgate: 'because'] we shall see Him as He is" (1 John 3:2).

It seems that one can in this life see the Divine essence. For Jacob said: "I have seen God face to face" (Genesis 32:30). But to see Him face to face is to see His essence, as appears from the words: "We see now in a glass and in a dark manner, but then face to face" (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Further, the Lord said to Moses: "I speak to him mouth to mouth, and plainly, and not by riddles and figures doth he see the Lord" (Numbers 12:8); but this is to see God in His essence. Therefore it is possible to see the essence of God in this life.

Thomas Aquinas answers these statements:
Two things are required both for sensible and for intellectual vision--viz. power of sight, and union of the thing seen with the sight. For vision is made actual only when the thing seen is in a certain way in the seer. Now in corporeal things it is clear that the thing seen cannot be by its essence in the seer, but only by its likeness; as the similitude of a stone is in the eye, whereby the vision is made actual; whereas the substance of the stone is not there. But if the principle of the visual power and the thing seen were one and the same thing, it would necessarily follow that the seer would receive both the visual power and the form whereby it sees, from that one same thing.

Now it is manifest both that God is the author of the intellect power, and that He can be seen by the intellect. And since the intellective power of the creature is not the essence of God, it follows that it is some kind of participated likeness of Him who is the first intellect. Hence also the intellectual power of the creature is called an intelligible light, as it were, derived from the first light, whether this be understood of the natural power, or of some perfection superadded of grace or of glory. Therefore, in order to see God, there must be some similitude of God on the part of the visual faculty, whereby the intellect is made capable of seeing God. But on the part of the object seen, which must necessarily be united to the seer, the essence of God cannot be seen by any created similitude.

First, because as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i), "by the similitudes of the inferior order of things, the superior can in no way be known;" as by the likeness of a body the essence of an incorporeal thing cannot be known. Much less therefore can the essence of God be seen by any created likeness whatever.

Secondly, because the essence of God is His own very existence, which cannot be said of any created form; and so no created form can be the similitude representing the essence of God to the seer.

Thirdly, because the divine essence is uncircumscribed, and contains in itself super-eminently whatever can be signified or understood by the created intellect. Now this cannot in any way be represented by any created likeness; for every created form is determined according to some aspect of wisdom, or of power, or of being itself, or of some like thing. Hence to say that God is seen by some similitude, is to say that the divine essence is not seen at all; which is false.

Therefore it must be said that to see the essence of God, there is required some similitude in the visual faculty, namely, the light of glory strengthening the intellect to see God, which is spoken of in the Psalm 35:10, "In Thy light we shall see light." The essence of God, however, cannot be seen by any created similitude representing the divine essence itself as it really is.

It is impossible for God to be seen by the sense of sight, or by any other sense, or faculty of the sensitive power. For every such kind of power is the act of a corporeal organ. Now act is proportional to the nature which possesses it. Hence no power of that kind can go beyond corporeal things. For God is incorporeal. Hence He cannot be seen by the sense or the imagination, but only by the intellect.

In the words,"We shall see Him as He is," the conjunction "as" determines the mode of vision on the part of the object seen, so that the meaning is, we shall see Him to be as He is, because we shall see His existence, which is His essence. But it does not determine the mode of vision on the part of the one seeing; as if the meaning was that the mode of seeing God will be as perfect as is the perfect mode of God's existence.

The words, "In my flesh I shall see God my Saviour," do not mean that God will be seen with the eye of the flesh, but that man existing in the flesh after the resurrection will see God. Likewise the words, "Now my eye seeth Thee," are to be understood of the mind's eye.

For when it is said that one intellect does not understand one and the same thing better than another, this would be true if referred to the mode of the thing understood, for whoever understands it otherwise than it really is, does not truly understand it, but not if referred to the mode of understanding, for the understanding of one is more perfect than the understanding of another.

According to Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv) a man is said in the Scriptures to see God in the sense that certain figures are formed in the senses or imagination, according to some similitude representing in part the divinity. So when Jacob says, "I have seen God face to face," this does not mean the Divine essence, but some figure representing God. And this is to be referred to some high mode of prophecy, so that God seems to speak, though in an imaginary vision; in treating of the degrees of prophecy. We may also say that Jacob spoke thus to designate some exalted intellectual contemplation, above the ordinary state.

God cannot be seen in His essence by a mere human being, except he be separated from this mortal life. The mode of knowledge follows the mode of the nature of the knower. But our soul, as long as we live in this life, has its being in corporeal matter; hence naturally it knows only what has a form in matter, or what can be known by such a form. Now it is evident that the Divine essence cannot be known through the nature of material things. The knowledge of God by means of any created similitude is not the vision of His essence. Hence it is impossible for the soul of man in this life to see the essence of God. This can be seen in the fact that the more our soul is abstracted from corporeal things, the more it is capable of receiving abstract intelligible things. Hence in dreams and alienations of the bodily senses divine revelations and foresight of future events are perceived the more clearly. It is not possible, therefore, that the soul in this mortal life should be raised up to the supreme of intelligible objects, i.e. to the divine essence.

Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen.

The created intellect, in seeing the divine essence, does not see in it all that God does or can do. For it is manifest that things are seen in God as they are in Him. But all other things are in God as effects are in the power of their cause. Therefore all things are seen in God as an effect is seen in its cause. Now it is clear that the more perfectly a cause is seen, the more of its effects can be seen in it. For whoever has a lofty understanding, as soon as one demonstrative principle is put before him can gather the knowledge of many conclusions; but this is beyond one of a weaker intellect, for he needs things to be explained to him separately. And so an intellect can know all the effects of a cause and the reasons for those effects in the cause itself, if it comprehends the cause wholly. Now no created intellect can comprehend God wholly. Therefore no created intellect in seeing God can know all that God does or can do, for this would be to comprehend His power; but of what God does or can do any intellect can know the more, the more perfectly it sees God.

Reference:
Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas


The Sun

...