Facebook envy - Reuters

'via Blog this'

From the report of Reuters.com:

(Reuters) - Witnessing friends' vacations, love lives and work successes on Facebook can cause envy and trigger feelings of misery and loneliness, according to German researchers.

A study conducted jointly by two German universities found rampant envy on Facebook, the world's largest social network that now has over one billion users and has produced an unprecedented platform for social comparison.

The researchers found that one in three people felt worse after visiting the site and more dissatisfied with their lives, while people who browsed without contributing were affected the most.

"We were surprised by how many people have a negative experience from Facebook with envy leaving them feeling lonely, frustrated or angry," researcher Hanna Krasnova from the Institute of Information Systems at Berlin's Humboldt University told Reuters.

"From our observations some of these people will then leave Facebook or at least reduce their use of the site," said Krasnova, adding to speculation that Facebook could be reaching saturation point in some markets.

Researchers from Humboldt University and from Darmstadt's Technical University found vacation photos were the biggest cause of resentment with more than half of envy incidents triggered by holiday snaps on Facebook.

Social interaction was the second most common cause of envy as users could compare how many birthday greetings they received to those of their Facebook friends and how many "likes" or comments were made on photos and postings.

"Passive following triggers invidious emotions, with users mainly envying happiness of others, the way others spend their vacations and socialize," the researchers said in the report "Envy on Facebook: A Hidden Threat to Users' Life Satisfaction?" released on Tuesday.

"The spread and ubiquitous presence of envy on Social Networking Sites is shown to undermine users' life satisfaction."

They found people aged in their mid-30s were most likely to envy family happiness while women were more likely to envy physical attractiveness.

These feelings of envy were found to prompt some users to boast more about their achievements on the site run by Facebook Inc. to portray themselves in a better light.

Men were shown to post more self-promotional content on Facebook to let people know about their accomplishments while women stressed their good looks and social lives.

The researchers based their findings on two studies involving 600 people with the results to be presented at a conference on information systems in Germany in February.

The first study looked at the scale, scope and nature of envy incidents triggered by Facebook and the second at how envy was linked to passive use of Facebook and life satisfaction.

The researchers said the respondents in both studies were German but they expected the findings to hold internationally as envy is a universal feeling and possibly impact Facebook usage.

"From a provider's perspective, our findings signal that users frequently perceive Facebook as a stressful environment, which may, in the long-run, endanger platform sustainability," the researchers concluded.

(Reporting by Belinda Goldsmith, editing by Paul Casciato)

The Purpose of Man, according to Thomas Aquinas

First, in contrast to irrational animals, man has the faculty and will of reason. The will, also known as the rational appetite, seeks to achieve both its end and the good, and so all acts, being guided by the will, are for an end. Aquinas says that 'free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. From the very fact, therefore, that man is such by virtue of a natural quality which is in the intellectual part, he naturally desires his last end, which is happiness.'

Second, man’s happiness does not consist of wealth, honor, fame, glory, power, the goods of the body, or pleasure. In fact, man’s happiness cannot consist in any created good at all, since the ultimate object of man’s will, the universal good, cannot be found in any creature but rather only in God, who is the source of all good. Aquinas affirms that 'It is impossible for man's happiness to consist in the goods of the body; and this for two reasons. First, because, if a thing be ordained to another as to its end, its last end cannot consist in the preservation of its being. Secondly, because, granted that the end of man's will and reason be the preservation of man's being, it could not be said that the end of man is some good of the body. For man's being consists in soul and body; and though the being of the body depends on the soul, yet the being of the human soul depends not on the body, and the very body is for the soul, as matter for its form, and the instruments for the man that puts them into motion, that by their means he may do his work. Wherefore all goods of the body are ordained to the goods of the soul, as to their end. Consequently happiness, which is man's last end, cannot consist in goods of the body.

Third, happiness is man’s supreme perfection, and each thing is perfect insofar as it is actual. Man’s final and complete happiness can consist only in contemplating the Divine Essence, although the possibility of this contemplation remains withheld from us until we are in the world to come. As long as man desires and seeks something, he remains unhappy. The intellect seeks the essence of a thing. For example, knowing an effect, such as a solar eclipse, the intellect is aroused and is unsatisfied until it discovers the cause of the eclipse. Indeed, the intellect desires to understand the essence of the cause. For this reason, the intellect is unsatisfied to know merely that the First Cause, that is, God, exists. The intellect seeks to penetrate farther to the very essence of the First Cause itself.

Fourth, the things required for happiness must derive from the way in which man is constituted and designed for a purpose, since happiness consists in man’s attainment of that final purpose. Perfect knowledge of the intelligible end, actual attainment of the end, and delight in the presence of the end attained must all coexist in happiness. Happiness in this life, which is necessarily imperfect, requires rectitude of the will, the existence of the body, and certain external goods and consists in the use of the intellect either speculatively or practically (i.e., with respect to morality). Perfect happiness, which is possible only in the life to come, consists in contemplation of the Divine Essence, which is goodness.

Finally, man is capable of attaining happiness, that is, of seeing God, and one person can be happier than another insofar as she is better inclined to enjoy him. Happiness excludes the presence of evil, though, and since evil is present in this world, it is impossible for man to be happy in this life. Furthermore, man cannot attain perfect happiness because he is incapable of seeing God in this life. Imperfect happiness can be lost, but perfect happiness cannot. Neither man nor any creature can attain final happiness through his natural powers. Since happiness is a good surpassing anything that has been created, no creature, even an angel, is capable of making man happy. Happiness is the reward for works of virtue. Some people do not know what happiness consists in and thus do not desire it.

Happiness is the goal of human life, and every human being is on the path toward the complete actualization of his or her potential. Indeed, humans’ actualization and realization of their potential is exactly what constitutes happiness. Humans’ potential, or what humans can be, consists in the contemplation of the Divine Essence. Happiness and the contemplation of the Divine Essence are thus identical and inseparable.

The contemplation of the Divine Essence is not only necessary for happiness, it is uniquely sufficient. Nothing except the contemplation of the Divine Essence can bring happiness. No worldly or material good, such as fame, honor, glory, power, health, or even pleasure itself can bring happiness, as even pleasure is just a component of happiness. A state of happiness can exist only when the will no longer seeks anything. Since the will naturally seeks the Divine Essence, it will continue to seek, and thus to be unhappy, until it finds it.

Aquinas applies Aristotle’s notions of efficient and final cause, whereby human nature, in the form of the will, is the efficient cause and happiness, or contemplation of the Divine Essence, is the final cause. The will thus inescapably propels every individual to seek happiness. The process of becoming leads naturally to God, who is pure being and actuality. The culmination of this process, though, is possible only in the next life and only works of virtue, that is, performance of the will of God, can lead to this culmination. Thus, the will achieves its goal, which is happiness, only when it is at one with the Divine Will.

Aquinas asks whether one can be happy in this life? he answers, 'A certain participation of Happiness can be had in this life: but perfect and true Happiness cannot be had in this life. This may be seen from a twofold consideration. First, from the general notion of happiness. For since happiness is a "perfect and sufficient good," it excludes every evil, and fulfils every desire. But in this life every evil cannot be excluded. For this present life is subject to many unavoidable evils; to ignorance on the part of the intellect; to inordinate affection on the part of the appetite, and to many penalties on the part of the body. Likewise neither can the desire for good be satiated in this life. For man naturally desires the good, which he has, to be abiding. Now the goods of the present life pass away; since life itself passes away, which we naturally desire to have, and would wish to hold abidingly, for man naturally shrinks from death. Wherefore it is impossible to have true Happiness in this life. Secondly, from a consideration of the specific nature of Happiness, viz. the vision of the Divine Essence, which man cannot obtain in this life. Hence it is evident that none can attain true and perfect Happiness in this life.'

This is why the famous passage from St. Augustine's Confessions (Lib 1,1-2,2.5,5: CSEL 33, 1-5) in which Saint Augustine states "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in Thee."

References:

Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas

Sparknotes.com

Bisaya Music

Social tools leave a digital audit track documenting our learning journey, often an unfolding story, it shows our respective ability, nearness, a sense of clarity as an individual. It rays a revelation that the people have a voice. An empowerment of the individual. Here's a viral video of a simple man and his group in the Bisaya speaking area Philippines, their just hanging around drinking in a relaxed situation; this, - I say, every bisaya must share to support bisaya music:

A citation of St. Augustine's Confessions

Reading St. Augustine's confessions is really glorious. Even saints like him bewail and grumble. Here's an excerpt of his immortal and everlasting and eternal and heavenly acknowledgement:

Great are you, O Lord, and exceedingly worthy of praise; your power is immense, and your wisdom beyond reckoning. And so we men, who are a due part of your creation, long to praise you – we also carry our mortality about with us, carry the evidence of our sin and with it the proof that you thwart the proud. You arouse us so that praising you may bring us joy, because you have made us and drawn us to yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.

Grant me to know and understand, Lord, which comes first. To call upon you or to praise you? To know you or to call upon you? Must we know you before we can call upon you? Anyone who invokes what is still unknown may be making a mistake. Or should you be invoked first, so that we may then come to know you? But how can people call upon someone in whom they do not yet believe? And how can they believe without a preacher?

But scripture tells us that those who seek the Lord will praise him, for as they seek they find him, and on finding him they will praise him. Let me seek you then, Lord, even while I am calling upon you, and call upon you even as I believe in you; for to us you have indeed been preached. My faith calls upon you, Lord, this faith which is your gift to me, which you have breathed into me through the humanity of your Son and the ministry of your preacher.

How shall I call upon my God, my God and my Lord, when by the very act of calling upon him I would be calling him into myself? Is there any place within me into which my God might come? How should the God who made heaven and earth come into me? Is there any room in me for you, Lord, my God? Even heaven and earth, which you have made and in which you have made me – can even they contain you? Since nothing that exists would exist without you, does it follow that whatever exists does in some way contain you?

But if this is so, how can I, who am one of these existing things, ask you to come into me, when I would not exist at all unless you were already in me? Not yet am I in hell, after all but even if I were, you would be there too; for if I descend into the underworld, you are there. No, my God, I would not exist, I would not be at all, if you were not in me. Or should I say, rather, that I should not exist if I were not in you, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things? Yes, Lord, that is the truth, that is indeed the truth. To what place can I invite you, then, since I am in you? Or where could you come from, in order to come into me? To what place outside heaven and earth could I travel, so that my God could come to me there, the God who said, I fill heaven and earth?

Who will grant it to me to find peace in you? Who will grant me this grace, that you should come into my heart and inebriate it, enabling me to forget the evils that beset me and embrace you, my only good? What are you to me? Have mercy on me, so that I may tell. What indeed am I to you, that you should command me to love you, and grow angry with me if I do not, and threaten me with enormous woes? Is not the failure to love you woe enough in itself?

Alas for me! Through your own merciful dealings with me, O Lord my God, tell me what you are to me. Say to my soul, I am your salvation. Say it so that I can hear it. My heart is listening, Lord; open the ears of my heart and say to my soul, I am your salvation. Let me run towards this voice and seize hold of you. Do not hide your face from me: let me die so that I may see it, for not to see it would be death to me indeed.

For you oh God are infinite and never change. In you 'today' never comes to an end: and yet our 'today' does come to an end in you, because time, as well as everything else, exists in you. If it did not, it would have no means of passing. And since your years never come to an end, for you they are simply 'today'. But you yourself are eternally the same. In your 'today' you will make all that is to exist tomorrow and thereafter, and in your 'today' you have made all that existed yesterday and for ever before.

For great are you, Lord, and you look kindly on what is humble, but the lofty-minded you regard from afar. Only to those whose hearts are crushed do you draw close. You will not let yourself be found by the proud, nor even by those who in their inquisitive skill count stars or grains of sand, or measure the expanses of heaven, or trace the paths of the planets.

I look forward, not to what lies ahead of me in this life and will surely pass away, but to my eternal goal. I am intent upon this one purpose, not distracted by other aims, and with this goal in view I press on, eager for the prize, God's heavenly summons. Then I shall listen to the sound of Your praises and gaze at Your beauty ever present, never future, never past. But now my years are but sighs. You, O Lord, are my only solace. You, my Father, are eternal. But I am divided between time gone by and time to come, and its course is a mystery to me. My thoughts, the intimate life of my soul, are torn this way and that in the havoc of change. And so it will be until I am purified and melted by the fire of Your love and fused into one with You.

Where did I find you in order to make your acquaintance in the first place? You could not have been in my memory before I learned to know you. Where then could I have found you in order to learn of you, if not in yourself, far above me? “Place” has here no meaning: further away from you or toward you we may travel, but place there is none. O Truth, you hold sovereign sway over all who turn to you for counsel, and to all of them you respond at the same time, however diverse their pleas.

Clear is your response, but not all hear it clearly. They all appeal to you about what they want, but do not always hear what they want to hear. Your best servant is the one who is less intent on hearing from you what accords with his own will, and more on embracing with his will what he has heard from you.

Late have I loved you, Beauty so ancient and so new, late have I loved you! 

Lo, you were within, 

but I outside, seeking there for you, 

and upon the shapely things you have made 

I rushed headlong – I, misshapen. 

You were with me, but I was not with you. 

They held me back far from you, 

those things which would have no being, 

were they not in you. 

You called, shouted, broke through my deafness; 

you flared, blazed, banished my blindness; 

you lavished your fragrance, I gasped; and now I pant for you; 

I tasted you, and now I hunger and thirst; 

you touched me, and I burned for your peace. 

When at last I cling to you with my whole being there will be no more anguish or labor for me, and my life will be alive indeed, alive because filled with you. But now it is very different. Anyone whom you fill you also uplift; but I am not full of you, and so I am a burden to myself. Joys over which I ought to weep do battle with sorrows that should be matter for joy, and I do not know which will be victorious. But I also see griefs that are evil at war in me with joys that are good, and I do not know which will win the day. This is agony, Lord, have pity on me! It is agony! See, I do not hide my wounds; you are the physician and I am sick; you are merciful, I in need of mercy. 

Is not human life on earth a time of testing? Who would choose troubles and hardships? You command us to endure them, but not to love them. No-one loves what he has to endure, even if he loves the endurance, for although he may rejoice in his power to endure, he would prefer to have nothing that demands endurance. In adverse circumstances I long for prosperity, and in times of prosperity I dread adversity. What middle ground is there, between these two, where human life might be free from trial? Woe betide worldly prosperity, and woe again, from fear of disaster and evanescent joy! But woe, woe, and woe again upon worldly adversity, from envy of better fortune, the hardship of adversity itself, and the fear that endurance may falter. Is not human life on earth a time of testing without respite? 

On your exceedingly great mercy, and on that alone, rests all my hope. 

How can the past and future be, when the past no longer is, and the future is not yet? As for the present, if it were always present and never moved on to become the past, it would not be time, but eternity.

Time takes no holiday. It does not roll idly by, but through our senses works its own wonders in the mind. Time came and went from one day to the next; in its coming and its passing it brought me other hopes and other memories. 

You called and shouted and burst my deafness. You flashed, shone, and scattered my blindness. You breathed odors, and I drew in breath and panted for You. I tasted, and I hunger and thirst. You touched me, and I burned for Your peace.

I was in misery, and misery is the state of every soul overcome by friendship with mortal things and lacerated when they are lost. Then the soul becomes aware of the misery which is its actual condition even before it loses them.

You never go away from us, yet we have difficulty in returning to You. Come, Lord, stir us up and call us back. Kindle and seize us. Be our fire and our sweetness. Let us love. Let us run.

Furthermore, what profit was it to me that I, rascally slave of selfish ambitions that I was, read and understood by myself as many books as I could get concerning the so-called liberal arts? I had turned my back to the light and my face to the things it illuminated, and so no light played upon my own face, or on the eyes that perceived them.

Let such a person rejoice even to ask the question, "What does this mean?" Yes, let him rejoice in that, and choose to find by not finding rather than by finding fail to find you.

Give me yourself, O my God, give yourself back to me. Lo, I love you, but if my love is too mean, let me love more passionately. I cannot gauge my love, nor know how far it fails, how much more love I need for my life to set its course straight into your arms, never swerving until hidden in the covert of your face. This alone I know, that without you all to me is misery, woe outside myself and woe within, and all wealth but penury, if it is not my God.

No one knows what he himself is made of, except his own spirit within him, yet there is still some part of him which remains hidden even from his own spirit; but you, Lord, know everything about a human being because you have made him. Let me, then, confess what I know about myself, and confess too what I do not know, because what I know of myself I know only because you shed light on me, and what I do not know I shall remain ignorant about until my darkness becomes like bright noon before your face.

This is what we love in friends. We love to the point that human conscience feels guilty if we do not love the person who is loving us, and if that love is not returned - without demanding any physical response other than the marks of affectionate good will.

O mortals, how long will you be heavy-hearted? Life has come down to you, and are you reluctant to ascend and live? But what room is there for you to ascend, you with your high-flown ways and lofty talk? Come down, that you may ascend, ascend even to God.

You are not the mind itself. For You are the Lord God of the mind. All these things are liable to change, but You remain immutable above all things.

I was saying these things and weeping in the most bitter contrition of my heart, when suddenly I heard the voice of a boy or a girl I know not which — coming from the neighboring house, chanting over and over again, "Take up and read; take up and read." Immediately I ceased weeping and began most earnestly to think whether it was usual for children in some kind of game to sing such a song, but I could not remember ever having heard the like. So, damming the torrent of my tears, I got to my feet, for I could not but think that this was a divine command to open the Scripture and read the first passage I should light upon. I wanted to read no further, nor did I need to. For instantly, as the sentence ended, there was infused in my heart something like the light of full certainty and all the gloom of doubt vanished away.

Aristotle — The Metaphysics

What is known to us as metaphysics is what Aristotle called "first philosophy." Metaphysics involves a study of the universal principles of being, the abstract qualities of existence itself. 

One point that he dwells on is the law of contradictions, which essentially asserts that something cannot both be and not be at the same time. In particular, he is concerned with the relativism and even nihilism that would result from a metaphysics that allowed contradictions. 

He draws the idea of substance, of which there are three kinds: changeable and perishable, changeable and eternal, and immutable. If all substances are perishable, then ultimate destruction of everything is inevitable. But Aristotle asserts two imperishable entities: motion and time.  He asserts that if time were created, then there must have been no time before the creation, but the very concept of "before" necessitates the concept of time. On the other hand, as he argued in his works of natural philosophy, the only continuous motion must be circular. Thus he returns to the idea of the Unmoved Mover, for only such a being could generate eternal circular motion. The Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of the universe, and it is pure actuality, containing no matter since it is the very cause of itself. In order for the Mover to be unmoved itself, it must move in a non-physical way, by inspiring desire.

In his book XII of Metaphysics  he states that 'if the universe is of the nature of a whole, substance is its first part; and if it coheres merely by virtue of serial succession, on this view also substance is first, and is succeeded by quality, and then by quantity. At the same time these latter are not even being in the full sense, but are qualities and movements of it,—or else even the not-white and the not-straight would be being; at least we say even these are, e.g. 'there is a not-white'. Sensible substance is changeable. Now if change proceeds from opposites or from intermediates, and not from all opposites (for the voice is not-white, (but it does not therefore change to white)), but from the contrary, there must be something underlying which changes into the contrary state; for the contraries do not change. Further, something persists, but the contrary does not persist; there is, then, some third thing besides the contraries, viz. the matter. Now since changes are of four kinds—either in respect of the 'what' or of the quality or of the quantity or of the place, and change in respect of 'thisness' is simple generation and destruction, and change in quantity is increase and diminution, and change in respect of an affection is alteration, and change of place is motion, changes will be from given states into those contrary to them in these several respects. The matter, then, which changes must be capable of both states. And since that which 'is' has two senses, we must say that everything changes from that which is potentially to that which is actually, e.g. from potentially white to actually white, and similarly in the case of increase and diminution. Therefore not only can a thing come to be, incidentally, out of that which is not, but also all things come to be out of that which is, but is potentially, and is not actually.'

One might raise the question from what sort of non-being generation proceeds; for 'non-being' has three senses. 'If, then, one form of non-being exists potentially, still it is not by virtue of a potentiality for any and every thing, but different things come from different things; nor is it satisfactory to say that 'all things were together'; for they differ in their matter, since otherwise why did an infinity of things come to be, and not one thing? For 'reason' is one, so that if matter also were one, that must have come to be in actuality which the matter was in potency. The causes and the principles, then, are three, two being the pair of contraries of which one is definition and form and the other is privation, and the third being the matter.'

Further, if the causes of substances are the causes of all things, yet different things have different causes and elements, as was said; 'the causes of things that are not in the same class, e.g. of colours and sounds, of substances and quantities, are different except in an analogical sense; and those of things in the same species are different, not in species, but in the sense that the causes of different individuals are different, your matter and form and moving cause being different from mine, while in their universal definition they are the same. And if we inquire what are the principles or elements of substances and relations and qualities—whether they are the same or different—clearly when the names of the causes are used in several senses the causes of each are the same, but when the senses are distinguished the causes are not the same but different, except that in the following senses the causes of all are the same. They are (1) the same or analogous in this sense, that matter, form, privation, and the moving cause are common to all things; and (2) the causes of substances may be treated as causes of all things in this sense, that when substances are removed all things are removed; further, (3) that which is first in respect of complete reality is the cause of all things. But in another sense there are different first causes, viz. all the contraries which are neither generic nor ambiguous terms; and, further, the matters of different things are different. We have stated, then, what are the principles of sensible things and how many they are, and in what sense they are the same and in what sense different.'

Aristotle gives the Mover the name of God, but this figure is unlike most standard conceptions of a divine being. Though Aristotle asserts that it is a living creature and represents the pinnacle of goodness, it also has no interest in the world and no recognition of man, for it exists in a completely transcendent and abstract state. The activity of God–if it can be called such–is simply knowledge, and this knowledge is purely a knowledge of itself, because an abstracted being is above sense and experience and can know only what is best. He asserts of all the ancient philosophy that God is the ultimate cause of everything in the world, but it also remains completely detached.

Airistotle describes the nature of wisdom: it begins with sense perceptions, which must be translated into scientific expertise. Such knowledge requires the understanding of both facts and causes, and wisdom comes only with an understanding of the universal principles and primary causes built on this science. Aristotle's work in metaphysics is therefore motivated by this desire for wisdom, which requires the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

In the first section of his Metaphisics, he affirms that 'all men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things.'

References:

The Methaphisics of Aristotle Books, translated by W. D. Ross
Sparknotes of Aristole's Methaphisics

Modernism or Traditionalism in the Catholic Church

A person can either be modern or has the preference toward traditional ways of doing things. During the time of Pope Paul VI, he promulgated the revised rite of Mass with his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum on 3 April 1969, after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). However, the revised Missal itself was not published until the following year and full vernacular translations appeared much later, and changes made from the previous edition of the Roman Missal. The so called 'Mass of Paul VI' or 'Pauline Mass' is the liturgy of the Catholic Mass of the Roman Rite declared and the present ordinary or normal form of the Roman Rite of the Mass.

However, prior to these, there was Pascendi dominici gregis ("Feeding the Lord's Flock") a Papal encyclical letter promulgated by Pope Pius X on 8 September 1907, condemning 'Modernism', and a whole range of other principles described as "evolutionary", which allowed 'change' to Roman Catholic dogma. And Pope Pius X instituted commissions to cleanse the clergy of theologians promoting Modernism and some of its (liturgical) consequences, saying that modernism embraces every heresy. Traditionalist Catholics point to this document 'as evidence that pre-Vatican II popes were highly concerned about enemies of Christendom infiltrating the human element of the Catholic Church.'

The tradition of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, considers dogmas as in part supernatural and mysterious, proposed to the faith by a Divinely instituted authority on the ground that they are part of the general revelation which the Apostles preached in the name of Jesus Christ. 

Comparing these notions, we shall see that modernism alters the source, the manner of promulgation, the object, the stability, and the truth of dogma. For the modernist, the only and the necessary source is the private consciousness. Whereas, traditionalism retains the continuity and progress of society principled in tradition.

But, there is so called 'the primacy of the present Bishop of Rome' an ecclesiastical doctrine concerning the respect and authority that is due to the present Pope!? Differences in interpretation of this doctrine have been and remain the primary causes of schism between the Western and Eastern Orthodox churches (that include 'Modernist' and 'Traditionalist').

Now the question is / was, although this is not new in the catholic sphere, which do Catholics (including myself) believe in with these two ['seemingly'] contradicting decree/authority!? Which is the acceptable one, the so called 'Traditionalism' which believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentations of Catholic teachings that prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), or the so called 'Modernism' which refers during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, influenced by Protestant theologians and clergy, and the influence reaching into the 21st century, that characterized by a break with the past, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969, after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) (?).

Pope Emiritus Benedict XVI issued the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in July 2007. The Pope ruled that priests of the Latin Rite can freely choose between the 1962 Roman Missal and the later edition "in Masses celebrated without the people". 'In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary. Celebrations of Mass - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.' Priests in charge of churches can permit stable groups of laypeople attached to the earlier form to have Mass celebrated for them in that form, provided that the celebrating priest is "qualified to [celebrate] and not juridically impeded".

Now, What's the side of the present pope - Pope Francis regarding the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of Pope Emiritus Benedict XVI?  Fr. Tim Finigan in his Hermeneutic of Continuity stated:

"The Bishops of the region of Tavoliere met recently with Pope Francis on an ad limina visit. On their return home, one has given a fascinating glimpse of the attitude of Pope Francis to those who are seeking to use the opportunity of his papacy to attack the traditional Mass. This is reported in the Italian paper Il Foglio, in the article: La messa antica non si tocca, il Papa gesuita spiazza ancora tutti ("The old mass is not to be touched, the Jesuit Pope wrong-foots everyone")

Here is my translation of the relevant part of the article which tells of other bishops raising concerns with the Holy Father and goes on to speak of the intervention concerning the old Mass:

"Then it was the turn of the bishop of Conversano and Monopoli, Domenico Padovano, who recounted to the clergy of his diocese how the priority of the bishops of the region of Tavoliere had been that of explaining to the Pope that the mass in the old rite was creating great divisions within the Church. The underlying message: Summorum Pontificum should be cancelled, or at least strongly limited. But Francis said no.

"Mgr Padovano explained that Francis replied to them saying that they should be vigilant over the extremism of certain traditionalist groups but also suggesting that they should treasure tradition and create the necessary conditions so that tradition might be able to live alongside innovation."

This is not really a surprise (did anyone expect that Pope Francis would somehow "repeal" Summorum Pontificum?) but it is a welcome confirmation of what we would all expect."

In the end, the mind has the ability to come up with a conclusion, and as always, we refer to what is 'unseen' or 'mysterious' - that is - 'faith'. 

References:
http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/summorum-pontificum.html]
http://books.google.ie/books?id=3mxbj99yRaQC&pg=PA188&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI#cite_note-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitution
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15013a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_of_Paul_VI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council

http://web.archive.org/web/20070715080331/http://www.unavoce.org/cardinal_ratzinger_chile.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism_(Roman_Catholicism)#Official_Church_response
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascendi_Dominici_Gregis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic#cite_note-36
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.ca/p/about.html
Images:
http://cathnews.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SSPX-tridentine_mass_elevation_2.jpg
http://www.casterbridgetours.co.uk/images/uploads/catholic_mass_italy.jpg     

Five Best Airlines for Frequent Fliers

The Five Best Airlines for Frequent Fliers according to lifehacker.com survey:



1. Southwest Airlines

Southwest is the world's largest low-cost airline, one of the US's largest airlines overall, and services over 85 destinations in the continental US and Puerto Rico. Based out of Dallas, Southwest is well known for keeping its costs down (largely by only flying Boeing 737s and by pre-buying their fuel to avoid expensive fluctuations in fuel prices) and for passing those savings along to the customer. The airline has a number of programs designed for frequent travelers, from their Rapid Rewards miles program to the Rapid Rewards credit card, which is widely regarded as one of the best for travel rewards. Southwest also recently acquired AirTran to expand their portfolio. Those of you who nominated Southwest praised the company's egalitarian approach to seating (love it or hate it, Southwest has no reserved seating, first come-first serve), flexible flights and approach to rescheduling, and the fact that their frequent flyer rewards are based on dollars spent, not miles travelled making the A+ level easier to reach. Are they the most luxurious airline? Not at all—but they're affordable, available, and flexible.

2. Delta Airlines

Delta is probably one of the more surprising entrants in the top five. Based on Atlanta, it's the world's largest airline if you're counting fleet size or passengers flown. Like BA, it services all six inhabited continents, a total of 247 destinations both foreign and domestic. It's also one of the founding members of the SkyTeam alliance. Many passengers have a love-hate relationship with Delta (some of you voiced as much in the call for contenders thread) but its massive size means you'll probably have to fly with them at some point. Delta's frequent flyer program is called SkyMiles, and you can earn points by flying any SkyTeam member airline along with a few others (including Alaska!), or through any Delta branded credit cards. MIles with SkyMiles never expire, and can be used for tickets, upgrades, and more. Their redemption miles/points to rewards aren't that great, but if you fly a lot, you'll probably rake them up pretty quickly. Those of you who nominated Delta praised their fleet, the fact that they're extremely convenient, and that when you are a frequent flyer, you really are treated differently. One of you highlighted the fact that they have Biscoff cookies—which weighs pretty heavily in their favor in my opinion.

3. JetBlue

JetBlue is a low-cost airline based out of JFK International Airport in New York City, but that operates across the United States and also serves destinations in Central and South America (a total of 78 destinations). Although the company only started flying in 1998, it's earned a large and loyal following among passengers that prefer it  both for its generous TrueBlue frequent flyer program but also for its approach to passenger comfort, on-board technology, and customer service. Those of you who nominated the airline pointed out that they listen to consumer feedback on their frequent flyer program, their frequent flyer points never expire, service a number of regional and smaller airports (and offer lower ticket prices at those airports, which can save you money), and hey—unlimited snacks and in-flight entertainment on every flight don't hurt either.

4. British Airways

British Airways, the largest airline in the UK and a major international airline. While a number of our top five are domestic airlines with destinations in the United States, British Airways is based in London and is a founding member of the Oneworld Alliance of airlines, and after its 2011 merge with Iberia, it became one of the world's largest air carriers. BA and its subsidiaries service over 150 destinations on all six inhabited continents. BA has two frequent flyer programs: the Executive Club for BA flights proper, and the Diamond Club for British Midland International flights (which has since been rolled into the Executive Club). Membership in both programs is free, and you get qualifying points (called Avios) by flying any Oneworld partner airline (along with a few others, including Alaska Airlines!) Those of you who nominated BA praised the frequent flyer program for their exceptional redemption rate of Avios to dollars, which can make long, expensive trips extremely affordable, and for their exceptional, world-class customer service and on-board amenities for all passengers: something that many domestic carriers skimp on.

5. Alaska Airlines

Alaska Airlines, despite its name, services over 91 destinations in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Hawaii. It's responsible for almost all air travel to Alaska from the contiguous United States, and is based in Seattle. It's sister carrier is Horizon Air, and the airline is fairly independent—it's not part of any other airline alliance. It's frequent flyer program, simply called "MIleage Plan," racks up the miles pretty quickly (especially if you're flying to Alaska), and is fairly generous. Your points never expire, and the list of partner airlines where flying gets you qualifying miles with Alaska is ridiculously long. Some of you who nominated Alaska pointed this out specifically—that even when you're not flying Alaska, you're earning miles and points you can eventually use when you do fly Alaska. Wi-Fi on all flights doesn't hurt either.

Photos by potowizard (Shutterstock), Aero Icarus, James, Aero Icarus, Aero Icarus, and Aero Icarus, and credits to Alan Henry.

European Parliament warned on US spying

   

     Since the revelation of Edward Snowden a US former technical contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee who leaked details of top-secret US and British government mass surveillance programs to the press, Germany's top security official has warned, "If you are worried about the US spying on you, you need to stop using Google and Facebook. " Internet users who fear their data is being intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies such as the National Security Agency's should stay away from American websites run through American servers, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said.

     "If these reports are true, it's disgusting. The United States would be better off monitoring its secret services rather than its allies" Head of the European Parliament Martin Schultz said, "On behalf of the European Parliament, I demand full clarification and require further information speedily from the US authorities with regard to these allegations."

     Consequently, Snowden is submitting asylum applications to various countries. The requests were made to a number of countries including the Republic of Austria, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Cuba, the Republic of Finland, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of India, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Ireland, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Nicaragua, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, the Russian Federation, the Kingdom of Spain, the Swiss Confederation and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

     The requests join or update others previously made including to the Republic of Ecuador and the Republic of Iceland.

     The applications were delivered to an official at the Russian consulate at Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow outlining the risks of persecution Mr. Snowden faces in the United States.

Is There A God? Crowdsourcing The Really Big Questions – ReadWrite

'via Blog this'
by: Brian S Hall

Technology has failed to answer life's biggest questions. Can crowdsourcing do better?

Technology enables our work, connects our world and changes our lives. So far, however, it has failed to definitively answer life's big questions, like:

• Is there a God?
• Are we alone in the universe?
• What's the best superpower to have? 

Where technology has foundered, though, perhaps the crowd - all of us - can succeed. After all, according to Wikipedia, the "wisdom of the crowd" is a well-documented principle:

The wisdom of the crowd is the process of taking into account the collective opinion of a group of individuals rather than a single expert to answer a question. A large group's aggregated answers to questions involving quantity estimation, general world knowledge, and spatial reasoning has generally been found to be as good as, and often better than, the answer given by any of the individuals within the group.

Wisdom Of The Crowd

To find the answers to the questions that have eluded humankind from before the beginning of civilization, I consulted three popular sources of crowdsourced knowledge:

Yahoo! Answers: Anyone with a Yahoo ID can proffer a question or an answer. Regrettably, the site appears populated mostly by lonely teens - with a related level of expertise - and the design seems optimized for the late 1990s. 

Quora: Quora bills itself as "your best source of knowledge." Unfortunately, it insists upon your social media identity as the price of entry. The site does have a powerful search function, although many questions seem posed for no reason other than to show off how clever the asker is.

StackExchange: StackExchange is comprised of various mini-sites, called "communities," mostly technical in nature. There's an Ubuntu community, an Android community and many others. No registration is required. Questions can even be altered by users. The result is sort of like Wikipedia, albeit mostly for ephemeral data for very technically specific questions.

I searched all three for the answers to the big-picture questions listed above. I still haven't found what I'm looking for. 

Does God Exist? (Does Game of Thrones?)

On StackExchange, asking "does God exist" maddeningly brings up questions related to George RR Martin and something called the "eleventh metal." On Yahoo Answers, the very first response is a paid link to "Does God Exist at Amazon" - sadly, without a definitive answer. Quora fared much better. Perhaps too well, as a barrage of answers and related questions were quickly presented on a page of seemingly endless text.

The best answer? I scrolled through scores of responses on Quora and found this posted quote from Einstein - which may be no answer at all:

"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

Are We alone In The Universe? (Signs Point To Yes)

Next, I searched for the answer to "are we alone in the universe?" On this question, StackExchange failed wonderfully - leading me down a rabbit hole of questions concerning Star Trek, Star Wars and waffle irons. Quora's crowd mostly just answered this question with another question. Define "alone" or define "we," for example. 

Surprisingly, Yahoo Answers offered what I considered the best response - if not exactly an answer:

There are, in theory, 750,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems in the visible universe. Do you really think that only 1 solar system out of 750 sextillion solar systems has life?  

The Best Superpower? (A Fast Answer)

Fine. Forget life's big questions. The singular conundrum that has plagued mesince I was a child is: "What is the best superpower." Here, at least, Yahoo Answers, powered in large part by youngsters, and Quora, its users a mash-up of Silicon Valley's biggest dreamers and daringest wannabes, were actually able to shed some light.

Super speed was never the superpower I dreamt about, but a Quora member,Gary Stiffelman, made a strong case:

My answer is super-speed, like The Flash. It displaces flight, invisibility, invulnerability, teleportation and a lot of other powers.  

It can even displace super strength, as hitting something millions of times in a few seconds has the same effect as a single super blow. Fun stuff.

No Guarantee Of Accuracy 

Sadly, for life's big questions, consulting the crowd has left me no wiser than before. Perhaps, even in an age of global connectivity, with information at our fingertips and technology all around us, there may be answers to questions we are still not yet ready to know - or can only discover on our own. 

As Wikipedia notes, "crowds tend to work best when there is a correct answer to the question being posed, such as a question about geography or mathematics." Maybe God isn't in the details...

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.

Social Media Visualized

Images courtesy of Brian Solis, Jess3