Talks on the Sacramentals, by Msgr Arthur Tonne - Funeral Service

"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, so with him God win bring those also who have fallen asleep through Jesus." I Thess. 4:14.

The Boxer Rebellion in China was a time of terror and dread. Many Christians lost all their property; many were killed. Among those who escaped few had a more thrilling experience than a missionary priest by the name Father Stephen Stette of Hing Shu station.

He attributes his escape to the reverence of the Chinese for the dead. When word came that his station was in danger, his Chinese friends hid him in a box that looked like a coffin. They shouldered the box and carried it over 300 miles to Lien Chen.

During the seven-day trip the Boxers permitted the carriers to go their way, thinking the box contained a corpse. At last they reached a port, where they had to pay the boatman $50 to take the "coffin" aboard. Later more money was demanded at the threat that the box would be thrown overboard. The Christians had to make known their trick. They paid another 300 pieces of silver before the sailors consented to take the priest to another port where he could embark for America. He arrived home August 31, 1900.

The inborn reverence of the Chinese for the body of a dead man helped save that priest. Every civilized people, and even many uncivilized, have a deep respect for the remains of the deceased. But the Catholic raises that reverence still higher, making it something spiritual and religious.

From birth to life Mother Church takes care of her children. And when the soul has departed she continues to show attention and respect to the lifeless clay, remembering that during life it was the temple of the Holy Spirit and the living tabernacle of Christ in Communion. She knows that this body is destined to rise again to be united to its spiritual companion, the soul.

Accordingly the Church directs that the body shall be decently prepared for burial, and that every respect be shown it. She wants candles burning beside the casket. She wants holy water handy to be used prayerfully for the departed. She permits flowers at the funeral home, as a reminder of the resurrection, but asks that there be none on the coffin in church, so that all attention may be directed to the prayers for the deceased. The ceremonies of a Catholic funeral service are simple yet sublime. As sacramentals they remind us of great truths, they spur us to pray for the deceased.

1. Strictly the burial service should begin at the home. In this country, however, the priest meets the coffin at the door of church, sprinkles it with holy water, and recites Psalm 129, which begins with the appropriate and appealing words:

"Out of the depths have I cried to thee, O Lord."

"Lord, hear my prayer."

2. After this prayer, the priest, preceded by servers with cross and candles, leads the corpse to the gates of the sanctuary, reciting Psalm 50, which begins:

"Have mercy upon me, O Lord, according to thy great mercy."

3. The corpse is placed with the feet toward the sanctuary. A priest or bishop is placed with head toward the altar, to show that they were shepherds facing the flock in their spiritual work. On each side of the casket are three lighted candles, emblems of the faith that tells us there is a resurrection.

4. Holy Mass is then offered for the deceased whose given name is repeated several times as the priest prays to Almighty God. The Mass is the most important part of the funeral service, doing the deceased more good than all the flowers, tears and other trappings of mourning. Christ dies again upon the altar for that soul, dies that our loved one may live.

5. Immediately after Mass the priest stands at the opened sanctuary entrance in black cope and offers a prayer with this beseeching beginning:

"Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord."

6. Then the celebrant recites and the choir sings the Libera, soulful and solemn, yet uplifting, as its opening words indicate:

"Deliver me, O Lord, from everlasting death in that dread day, when heaven and earth shall quake; when thou shalt come to judge the world by fire."

7. The priest then sings: "Have mercy on us," and intones the Our Father, saying it silently as he sprinkles the corpse three times on each side with holy water and then incenses it in the same way. Several beautiful prayers follow.

8. As the body is carried out of church the choir sings:

"May the angels lead thee into paradise."

9. If the cemetery has not been blessed, the priest blesses the grave with incense and holy water.

10. After the body is laid in the grave he prays:

"I am the resurrection and the life," and intones the song of Zachary with the words:

"Blessed be the God of Israel; because he hath visited and wrought the redemption of his people."

11. Again the corpse is sprinkled with holy water and incensed, as brief petitions and a few longer, loving prayers are offered.

12. Often the priest adds several prayers in English, particularly the Our Father, Hail Mary, and Eternal Rest.

Mother Church has laid her child to rest. She has reverently and solemnly put the body to bed to sleep until the dawn of resurrection day. She respects that body. Her respect helps that departed soul by the prayers she offers. Like a true mother she continues to watch over her sleeping child. She continues to beg God's mercy and forgiveness. She continues to help the departed. Amen.

Word of the Day: Ratio

RATIO. The essence or nature of something intelligible to the mind. It is therefore the intelligibility of any essence. In ecclesiastical language it is the ground or reason or rationale of a thing, especially as pertaining to an organized body of knowledge, legislation, or method of performing an activity. Thus the Code of Canon Law has a fundamental ratio or set of principles on which it is based. (Etym. Latin ratio, reason; intelligence, mind, act of reasoning, knowledge, plan, motive, argumentation, account.)

The Abecedarian Revolution

Mr Toner discusses the collapse of the logical faculty and the absence of rational argument in modern society.,

From One Peter Five

By J.B. Toner

In the end—as in the beginning—every rational precept, every logical connection, every possible system of human or angelic thought, is predicated on a single truth: A is A. This ultimate and absolute equivalency is not merely inspired or revealed by the Divine Reason; it is the actual Name of God Himself. When He proclaimed to Moses, “I Am Who Am” (Exodus 3:14), He stated the axiom that is the cornerstone of all Creation. Because sin darkens the intellect, however, those who say with Milton’s Satan, “Evil, be thou my good”—the very ones who most desperately need the Alpha and Omega—have begun their search for meaning by blinding themselves to the bedrock principle that God is God. From this sandy foundation rises the inverted ziggurat that is our present Babel. It can, by its nature, only destroy—which leaves us to consider how much ruin it can perpetrate before it finally destroys itself.

The Venerable Fulton J. Sheen once outlined four stages in the history of the Church, roughly broken into 500-year chunks and defined by the distortions and depravities that assailed her in each period. The first three crises were (in brief) the Christological heresies, the Eastern schism, and the Reformation. The calamity he decried in 1974—now swollen to nightmare proportions—was, simply, the world. The spirit of the world, seeping into our every pore. Hyper-sexualized YouTube ads aimed at three-year-olds. Genders left blank on birth certificates. The growing, clamoring movement to render free citizens literally faceless, and minutely regulate the manner in which they are permitted to breathe.

Because A is, in fact, A, consequences do in fact follow choices, even if we don’t want them to. The logic whereby the selfsame city councilors can defund the Minneapolis police and also excoriate the Minneapolis police for a mysterious rise in crime, is the logic that burns a great American city—the logic that, claiming to champion minorities, predominantly lays waste to small, minority-owned businesses that will never be able to recover. The logic whereby man is not man, nor woman woman, is the intellectual sinkhole whereby the radical left is compelled to applaud a being like Fallon Fox, the mixed martial artist who “switched genders” and went on to pummel female MMA fighters by virtue of his greater strength. And, speaking of MMA—the lunatic rationale that led Disney, implacable shaper of our children’s dreams, to systematically depopularize the character of Luke Skywalker in service to an ideology, even at the cost of losing millions (Get Woke, Go Broke), also led them to uphold the ideal of the strong, independent woman by firing Gina Carano for having the strength and independence to formulate an opinion that differed from their own. Examples of this moral insanity proliferate too swiftly for enumeration, and rare is the day when some news item does not evoke C.S. Lewis’ “sure mark of evil: only by being terrible do they avoid being comic.”

Up to a point (the four most important words in ethics, as Deacon Jim Toner has often said), the initial fault for this crisis lies with Caucasians and Christians. The Lord God knows how brutally women and minorities were treated by some of our forebears, and even up to the present day. The oppressed, fighting for simple justice, are always on the side of the saints. The starving poor of Paris were justified in defying the monarchy; but, Original Sin being what it is (and nowhere more dominant than in those who deny its existence), the triumph of the hapless became the slaughter of the helpless with horrifying speed. American slavery should indeed be recalled with shame—but there are those who, tweeting languidly on the graves of their heroic fathers, caterwaul that America’s whole history is shameful. They label as fascist the country that defends them from fascism; they deface the statues of warriors. By the same petulant reasoning that absolutely denies the absolute, they insist that those who have suffered injustice need no longer trouble to be just. This is the ludicrous, pestilential spirit of the world: we face not a snarling lion, but a towering tsunami of maggots.

It won’t be long now before a child molester defends himself on the grounds that his victim self-identifies as sexually mature. The radical left will, no doubt, shuffle its feet and cough with embarrassment; but there is simply no clod or cranny of solid ground for them to stand on anymore. By what right do we impose our tyrannous bourgeois morality on this fifty-year-old man and this six-year-old girl? How dare we? If she doesn’t want to be a small child, why then, she isn’t. A is no longer A, you see.

I have two daughters, aged one and three. I would like to see their country return from this brink while there’s time. I’d like to see normal Americans acknowledge (not, perhaps, without anger) that the Emperor is not only naked, but skulking about the kindergarten. I hope for an uprising in which we do nothing more than stop timorously acquiescing to clumsy, obvious lies. The Truth can’t be bent or broken: A is A, and B is B, and C is C. If we can just hold onto that—then the Abecedarian Revolution is already underway.

Betraying the Motherland With a Judas Kiss

Joseph Pearce with a powerful meditation on Ireland's betrayal of the Faith. I can remember, within my lifetime, when Nationalist papers published articles with titles like, ‘The Heroes of ’16 Said the Rosary Every Night, On Their Knees. Can You Say the Same?’ Can you imagine that today?

From The Imaginative Conservative

By Joseph Pearce

“When I think of my mother’s death… worn out with persecution, poverty, and, largely consequent, disease, in the effort to hand on to us small boys the Faith… I find it very hard and bitter, when my children stray away.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

As I ponder the state of contemporary Ireland, these words of J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings, come to mind. Tolkien’s mother suffered greatly because of her conversion to the Catholic Faith, being disowned and disinherited by her family. Having already lost her husband, and struggling to raise her two young sons, she was plunged from poverty into penury as a consequence of her adherence to the Faith. It seems to me, as I recall these lines, that they serve as a metaphor for Ireland.

Ireland, the Motherland, has suffered persecution, poverty, and, largely consequent, disease (the potato famine), in the struggle to hand on the Faith to her sons. She has stood firm for centuries, refusing to relinquish the Faith in spite of all the tyrannical efforts by foreign powers to force her to conform to foreign faiths and philosophies. She was, as a famous rebel song proclaimed, the “most distressful country” but also one of the most heroic. It is, therefore, very hard and bitter when her children stray away.

And there’s no doubt that her children have strayed.

After fighting for centuries to gain her national sovereignty, finally succeeding after decades of violent struggle culminating in a brutal civil war, her sons have given it away all too cheaply, surrendering sovereignty to the European Union, an imperial power which is as at least as hostile to the Faith as was the British Empire; and all for thirty pieces of euro-silver. In this sense, the sons have not merely strayed away from their Mother but have betrayed her with a Judas kiss.

What was the point of the Motherland’s fighting for independence from London when her children have sold it off so cheaply to Brussels?

After the Motherland had resisted the plague of infanticide which had swept across the world, declaring abortion to be an abomination and therefore illegal, her sons have now decided that the killing of children is a constitutional right for all the Mother’s wayward and wanton daughters.

After the Motherland had fought to preserve Irish identity and the Irish way of life, including efforts to restore the ancient Gaelic tongue, the European Union’s insistence on open borders has led to levels of immigration which is making Ireland less recognizably Irish with every year that passes.

As for the six counties in the north of Ireland which are still part of the United Kingdom, we can say that the so-called “Catholics” of Northern Ireland have strayed further from the Motherland than those in the South. Sinn Fein, better known to those of my generation as “the political wing of the IRA,” is an avowedly Marxist and secular fundamentalist organization, which hates everything about the Catholic Church and which supports the killing of babies in the womb as it had once excused the killing of children by the bombs its members planted. And yet most tribal “Catholics” in the north are still voting for Sinn Fein, in spite of, or dare we say because of, its anti-Catholic positions on abortion and other issues. The sad and shameful reality is that the “Catholic” tribe in the north of Ireland seems to prefer the anti-Catholic sons of terrorists to those who teach and preach the Catholic Faith in its fullness and truth. Well might Mother Ireland find it very hard and bitter when her children stray away.

And what of Saint Patrick? What would Ireland’s patron saint make of all this? The snakes that he had purged from Erin’s shores have returned. The serpents once again need vanquishing and the dragons need to be slain. Perhaps we should pray that Saint Patrick might get together with Saint George, the patron saint of England. Perhaps we should pray that these heavenly warriors might help the true sons of Erin and Albion defeat the serpents who rule their most distressful countries with forked tongues and deadly venom.

Saint Patrick and Saint George, pray for us!

A Vision for the Future of Japan

The Mad Monarchist takes a look at the prospects for the Empire of Japan in the second decade of the 21st century.

From The Mad Monarchist

The State of Japan today faces a number of challenges in terms of domestic and foreign policy. In a way, perhaps the biggest problem is a reluctance to address and deal with the most important issues Japan faces. However, if this reluctance can be overcome, I want to believe that there is hope for a bright future for Japan and for a return to a position of leadership in the East Asian region of the world. Probably the most critical long-term issue for Japan is demographic. The death rate is higher than the birth rate and this is causing cultural losses, societal problems and economic problems as the tax base grows ever smaller while the elderly population requiring government support grows massively larger. Unfortunately, when it comes to demographics, there is not much one can recommend in terms of policy. The only solution is the “natural” solution. Because of the ballooning national debt, something will have to be done and it will absolutely involve some pain and hardship to cut unnecessary expenditures. However, my vision for Japan includes some proposals that might help that situation in the long-term.

There must be a cultural revival in Japan to combat what the noted journalist Yoshiko Sakurai called “spiritual statelessness”. As she wrote, “That we Japanese alienated ourselves from the origin of our culture and civilization has been the single biggest cause of this condition that continues to plague us today”. That must be corrected through state action in education and privately in society with campaigns to reacquaint the public with the founding stories and ancient history of the country. There must also be an emphasis on traditional values, particularly family values which, hopefully, would lend itself to encouraging larger families. Obviously, the monarchy would be central to such an effort and this ties in with another major proposal which is constitutional reform. There are many changes that should be made but one that I would highlight is for HM the Emperor to be officially recognized, once again, as the Head of State. Conferring sovereignty would probably be unrealistic in this day and age and may not even be of much practical use but recognizing, in law, the Emperor as Head of State would be a major positive step.

In addition to this, the Self-Defense Forces should be reformed as a formal military (rather than an outgrowth of the police) with the Emperor as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. I have no doubt that virtually every member of the JSDF currently considers this the case in their hearts anyway but it should be made official in law for the sake of cohesion as well as tradition. A constitution that embodies the Japanese spirit and which has its roots in Japanese history and legal tradition is what is called for. Some streamlining would also be extremely helpful to cut through the tangle of bureaucracy that exists today so as to make changes for new situations easier. Certainly if the existing Constitution is to be maintained (as opposed to having a new one which might be just as well) it is essential to make it easier to amend with public support than is currently the case. Too often, the Diet is where ideas go to die, where measures to address a current crisis are strangled or delayed to the point that they are no longer useful by the myriad committees and sub-committees that all proposals have to circulate through. While I would like to see the House of Peers restored, this is probably unrealistic but it should at least be possible to see the old aristocratic titles restored to legal recognition.

As for the peace provision of Article 9, that may be retained. Doing away with it would probably be unrealistic and it is not absolutely necessary anyway. It does provide for taking action in self-defense, it is only that this should be used more energetically and not interpreted as meaning that Japan can never fight no matter what the circumstances. No country should want to be aggressive but there should be no hesitation in taking action against real threats nor should there be any hindrance in coming to the aid of a friend and ally that is in danger. This is largely what the current re-interpretation by the Abe government has been about and that should definitely continue. It would certainly be essential for the vision I have for Japanese foreign policy going forward.

It is based on the proposal made by two Catholic priests, Bishop James E. Walsh and Father James M. Drought who tried to reconcile the United States and Japan in 1940 and 1941. The proposal was for a Japanese “Far Eastern Monroe Doctrine”. My proposal would be slightly different of course, taking into account the considerable changes since 1940, particularly the end of European colonialism. Most simply it would mean that Japan would take a leadership position in East Asia and assume responsibility for safeguarding peace and stability in the region. If any threats arise it would be Japan that would handle them with no interference from outside powers (which would not exclude, of course, requested assistance provided with Japanese authorization). In 1940, the proposal of the two American Catholic priests was aimed primarily at stopping the spread of communism in China. Bishop Walsh was a very experienced missionary in China, understood the threat very well and was, in fact, the last missionary in China after the communist takeover. Today, such a doctrine would be aimed primarily at containing the communist threat as mainland China has become increasingly expansionist. Under this doctrine, Japan would stand ready to contain such aggression and assist any country targeted by the Chinese government.

Obviously, Japan would have to adopt a new and more assertive attitude and strengthen considerably to take on such a responsibility but it is not unrealistic that this could be accomplished. Naturally, China, Russia and Korea would oppose such a doctrine but there is no point in giving them much consideration as they practically oppose Japan simply drawing breath. However, one provision that would hopefully allay fears at least on the part of Korea would be that no existing alliances would be affected by this new policy. That would mean that the United States could retain its current defense agreements with Korea which would hopefully act as a ‘security blanket’ to reassure the South Korean government and mitigate any fears they harbor toward Japan. Long-term, it may also help alleviate tensions particularly on the part of South Korea and Taiwan by emphasizing the necessity of working with Japan for the sake of their national security and the stability of East Asia. As countries such as Mongolia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam have all been threatened by Chinese expansion, a strong deterrent force is needed and Japan is uniquely positioned for such a role.

In 1940, the United States did not recognize the danger of communism (as Tokyo did) in China but, although they would never admit it publicly, it has shown by American policy to have realized this was a mistake by supporting Japan and opposing China. So, because of the lessons of history, what America and other western countries would have opposed in 1940, they are willing to support today. This is illustrated by how supportive the United States and Australia have been on the subject of the reinterpretation of Article 9 by the Abe government. If the Japanese public has the will to embrace such a leadership role, there would be no better time to do it. Currently, Japan has in the United States the most militarily powerful country in the world as an ally and so can strengthen the Japanese armed forces (as they should be re-designated) in safety until Japan is fully prepared to take on this responsibility with the support of countries on both sides of the Pacific. Should problems arise with China, Japan, particularly the strong naval tradition and very advanced warships of even the current JMSDF, would be strategically placed to cooperate with Taiwan and the Philippines to cut off the exports that the Chinese economy so heavily depends on. Also, with naval mastery, Japan is ideally placed to respond quickly to a crisis in almost any East Asian country.

The primary goal which must be achieved to bring this about is a change in the attitude of the Japanese public, on both sides of the political divide. The mainstream right seems most prepared but the left must be persuaded to discard the mentality of idealistic pacifism and dependency while the far-right must stop trying to re-fight the Second World War. Both are equally detrimental to Japan moving forward as a leader on the world stage, the one by trying to appease current enemies and ignore the Japanese spirit and cultural heritage, the other by holding on to past grudges that would retain and even encourage the hostility of countries currently unfriendly toward Japan while also adding to that by making enemies of current allies. In the years since 1945 Japan has rebuilt and become one of the most prosperous countries in the world, even with all of the current debt problems still the third leading economy on earth. It is simply improper for a country that has achieved such a level of success to continue to refrain from accepting a position of leadership and responsibility on the world stage.

The possibilities are almost boundless considering what Japan has achieved in the past combined with all the additional potential Japan has today with a much larger economy and far better relations with virtually every major world power other than the Sino-Russian bloc. Japan has a higher GDP than any country other than China and the United States, the Self-Defense Force is one of the most advanced in the world and Japan has a military alliance with the United States and security pacts with Australia and India. There has never been a better time for Japan to begin the move towards a position of regional leadership in East Asia. This, combined with a cultural revitalization of the national spirit would allow Japan to become a world leader in a mature and balanced way that was never attained in the past. The future can be the period of the greatest glory for Japan and all that is required is to strengthen militarily, cut down the debt, reform or replace the constitution, revive the national spirit and have more babies. None of these things are impossible, it is only the will to undertake this challenge that must be motivated.

28 February, Antonio, Cardinal Bacci: Meditations For Each Day

The Examination of Conscience

1. Remember the key to wisdom: "Know yourself." These words were written in Greek in golden letters on the fronton of the temple of the Delphic Apollo. They were the basic rule of the moral doctrine of Socrates and other philosophers. But if we are to know ourselves well, we must examine ourselves thoroughly. We must place ourselves before ourselves without any concealment or deception and judge ourselves fairly and severely. The examination of conscience is recommended not only by spiritual writers of the Church, but also by pagan philosophers. Seneca's famous words in this regard are worth meditating. "Anger will disappear or subside," he says, "when you know that you have to present yourself for judgment every day. Is there any finer custom than this daily examination of conscience? What peace follows from this examination of ourselves! How tranquil, wise and free the mind becomes, whether it has been praised or reproved, when it has acted as its own secret investigator and critic and has examined its own behaviour. I use this exercise and put myself on trial every day. When the lights are out and silence has fallen... I look back over the entire day and review my words and actions. I hide nothing from myself; I omit nothing. Why should I be afraid of any of my errors when I can say to myself: Take care not to do this again; this time I forgive you." (De Ira, III, 36.)

2. Pope St. Pius X holds greater authority for a Christian. In his "Exhortatio ad Clerum" he strongly recommends the examination of conscience especially at the close of the day. This examination, he says, is necessary for priests, but it is no less necessary for the laity. He recalls the apt words of St. Augustine: “Judge your own conscience. Demand an account from it. Dig deep and rend it apart. Discover all the evil thoughts and intentions of the day... and punish yourself for them.” (Expos. in Ps. 4, n.8) He also quotes the equally relevant words of St. Bernard. “Be a searching inquirer into your own integrity of life; examine your conduct every day. See how much you have advanced, or how much you have fallen back... Learn to know yourself... Place all your faults before your eyes. Stand before yourself, as if it were before somebody else, and you will find reason to weep over yourself.” (Meditat., Cap. 5 de quotidiano sui ipsius examine) The saintly Pontiff concludes his inspiring address as follows: “Experience has proved that anyone who makes a strict examination of his thoughts, words and actions, is more firmly resolved to hate and avoid what is evil and wholeheartedly to love what is good.” (Acta Pii X, IV, p. 257)

3. It is necessary and profitable, therefore, to end the day with an examination of conscience made in the presence of God. Enter into ourselves; examine our thoughts, words and actions. Examine also the motives behind our actions and see whether they have been distorted or really directed towards God. Examine the sins we have committed, so that we may beg for pardon and form resolutions to do better. See whether we have prayed fervently or distractedly and half-heartedly. See if we have co-operated with the graces and good inspirations which we have been given. See if we have improved or grown worse in our efforts to do good. See if we have been dissipated or close to God. From a close examination of this kind we shall draw an incitement to humility and repentance, as well as to greater determination in the future.

Eastern Rite - Altar

Today is the Feast of Our venerable father, Basil, confessor and co-faster with St. Procopius. Famous for their resistance at Constantinople to the Decree of Leo III, the Isaurian, ordering the destruction of the Holy Icons. They died about 740, and of Ss Marina Cyra and Domnicia, Venerable-Women.

✠✠✠✠✠

The altar is the area at the east end of a church, usually behind an iconostasis (altar screen). The word (Hebrew: מזבח -‎ mizbe'ah - altar) means "a place of sacrifice" in Hebrew (Gr. ἱερόν θυσιατήριον - hieron thysiasterion; Sl. prestol). The altar often is also referred to as the sanctuary. An Altar Table is located in the center of the altar as one enters through the Royal Doors in the iconostasis. This table is often referred to as the Holy Table.

Entry to the altar through the iconostasis from the nave is through the centrally placed royal doors or through the deacon's doors to the left and right of the royal doors. A curtain, that represents the curtain that separated the Holy of Holiness in the ancient Temple of the Jews in Jerusalem, may be installed and drawn across the closed royal doors when Divine Services are not being conducted and at certain times during these services. Only ordained clergy can pass through the royal doors. The altar may have other entries behind the iconostasis, but these are not used liturgically.

It is the tradition of the Eastern Church that the laity stand in the nave, and do not enter the sanctuary without reason. Only people whose ministry or responsibilities require them to enter the sanctuary, and who have received a blessing, are permitted to enter.

Altar table

The altar table is usually a cube with each dimension of about one meter or cubit. The table may be made of wood or stone. The table is usually covered with a brocade covering, the color of which changes with the liturgical season. Atop the altar table is the tabernacle, a miniature shrine sometimes built in the form of a church, inside of which is a small ark containing the reserved Sacrament for use in communing the sick. Also, a multi-branch candle stand, usually with seven candles, is placed near the back of the table as one looks from the nave. Also kept on the altar is the book of the Gospels and the antimension, a silken cloth imprinted with an icon of Christ being prepared for burial, which has a relic sewn into it and bears the signature of the bishop. The Divine Liturgy must be served on an antimension even if the altar has been consecrated and contains relics. When not in use, the antimension is left in place wrapped in the eileton, a cloth of plain silk, linen, or cotton.

The Holy Altar has multiple symbolic meanings. First, it represents the Throne of God because through the sacraments celebrated upon this altar God’s saving and sanctifying grace is bestowed upon all people. It is also Golgotha, the place where Jesus was crucified, because it is upon this altar that we re-enact the Passion of our Lord and Saviour, and finally the Tomb of Christ because it is through Christ’s death that eternal life was granted to all people. This final representation is highlighted in the resurrection Matins service celebrated every Sunday because it is from the right or southern side of the altar table that the morning Gospel is proclaimed, symbolising the angel announcing the risen Christ to the Myrrhbearers.

Traditionally the altar table is supported by either one or four columns. The single column represents Jesus Christ while the four columns represent the four Evangelists.

The altar table may only be touched by subdeacons, deacons, priests or bishops, and nothing which is not itself consecrated or an object of veneration ought to be placed on it. Objects may also be placed on the altar table as part of the process for setting them aside for sacred use. For example, icons are usually blessed by laying them on the altar table for a period of time or for a certain number of Divine Liturgies before blessing them with holy water.

Table of preparation

On the left side of the altar is placed the table of preparation (Table of oblation or prothesis) upon which the sacramental offering of the Body and Blood of Christ is prepared in a service called the proskomedia before each liturgy.

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 28 FEBRUARY – SECOND SUNDAY OF LENT

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 28 FEBRUARY – SECOND SUNDAY OF LENT: Dom Prosper Guéranger: The subject offered to our consideration on this Second Sunday is one of the utmost importance for the holy Se...

28 February, A Chesterton Calendar

FEBRUARY 28th

The wise man will follow a star, low and large and fierce in the heavens, but the nearer he comes to it the smaller and smaller it will grow, till he finds it the humble lantern over some little inn or stable. Not till we know the high things shall we know how lovely they are.

'William Blake.'

28 February, The Holy Rule of St Benedict, Father of Western Monks

CHAPTER XXIII. Of Excommunication for Offences

28 Feb. 30 June. 30 Oct.

If any brother shall be found contumacious, or disobedient, or proud, or a murmurer, or in any way transgressing the Holy Rule, and contemning the orders of his seniors; let him, according to our Lord’s commandment, be once or twice privately admonished by his elders. If he do not amend, let him be rebuked in public before all. But if even then he do not correct himself, let him be subjected to excommunication, provided that he understand the nature of the punishment. Should he, however, prove incorrigible, let him undergo corporal chastisement.

1 March, The Roman Martyrology

Kaléndis Mártii Luna décima séptima Anno Dómini 2021

On the morrow we keep the feast of the holy Confessor David, Archbishop of Caerleon upon Usk.
March 1st 2021, the 17th day of the Moon, were also born into the better life:

At Rome, two hundred and sixty holy martyrs whom for Christ's name's sake the Emperor Claudius first condemned to dig sand outside the Salarian Gate, and then to be shot to death with arrows in the amphitheatre.
Likewise the holy martyrs Leo, Donatus, Abundantius, Nicephorus, and nine others.
At Marseilles, [in the year 290,] the holy martyrs Hermes and Hadrian.
At Heliopolis, [in 114,] the holy martyr Eudocia [of Samaria, now Balbek in Turkey-in-Asia,] during the persecution under the Emperor Trajan.
She was baptized by Theodotus, Bishop of [Heliopolis,] and, armed for the battle, the President Vincentius ordered her to be smitten with the sword, and thus she received the crown of martyrdom.
Upon the same day, the holy martyr Antonina. During the persecution under the Emperor Diocletian she laughed at the gods of the Gentiles, for the which cause she was diversely tortured, shut up in a barrel, and drowned in the marsh at the city of Cea.
At Werdt, [in the year 713,] holy Swibert, Bishop of that city, [Apostle of the Frisians,] who in the time of Pope Sergius preached the gospel to the Frisians, Hollanders, and other peoples of Lower Germany.
At Angers, [in the year 550,] the holy Confessor Albinus, Bishop of that see, a man of eminent graces and holiness.
At Mans, [in the year 687,] the holy Siviard, Abbot [of Saint Calais.]
At Perugia is commemorated the translation [in the year 547] of the holy martyr Herculanus, Bishop of that see, of whom mention is made upon the 7th day of November. He was beheaded by order of Totila, King of the Goths, and it is written by holy Pope Gregory that, forty days after his head was cut off, head and body were found united again, as though the iron had never touched him.
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day

‘Blessings Of Liberty’: How ‘The Equality Act’ Viciously Attacks Christians, Freedom, Society, Sex, And You

An analysis of the Demoncrats Enabling Act for dictatorship. It's already passed the House. It needs to stopped in the Senate! If it isn't, the Left-wing dictatorship will march on.

From The Federalist

By Christopher Bedford

According to the Equality Act, religious nurses, doctors, and hospitals unwilling to kill an unborn child or perform a sex-change surgery could be legally discriminating.

“Have you been following this ‘Equality Act?'” a Catholic priest I know asked me as I passed on the icy sidewalk early Sunday afternoon.

“A bit,” I answered. “You can be sure anything that comes out of D.C. does the opposite of its name.”

“Check it out today,” he replied. “It could pass as early as this week, and it’s very, very troubling.”

The two of us went our ways, carefully navigating the icy bricks back to the safety of our homes. The monsignor was right, of course: If the Equality Act passes, he won’t be safe in his home much longer, nor will women be safe in their sports, their restrooms and locker rooms, the nail salons they work in, nor even shelters from homelessness and abuse.

The act, which the House is expected to pass for the second time in nine months on Thursday before sending it to a now-Democratic Senate, opens up swinging on Christian (as well as most religions’) concepts of morality in marriage, sex, and identity. It would strike biological sex from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, replacing it with “sexual orientation and gender identity.” Belief in traditional marriage, the act would legislate, is a specific example of illegal discrimination.

If the bill passes the Senate, our church parishes will become soft targets. While weak-kneed men like David French confidently celebrated the migration of drag queens from rowdy, seedy city bars to children’s library story hours as “blessings of liberty,” it will be curious to see what he thinks when parish halls are subjected to those same blessings.

It’s all made possible by massively expanding the government’s definition of bigotry, as well as the definition of public gathering places to include any place that “provides exhibition, entertainment, recreation, exercise, amusement, public gathering or public display.” When you add the above to “any establishment that provides a good, service, or program,” you’ve put nearly the entirety of American civic life under the thumb of radical activists.

And they’re not remotely done. Unhappy with the restrictions on eligibility that Catholic and other religious adoption agencies put on families looking to take children into their homes, the act seeks to nationalize Massachusetts, New York, and California’s outright bans on religious adoption agencies’ right to operate according to conscience. Never mind that there are any number of secular adoption agencies with no traditional marriage guidelines; shutting down the organizations that invented adoption, the bill states, will “increase the number of homes available to foster children.”

Meanwhile, Catholic school and other forms of religious education, rare alternatives to increasingly failing and liberal public education, will be compelled by the act to teach a concept of marriage antithetical to their faith, as well as the popular but absurd claim that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Religious education alternatives are already suffering under government COVID rules, with many that serve poor, inner-city children hardest hit, but vulnerability is a one-way street for the bill’s sponsors, who also target shelters and homes for homeless and battered women, demanding they admit men who say they’re ladies.

The same rules will apply to women’s sports, as well as their bathrooms and locker rooms, effectively nationalizing coastal states’ dangerous experiments on women (including children) trying to compete athletically with fairness, use the restroom, or simply shower in privacy.

Salons, too, will not be able to “discriminate” based on biology, opening the door in the United States for the Canadian nightmare where Jessica Yaniv — a man who identifies as a woman while still being attracted to women — sued to force female nail salon employees to wax his privates. You don’t have to be a woman to understand the level of sexual assault implicit in an adult man demanding a woman handle his privates for money or risk the force of law.

Remember Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Jack Phillips? In 2017, after five years of fighting the Colorado baker won a Supreme Court battle establishing his right to abstain from services he opposed on religious grounds. Four years later, however, he is still embroiled in an unending stream of lawsuits and complaints brought by radical gay and transgender activists (and even a Satanist). The Equality Act would take the treatment Phillips has received over his views on marriage and gender, and nationalize it. Virtually no businessman would be exempt.

Nor will the Little Sisters of the Poor’s hard-fought-if-fleeting legal victories be safe. According to the Equality Act, religious nurses, doctors, and hospitals unwilling to kill an unborn child or perform a potentially mentally destabilizing, deeply invasive, medically unsound sex-change surgery could be legally discriminating.

While the Little Sisters were able to beat back their antagonists — who were led by President Joe Biden’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra — using 1993’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, this last line of defense would be useless against the Equality Act.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993,” the act reads, “shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”

Under the Equality Act, after all, American law is a tool to attack our rights of conscience, our religious freedom, our businesses, our schools, our families, our neighbors, our priests, and our churches. How dare anyone expect to use the law to defend against it?

While the act is nearly certain to pass the Democratic House of Representatives, its fate in the Senate is less assured. Americans must pay close attention. Our society depends on it.

Amnesty International: Useful Idiots for Censorship

Amnesty International is becoming just one more propaganda organ shilling for the Left-wing dictatorship. 

From Sp¡ked

It has revoked Alexei Navalny’s status as a ‘prisoner of conscience’, accusing him of ‘hate speech’.

Amnesty International has stopped referring to Alexei Navalny as a ‘prisoner of conscience’ because it believes he has used ‘hate speech’ and has advocated violence.

Amnesty originally designated Navalny a prisoner of conscience on 17 January, following his arrest and detention by Russian police. Amnesty is one of many organisations that has been calling for Navalny’s release. But now, just over a month later, Amnesty no longer recognises him as such (though it still supports his release).

In an email seen by journalist Aaron Maté, Amnesty said it is ‘no longer able to consider Alexei Navalny a prisoner of conscience given the fact that he advocated violence and discrimination’.

New:

@AmnestyUK

withdraws designation of Navalny as a "prisoner of conscience." In email, Amnesty says it's "no longer able to consider Aleksei Navalny a prisoner of conscience given the fact that he advocated violence and discrimination and he has not retracted such statements."

Amnesty’s media manager for Russia and Eurasia told Russian outlet MediaZona: ‘Our legal and political department studied Navalny’s statements from the mid-2000s and determined that they qualify as hate speech.’

Navalny’s right-wing views are well documented. In 2007, he compared people from the predominantly Muslim North Caucasus to cockroaches and pretended to shoot one of them. The following year he deployed racial slurs when arguing for Georgians and illegal migrants to be deported.

But what do these views have to do with his current case? Amnesty itself says: ‘The direct and sole reasons for Navalny’s arrest and imprisonment are his outspoken criticism of the Russian authorities, his reports on top-level corruption in Russia, and his peaceful activism.’ Amnesty still calls for his release, but this bizarre decision to redesignate him surely makes it less likely.

Besides, if free speech and freedom of conscience are to have any meaning, they must include the right to hold and express even unsavoury views. That even organisations which are supposed to defend free speech believe there can be limits on so-called hate speech is deeply troubling.

Perhaps this is no surprise. Amnesty has been wavering a great deal on free speech recently. In 2020, it backed a censorious open letter calling for gender-critical feminists to be ‘denied legitimate representation’ by politicians.

The attacks on free speech today are so widespread that even organisations which are supposedly devoted to upholding it have become useful idiots for censorship.

The Equality Act Marks the Newest Phase of Ideological Conformity

The Nazis passed the Enabling Act in 1933 to clear the way to their dictatorship. The 'Equality' Act is the Demoncrats 'Enabling Act' to theirs.

From the National Catholic Register

By Andrea Picciotti-Bayer 

COMMENTARY: The summary for the president’s proposed legislation does not adequately convey the bill’s ideological extremism and destructive potential.

I hate to say it, but the demand for ideological conformity by progressives in Washington has entered a new phase with the election of a president who is pushing through their agenda. The very existence of many faith-inspired service groups in America is threatened as never before. And that will a huge impact on the social landscape of the United States.

The Bridgespan Group recently published a study “Elevating the Role of Faith-Inspired Impact in the Social Sector.” It found “that faith-inspired organizations account for 40 percent of social safety net spending” in a sample of six cities of varying size and demographics. The faith that inspires the founding of houses of worship also aligned with “nonprofit organizations that seek to translate many of the religious doctrines of charity and caring for those most in need into professionalized services offered to communities across the country.”

All this is crucially important to low-income communities of color. Houses of worship in Black neighborhoods, for example, play an “outsized role in providing basic services,” notes the study, “because philanthropy works in nontraditional ways in Black communities.” A similar influence is found in Latino communities, especially among newcomers to the country. And in rural America, “congregations and religious institutions in rural communities often directly deliver critical support to those experiencing poverty.”

The Bridgespan Group encourages “philanthropy to more fully engage with faith-inspired impact in the social sector.” Its recommendation is in stark contrast to how these groups will be treated in our nation’s capital.

For starters, President Biden hopes to include two antagonists of religious freedom in his administration. Biden’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, has waged a relentless battle as attorney general of California against religious and moral objectors like the Little Sisters of the Poor to Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. Similarly, the president’s pick for Associate Attorney General, Vanita Gupta, called the Supreme Court’s recent support for an accommodation for the sisters a “license to discriminate.” For Becerra and Gupta, the zeal for universal acceptance of abortion doesn’t allow for dissent. It doesn’t matter that the elderly poor – those to whom the Little Sisters care – could be left out in the cold.

Meanwhile, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to pass The Equality Act, one of President Biden’s promised legislative priorities for his first 100 days in office. Passing with a final vote of 224-206, the act purports to prohibit discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding and other areas of public life, but that summary does not adequately convey the bill’s ideological extremism and destructive potential.

Mary Rice Hasson, director of the Catholic Women’s Forum, soberly writes that under the Equality Act, “[t]here will be no safe spaces left for females. Support groups for mothers or sexual assault survivors would be forced to accept any male who feels entitled to join (based on ‘gender identity’). Girls and women (females) would no longer be free to shut the door and keep males out of our bathrooms, locker rooms or store dressing rooms. We would no longer be free to excel in and enjoy female-only athletics.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is concerned about the impact of the Equality Act on prohibitions on federal funding for abortion. Rightly so. As noted by Melanie Israel at the Heritage Foundation, the Equality Act’s new definition of “sex discrimination” includes “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition.” Consequently, the Equality Act “would provide a basis to force taxpayers to pay for elective abortions.”

Another serious danger of the Equality Act is the proposed silencing of religious or moral objectors. Specifically, the bill states that “Religious Freedom Restoration Act shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under” nor “provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement.”

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) bars the federal government from “substantially burdening” a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a “rule of general applicability.” RFRA is an important protection for faith-based organizations because a religiously neutral law like the Equality Act can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion. Walking back this important civil rights achievement under the guise of new anti-discrimination legislation is too clever by half. We can only hope that enough senators understand the perils of the Equality Act.

The tradition of Americans of faith ministering to the sick, hungry and downtrodden is older than the United States. As the Bridgespan report shows, it is still flourishing. But that tradition is vulnerable to political manipulation. Some faith-inspired social service groups are firmly progressive; others very conservative. Most lie somewhere in between. How will they react when the Biden administration presents them with a succession of litmus tests, none of which permit any deviation from progressive ideology? We are about to find out.

CONTRA GENTILES - BOOK TWO: CREATION - Chapter 78 THAT ARISTOTLE HELD NOT THAT THE AGENT INTELLECT IS A SEPARATE SUBSTANCE, BUT THAT IT IS A PART OF THE SOUL

[1] Now, since a number of persons agree with the Avicennian theory dealt with above, in the belief that it is the position of Aristotle, we must show from his own words that in his judgment the agent intellect is not a separate substance.

[2] For Aristotle says [ De anima III, 5] that in “every nature we find two factors, the one material, which, like the matter in every genus, is in potentiality to all the things contained under it, the other causal, which, like the efficient cause, produces all the things of a given genus, the latter factor standing to the former as art to its matter”; and therefore, Aristotle concludes, “these two factors must likewise be found within the soul.” The quasi-material principle in the soul is “the (possible) intellect wherein all things become intelligible”; the other principle, having the role of efficient cause in the soul, “is the intellect by which all things are made” (namely, actually intelligible), and this is the agent intellect, “which is like a habit,” and not a power. Aristotle explains what he means by calling the agent intellect a habit, when he goes on to speak of it as a kind of light, for “in a certain way light makes potential colors to be colors actually,” that is to say, so far as it makes them actually visible. And this function in regard to intelligibles is attributed to the agent intellect.

[3] These considerations clearly imply that the agent intellect is not a separate substance, but, rather, a part of the soul; for Aristotle says explicitly that the possible and agent intellects are differences of the soul, and that they are in the soul. Therefore, neither of them is a separate substance.

[4] Aristotle’s reasoning also proves the same point. For in every nature containing potentiality and act we find something which, having the character of matter, is in potentiality to the things of that genus, and something in the role of an efficient cause which actualizes the potentiality; similarly, in the products of art there is art and matter. But the intellective soul is a nature in which we find potentiality and act, since sometimes it is actually understanding, and sometimes potentially. Consequently, in the nature of the intellective soul there is something having the character of matter, which is in potentiality to all intelligibles—and this is called the possible intellect; and there also is something which, in the capacity of an efficient cause, makes all in act— and this is called the agent intellect. Therefore, both intellects, on Aristotle’s showing, are within the nature of the soul, and have no being separate from the body of which the soul is the act.

[5] Aristotle says, moreover, that the agent intellect is a sort of habit like light. Now, by a habit we mean, not something existing by itself, but something belonging to one who has it. Therefore, the agent intellect is not a substance existing separately by itself, but is part of the human soul.

[6] Yet, what this Aristotelian phrase means is not that the effect produced by the agent intellect may be called a habit, as though the sense were that the agent intellect makes man to understand all things, and this effect is like a habit. “For the essence of habit,” as the Commentator, Averroes, says on this very text, “consists in this, that its possessor understands by means of that which is proper to him-understands by himself and whenever he wills, with no need of anything extrinsic”; since Averroes explicitly likens to a habit, not the effect itself, but “the intellect by which we make all things.”

[7] Nevertheless, the agent intellect is not to be thought of as a habit such as we find in the second species of quality and in reference to which some have said that the agent intellect is the habit of principles. For this habit of principles is derived from sensible things, as Aristotle proves in Posterior Analytics II [19]; and thus it must be the effect of the agent intellect, whose function is to make actually understood the phantasms, which are potentially understood. Now, the meaning of habit is grasped in terms of its distinction from privation and potentiality; thus, every form and act can be called a habit. This is clearly what Aristotle has in mind, because he says that the agent intellect is a habit in the same way as “light is a habit.”

[8] Now, Aristotle goes on to say, that this intellect, namely, the agent intellect is separate, unmixed, impassible, and an actually existing substance. And of these four perfections attributed to that intellect, Aristotle had previously ascribed two to the possible intellect, namely, freedom from admixture and separate existence. The third—impassibility—he had applied to it in showing the distinction between the impassibility of the senses and that of the possible intellect, pointing out that if passivity be taken broadly, the possible intellect is passive so far as it is in potentiality to intelligibles. The fourth perfection—substantial actuality—Aristotle simply denies of the possible intellect, saying that it was “in potentiality to intelligibles, and none of these things was actual before the act of understanding.” Thus, the possible intellect shares the first two perfections with the agent intellect; in the third it agrees partly, and partly differs; but in the fourth the agent intellect differs altogether from the possible intellect. Aristotle goes on to prove in a single arguments that these four perfections belong to the agent intellect: “For always the agent is superior to the patient, and the (active) principle to the matter.” For he had already said that the agent intellect is like an efficient cause, and the possible intellect like matter. Now, through this proposition, as a demonstrative mean, the first two perfections are inferred as follows: “The agent is superior to the patient and to matter. But the possible intellect, which is as patient and matter, is separate and unmixed, as was proved before. Much more, therefore, is the agent possessed of these perfections.” The other perfections are inferred through this middle proposition, as follows: “The agent is superior to the patient and to matter by being compared to the latter as an agent and an actual being to a patient and a potential being. But the possible intellect is, in a certain way, a patient and a potential being. Therefore, the agent intellect is a non-passive agent and an actual being.” Now, from those words of Aristotle, it evidently cannot be inferred that the agent intellect is a separate substance; rather, that it is separate in the same sense of the term as he had previously applied to the possible intellect, namely, as not having an organ. Aristotle’s statement that the agent intellect is an actual substantial being is not incompatible with the fact that the substance of the soul is in potentiality, as was shown above.

[9] The Philosopher goes on to say that actual knowledge is identical with its object. On this text the Commentator remarks” that the agent intellect differs from the possible, because that which understands and that which is understood are the same in the agent intellect, but not in the possible intellect. But this clearly is contrary to Aristotle’s meaning. For Aristotle had used the same words before in speaking of the possible intellect, namely, that “it is intelligible in precisely the same way as its objects are; since in things devoid of matter, the intellect and that which is understood are the same; for speculative knowledge and its object are identical.” For he plainly wishes to show that the possible intellect is understood as are other intelligible objects, from the fact that the possible intellect, so far as it is actually understanding, is identical with that which is understood. Moreover, Aristotle had remarked a little before that the possible intellect “is in a sense potentially whatever is intelligible, though actually it is nothing until it has exercized its power of understanding”; and here he explicitly gives us to understand that, by actually knowing, the possible intellect becomes its objects. Nor is it surprising that he should say this of the possible intellect, since he had already said the same thing about sense and the sensible object in act. For the sense is actualized by the species actually sensed and, similarly, the possible intellect is actualized through the intelligible species in act; and for this reason the intellect in act is said to be the very intelligible object itself in act. We must therefore say that Aristotle, having definitively treated of the possible and agent intellects, here begins his treatment of the intellect in act, when he says that actual knowledge is identical with the thing actually known.

[10] Continuing, Aristotle states: “Although in the individual, potential knowledge is in time prior to actual knowledge, it is not altogether prior even in time.” Indeed, in several places he employs this distinction between potentiality and act, namely, that act is in its nature prior to potentiality, but that in time, potentiality precedes act in one and the same thing that is changed from potentiality to act; and yet, absolutely speaking, potentiality is not even temporally prior to act, since it is only by an act that a potentiality is reduced to act. That is why Aristotle says that the intellect which is in potency, namely, the possible intellect so far as it is in potency, is temporally prior to the intellect in act—and this, I say, in one and the same subject. Aristotle, however, adds: but not altogether, that is to say, not universally; because the possible intellect is reduced to act by the agent intellect, which again is in act, as he said, through some possible intellect brought into act; thus, Aristotle remarked in Physics III [3] that, before learning, a person needs a teacher, that he may be brought from potency to act. In these words, then, Aristotle explains the relationship which the possible intellect, as potential, bears to the intellect in act.

[11] Aristotle then declares: But it is not at one time understanding and at another not, thus indicating the difference between the intellect in act and the possible intellect. For he had said earlier that the possible intellect is not perpetually understanding, but sometimes is not actually understanding, namely, when it is in potentiality to intelligibles, and sometimes is actually understanding, namely, when it is actually identified with them. Now, the intellect becomes in act by the fact that it is the intelligibles themselves, as he had already said. Hence, it does not pertain to the intellect to understand sometimes and sometimes not to understand.

[12] The Philosopher thereupon adds: That alone is separate which truly is. This remark cannot apply to the agent intellect, since it alone is not separate, for he had already spoken of the possible intellect as being separate. Nor can that statement be understood to refer to the possible intellect, since Aristotle had already said the same thing concerning the agent intellect. It remains that the above remark applies to that which includes both intellects, namely, to the intellect in act, of which he was speaking; because that alone in our soul which belongs to the intellect in act is separate and uses no organ; I mean that part of the soul whereby we understand actually and which includes the possible and agent intellect. And that is why Aristotle goes on to say that this part of the soul alone is immortal and everlasting, as being independent of the body in virtue of its separateness.

Next - CONTRA GENTILES - BOOK TWO: CREATION - Chapter 79 THAT THE HUMAN SOUL DOES NOT PERISH WHEN THE BODY IS CORRUPTED

Off the Menu: Episode 176 - Mrs. Malloy's Cat

 Topics from Steven King and the Divine Right of Kings to Habsburg Spain and the LOTR.

0:00​ Intro 0:10​ Eldritch 2:00​ Paranoia 5:08​ Moving Forward 6:40​ Good Things in Life 16:28​ Meme of Production 20:00​ Technical Difficulties 23:45​ Stephen King 28:00​ Divine Right of Kings 35:25​ Habsburg's Spain 36:58​ Post-Atheistic Society? 42:05​ Prot & Trump Breakaways 52:10​ Vocation 55:07​ Separating Politicians from Country 1:06:46​ Nerdy LOTR Tangient 1:11:30​ Stephen King Revisited 1:14:30​ Closing Thoughts