God's Creation Beyond Man's Imagination
Translate
Monday, November 18, 2024
Jesus in his Olivet Discourse was talking to his present generation
“Clearly the “you” highlighted in all these verses is the disciples.
Jesus was not talking to us here or any other future generation.
He is clearly speaking to his disciples about events that were to occur in their lifetime, not events that would occur 2000 years (or more!) later”.
Justin
Taken from:
https://thespiritsearches.com/this-generation-will-not-pass-away-until-all-these-things-take-place/#more-539
In regards to the Olivet Discourse, few verses have sparked more controversy than Matthew 24:34. Here Jesus states: “Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (ESV).
But given the context of the preceding verses (i.e., wars, famines, earthquakes, persecutions, increased lawlessness, signs in heaven, etc.) how can this be? After all, these are the signs of the end, right?
And if we were to interpret this verse literally then we would have to conclude that “this generation” refers to the one to whom Jesus was speaking to, that is, his contemporaries. And that they would be the generation to witness “all these things” – “all these things” being everything Jesus had mentioned up to that point.
But if what Jesus was speaking about referred to signs that would precede the end of the world, how could this be? Surely there are none from that generation alive today to witness the end. To assume so would be absurd.
So what exactly did Jesus mean by “this generation”? Who was he talking about? And what about “all these things” that he said would occur before “this generation” passed away?
The truth is, I’ve already answered the question.
“This generation” refers to the one whom Jesus was speaking to, that is, his contemporaries. It was they who were to witness “all these things” that he had spoken about previously.
Consequently, “this generation” is not in reference to a specific race (the Jews), a type of people (righteous or wicked), or a future generation to come. Neither do the signs and events spoken of by Jesus (which he summarizes as “all these things”) serve as nearness indicators of any eschatological event in our future including the Rapture, the Second Coming, the end times, or even the end of the world itself.
This explanation, although contrary to the one most commonly employed when explaining the Olivet Discourse, is not without significant evidence to support it. In this article I’ll present the case for the preteristic view of Matthew 24:34 and hopefully help shed some light on such a controversial verse in Scripture. Lets start by defining the term “generation”.
The Meaning of “This Generation”
The definition of generation according to the Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary 11th Edition is: a group of individuals born and living contemporaneously. Not surprisingly, the Greek word used for “generation” in Matthew 24:34 is “genea” which refers to the whole multitude of men living at the same time.
It is true that “genea” can sometimes be used in reference to a nation or race but “of the 38 appearances of ‘genea’ apart from Luke 21:32 / Matthew 24:34 / Mark 13:30, all have the temporal meaning, primarily that of contemporaries” (A.J. Mattill Jr. – Luke and the Last Things)
The fact that Jesus used the word “genea” in conjunction with the near demonstrative “this” (this generation) clearly indicates that it was his contemporaries who would see “all these things”.
Other instances of Jesus using “genea” to refer to his contemporaries include:
• Matthew 11:16 – To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others
• Matthew 12:41 – The men of Nineveh will stand at the judgment with this generation and condemn it
• Matthew 12:42 – The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it
• Matthew 12:45 – So will it be with this wicked generation
• Matthew 23:36 – Truly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation
In each of these verses (although there are many more) we easily understand that Jesus was referring to those living during his time. Why then at Matthew 24:34 do we attempt to force the word to mean something it most often doesn’t instead of allowing for its most natural use?
Throughout the Gospels “genea” is the word Jesus uses to refer to his contemporaries. To assert that he now uses the word to refer to a nation, race, type of people, or a future generation is more than highly unlikely. Its [sic] essentially impossible given the context in which he’s speaking and the audience to whom he’s speaking to. Which brings us to the next two points: who was Jesus speaking to and what was Jesus talking about?
Who Was Jesus Speaking To?
Matthew 24:3 tells us that Jesus was speaking to his disciples, privately, on the Mount of Olives during the Olivet Discourse. More specifically, we know these disciples to have been Peter, James, John, and Andrew according to Mark 13:3.
Why is it important that we know this?
Because without identifying the original audience of the Olivet Discourse (or any written work for that matter) it becomes nearly impossible to interpret it accurately. If we don’t know to, or for whom something was written, then any potential reader may assume the work was written for them, thus taking it out of context.
Such has been the case with the Olivet Discourse and the many colorful interpretations given in an attempt to explain it.
Lets [sic] take a look at some verses within the Olivet Discourse that help remove any doubt as to who Jesus was speaking to, and therefore, who would witness “all these things”.
• v.4 – And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray
• v.6 – And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed
• v.9 – Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake’
• v.15 – So when you see the abomination of desolation
• v.23 – Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it
• v.25 – See, I have told you beforehand
• v.26 – So, if they say to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out
• v. 32-33 – From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates
• v. 34 – Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place
Clearly the “you” highlighted in all these verses is the disciples.
Jesus was not talking to us here or any other future generation. He is clearly speaking to his disciples about events that were to occur in their lifetime, not events that would occur 2000 years (or more!) later.
So for us to properly understand who “this generation” is, we have to understand how the disciples would have understood Jesus’s words. Can it be realistically assumed that when Jesus told the disciples that “they will deliver you up to persecution and death and you will be hated by all nations for my names sake” that they would have understood him to mean somebody other than themselves?
Or can it be realistically assumed that when Jesus told them “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” that they understood him to mean some other generation than the one then in existence?
In both cases the answer is no. Jesus was perfectly clear in his announcement of which generation would experience “all these things”.
Think about it. What else could Jesus have said to clarify of whom he was speaking? And from the disciples perspective, why would any further clarification be needed? He was speaking to them in response to their questions concerning the destruction of the Temple (more on this to come).
No doubt they would have rightly understood everything Jesus spoke of as pertaining to them.
They had no reason to think that what Jesus said pertained to any other generation other than their own or that he was referring to events that were to occur thousands of years in the future. To them, no clarification was needed. They knew they were the ones, and theirs the generation, to witness “all these things”.
Unfortunately, faulty interpretations run rampant in regards to the Olivet Discourse, and specifically in relation to “this generation”.
….
Summarizing “This Generation”
Only through much manipulation can one come to interpret “this generation” as meaning anything other than “this generation”, that is, the one alive during Jesus’s day.
All three Gospel accounts of the Olivet Discourse concur and allow no deviation in the interpretation of Jesus’s words here, whereas other verses of the Olivet Discourse vary slightly.
For example, Matthew 24:15 says: “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains“, whereas Lukes account (21:20-21) says: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains”.
The wording used by each writer is obviously different, although both are referring to the same event.
However, in all three of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, & Luke) the writers use the same exact phrase (essentially verbatim) at this point in their record of Jesus’s words, suggesting that there was no room for interpretative differences nor any need to reword what Jesus said for clarification purposes.
• Matthew 24:34 – Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
• Mark 13:30 – Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
• Luke 21:32 – Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.
________________________________________
….
Throughout the rest of this article we’re going to discuss what the Olivet Discourse was actually about. We’ll discover what prompted Jesus to have this discussion in the first place, and we’ll look at the text leading up to the verse in question. This will not be a verse by verse commentary, but rather a general overview highlighting specific texts that are vital to understanding who “this generation” was and what “all these things” actually refer to.
What Was the Olivet Discourse Actually About?
In order to fully understand who “this generation” was and what “all these things” refers to, we have to understand what the Olivet Discourse was about to begin with. To interpret a verse of Scripture without first understanding the context in which its written almost always leads to a faulty interpretation.
Such is the case with the modern futurist approach to the Olivet Discourse which says “this generation” refers to a future generation and they will be the ones who witness “all these things”.
….
In short, however, the Olivet Discourse is about the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the city of Jerusalem itself, both of which occurred in the Jewish War between AD 67-70.
Within 40 years of Jesus giving these prediction [sic] on the Mount of Olives, the events he spoke of came to pass. Truly “this generation” to whom Jesus was speaking witnessed “all these things” he spoke of during his discourse.
….
Leading up to the Olivet Discourse
In Matthew 23 we read of Jesus’s scathing indictment against the religious leaders of his day.
In his unrelenting assault Jesus proclaims them to be “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (v.28), and like “whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead peoples bones and all uncleanness” (v.27).
He goes on to point out that they are the “sons of those who murdered the prophets” and tells them to “fill up then the measure of your fathers” (v.31-32). He goes on to tell them how he will send them “prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues, and persecute from town to town” (v.34).
Notice here the similarity between what Jesus says the religious leaders will do to those whom he sends and what he tells his disciples will happen to them in the next chapter (Matthew 24:9-12).
He then says, “so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth…Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation” (Matthew 23:35-36).
Sound familiar?
Here we see Jesus pronouncing judgement upon that generation, holding them responsible for “all the righteous blood shed on earth”. Why? Because he knew that they were going to be the ones to kill him, the Messiah. There could be no blood more righteous than his, and his murder at their hands would serve as the final nail in the coffin leading up to their judgement.
In murdering their own Messiah, they would truly “fill up the measure of their fathers”. Jesus then laments over Jerusalem, for he knows how devastating its destruction will be.
He then says, “See, your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:38), in reference to the Temples pending destruction. Here Jesus borrows language from the Old Testament. Daniel 9:17 says, “Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant and to his pleas for mercy, and for your own sake, O Lord, make your face to shine upon your sanctuary, which is desolate”.
….
Jesus Departs the Temple and Predicts its Destruction
The Olivet Discourse begins with Jesus’s departure from the Temple followed by the disciples pointing out to him how beautiful it was.
Luke’s account says that “some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings” (Luke21:5). Mark’s account records the disciples as a bit more enthusiastic in their observation: “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” (Mark 13:1).
This enthusiasm, however, is short lived as Jesus’s response is far from comforting concerning their beloved Temple. He says, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down” (Mark 13:2).
From here, Jesus departs to the Mount of Olives where his disciples come to him privately and ask for more details concerning what he had just said. Matthews account reads as follows: “As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, ‘Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matthew 24:3).
These questions are in response to what Jesus said about the Temple being destroyed. Consequently, his reply is in response to those questions. Everything Jesus says from this point forward is in response to the disciples questions about when the Temple will be destroyed and the signs which are to precede its destruction (See Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7).
This is how we know that the Olivet Discourse is not about the end of the world. Nor are the signs and events it describes to be witnessed by any other generation than the one alive at the time of Jesus’s prophecy. ….
Friday, November 15, 2024
A deeper meaning in Pilate’s message nailed on the Cross?
“Yes, we know that the chief priests did not want to acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the King of the Jews, but there may have been something much deeper that alarmed and stirred them to even greater concern”.
Shari Abbott
Taken from:
https://reasonsforhopejesus.com/pilate-proclaimed-jesus-god/
Did Pilate Proclaim Jesus to be God? A Remez on the Cross
by Shari Abbott, Reasons for Hope* Jesus
….
There was a message nailed to the cross of Jesus. It’s not easily seen, but it’s there. What did Pilate write? He wrote more than what you know. Did Pilate intentionally write the message and have it nailed to the cross?
Of course, we know what’s really important. Nailed to the cross of Jesus Christ was every sin we have committed, or ever will commit. Jesus took upon Himself our sins and paid for them with His blood, opening the way of salvation for all who come to Him in faith. But there is also another message, nailed to that cross. It was written on a piece of wood, placed above the head of the Lamb of God, and it proclaimed Jesus not only to be The King of the Jews but also to be the Great I Am.
A Hidden Message Written in Wood
This message is a remez. A remez, in Jewish hermeneutics (the study of Scripture), is the hint of a hidden message or a deeper meaning. It’s something “below the surface” or “behind the words” that reveals another message or a deeper understanding.
We find a remez in the piece of wood that Pilate commanded to be nailed to the cross of Jesus. It’s really amazing what Pilate commanded to be written on it.
The Scripture tells us that Pilate asked Jesus the question, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” We are also told that Jesus confirmed Pilate’s words with, “Thou sayest it.” (Luke 23:3) Next, we are told that Pilate offered to release one of the prisoners to the people and he used the title “The King of the Jews” in referring to Jesus:
John 18:39 “But you have a custom that I should release someone to you at the Passover. Do you therefore want me to release to you the King of the Jews?”
The Jews did not accept this offer, but instead cried out, “Crucify Him” (Luke 23:21). So Pilate sentenced Jesus to be crucified.
The Titlon
It was customary for the Romans to put a sign on each cross. This sign labeled the person being crucified with the crime for which they had been charged. The sign was called a titlon and it was an official announcement from the presiding government official. Pilate wrote the inscription and had it nailed to the top of the cross of Jesus.
John 19:19 Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
This greatly angered the chief priests of the Jews, who demanded of Pilate….
John 19:21 …“Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but, ‘He said, “I am the King of the Jews.”‘
Pilate responded with,
John 19:22 “What I have written I have written.”
In the Greek, Pilate answered the chief priest using the perfect tense, which is understood to mean, “What I have written will always remain written.” And so it has remained written–not only on the cross that day but throughout the pages of history from that time forth.
What Made The Chief Priests So Angry?
Here’s where we find the remez or hidden message.
Yes, we know that the chief priests did not want to acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the King of the Jews, but there may have been something much deeper that alarmed and stirred them to even greater concern.
The following information is something I learned from the Bible study teachings of Chuck Missler (1934-2018). I present it for your consideration and I encourage you to search the Scripture to see if this be so (Chuck Missler would have said to do the same). It’s very interesting and has merit. There’s definitely a message, but whether Pilate intended it to be so we do not know. We also do not know if this roused the anger of the chief priests, but there is reason to believe they would have seen the message on the titlon and understood what it proclaimed.
An Epitaph Above Jesus’ Head
Pilate may not have understood what he was doing when he gave instructions for the words to be inscribed on the titlon placed above Jesus’ head. He required that the words, Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews, be written in all three languages of the day. Hebrew was the native language of the people of Jerusalem, the land in which Jesus was being crucified.
Greek was the common language used during that time. And Latin was the official language of the governing power of the day, Rome.
John 19:19-20 Now Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.
The remez is found in understanding the inscription written in Hebrew. Remember that the Hebrew language is written from right to left, so it would have read:
The message is found in the acrostic that is formed by these words. An acrostic is a form of writing in which the first letters of each word, line or paragraph are strung together to spell a word or message (we call this an acronym).
Acrostics are found throughout Hebrew writings, including in the books of Lamentations, Esther, Leviticus, Proverbs 31, and numerous psalms—most notably the longest psalm, Psalm 119, which is divided into subsections with each section beginning with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet.
The acrostic formed by the first letters of each word in the inscription on the titlon (reading right to left) is YHVH. Therefore, above Jesus’ head, written in an acrostic, was revealed “YHVH,” which is Yahweh or Jehovah. This is the covenant name of God, given to His people. It is also known as the Tetragrammaton, the unpronounceable name of God, and the Great I Am.
(image: khouse.org)
Who knew?
Did Pilate know what he was writing? We have no way of knowing for certain, but had Pilate written these words in any other sequence or with additional or fewer words, it would not have revealed the same message.
Did the Jews know what Pilate had written? We do have good reasoning to suspect so, because Jews of that time understood and recognized acrostics from their common use in so many of their writings.
Did the chief priests and Pharisees know that Jesus was God? Again, we don’t know for certain, but there is reasoning to think they did. We know that they felt threatened by Jesus and they took seriously the threat that Jesus’ committed followers would pose to their system of religion. This is clear when the chief priests and Pharisees requested that the tomb be secured and gave reason that Jesus had said He would rise again from the dead (Matthew 27:62-64). They expressed concern that His body might be stolen by His followers.
Pilate agreed to their request to secure the tomb, and he did so by “sealing the stone and setting a watch” (Matthew 27:65-66). In doing so, Pilate provided further evidence of the resurrection power of Jesus Christ. No human man could have moved that stone, nor escaped past those guards.
Jesus, The Nazarene, The King of The Jews = Yahweh
It’s fun to find a remez. It’s the revealing of a deeper mystery that gives us one more reason to rejoice in the Lord and all that He has revealed in His Word. It is a reminder of the divine nature of inspiration on every page of the Bible and that, in His Word, God has revealed to us all that we need to trust in Him in all things. ….
Wednesday, October 30, 2024
Human person is a true ‘cosmos in miniature’ – Wolfgang Smith
“Smith contends that, in the final count, Einsteinian relativity
is founded on ideological grounds, not empirical ones”.
John Trevor Berger
Wolfgang Smith died on 19th July, 2024 (RIP)
Surveying the Integral Cosmos: A Review of ‘Physics & Vertical Causation’
29 August 2023 Book Review, Philosophy of Physics, Wolfgang Smith
John Trevor Berger
According to the experts of standard cosmology, we live in a universe which is uniformly egalitarian, a homogeneous mass of subatomic particles. And this purported ‘cosmological principle’, we are told, holds from the furthest observable (and unobservable) reaches of the universe, to the ordinary moment of lived experience. The problem is that this world-picture completely contradicts what seems to be manifest to us, self-evidently, by our five senses as well as our shared, ‘common’ sense of things. If what the experts are telling us is true, then we really are living in an illusion—and many of them have no qualms about telling us just that.
For the better part of four decades, Wolfgang Smith has been gradually chipping away at this impasse, and his project breaks new ground in Physics and Vertical Causation: The End of Quantum Reality.
First published by Angelico Press in 2019—and now available exclusively from the Philos-Sophia Initiative—the book is an indispensable companion to the Initiative’s feature documentary on the life and work of Prof. Smith, released in 2020, The End of Quantum Reality. It is also the true sequel to his paradigm-shifting 1995 monograph, The Quantum Enigma: Finding the Hidden Key—now also available from the Philos-Sophia Initiative.
Physics and Vertical Causation (PVC) picks up just where The Quantum Enigma (TQE) left off: namely, the discovery of ‘vertical causality’ (VC). Yet while TQE was primarily restricted to VC’s relevance to the resolution of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, PVC probes widely and deeply into the presence of VC throughout the cosmos en masse—not to mention the ‘microcosm’, man himself. Indeed, while it may not be readily apparent by the book’s title, the work is, fundamentally, a study in cosmology; the title simply indicates whence cosmology must, in our time, take its point of departure. For if, as Smith maintains, physics is the foundational science—and quantum mechanics “physics come into its own”—then our entire view of the cosmos is necessarily affected by how we interpret quantum theory.
One should take special note, incidentally, that the author’s decades-long project reaches its summit in his last work, Physics: A Science in Quest of an Ontology (soon to be re-released in a second, Revised and Expanded edition). And these three books—The Quantum Enigma, Physics and Vertical Causation, and Physics: A Science in Quest of an Ontology, in this order—form a kind of ‘trilogy’, each one building upon the breakthroughs of the previous: a journey from the bare bones of quantum physics to a full-fledged renascence of Neoplatonist cosmology, wherein one finally sees how physics generally, and quantum mechanics specifically, fits into an ordered cosmological hierarchy.1
* * *
Devoted readers of Wolfgang Smith know only too well the great care he takes—in the formulation of his position on a given issue—to articulate his ontological distinction between the ‘physical’ and the ‘corporeal’: to the world “as conceived by the physicist,” versus the world as originarily manifest to sensory perception. In PVC, he takes a great stride forward by the introduction of his etiological distinction between ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ causation. But since the etiological distinction hinges upon the ontological, let’s first take a look at the latter.
Owing in large part to his tremendous philosophical prowess—a rarity among contemporary scientists—when first confronted with the quantum reality problem, Smith saw something to which other theoretical physicists seem to be completely myopic: the conundrums and ‘paradoxes’ of quantum theory never stemmed from the side of physics in the first place. Rather, the origin lay in a deeply sedimented philosophical presupposition—one postulated by the likes of Galileo Galilei and John Locke, but most closely associated with René Descartes.
Cartesian ‘bifurcation’—a term coined by Alfred North Whitehead, which Wolfgang Smith has put to good use throughout his authorial career—constitutes a dichotomy which divides the world into two substances, namely Thought (res cogitans) and Extension (res extensa).
This gives rise to the belief that the ‘objective’ world can be wholly described in quantitative terms. In light of Smith’s ontological distinction, this is tantamount to the reduction of the corporeal to the physical. Therefore, qualitative attributes—such as color, sound, or taste—are taken, in the Cartesian paradigm, to be mental or subjective. On the other hand, the quantitative attributes—the ‘extended’ (i.e., measurable) aspects—of the world are taken to be the ‘really real’. Quantities are thought to have ontological priority over qualities, insofar as the latter are merely ‘in our heads’ (res cogitantes). What is left in the external world, then, are objects which can be accounted for, without residue, in mathematical terms (res extensae).
Smith’s philosophy of physics rests squarely upon the rejection of bifurcation, and indeed he has demonstrated that quantum paradox is itself a byproduct of the Cartesian partition. It is this unexamined assumption which underlies and, in a way, defines what is commonly reckoned as the ‘scientific outlook’, and it is precisely this—not, that is to say, some remaining ‘incompleteness’ in quantum mechanics—that renders the quandaries of quantum theory insoluble from a technical standpoint. Remove this epistemological fallacy, however, and foundational physics starts to make sense. Nor is anything scientific sacrificed in so doing: what is rejected, rather, is a false philosophical dichotomy. The physicist, then, is not, in the strict sense, dealing with the corporeal world—that world in which we find ourselves via cognitive sense perception—but with a subcorporeal domain: one which has been discovered, and to a certain degree ‘constructed’, by the interventions of the physical scientist. And these procedures are what brings into the sphere of observation what the author identifies as the physical universe—the world, once again, “as conceived by the physicist.”
Now the ontological distinction, as mentioned above, necessarily entails a complementary etiological distinction. For if there are these ‘strata’ in the order of being—these two different ‘worlds’ so to speak, the corporeal and the physical—then there must be some mode of causation which is capable of traversing between the two, on pain of not being able to conduct the business of physics to begin with. And this defines a causality which is unknown to modern physics: a causal mode that is not field-based, but acts instantaneously—‘above time’ as it were. Hence we have a distinction between horizontal and vertical causation. Horizontal causation may be generally thought of as ‘physical’—the well known relation of ‘cause-&-effect’ operating in space and time—whereas vertical causation is supra-spatiotemporal. The author has thus identified a causal mode whose field of action vastly exceeds that of physical causation. And the central objective of PVC is to bring out the immense scientific, cosmological, and philosophical implications of this discovery.
* * *
Although first recognized within the context of resolving the quantum measurement problem, Smith found that VC is ubiquitous; its effects come into view on all sides, even from the strictly operational viewpoint of the physicist. It makes sense of the fact, for instance, that corporeal objects do not ‘multilocate’; or that cats cannot be, at once, dead and alive. The intelligibility and stability of form that we find in the corporeal world owes precisely to VC. Smith also shows how VC demystifies J. S. Bell’s celebrated interconnectedness theorem: the phenomena of ‘nonlocal’ interactions become perfectly intelligible once we see that there can in fact be cause-to-effect relations which do not involve a transfer of energy through space.
It is worth pointing out, in this connection, that the ‘instantaneity’ of VC is truly atemporal—not just ‘super-fast’.
PVC argues as well for the crucial role that VC plays in biology, which for nearly two centuries has been basically reduced to physics, for no better reason than that the Cartesian axiom necessitates such a reduction; res extensae are, after all, governed by horizontal causation alone. Smith demonstrates the invalidity of said reduction, specifically, in arguing that a physicalist biology—by virtue of its inability to recognize vertical effects—is, in principle, incapable of comprehending the physiology of a living organism. In other words, a physiology based upon the contemporary paradigm is able to comprehend an organism only to the extent that it is inorganic!
Finally, as he ascends to the anthropic level, the author explains how VC accounts for man’s ability to produce ‘complex specified information’ (CSI). Indeed, it follows upon the strength of William Dembski’s 1998 theorem that CSI cannot be produced by means of horizontal causality: our very ability to generate CSI—or, if you prefer, intelligible forms—necessitates the existence of VC.
* * *
What is perhaps the most astonishing about PVC—especially to those unfamiliar with premodern thought—is Wolfgang Smith’s analysis and appropriation of what he terms the ‘tripartite cosmos’, manifested, in its respective ways, in both the macrocosm (the world) and the microcosm (the human person). His analysis of the ‘cosmic icon’2 gives us a concise symbolic depiction which effectively encapsulates the cosmic tripartition. The book’s magisterial final chapter, “Pondering the Cosmic Icon,” brings into full view this fecund symbol—to which the author has referred in previous works as a kind of primordial archetype whose presence reverberates throughout traditional cultures—and we find in following Smith’s decoding of the icon the rediscovery of an integral cosmos.
But the author really breathes new life into the cosmic icon, and what it depicts, insofar as his reflections on the import of modern physics play an important role in his definitions. First basing himself upon traditional sources, Smith posits that the cosmos consists of three tiers or domains: the corporeal, the intermediary, and the spiritual.3 What makes Smith’s account of the cosmic tripartition unique is that he differentiates these three domains vis-à-vis their spatio-temporal ‘bounds’. That is to say, whereas the corporeal world is bound by the conditions of space and time, the intermediary is bound by time alone, while the spiritual is bound by neither space nor time. One should note well here that the corporeal domain—the sensorily perceived world in its entirety—is actually the lowest stratum of the cosmic hierarchy. From the latter it follows that the physical, or ‘subcorporeal’, is technically ‘below the bottom’ of cosmic reality; hence the author’s characterization of physical objects as ‘sub-existential’. The architecture of this trichotomy, then, is accompanied by the realization that our vaunted differential equations simply do not apply above the corporeal plane, for the simple reason that said equations presuppose the bounds of space and time. Whereas VC acts from the highest reaches of the ontological hierarchy, physics—by virtue of its modus operandi—is restricted, once again, to the ‘lower third’ of the tripartite cosmos.
As for man himself: the microcosm is constituted by the tripartition of body (corpus or soma), soul (anima or psyche), and spirit (spiritus or pneuma). Inasmuch as the human person is a true ‘cosmos in miniature’, whatever can be said of the macrocosm is echoed in the microcosm. For instance, while the body is bound by space and time, the soul is bound by time alone, and the spirit by neither space nor time. But it’s crucial to remember that, just as the macrocosm is one, integral being—whose tiers are distinguishable, but not separated, by particular bounds—so the human person is one, integral being. Neither macrocosm nor microcosm is ‘three beings’, but rather one being with three ‘levels’.
The cosmic icon, in any case, depicts human nature as well as the cosmos at large.
* * *
What is also new in PVC—and which will no doubt come to the surprise (and consternation) of many—is Prof. Smith’s final and decisive break with the physics of Albert Einstein.4 While in previous decades Smith suggested that while the theory of relativity may well pertain to the physical universe, it does not, strictly speaking, pertain to the corporeal world. PVC, however, tells a new tale. Smith now lays it down categorically that, even on purely physical grounds, Einsteinian relativity is a no-go. And it turns out that relativity falls on shockingly simple theoretical grounds. The author also provides a brief exposé on several little-publicized falsifications of relativity on empirical grounds.
Upon analysis of the basic premises of Einstein’s original 1905 paper on special relativity, Smith finds that Einstein’s Principle of Relativity is based upon little more than the fact that it offers a reason why the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 failed to detect any orbital velocity of Earth.
That the principle of relativity preserves the Copernican cosmological principle may explain why—even in spite of adverse empirical findings from Einstein’s time to the present day—the theory remains sacrosanct by the physics establishment. Intriguingly, we also learn that the renowned formula E = mc²—perhaps the most celebrated ‘proof’ of Einstein’s theory—is derivable from classical electrodynamics. Smith contends that, in the final count, Einsteinian relativity is founded on ideological grounds, not empirical ones. ….
https://philos-sophia.org/surveying-integral-cosmos/
Nature of the Modern Sciences
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Universities have drifted dangerously towards utility,
collapsing into being mere technical institutes”.
Dr. Gavin Ardley
Gavin Ardley’s Marvellous Perception of
the Nature of the Modern Sciences
This, by far my favourite book on the philosophy of modern sciences,
I have found to be highly enlightening with its explanation of the
clear distinction between science and philosophy – a distinction that
is becoming more and more blurred with the passing of time.
Aquinas and Kant: The Foundations of the Modern Sciences (1950) is available on-line (for example at):
https://brightmorningstar-amaic.blogspot.com/2010/06/gavin-ardleys-book-aqunas-and-kant.html
Chapter XVIII is the crucial one, for it is there that Gavin Ardley, following an insight from Immanuel Kant, puts his finger right on the nature of the sciences, or what the modern scientist is actually doing.
Whilst the precise realisation of this had escaped some of the most brilliant philosophers of science, it had not escaped Kant – who, however, then managed to bury this gem of insight under a mountain of pseudo metaphysics.
Other minds went close to discovering the secret, but failed to recognize the Procrustean nature of modern science, that is, the active imposition of laws upon nature, rather than, as is generally imagined, the reading of laws in nature.
Dr. Ardley will finally sum up his findings in this splendid piece (but one will definitely need to read his chapter XVIII):
Chapter XXI
THE END OF THE ROAD
The solution to the problem is now before us. The quest of the modern cosmologist for a satisfactory harmony of Thomism with post-Galilean physical science is nearing its goal.
The bifurcation made by the Procrustean interpretation of physics rescues the dualist theory from the impasse in which it has been struggling. With our discussion of voluntary active phenomenalism in Ch. XVIII in view, we can see precisely how there come to be two orders, each autonomous. The Scholastic metaphysician functions in one order, the modern physicist in the other, and there is no immediate link whatever between them. There is a clean divorce between the ontological reality, and the physical laws and properties which belong to the categorial order.
The link between the physical laws and the underlying causes is no longer of the first remove but of the second. The fundamental dictum of Wittgenstein is our guide here. [See p. 98.]: that a law of physics tells us nothing about the world, but only that it applies in the way in which in fact it does apply, tells us something about the world.
This all-important consequence of the Procrustean character of modern physics provides the solution to Phillips’ difficulty. [See p. 224. The difficulty of course arises from the failure to distinguish the physicists’ data from phenomena. We are careful to distinguish them.] It furnishes the essential supplement to the otherwise admirable doctrines of O’Rahilly and Maritain.
This doctrine of the two orders, soundly based, is very much more satisfactory than such a palliative as hylosystemism.
Now we can retain the Thomist doctrine in all its purity, but we have added to it another chapter, so that the post-Renaissance physical science may at last find a home in the ample structure of the philosophia perennis.
It is from Immanuel Kant that this doctrine of the nature of modern physics ultimately derives. Scholastics thus owe to Kant the recognition that he, albeit unwittingly, has made one of the greatest contributions to the philosophia perennis since St. Thomas.
It is commonly stated that St. Thomas showed that there is no contradiction between faith and profane science. This is true of sciences of the real. But for sciences of the categorial we must look also to Kant. It is St. Thomas and Kant between them who have shown that there is no contradiction possible between faith and any profane science.
Let us now summarise the contents of these chapters.
The Bellarmine dichotomy between what actually is the case, and what gives the most satisfactory empirical explanation, has all along been the basic contention of the dualist philosophers. But the absence hitherto of an adequate explanation of how there can be these two separate orders has been the great stumbling block. It has driven other Scholastic philosophers virtually to abandon the dichotomy and try to work out a unitary theory. This has led to such a scheme as hylosystemism with its fundamental distortions of Thomism.
We have shown how illusory such unitary schemes must be, founded as they are on the shifting sands of current physical theories.
On the other hand we have supplied the missing explanation in the dualist theory. By pointing out the Procrustean categorial nature of modern physics, we have established its autonomy on a satisfactory basis. We have shown how the two orders can exist side by side without clashing. Hence the Thomist structure needs no alterations but only the extension of a wing to the house.
We have traced in outline the slow recognition by Scholastic philosophers of the part played by artifacts, or entia rationis, call them what we will, in the new physical learning which has been developing since the 17th century.
The time has now come for this recognition to be extended to a wider field than merely that of modern physics. We have seen in this work how systems of artifacts are to be found in a great variety of human pursuits. In nearly all our activities we avail ourselves of their assistance; we find at almost every turn a fabric woven of myths. Such a fabric is necessary to facilitate our passage through the world. But we must never lose sight of the fact that it is only myths and phantoms. We should never allow ourselves to be enslaved by our own creations: there are no bonds more insidious than those we impose on ourselves.
Behind the shadowy world we have created to be our servant, there lies the real world. A phantom is but a sorry companion to any man. It is the real world, the world which ever is, to which we must turn our eyes, and from which comes our strength.
[End of quote]
Christopher Dawson summed it up
“If the laws of mathematics are simply the creation of the human mind,
they are no infallible guide to the ultimate nature of things. They are a conventional technique which is no more based on the eternal laws of the universe than is
the number of degrees in a circle or the number of yards in a mile”.
Christopher Dawson
The insightful words of Christopher Dawson (d. 1970) here seem to me closely to echo the sentiments of Dr. Gavin Ardley, in his masterpiece, Aquinas and Kant. The Foundations of the Modern Sciences (1950), who wrote in his Chapter III (“The Nature of Modern Physics”):
The Classical, or Realist, Theory of Modern Physics
The classical writers on scientific method, men like John Stuart Mill, and the English empiricists generally, took it for granted that modern physics was, like ancient physics, endeavouring to discover the nature and functioning of the physical world about us. Only, they believed, it was doing it much more successfully than was the ancient and medieval physics.
They saw the change that came over physics in the days of Galileo as a change occasioned by increased attention to observation and experiment. They accused the Aristotelians of paying too little attention to observation and too much to a priori notions. Liberation from the medieval straight-jacket, and careful experiment and measurement, coupled with the powerful instrument of mathematics, was believed to be the reason for the great strides forward in physical science from Galileo onward.
Physics was thus regarded as a truly empirical science. The physicist was supposed to observe uniformities in Nature and to generalise these into laws.
Some varied this a little by pointing out that physicists take hypotheses and then put them to the test of experiment.
If experiment verifies the hypothesis then we have discovered a valid law or theory of physics. By these means, it was believed, were discovered such laws and principles as Newton’s Laws of Motion and the Law of Universal Gravitation, the Conservation of Energy, the Wave Theory of Light, the Atomic Theory of Matter, and so on.
Physics was thus held by these philosophers and logicians to be slowly wresting out the secrets of Nature, to be steadily unfolding before us the constitution of the physical world. The uniformity of Nature is revealed in the true laws of physics, and renders them immutable.
Physics is subject at every turn to the test of experiment, and anyone can upset a theory simply by showing that some observation is contrary to it. Thus physics abhors authority and anything that smacks of the a priori. Consequently the modern physicist reviles the old Aristotelian physicist who, he believes, was bound hand and foot by authority and a priori notions.
By this slow empirical advance, it was believed, there was built up this great edifice of modern physics; an edifice which today occupies one of the most prominent positions in our intellectual horizon, while in practical applications it has transformed daily life by surrounding us with a countless multiplicity of instruments and amenities.
Although the classical empiricist logicians were not all agreed on what was, precisely, the scientific method, yet on the general picture they were unanimous. [Footnote: See further Ch. XI, on Scientific Method.]
The Eddingtonian Theory
Nevertheless there has long been a minority which has held other views about the nature of physics and scientific method. In recent years these views have pushed their way more and more to the fore. The revolt has been rather tentative up to the present, but in this chapter we will extend it further and develop its consequences.
The John the Baptist of the Movement was Immanuel Kant. In more recent times the principles were revived by Poincaré.
[Footnote: Some account of the various transitional theories will be found in later chapters, notably in Ch. XVIII in the Section on Modern Physics and Scholastic Philosophy.] But the new interpretation has received its greatest impetus from the works of the late Professor Eddington, who gave a most elegant expression to what others had long been struggling to articulate. The new approach is based on the mode of acquiring knowledge in experimental physics. It pays little attention to what the physicist says, but much attention to what he does. It looks away from the world to the activity of the physicist himself. To Eddington and his school of thought, the laws of physics are subjective, arbitrary, conventional, dogmatic, and authoritarian. This is, of course, precisely the reverse of the classical theory which believes the laws to be supremely objective. But the new theory holds that the laws of physics are not the laws of Nature but the laws of the physicists. The laws of physics are always true, not because they represent uniformities of Nature, but simply because the physicist never lets them be untrue.
Newton wrote in the Principia that ‘Nature is pleased with simplicity and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes’. The classical empiricist logician would heartily endorse this dictum, although he might be puzzled if asked how he knew it to be true. But the alternative view would insist that it is not Nature which is pleased with simplicity, but the physicist. Whether Nature is pleased with simplicity or not we cannot tell, at least not within the province of experimental science. But we know that the physicist is pleased with simplicity and will exercise all his ingenuity to achieve it. The simplicity of the laws of physics, then, tells us much about the physicist, but nothing immediately about Nature.
This reorientation towards physics can be expressed very neatly by using the parable of Procrustes, and saying that physics is a PROCRUSTEAN BED. Procrustes lived in ancient Greece. He was a brigand who terrorised Attica until finally he was vanquished by Theseus. Now Procrustes had a bed, and it was his practice to make travellers conform in length to that bed.
If they were too short he stretched them out until they fitted, and if they were too long he chopped of their legs until they were the right length.
This is a parable of what the physicist does with Nature. He makes Nature conform to what he wants, and having done so announces that he has discovered a law of Nature: namely that all travellers fit the bed. Hence it is that the laws of physics are always true. It is because the physicist makes Nature conform to them. He runs Nature out into moulds, so to speak. A law of physics is not something discovered in Nature, but something imposed upon Nature.
In brief, physics is a put-up job. The physicist puts it all in implicitly at the beginning, and then draws it out explicitly at the end. Physics is manufactured, not discovered. Eddington puts the matter in his own inimitable style. [Footnote: Eddington, A. S.: The Philosophy of Physical Science (Cambridge, 1939), p. 109.]
[End of quotes]
Christopher Dawson wrote, in Progress and Religion (Sheed and Ward, 1938, p. 236), concerning mathematics and the universe:
The rise of modern physics was closely connected with a transcendental view of the nature of mathematics derived from the Pythagorean and Platonic tradition. According to this view, God created the world in accordance with numerical harmonies, and consequently it is only by the science of number that it can be understood. ‘Just as the eye was made to see colours’, says Kepler, ‘and the ear to hear sounds, so the human mind was made to understand Quantity’. (Opera 1, 3).
And Galileo describes mathematics as the script in which God has written on the open book of the Universe. But this philosophy of mathematics which underlies the old science, requires a deity to guarantee its truth. If the laws of mathematics are simply the creation of the human mind, they are no infallible guide to the ultimate nature of things. They are a conventional technique which is no more based on the eternal laws of the universe than is the number of degrees in a circle or the number of yards in a mile. ….
Why is Modern Physics so Successful?
A reader queries:
“I did read one review of Ardley's book and the reviewer (who seemed sympathetic to the philosophia perennis) said that [Ardley] doesn't really answer the question as to why modern physics is so successful”.
This is the review to which the reader refers:
http://bjps.oxfordjournals.org/content/II/6/167.full.pdf
REVIEWS
Aquinas and Kant, Gavin Ardley, Longmans Green & Co., London, 1950.
Pp. x + 256. 18s.
THE author of this book is greatly perturbed about the ultimate basis of our knowledge of the universe, and the conflicting character of modern thought in philosophy and physics. And well he may be. The rise of Neo-Thomism in one form or another is a feature of our generation. No less marked, however, is the advance of theoretical physics associated with the names of Poincaré, Eddington, and one or two others of comparable calibre. Again, as Mr Ardley remarks, St Thomas Aquinas and Kant seem strange bedfellows indeed, as Aristotle and the Fathers were aforetime. Observing that the latter pair were eventually 'reconciled,' he believes that a corresponding state of bliss for the former couple is only a matter of time.
Kant's idea of a physicist was that of an extremely active person, by no means content to receive laws from nature, but perpetually engaged in the task of formulating laws of his own which he 'fastened' upon nature, and to which she was obliged to conform. All that is said about the Procrustean bed and the chopper is most apt, and indeed on this view, deserved.
Nevertheless, according to Mr Ardley, it is a grave error to imagine that this coercive technique is intrinsically necessary; it is merely a device to secure power for mankind.
Over against this stands metaphysics in serene detachment, ready as always to admit the practical advantages of ‘saving appearances,' whether in classical physics or in modern metrical technology, but claiming the absolute title to the possession of philosophical truth. Seldom has the precept 'between us and you there is a great gulf fixed . . .' been restated in starker form. Why, therefore, it is asked, are we in fact confronted with physics heaping triumph upon triumph in almost every department of twentieth-century life? Mr Ardley replies in effect that had a divergent system of 'categorisation' been set up, things might have worked out differently. This riposte is very disappointing, being nothing short of wholly irrelevant, since what we want to know is why physics, as commonly understood, should be any good at all.
No reasonable person has anything but reverence for the philosophia perennis, yet this book cannot be said to have helped to bring the natural sciences of to-day within its broad and generous frontiers. Unfortunately, too, Mr Ardley's style lacks attractiveness; it is rather that of a school-teacher admonishing an unwilling class, and underlining for them, as he goes along, what they are meant to learn by heart.
IAN RAWLINS
Introduction
That modern science and technology (centred around modern physics) have been stupendously successful no alert human being today would probably deny. And it is due to its stunning success in our modern world that we humans have tended to elevate “science” to the virtual status of ‘deity’. We, for all intents and purposes, idolise it.
Gavin Ardley, author of the book under consideration in this series, Aquinas and Kant: The Foundations of the Modern Sciences (1950), was not critical at all of the modern sciences as a legitimate human endeavour – a part of God’s invitation to man to “subdue the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Ardley’s Chapter XI: “The Quest for a Scientific Method” is relevant to this present article. Speaking of the early efforts to comprehend the methodology that was leading to such scientific success, Ardley wrote:
The great success of physical science in the post-Renaissance world led to much speculation about the secret of its success. It has been the general opinion that this secret must lie in some way in the method employed in the new sciences.
If we could discover precisely what this method is, and make it explicit, then, so it was thought, we should be able to use it more effectively, and, no doubt, extend its employment to even wider fields. Consequently ever since the 17th century much attention has been paid to the quest for this scientific method.
We have already considered Francis Bacon as the ‘politician’ of the new movement to extend man’s power over Nature (Ch. IV). Francis Bacon was also the author of one of the first attempted formulations of the method of the new science. He laid down rules which he believed would, if followed, lead automatically to our complete mastery over Nature. His method consisted in collecting and recording all available facts, performing all practicable experiments, and finally, by means of certain rules, making out connections between all the phenomena so observed.
However, this procedure or method, as laid down by Bacon, turns out on closer acquaintance to be barren. It is much too simple and naïve to meet the situation. Nature in fact is not nearly as simple and orderly as Bacon had supposed. The practising scientists went on developing their sciences along their own lines without reference to Bacon’s supposed automatic method.
[End of quote]
Dr. Ardley, who was both philosopher and scientist, far from reviling the “world of physics”, which he regarded as “a world of deep and abiding beauty”, was at pains, nonetheless, to explain just what kind of world it actually is, and - relevant to the question posed in this article - “why is it so successful?”:
Chapter III
THE NATURE OF MODERN PHYSICS
Physics and Nature
The world of modern physics is not the natural world.
It is a remote domain of artifacts more removed from the world of Nature than the worlds in which Mr Pickwick and Hamlet dwell. The world of physics is austere and exacting, but withal a world of deep and abiding beauty. It is this aesthetic quality, perhaps even more than the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity and the desire for power, which explains its hold on its exponents. The beauty of pure mathematics has been recognised at least since the days of Plato. Pure physics has this beauty too, and in addition an intangible quality peculiar to itself which is well known to those who have entered its inner temples. This, rather than the exploration of nature, must be the physicist’s apology.
But it may well be asked now: what is the relation between physics and Nature?
If physics dwells apart, how does it come into contact with Nature. And furthermore, it may be asked, why is it so successful?
In a general way, the solution of the first part of this question lies in the fact that the process of systematic experiment is selective and transforming. Hence it is that the transition is made from Nature to the abstract world, and vice versa. This is the link between the two worlds.
As regards the second question – why, if physics is an abstract and arbitrary system, is it so successful? – we might ask in return, what is the standard of success? How much more or less successful physics might have been had it been developed in different ways from the way it was in fact developed, we do not know.
If the net dragged through the world by the physicists had been quite different, the outcome might have been very different too. It may have been much more successful, or much less so. We have no standard of comparison for success, so the question is scarcely profitable.
In discussing success it may be helpful to compare together two different branches of physics. The classical mechanics as applied to the solar system was generally regarded as a dazzling success. But on the other end of the scale the theory of electromagnetics is regarded today by most students of the subject as being in a state of well-nigh hopeless confusion, although with experience it can be made to work moderately well. Evidently some wrong turning was made early in the development of this latter branch of physics, and with the root trouble, whatever it is, firmly entrenched, the subject appears to be growing in disorder and chaos rather than improving. Evidently it would be better to start afresh from the beginning and drag some quite different net through the world in this particular realm.
Such considerations as these should give us pause before we speak lightly of the ‘success’ of physical science.
A variant on this question Why if arbitrary then success? is to insist that if a law or theory enjoys success, then, in the same measure, it is probable that Nature is really like the situation envisaged by that law or theory. E.g. if the law of Gravitation is well established in physics, then there must really be this Gravitation in the world, and so on. In answer to this objection we cannot do better than quote the words of Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, where he propounds much the same doctrine concerning the laws of physics as we have in this chapter. In the course of a most penetrating discussion of the subject he remarks:
The fact that it can be described by Newtonian mechanics asserts nothing about the world; but this asserts something, namely, that it can be described in that particular way in which as matter of fact it is described. The fact, too, that it can be described more simply by one system of mechanics than by another says something about the world. [Tractatus, 6.342.]
If the laws of physics were really found in the world, then the laws would tell us something about the world. But if the laws of physics are superimposed on the world, then the laws themselves tell us nothing about the world. [Footnote: This incidentally provides the solution to the controversy which raged throughout the Middle Ages concerning the status of the various systems of astronomy. See Appendix.] Only the character of the particular description which we effect in terms of the super-imposed law has any bearing on the world. It is only in this second order manner that we make contact with the world. …. Hence there is no foundation for the assertion that in modern physics a law or theory, if successful, tells us what Nature is like.
This is a most important conclusion.
[End of quote]
Yes, the key issue is, as Ardley has put it, “what is the standard of success?”
In the writings of two recent popes, Benedict and the present pope, Francis - neither of whom could be accused of being anti-mathematics or anti-science (see below e.g. Benedict’s XVI “the magnificent mathematics of creation”) - one can discern the two orders about which Ardley has written, both legitimate, but with the higher order deserving of the more attention. Josef Ratzinger/Pope Benedict, writing in
has this to say about the limitations of modern science, of “functional truth”, and how the total pursuit (idolisation) of it can make one blind to ““truth” itself”:
….
Let us say plainly: the unredeemed state of the world consists precisely in the failure to understand the meaning of creation, in the failure to recognize truth; as a result, the rule of pragmatism is imposed, by which the strong arm of the powerful becomes the god of this world.
At this point, modern man is tempted to say: Creation has become intelligible to us through science. Indeed, Francis S. Collins, for example, who led the Human Genome Project, says with joyful astonishment: "The language of God was revealed" (The Language of God, p. 122). Indeed, in the magnificent mathematics of creation, which today we can read in the human genetic code, we recognize the language of God. But unfortunately not the whole language. The functional truth about man has been discovered. But the truth about man himself — who he is, where he comes from, what he should do, what is right, what is wrong — this unfortunately cannot be read in the same way. Hand in hand with growing knowledge of functional truth there seems to be an increasing blindness toward "truth" itself — toward the question of our real identity and purpose.
[End of quote]
Recently someone on TV remarked that “technology has made everything possible”. That it “has improved our health, provided us with a far better lifestyle, and can even bring about peace”. No one argues that science and technology have brought massive material, at least, benefits to our world. And, following Dr. Ardley (and having to disagree with his reviewer, Rawlins), one could say that perhaps it could have provided us with even greater benefits, here and there, if researchers had, say, ‘dragged some quite different net through the world in this particular realm’.
But has science and technology actually made our world a happier place in which to live?
And is there really a technologically-achieved peace?
No, because modern science has not within itself the capacity to bring a deeper peace.
That is apparent from Benedict’s comment above that a full immersion in the pursuit of “the functional truth about man” must inevitably lead to “an increasing blindness toward “truth” itself — toward the question of our real identity and purpose”.
Hence, the modern phenomenon of ‘identity crisis’, hence alienation, often leading to suicide.
Pope Francis has, I believe, come to the rescue with his blueprint for the modern world, Laudato Si’, which, by no means decrying the pursuit of genuine scientific endeavour, warns of excess. Sometimes, less is more.
Pope Francis puts modern ‘progress’ into a real perspective when he writes:
Pollution, waste and the throwaway culture
20. Some forms of pollution are part of people’s daily experience. Exposure to atmospheric pollutants produces a broad spectrum of health hazards, especially for the poor, and causes millions of premature deaths. People take sick, for example, from breathing high levels of smoke from fuels used in cooking or heating. There is also pollution that affects everyone, caused by transport, industrial fumes, substances which contribute to the acidification of soil and water, fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and agrotoxins in general. Technology, which, linked to business interests, is presented as the only way of solving these problems, in fact proves incapable of seeing the mysterious network of relations between things and so sometimes solves one problem only to create others.
21. Account must also be taken of the pollution produced by residue, including dangerous waste present in different areas. Each year hundreds of millions of tons of waste are generated, much of it non-biodegradable, highly toxic and radioactive, from homes and businesses, from construction and demolition sites, from clinical, electronic and industrial sources. The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish. Industrial waste and chemical products utilized in cities and agricultural areas can lead to bioaccumulation in the organisms of the local population, even when levels of toxins in those places are low. Frequently no measures are taken until after people’s health has been irreversibly affected.
22. These problems are closely linked to a throwaway culture which affects the excluded just as it quickly reduces things to rubbish. To cite one example, most of the paper we produce is thrown away and not recycled. It is hard for us to accept that the way natural ecosystems work is exemplary: plants synthesize nutrients which feed herbivores; these in turn become food for carnivores, which produce significant quantities of organic waste which give rise to new generations of plants. But our industrial system, at the end of its cycle of production and consumption, has not developed the capacity to absorb and reuse waste and by-products.
We have not yet managed to adopt a circular model of production capable of preserving resources for present and future generations, while limiting as much as possible the use of non-renewable resources, moderating their consumption, maximizing their efficient use, reusing and recycling them. A serious consideration of this issue would be one way of counteracting the throwaway culture which affects the entire planet, but it must be said that only limited progress has been made in this regard.
[End of quote]
I have found some of what Pope Francis has to say in this Encyclical letter very Ardleian. This led me to write in my article:
‘For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing’.
(Luke 12:23)
https://www.academia.edu/13601104/_For_life_is_more_than_food_and_the_body_more_than_clothing_._Luke_12_23_
Quality Over Quantity
What appeals to me personally about the pope’s Laudato Si’ encyclical letter is the resonance I find in parts of it with my favourite book on the philosophy of science, Dr. Gavin Ardley’s Aquinas and Kant: The Foundations of the Modern Sciences (1950). ….
Whereas the ancient sciences (scientiae) involved a study of actual reality, the more abstract modern sciences (e.g. theoretical physics), involve, as Immanuel Kant had rightly discerned, an active imposition of a priori concepts upon reality. In other words, these ‘sciences’ are largely artificial (or ‘categorial’) - their purpose being generally utilitarian.
Ardley tells of it (Ch. VI: Immanuel Kant):
Kant’s great contribution was to point out the revolution in natural science effected by Galileo and Bacon and their successors. This stands in principle even though all the rest of his philosophy wither away. Prior to Galileo people had been concerned with reading laws in Nature. After Galileo they read laws into Nature. His clear recognition of this fact makes Kant the fundamental philosopher of the modern world. It is the greatest contribution to the philosophia perennis since St. Thomas. But this has to be dug patiently out of Kant. Kant himself so overlaid and obscured his discovery that is has ever since gone well nigh unrecognised.
We may, in fact we must, refrain from following Kant in his doctrine of metaphysics. The modelling of metaphysics on physics was his great experiment. The experiment is manifestly a failure, in pursuit of what he mistakenly believed to be the best interests of metaphysics.
But, putting the metaphysical experiment aside, the principle on which it was founded abides, the principle of our categorial activity. Later, in Ch. XVIII, we will see in more detail how this principle is essential to the modern development of the philosophia perennis.
Kant was truly the philosopher of the modern world when we look judiciously at his work. As a motto for the Kritik Kant actually quotes a passage from Francis Bacon in which is laid down the programme for the pursuit of human utility and power. [Footnote: The passage is quoted again in this work on [Ardley’s] p. 47.]
As we saw in Ch. IV, it was Bacon above all who gave articulate expression to the spirit behind the new science. Now we see that it was Kant who, for the first time, divined the nature of the new science. If Bacon was the politician of the new régime, Kant was its philosopher although a vastly over-ambitious one.
It appears to be this very sort of Baconian “régime” that pope Francis is currently challenging, at least, according to Stephen White’s estimation:
While much has been said about the pope’s embrace of the scientific evidence of climate change and the dangers it poses, the irony is that he addresses this crisis in a way that calls into question some of the oldest and most basic assumptions of the scientific paradigm.
Francis Bacon and René Descartes — two fathers of modern science in particular — would have shuddered at this encyclical. Bacon was a man of many talents — jurist, philosopher, essayist, lord chancellor of England — but he’s mostly remembered today as the father of the scientific method. He is also remembered for suggesting that nature ought to be “bound into service, hounded in her wanderings and put on the rack and tortured for her secrets.” Descartes, for his part, hoped that the new science he and men like Bacon were developing would make us, in his words, “masters and possessors of nature.”
At the very outset of the encyclical, before any mention of climate change or global warming, Pope Francis issues a challenge to the Baconian and Cartesian view, which sees the world as so much raw material to be used as we please. Neither Descartes nor Bacon is mentioned by name, but the reference is unmistakable. Pope Francis insists that humanity’s “irresponsible use and abuse” of creation has come about because we “have come to see ourselves as [the Earth’s] lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will.”
Not truth, but power lust, will be the prime motivation of these, the Earth’s “lords and masters”, or, as Ardley has put it, “not to know the world but to control it”:
What was needed was for someone to point out clearly the ‘otherness’ of post-Galilean physical science, i.e. the fact that it is, in a sense, cut off from the rest of the world, and is the creation of man himself. The new science has no metaphysical foundations and no metaphysical implications. Kant had the clue to this ‘otherness’ in the categorial theory, but he took the rest of the world with him in the course of the revolution and hence only succeeded in the end in missing the point.
Most people since then, rightly sceptical about Kant’s wholesale revolution, have been quite hostile to the Kantian system in general. Others, perhaps without realising it, have rewritten the revolution in their own terms, and thus have perpetuated Kant’s principal errors (as e.g. Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus).
A thorough sifting out of Kant has long been required in order to separate the gold from the dross.
….
Kant’s mistake was to think that the world had to be transformed to know it. The truth is that the world may be transformed, if we so dictate, and then it is not to know the world but to control it. ….
[End of quote]
I went on to muse about a possible Ardleian connection:
From what follows, I wonder if the pope - or at least White in his comments - may have read Ardley’s book. Dr. Ardley had (on p. 5) pointed out that there are two ways of going about the process of analyzing or dissecting something, depending on one’s purpose. And he well illustrated his point by comparing the practices of the anatomist and the butcher. When an anatomist dissects an animal, he traces out the real structure of the animal; he lays bare the veins, the nerves, the muscles, the organs, and so on. “He reveals the actual structure which is there before him waiting to be made manifest”. The butcher, on the other hand, is not concerned about the natural structure of the animal as he chops it up; he wants to cut up the carcass into joints suitable for domestic purposes. In his activities the butcher ruthlessly cleaves across the real structure laid bare so patiently by the anatomist. “The anatomist finds his structure, the butcher makes his”.
Thus White: “Put another way, Pope Francis insists that the material world isn’t just mere stuff to be dissected, studied, manipulated, and then packaged off to be sold into service of human wants and needs”. And again: “The utilitarian mindset that treats creation as so much “raw material to be hammered into useful shape” inevitably leads us to see human beings through the same distorted lens”.
White continues:
The pope repeatedly warns against the presumption that technological advances, in themselves, constitute real human progress. In a typical passage, he writes, “There is a growing awareness that scientific and technological progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity and history, a growing sense that the way to a better future lies elsewhere.” The pope writes critically of “irrational confidence in progress and human abilities.” He writes hopefully of a time when “we can finally leave behind the modern myth of unlimited material progress.”
Nevertheless:
This isn’t to say that Pope Francis is anti-technology or even, as some have suggested, anti-modern, but he is deeply critical of both our technological mindset and modernity’s utilitarian propensities. While he acknowledges with gratitude the benefits humanity has derived from modern technology, which has “remedied countless evils which used to harm and limit human beings,” he also calls into question — forcefully — the idea that utility is the proper measure of our interaction with creation.
[End of quote]
There may be a better way of doing things in the pursuit of what pope Francis calls an “integral ecology [which] transcend[s] the language of mathematics and biology, and take[s] us to the heart of what it is to be human”.
A too rigid mathematics can make for a cruel master.
Gavin Ardley’s Obituary
[This Obituary of her father was kindly indicated to me by Gavin’s daughter, Elizabeth.
Taken from: http://prudentia.auckland.ac.nz/index.php/prudentia/article/view/783/739].
We received earlier this year the sad news of Gavin Ardley’s death on 12 March [1992?]. Among other achievements in his life, he was a founder of Prudentia, and devoted to its fortunes a great deal of energy and affection. He had also been a member of the Department of Philosophy in the University of Auckland for twenty five years, retiring in 1981. Since we announced his death briefly in our last number, several people have written to us, recording their sorrow and respect.
Dr Bruce Harris writes from Macquarie:
I first met Gavin Ardley in England, and then knew him as a colleague at Auckland for many years. It soon became apparent that Gavin had much in common with the Classics staff, particularly through his deep attachment to Plato and his love of teaching the Platonic text in the setting of Greek philosophy generally. He valued the study of ancient
thought not only for its inherent worth but as the source of those humane values he sought to practise in his own work as an academic. The intellectual history of the western world was for him a continuum from its ancient past, and his religious convictions were also closely linked with that history. His contributions to Prudentia reflected the breadth of his interests and his essential humanitas. He had only a limited sympathy with the linguistic philosophy fashionable in modern Philosophy departments, and would like to claim that it began as footnotes to Plato!
The journal began from conversations we had in the late sixties, springing from a feeling that the usual journals in our fields did not sufficiently encourage cross-disciplinary interests. It was launched on a shoe-string budget, dependent entirely on the good offices of Mr Mortimer of the University Bindery. It is good to see that its title has been retained
and that its scope is still wide — ‘the thought, literature, and history of the ancient world and their tradition’.
In these days of relative neglect of the humanities in universities (at least in funding), it is important that those working in ancient studies and the source of our whole western intellectual tradition be seen to present a united front. Gavin Ardley certainly adorned that tradition in Auckland.
Dr Dougal Blyth writes:
I knew Gavin only in the final years of his long teaching career at Auckland, when he supervised a research essay on Aristotle’s Metaphysics for me, and taught courses on Plato’s Laws and Republic, which I attended as part of my M.A. in 1979-1980. I was one of a small group of postgraduate students Gavin then had, including Hermann de Zocte, Paul Beech and Carl Page, among others.
Gavin’s method of teaching was leisurely, ordered, measured. He displayed in his own pedagogic manner the aversion to that ‘enthusiasm’, as he called it, which he thought so little of in passionate polemic. Among the scholarship on the importance of leisure in education and philosophy to which he directed our attention was a paper of his own on the role of play in Plato’s philosophy, and the balance to be had between the pedant and the boor (a very Aristotelian ideal). In teaching the Laws, he emphasized the appropriateness and significance, for the meaning of the dialogue, of its speakers and their context: old noblemen, with nothing better to do in the heat of the sun than to rest in the shade and discuss government; a conversation neither idle nor practical. Just such a conception seemed to govern the pace and direction of his readings from lecture notes and small group discussion, which form his postgraduate teaching took.
I found Gavin’s mode of direction of my independent work congenial, useful and, again, relaxed. In suggesting additions to my bibliography, he drew upon a wide reading knowledge beyond the confines of recent analytical criticism of Aristotle. He delicately elicited slightly more precise formulations of my points, indicating questions yet to be addressed, in a manner almost suggestive of the possibility that if one was so inclined, one might just as well overlook them. One day I was surprised to hear him encourage ‘the clash of ideas’; another to find him asleep in his office armchair.
After he retired, I saw Gavin relatively frequently about the campus and in the University Library, researching in the New Zealand and Pacific collection, during the few years before I left to study overseas. He certainly approved, from a distance, of my efforts with the classical tongues. I met him again when I returned on a visit in 1986. He walked more slowly and had more time to chat, quite willing to stop and hear about my intervening experiences and plans. His ever urbane yet humble manner, his cheery yet reserved demeanour, and his kind eye, along with a spirit seemingly embodying a model of gentlemanliness from another, more refined age, will remain as a cornerstone for me of my memories of those years as a student at the University of Auckland.
John Morton, Emeritus Professor of Zoology, wrote in the University News:
Born in 1915, Gavin Ardley graduated from Melbourne University in both physics and philosophy. For a spell he lectured in nuclear physics and studied the beta ray spectrum of Radium E. From war service in northern Australia, he went to Britain where he researched on Galileo. He came back in 1948 to teach science at Geelong Grammar School. 1954 to 1955 saw him back in Scotland as a master at Gordonstoun.
After the war Gavin had a year’s working spell in the Australian outback, moving about by railway jigger. This was an experience he was to value all his life. It was in the bush camps, with their assorted human company, that he determined his future should be in philosophy. This was to bring him to Auckland in 1957.
In a University where we could still easily get to know each other, Gavin Ardley was a colleague to be valued. He came to stand for some important things.
He’d have been wryly amused if told this. Yet he felt an intense privilege in belonging to the University. Drawing from the past capital of generosity and freedom, he believed we were also there to extend it. He knew how to use time unhurriedly. He’d have deplored nothing so much as crowded classes and syllabi, with students thinking themselves there to be crammed. Universities, he was one to say, ‘have drifted dangerously towards utility, collapsing into being mere technical institutes’. Right through the years Gavin was to take seriously the ties of friendship. As president of the Senior Common Room, in the old Pembridge days across Princes St, he did much to create its early bonds. In the University his personal links went well beyond his own discipline, spacious enough as philosophy (still with psychology and politics) must at first have been. But Gavin’s command also of science, history, theology, English literature, international politics was wide and impressive. With an acute, inquiring mind, there never seemed to be the astringence that would have made him a specialist or, in the modern research sense, a deep-sampler. More than analytic, his world view was reconciling, unfashionable for a philosopher as it might seem. ‘Today’, he once lamented, ‘world views are optional extras, a matter of personal taste, carrying no authority. So we all just muddle along’.
For Gavin Ardley, as with Catholic St Anselm, belief needed to precede understanding. On such foundation, any accounting for the world had to rest; never, he would insist, to be ‘comprehended’. But enough of it could be ‘apprehended’ to be enjoyed. It was with this enjoyment — ‘play’ in its best understanding — that he believed philosophy, or even the stringent, self-critical discipline of science, was to be done.
For Gavin it involved, too, the versatility to get along with all kinds of people and fortunes. Gavin Ardley’s lectures were beautifully structured and delivered. He was among the last of us to keep the traditional gown. For the last lecture I heard him give (it was on Martin Buber), he’d been called in from retirement and began without introduction. Fascinated, a student broke in, ‘But who are you? Where do you come from?’ With bland enjoyment Gavin explained, ‘I’m a gardener’.
In retirement he was devoted to his home garden in Parnell. With the same temper he seemed to cultivate his scholarly field, and to see the world. He never lost his fascination with travel, as in Europe and the Middle East. Above all, there was his abiding love of outback Australia. In Auckland for many years he was a keen stalwart of a tramping group.
In political caste Gavin Ardley had to be accounted a fine vintage Tory. Get an ideology, he’d have said, and you’re dead. So he revered Burke. And he most of all distrusted intellectual Pharisaism, and what used to pass for ‘enthusiasm’. He disliked supposed thought that was ill-thought or shoddy. Like modern Oakeshott he might have accepted politics as a civil ‘conversation’. Carried on with integrity, it could occasionally be serviceable to the world.
Gavin’s interests in policy and diplomacy went almost globe-wide. As its president, he was to bring Auckland’s Institute International Affairs to a new level of life, with a choice of exciting contemporary speakers.
Of his writings, the most pleasurable to a layperson is perhaps his Renovation of Berkeley's Philosophy (1968). Just as lucid was the early book Aquinas and Kant: the Foundation of Modern Science (1949). He jointly founded and edited the classics/ philosophy periodical Prudentia. Here I recall his elegant little essay on Aristotle’s respect for particulars and the diversity of things; it showed me — inter alia — why Aristotle is still the prototypal biologist.
Almost to the close of his life Gavin Ardley kept his Common Room ties alive. Where else, but in the opportunity of such exchange, was the centre of a university? He was a generous man that books read, good talk, and the silence of the outback had all contributed to form. Like his own notion of the philosopher, he was himself a ‘grave-merry man on the side of common sense’.
In his retired years we’d know where to find him, coming in to Old Government House late on Fridays with the familiar black beret Hilaire Belloc might have worn. As the years drew in, these visits got fewer. I wish that, on those last Fridays, I’d turned up more often.
….
Friday, October 25, 2024
Sister Faustina Kowalska on the souls in Purgatory
“Then St. Faustina saw Our Lady visiting the souls in Purgatory
and bringing them refreshment”.
St. Faustina’s Visions of the Souls in Purgatory
Maura Roan McKeegan
On the evening of All Souls Day, November 2, 1936, St. Faustina went to the cemetery. After praying there for a while, she went to the chapel and prayed to “gain the indulgences,” as she writes in her Diary (748).
The indulgences for which she prayed are a special gift the Church offers every year in the beginning of November, when the faithful can gain plenary indulgences for the souls in Purgatory.
The day after St. Faustina prayed in the cemetery, during Mass she saw “three white doves soaring from the altar toward heaven.” She understood that those three souls, along with many other souls, had gone to heaven.
Three years earlier, in 1933, St. Faustina was visited by the soul of a religious sister from her order who had died two months previously. The sister “was in a terrible condition, all in flames with her face painfully distorted,” and St. Faustina increased her prayers for her. The next night, St. Faustina was astonished to see the sister come again, in an even worse state, surrounded by even more intense flames, with despair “written all over her face.”
“Haven’t my prayers helped you?” St. Faustina asked.
The sister answered that her prayers had not helped, and that nothing would help her.
“And the prayers which the whole community has offered for you, have they not been any help to you?”
The sister said no, these prayers had instead helped other souls.
“If my prayers are not helping you, sister, please stop coming to me,” St. Faustina responded.
The soul disappeared at once.
Still, St. Faustina kept praying.
Some time later, the sister returned during the night. This time, though, her appearance had been completely altered. The flames were gone, and “her face was radiant, her eyes beaming with joy,” St. Faustina writes in her Diary (58). The sister told St. Faustina that she had a true love for her neighbor and that many other souls had benefited from her prayers.
“She urged me not to cease praying for the souls in Purgatory, and she added that she herself would not remain there much longer,” St. Faustina writes. “How astounding are the ways of God!”
Even though this sister was still in Purgatory the third time she visited St. Faustina, her level of suffering was entirely changed. Through St. Faustina’s unfailing hope and prayers, she had gone from agony and despair to radiance and joy. She wasn’t in heaven yet, but she was on her way.
“Only We Can Come to their Aid”
In 1926, about a decade before St. Faustina saw the three souls fly up to heaven during Mass, she asked the Lord one night for whom she should pray. Jesus told her that on the following night, He would let her know. The next night, she saw her Guardian Angel. He took her to “a misty place full of fire in which there was a great crowd of suffering souls.”
“They were praying fervently,” writes St. Faustina in her Diary (20), “but to no avail, for themselves; only we can come to their aid.”
She asked what their greatest suffering was, and in one voice they answered her that their greatest torment was longing for God.
Then St. Faustina saw Our Lady visiting the souls in Purgatory and bringing them refreshment. After that, her Guardian Angel led her out again.
“Since that time, I am in closer communion with the suffering souls,” she writes.
As St. Faustina saw in her vision, the souls in Purgatory cannot pray for themselves. So even if the deceased sister who visited her in 1933 had prayed as hard as she could to be delivered from the flames and despair, her prayers would not have been effective. In God’s mysterious plan, the sister needed the prayers of the faithful on earth in order to be freed from her suffering.
In the same way, all of the souls in Purgatory at this moment desperately need our prayers, for no matter how hard they pray for themselves, their own prayers won’t help them. Ours will.
Even though the souls in Purgatory cannot pray for themselves, they can pray for others. And in a beautiful reciprocal act of mercy, if we pray for them, they can pray for us. The Catechism (958) says that “Our prayer for them is capable not only of helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective.”
Our prayers for them are the key that unlocks their prayers for us!
An army of prayer warriors is waiting for us in Purgatory. When we pray for them, we can then ask them to intercede for us, so that we may receive the great blessing of their prayers in return.
Every single prayer, big or small, for the souls in Purgatory helps them. Even if a prayer is offered for someone who has already reached heaven, then that prayer will be applied to another soul. No prayer is ever wasted. No act of love for the holy souls goes unanswered. No offering will fail to bring comfort, consolation, and the radiance of heaven to these dear suffering souls.
Plenary Indulgences in Early November
In early November, the faithful can obtain plenary indulgences for the souls in Purgatory, as St. Faustina did, by visiting the cemetery from November 1-8 and praying there for the dead, or by visiting a church or oratory on November 2 and reciting an Our Father and Creed. On other days, the indulgence is partial.
In order to obtain the indulgence, a Catholic in the state of grace must have the intention to obtain it and fulfill the following conditions:
From Nov. 1-8, visit a cemetery and pray there for the dead, even if only mentally; or, on Nov. 2, visit a church or oratory and recite an Our Father and Creed
Make a sacramental confession (a single confession, within about 20 days before or after, will suffice for all the indulgences a person obtains within that time period)
Receive Holy Communion (once for each indulgence obtained)
Recite at least one Our Father and one Hail Mary for the Holy Father
Be free from attachment to all sin, including venial*
One plenary indulgence can be obtained each day. The indulgence is partial if the conditions are partially fulfilled.
*A note about the last condition: Sometimes people wonder whether it is possible for them to be completely detached from venial sin. I believe the answer to this is found in Mark 10, when Jesus tells his disciples how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God, and they wonder who then can be saved.
“For human beings it is impossible, but not for God,” Jesus tells them. “All things are possible for God.”
Even if it would be impossible for us to be completely detached from sin, it is not impossible for God. As Matthew 7 reminds us, “Ask, and it will be given you;” for our Father in heaven gives “good things to those who ask him.” Let’s ask Him, then, for the grace to be detached from all sin. My friend Suzie suggests adding this little prayer to the prayers for the indulgence: Dear Holy Spirit, if I am not detached from all sin, please make me detached now, so that I may gain this plenary indulgence that my Mother, the Church, offers to me, Her child.
God is on our side. He wants us to be able to obtain this indulgence as an act of charity for the souls in Purgatory, and He will help us fulfill the conditions if we only ask.
Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
https://catholicexchange.com/st-faustinas-visions-of-the-souls-in-purgatory/
Monday, October 21, 2024
Pope John Paul II may have been the “spark” from Poland spoken of by Jesus to Sister Faustina
“Write this for the many souls who are often worried to carry out an act of mercy. Yet spiritual mercy, which requires neither permission or storehouses,
is much more meritorious and is within the grasp of every soul. If a soul does not exercise mercy somehow or other, it will not obtain My mercy on the
day of judgment”.
Jesus to Sister Faustina Kowalska
Today (22nd October 2024) is the feast day of John Paul II ‘the Great’
The following is taken from:
https://feastofmercy.net/blogs/prayers-devotions/saint-faustina-you-will-prepare-the-world-for-my-final-coming
Saint Faustina, "you will prepare the world for My final coming"
by Tim McAndrew
Who is this Saint Faustina that Our Lord asks to prepare the world for His final coming?
Sister Faustina Kowalska is known today as the Apostle of the Divine Mercy.
She was the third of ten children born into a poor pious family in Glogowiec, Poland. When she was only seven, she already sensed in her soul the call to embrace the religious life. Sister Faustina tried hard to ignore this Divine call; however, by a vision of the suffering Christ and by the words of His approach, “How long shall I put up with you and how long will you keep putting me off?”
Sister Faustina was born August 25, 1905 and passed on to the Lord on October 5, 1938 in Krakow, Poland.
At the age of 20 years she joined a convent in Warsaw, Poland, was later transferred to Płock, and then to Vilnius where she met her confessor Father Michał Sopoćko, who supported her devotion to the Divine Mercy. Faustina and Sopoćko directed an artist to paint the first Divine Mercy image, based on Faustina's vision of Jesus. Sopoćko used the image in celebrating the first Mass on the first Sunday after Easter. Subsequently, Pope John Paul II established the Feast of Divine Mercy on that Sunday of each liturgical year.
Her entire life was spent striving for an even fuller union with God and on self sacrificing in cooperation with Jesus in the work of saving souls.
This simple uneducated but courageous woman, was consigned the great mission by Our Lord Jesus to proclaim His message of mercy, to the whole world and to prepare the world for His final coming. His message was recorded in a diary kept by Saint Faustina.
Our Lord Speaks:
“I am sending you with My mercy to the people of the whole world. I do not want to punish aching mankind, but I desire to heal it, pressing it to My merciful heart.” (Diary 1588) “You are secretary of My mercy; I have chosen you for office in this and the next life.” (Diary 1605)... “To make known to souls the great mercy that I have for them, and to exhort them to trust in the bottomless depth of My mercy.” (Diary 1567)
Our Lord words to Saint Faustina about Divine Mercy Sunday:
“I desire that the Feast of Mercy be a refuge and shelter for all souls; especially for poor sinners.” (Diary 699) “I am giving them the last hope of salvation. That is, recourse to My mercy. If they will not adore My mercy, they will perish for all eternity.” (Diary 965)
Saint Faustina’s Vision of Hell
Sister Faustina recorded in the diary a vision of Hell: “I, Sister Faustina Kowalska, by the order of God, have visited the abysses of Hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence.
The devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God. What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But, I noticed one thing, that most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a Hell.
Today I was led by an angel to the chasms of Hell. It is a place of great tortures; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kind of tortures I saw:
“The first torture that constitutes Hell is the loss of
God.
The second is perpetual remorse of conscience.
The third is that one’s condition will never change.
The fourth is the fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God's anger.
The fifth torture is a continual darkness and a terrible suffocation smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own.
The sixth torture is horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies; indescribable sufferings.
There are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable suffering related to the manner which it has sinned.
"No one can say there is no Hell. Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity on those senses which he made use of to sin". (Diary 741)
"You will prepare the world for My Final Coming"
However much we’re wary of overly apocalyptical prophecy … there’s no doubting that one such prediction came from a recently canonized saint. That was St. Maria Faustina Kowalska of the Divine Mercy revelations, who was canonized in 2000.
….
“Speak to the world about My mercy… it is a sign for the end times. After it will come the day of justice (Diary 848)…Souls perish in spite of My bitter passion…I am giving them the last hope of salvation; that is, the Feast of Mercy. If they will not adore My Mercy, they will perish for all eternity. Secretary of My mercy, write, tell souls about this great mercy of Mine, because the awful day, the day of My justice, is near” (Diary #965).
Keep in mind that we’re not obligated to accept them these messages; while Faustina was canonized, her prophecies have not been officially sanctioned (such messages, even from a saint, rarely are). But they are certainly worth close scrutiny, and they indicate that God is serious about purification despite those who have tended to focus only on His mercy.
Our Lord Speaks:
“Write this for the many souls who are often worried to carry out an act of mercy. Yet spiritual mercy, which requires neither permission or storehouses, is much more meritorious and is within the grasp of every soul.
If a soul does not exercise mercy somehow or other, it will not obtain My mercy on the day of judgment. Oh, if only souls knew how to gather eternal treasure for themselves, they would not be judged, for they would forestall My judgment with their mercy.” (#1317)
Our Blessed Mothers words to Saint Faustina regarding her Son’s second coming:
“Oh, how pleasing to God is the soul that follows faithfully, the inspirations of His grace! I gave the savior to the world; as for you, you have to speak to the world about His great mercy and prepare the world for His Second Coming of Him who will come, not as a merciful savior, but as a just Judge. Oh, how terrible is that day! Determined is the day of justice, the day of divine wrath. The angels tremble before it. Speak to souls about this great mercy while there is still time for granting mercy, if you keep silent now, you will be answering for a great number of souls on that terrible day. Fear nothing, be nothing, be faithful to the end. I sympathize with you.” (Diary # 635)
In one entry Saint Faustina said, “‘As I was praying, I heart Jesus’ words: ‘I bear a special love for Poland, and if she will be obedient to My Will, I will exalt her in might and holiness. From her will come forth the spark that will prepare the world for My final coming.(Diary 1732)’ ”The land of death from the World War's" would become the birthplace of the modern Divine Mercy devotion.
Was this a reference to John Paul II? We all know the Pope is from Poland, and he ended up having a pivotal role in the recognition of Divine Mercy — culminating with his canonization of Faustina. Even if the “spark” refers to the fall of Communism, which started in Poland, this too is inextricably linked to John Paul, who was a secret force behind Solidarity (the union that overthrew Communist rule).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)