TRÁI TIM MẸ:  NƠI CON NƯƠNG NÁU - ĐƯỜNG ĐẾN VỚI CHÚA

"Chúa Giêsu muốn dùng con để làm cho Mẹ được nhận biết và yêu mến"

Sep 30, 2008 –  Tuesday of 26th Week in Ordinary Time       DAILY LITURGICAL/THEME MEDITATION: "The people would not receive Jesus, because his face was set toward Jerusalem" UNIVERSAL CHURCH/WORLD EVENT(S): US Bishops Offer 5 Keys to End Financial Crisis SAINT OF THE DAY St. Jerome  GENERAL MARIOLOGY Protestant Reformers Defend Perpetual Virginity (continued) DIVINE MERCY Enjoying Solitude, Alone With God  TEACHING/TESTIMONY/CONVICTION: UK Bishops on Dangers of Embryology Bill   Monthly Index

DAILY LITURGICAL MEDITATION

Tuesday (9/30):  "The people would not receive Jesus, because his face was set toward Jerusalem" Scripture:  Luke 9:51-56   51 When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. 52 And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him; 53 but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. 54 And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" 55 But he turned and rebuked them. 56 And they went on to another village. Meditation: Are you surprised to see two of Jesus' disciples praying for the destruction of a Samaritan village? The Jews and Samaritans had been divided for centuries. Jewish pilgrims who passed through Samaritan territory were often assaulted. Jesus did the unthinkable for a Jew. He not only decided to travel through Samaritan territory at personal risk, but he also asked for hospitality in one of their villages! Jesus' offer of friendship was rebuffed. Is there any wonder that the disciples were indignant and felt justified in wanting to see retribution done to this village? Wouldn't you respond the same way? Jesus, however, rebukes his disciples for their lack of toleration.  Jesus had "set his face toward Jerusalem" to die on a cross that Jew, Samaritan and Gentile might be reconciled with God and be united as one people in Christ. Tolerance is a much needed virtue today. But aren't we often tolerant for the wrong thing or for the wrong motive? Christian love seeks the highest good of both one's neighbor and one's enemy. When Abraham Lincoln was criticized for his courtesy and tolerance towards his enemies during the American Civil War, he responded: "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?" How do you treat those who cross you and cause you trouble? Do you seek their good rather than their harm? "Lord Jesus, you are gracious, merciful, and kind. Set me free from my prejudice and intolerance towards those I find disagreeable, and widen my heart to love and to do good even to those who wish me harm or evil." Psalm 88:2-8 2 Let my prayer come before thee, incline thy ear to my cry! 3 For my soul is full of troubles, and my life draws near to Sheol. 4 I am reckoned among those who go down to the Pit; I am a man who has no strength, 5 like one forsaken among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, like those whom thou dost remember no more, for they are cut off from thy hand. 6 Thou hast put me in the depths of the Pit, in the regions dark and deep. 7 Thy wrath lies heavy upon me, and thou dost overwhelm me with all thy waves. [Selah] 8 Thou hast caused my companions to shun me; thou hast made me a thing of horror to them.  I am shut in so that I cannot escape.   RETURN TO TOP

UNIVERSAL CHURCH/WORL EVENTS

US Bishops Offer 5 Keys to End Financial Crisis Urge Responsibility for Choices Made   WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPT. 29, 2008 (Zenit.org).- As Congress goes back to the drawing board to consider the nation's finances after today's failed bailout vote, the country's bishops have their own list of principles they hope will be taken into account. In a letter sent to government leaders Friday, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, chairman of the episcopal conference's Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, urged a consideration of five key principles when considering how to bail out the nation's failing economy. He first promised that the bishops are praying for the situation, which he called "both terribly disturbing and enormously complicated." Then, acknowledging that "my brother bishops and I do not bring technical expertise to these complicated matters," he affirmed that "our faith and moral principles can help guide the search for just and effective responses to the economic turmoil threatening our people." The first key Bishop Murphy encouraged was taking into account the "human and moral dimensions" of the crisis. "Economic arrangements, structures and remedies should have as a fundamental purpose safeguarding human life and dignity," he affirmed. The prelate said a "scandalous search for excessive economic rewards," which gets to the point of exacerbating the vulnerable, is an example of "an economic ethic that places economic gain above all other values." "This ignores the impact of economic decisions on the lives of real people as well as the ethical dimension of the choices we make and the moral responsibility we have for their effect on people," Bishop Murphy wrote. Second, the New York bishop called for "responsibility and accountability." "Clearly, effective measures are required which address and alter the behaviors, practices and misjudgments that led to this crisis. […] Those who directly contributed to this crisis or profited from it should not be rewarded or escape accountability for the harm they have done," he said. Meeting needs The prelate next recalled that in any case, the market will always have "advantages and limitations." "[T]here are human needs which find no place on the market," Bishop Murphy said. "It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied." In this regard, he called for a "renewal of instruments of monitoring and correction within economic institutions and the financial industry as well as effective public regulation and protection to the extent this may be clearly necessary." "Solidarity and the common good" is the fourth principle the prelate encouraged. "The principle of solidarity reminds us that we are in this together and warns us that concern for narrow interests alone can make things worse," he explained. "The principle of solidarity commits us to the pursuit of the common good, not the search for partisan gain or economic advantage." Finally, Bishop Murphy recommended recalling the principle of subsidiarity. "Subsidiarity places a responsibility on the private actors and institutions to accept their own obligations," he said. "If they do not do so, then the larger entities, including the government, will have to step in to do what private institutions will have failed to do." The bishop concluded recalling words from the encyclical "Centesimus Annus": "Our Catholic tradition calls for a society of work, enterprise and participation which is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the state to assure that the basic needs of the whole society are satisfied. "These words of John Paul II should be adopted as a standard for all those who carry this responsibility for our nation, the world and the common good of all." RETURN TO TOP

DAILY LITURGICAL SAINT

September 30, 2008 St. Jerome (345-420)   Most of the saints are remembered for some outstanding virtue or devotion which they practiced, but Jerome is remembered too frequently for his bad temper! It is true that he had a very bad temper and could use a vitriolic pen, but his love for God and his Son Jesus Christ was extraordinarily intense; anyone who taught error was an enemy of God and truth, and St. Jerome went after him or her with his mighty and sometimes sarcastic pen. He was above all a Scripture scholar, translating most of the Old Testament from the Hebrew. He also wrote commentaries which are a great source of scriptural inspiration for us today. He was an avid student, a thorough scholar, a prodigious letter-writer and a consultant to monk, bishop and pope. St. Augustine said of him, "What Jerome is ignorant of, no mortal has ever known." St. Jerome is particularly important for having made a translation of the Bible which came to be called the Vulgate. It is not the most critical edition of the Bible, but its acceptance by the Church was fortunate. As a modern scholar says, "No man before Jerome or among his contemporaries and very few men for many centuries afterwards were so well qualified to do the work." The Council of Trent called for a new and corrected edition of the Vulgate, and declared it the authentic text to be used in the Church. In order to be able to do such work, Jerome prepared himself well. He was a master of Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Chaldaic. He began his studies at his birthplace, Stridon in Dalmatia (in the former Yugoslavia). After his preliminary education he went to Rome, the center of learning at that time, and thence to Trier, Germany, where the scholar was very much in evidence. He spent several years in each place, trying always to find the very best teachers. After these preparatory studies he traveled extensively in Palestine, marking each spot of Christ's life with an outpouring of devotion. Mystic that he was, he spent five years in the desert of Chalcis so that he might give himself up to prayer, penance and study. Finally he settled in Bethlehem, where he lived in the cave believed to have been the birthplace of Christ. On September 30 in the year 420, Jerome died in Bethlehem. The remains of his body now lie buried in the Basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome. Comment: Jerome was a strong, outspoken man. He had the virtues and the unpleasant fruits of being a fearless critic and all the usual moral problems of a man. He was, as someone has said, no admirer of moderation whether in virtue or against evil. He was swift to anger, but also swift to feel remorse, even more severe on his own shortcomings than on those of others. A pope is said to have remarked, on seeing a picture of Jerome striking his breast with a stone, "You do well to carry that stone, for without it the Church would never have canonized you" (Butler's Lives of the Saints). Quote: "In the remotest part of a wild and stony desert, burnt up with the heat of the scorching sun so that it frightens even the monks that inhabit it, I seemed to myself to be in the midst of the delights and crowds of Rome. In this exile and prison to which for the fear of hell I had voluntarily condemned myself, I many times imagined myself witnessing the dancing of the Roman maidens as if I had been in the midst of them: In my cold body and in my parched-up flesh, which seemed dead before its death, passion was able to live. Alone with this enemy, I threw myself in spirit at the feet of Jesus, watering them with my tears, and I tamed my flesh by fasting whole weeks. I am not ashamed to disclose my temptations, but I grieve that I am not now what I then was" ("Letter to St. Eustochium"). RETURN TO TOP

GENERAL MARIOLOGY

Protestant Reformers Defend Perpetual Virginity By Fr. Mateo        (continued) CRI then refers to 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, asserting that normal marital relations were "in keeping with God's will for the couple." (7) I wonder how the writer knows precisely what was or was not in keeping with God's will for the couple. Later in the article we read, "While God certainly will do what is proper, theologians who take this approach to doctrine overlook the fact that they are assuming a priori that they know what is proper to God. Isaiah 55:8-9 tells us that God's thoughts and ways are not the thoughts and ways of man. This is true because God is not bound by the limitations of a finite nature and also because man's reasoning process has been distorted by sin." (8) Which is it, CRI? You can't have it both ways. There is no evidence that Paul had Mary and Joseph in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. Moreover, Paul permits abstention from marital rights by mutual consent in 7:5. He wishes this to be temporary "so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control." This proviso could never have applied to Mary and Joseph. Furthermore, Paul recognizes the existence of particular charisms both within and outside of marriage (7:7). Certainly, perpetual virginity with abstention on the part of husband and wife is such a particular charism. The Pauline text, therefore, does not disprove Mary's perpetual virginity. Now CRI comes to the often-urged question of the "brothers and sisters of Jesus" (Matt. 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, and elsewhere). The procedure used here is to attack Karl Keating, whose treatment of this vexed problem is now the best in the field of popular apologetics. (9) Keating needs no defense. His book is easily available to the interested reader. Here I want only to make a few observations. The point at issue in the "brothers/sisters of Jesus" texts is the translation of the Greek words adelphos (brother) and adelphe (sister). CRI admits that the Greek Septuagint (10) uses these words not only for brother/sister, but also for remoter relatives. (11) Keating rightly notes that New Testament writers follow this Septuagint usage. CRI tries to dismiss Keating's argument with two counter-assertions: 1. "He never gives an example of a New Testament writer using adelphos for a cousin. . . . There are no such examples." (12) This is a red herring. Keating does not claim adelphos means cousin. He claims, rightly, that it often is used for "relative." And there are New Testament texts, which must be so translated. I invite the reader to examine Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25. In these James and Joses (Joseph), who are mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Judas (Jude) as Jesus' adelphoi, are called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas, a different Mary from our Blessed Mother. This "other" Mary (Matt. 27:61, 28:1) is called our Lady's adelphe in John 19:25. It is wholly unlikely that two daughters of the same parents were given the same name, "Mary." Our Lady and the "other Mary" were related only in the wider sense of adelphe. They were relatives, but not sisters. Since Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Judas, and the sisters of Jesus along with James and Joses, calling them all adelphoi (masculine) and adelphai (feminine), these words in the texts at issue must be translated "relatives." 2. CRI asserts against Keating that "The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures and thus is not in a class with the contemporary narratives and letters of the New Testament." (13) But Septuagint usage is indeed a safe and necessary guide in interpreting New Testament Greek. From the middle of the second century B.C., many Jews in Egypt (where the Septuagint translation was made) and throughout the Diaspora had lost touch with Hebrew. The Septuagint began to be read in synagogue worship. By the time of Christ, for most Jews, the Septuagint was the Bible, their only readable Bible. This became true also for several generations of early Christians. Thus the influence of the Septuagint on the Greek language, as spoken and written by early Christians and by the Jews of the Diaspora and even in Palestine, was enormous. Almost 80 percent of the Old Testament citations and allusions in the New Testament come from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew Bible. Stylistically, much of the New Testament, especially the four Gospels and Acts, is heavily dependent on the Septuagint. David Hill of the University of Sheffield says, "The vocabularies (emphasis mine) of the Greek Old Testament and the Greek New Testament have a great measure of similarity; and research into the syntax of the Greek of the Septuagint has revealed its remarkable likeness to that of the New Testament.... The language of the New Testament.... reveals in its syntax and... in its vocabulary (emphasis Hill's) a strong Semitic cast, due in large measure to its indebtedness to the Jewish biblical Greek of the Septuagint." (14) A. T. Robertson, in his Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1934), makes this remark about the nineteenth-century New Testament lexicographer and grammarian Gustav Adolf Deissman: "He properly condemns the too frequent isolation of the New Testament Greek from the so-called 'profane Greek'... he insists on the practical identity of biblical with the contemporary later Greek of the popular style." The writers (except for Luke) and the very early readers of the New Testament, being Jews of that period, were "Septuagint conditioned." They were accustomed to the Septuagint usage of adelphos/adelphe as the ordinary Greek rendering of the Hebrew word ach in all its familial and extra-familial meanings, meanings much broader than uterine brother/sisterhood. Texts which call James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and the unnamed women the adelphoi and adelphai of Jesus cannot be understood except by calling these people Jesus' relatives, not his uterine brothers and sisters. CRI, in fact, has ignored the historical and etymological importance of the Septuagint. It is as impossible to understand New Testament Greek without reference to the Greek of the Septuagint as it is impossible to understand the peculiarities of the Septuagint without reference to the original Hebrew. CRI's next problem is with the Catholic interpretation of Luke 1:26-35. There, Luke says that Mary was a virgin and already engaged to marry Joseph when the angel Gabriel came to her. After greeting her, he calmed her fear: "'Do not be afraid, Mary. You have found favor with God. You will conceive and bear a son, Jesus.' Mary answered, 'How shall this be? I do not know man'" (a Hebraism for sexual intercourse). Her question shows that Mary knew how babies were made. The question makes no sense unless she resolved to remain a virgin even in marriage. Only then could she wonder how Gabriel's invitation could square with her resolve. When assured that her motherhood would not involve Joseph, but be altogether from the Holy Spirit, she acceded to God's plan as the "handmaiden of the Lord." CRI attempts to refute the Catholic position by pouring contempt on the notion of a "vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage." (15) Such a vow would be "unheard of and unthinkable in biblical culture" (16)—a statement unsupported by any kind of proof. CRI's phrase "biblical culture" is an abstraction so diffuse as to be nearly meaningless. Besides, the problem here is not cultural, but theological. We are considering the Incarnation, and the Incarnation was unheard of and unthinkable in any culture. No human culture, "biblical" or not, could possibly anticipate or frame any detail of an event so shatteringly unique as the Incarnation of the Son of God. An integral part of God's plan for the Incarnation was the sole and total dedication of Mary to God the Son whom she bore in her womb and to the Holy Spirit, who possessed her utterly.   (to be continued)    RETURN TO TOP

DIVINE MERCY

Dairy from St. Faustina On Silence, Solitude Enjoying Solitude, Alone With God Profound silence engulfs my soul. Not a single cloud hides the sun from me. I lay myself entirely open to its rays, that His love may effect a complete transformation in me. I want to come out of this retreat a saint, and this, in spite of everything; that is to say, in spite of my wretchedness, I want to become a saint, and I trust that God's mercy can make a saint even out of such misery as I am, because I am utterly in good will (Diary, 1333). No one can conceive the happiness which my heart enjoys in its solitude, alone with God (Diary, 1395). RETURN TO TOP

CATHOLIC  TEACHING/CONVICTION/TESTIMONY

UK Bishops on Dangers of Embryology Bill "The First Victim of Abortion Is the Unborn Child"   LONDON, SEPT. 29, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of the two-page leaflet Archbishop Peter Smith, chair of the Department of Christian Responsibility and Citizenship of the bishops' conference of England and Wales, sent to priests on Thursday to circulate in their parishes ahead of the forthcoming third reading of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill. The leaflet was distributed as a publication of the bishops' conference of England and Wales. * * * This Autumn will see the final stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in Parliament. There is a real possibility the law will be changed to make access to abortion easier. The Bishops of England & Wales are offering the following guidance on the issues and what you can do. Cherishing Life The Church teaches clearly that every human life must be respected and protected from conception. The first victim of abortion is the unborn child. The woman is also a victim for she loses her child but is unable to grieve effectively. The Church "does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even a shattering decision." ("The Gospel of Life," paragraph 99) There may be financial or other pressures so strong that a woman "feels psychologically forced to have an abortion." ("The Gospel of Life," paragraph 59). It is important to find practical ways to support women so they are not rushed into making harmful choices but are helped to make life-affirming choices. What is the law at present? The Abortion Act 1967, as amended in 1990, allows abortion up to 24 weeks if two doctors certify that the risks "of injury to the physical or mental health" to the mother or her other children, are less with abortion than with childbirth. If there is a substantial risk that the child is disabled, then abortion is allowed up to birth. The abortion must be carried out by a doctor and in a hospital or premises specifically approved by the Secretary of State. Why is it important to act now? For only the second time since 1967 the government is sponsoring a bill which will allow amendments on abortion. Last time this happened, in 1990, the law on abortion changed significantly and it could change again now. Attempts have already been made to use the Bill to change abortion law, so far without success. MPs have tabled a further 23 amendments. Any or all of these could be voted on next month. What are the key amendments that have been tabled? -- To remove the "mental health" clause and permit abortion on demand up to 24 weeks -- To remove the need for two doctors to authorise abortion -- To allow nurses and midwives to perform abortion, even late surgical abortion -- To permit abortions anywhere that health services are offered -- To allow abortion drugs to be taken at home without medical supervision -- To extend abortion law to Northern Ireland -- And some positive amendments to ensure that women have access to counselling How real is the danger? These amendments have been tabled. They may be debated and incorporated into the Government Bill. If conscientious people do not act, there is a very real danger that the law on abortion will become even worse than it is now. Extreme proposals The Abortion Act 1967 was intended to solve the problem of "back street" abortion; as an exception for difficult cases. These proposals, in permitting abortion on demand without any health-related justification, remove every vestige of protection for the unborn child. Women are also abandoned. Not all abortions are requested by mature women who know exactly what they want. Many are requested by young and vulnerable women under intense pressure and often in isolation. These proposals could lead to girls as young as 14 taking abortion pills at home, alone, without any medical supervision. There would be no need for a doctor’s involvement as the doctor could certify without seeing the girl and a nurse could dispense the pills. Public opinion In 2007 there were over 200,000 abortions in England and Wales. The vast majority of people in England and Wales (over 80%) think that we should be seeking ways to make abortion less common, not finding ways to make abortion more widespread. Most people (68%) are opposed to nurses performing abortions, and the British Medical Association also voted against this. The Royal College of Nursing is officially in favour, but has not consulted the majority of its members. Similarly most GPs (over 75%) do not want their surgeries turned into abortion clinics. What are the arguments of those who wish to see abortion made easier? Their argument is that by making abortion quicker and easier they are helping women. They allege that the current system causes delays. What are the counter arguments? There is no evidence that the current law causes significant delays for women seeking abortion. In fact, according to government statistics 70% of abortions were carried out before 9 weeks and 90% before 13 weeks gestation. Over the past 10 years the percentage of early abortions has steadily increased. Abortion, at whatever stage of pregnancy, is a very serious decision and not one that women should be rushed into. The system should provide a breathing space, access to counselling and information about alternatives, so that no woman feels forced to choose abortion. The requirement for a health-related justification; for two doctors to sign; for a doctor to perform the abortion; and for it to be done in a hospital, reflect the seriousness of abortion. Removing these requirements leave women and unborn child exposed to great dangers. We should be taking abortion more seriously not less seriously. What can be done? It is important that as many people as possible write urgently to their MP. If you have time you might also write to the Prime Minister. Who is my MP and how do I make contact? You can find the name of your MP online at: www.parliament.uk/people/index.cfm Or from the House of Commons Information Office: 020 7219 4272 You can write to your MP at: The House of Commons London, SW1A 0AA Or e-mail through: www.writetothem.com What should I write? Letters are most effective when they are written in your own words and express what you are most concerned about. For example, if you are a nurse, say so, and say if and why you would not want nurses to do abortions. Most of these amendments would make abortion more widespread, would lead to women having less time to think before abortion, and leave women facing abortion at home and alone without medical supervision. They would also remove the last vestige of protection for the unborn child. How do you feel about this? Pray because it all depends on God but work as though it all depends on us. Further information can be obtained from www.catholicchurch.org.uk   RETURN TO TOP

Monthly Index              General Archive 2008 General Archive 2007 General Archive 2006 General Archive 2005 General Archive 2004

Hits since 3/16/2004 Màn điện toán toàn cầu của Thiếu Nhi Fatima được bắt đầu với trang Main từ ngày 9/12/1999, nhưng mãi tới Mùa Hè 2001 mới tạm xong, cuối cùng đã được chỉnh trang về cả hình thức lẫn nội dung từ mùa hè năm 2002, để rồi chính thức tái ra mắt vào ngày 25/3/2003 cho đến nay.   TNFatima.org do Thiếu Nhi Fatima chủ trương và thực hiện Mọi ý kiến đóng góp xin gửi về Webmaster