07 January 2009

And even more. . .

An even MORE!

1). Do dogs go to heaven?

No.

2). Can I wear a black wedding dress?

Sure. Are you marrying Satan?

3). What's the best way to get my pastor to stop abusing the liturgy?

Slip him a $50 and tell him there's more where that came from if he behaves.

4). Can God create a rock so big that even He can't move it?

Yes. We call it "Nancy Pelosi."

5). Should we try to Christianize the middle-east?

Yes. At gunpoint. Or we could just send in more Starbucks franchises with WWJD mugs.

6). Can infinity can measured?

Yes. But it will take some time.

7). Will having Masses said for Obama's conversion have any real affect?

No. But a good butt whopping would.

8). Who's your fav political thinker?

In order: Ann Coulter, Mao Se-Tung, and Al Franken. What can I say? I like diversity.

9). How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Is this alleged woodchucking woodchuck Italian?

10). I'm going to buy you a book. Which one on your list do you need most?

The one with the most pictures.

38 comments:

  1. I am going to use no. 6 in every math paper I still have to sit. Thank you, Father, that was hilarious :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Father, Thank you for starting my day off with a good laugh! My favorite is the Nancy Pelosi response. It's refreshing to find a good, orthodox priest with a healthy sense of humor!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Emmett8:54 AM

    Ann Coulter is my favorite! Actually now that you mention it, you remind me a lot of her sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ah, Emmett...you're not my student; you don't have to flatter me!

    ReplyDelete
  5. chrisacs10:03 AM

    Father

    Ann Coulter???? You strike me as the Michelle Maulkin type.

    On an even less serious note, I gandered at your Amazon book list. Will any of these books be read more than once? May I be so bold as to suggest a resource lost in our present electronic age - the library.

    God Bless and Respectfully

    chrisacs

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chris,

    Strangely enough, with two masters degrees, a PhD, and approximately 20 years of university teaching under my belt, I'm very familiar with the notion of a library.

    The problem for me is that our university library here is a repository of wonderful books on medieval and ancient philosophy and theology. Though my studies begin in these areas, ultimately, I have come into the 21st century of the philosophy of science...and in this area, our poor library doesn't cut it.

    Before I put a book on the list, I check our catalog and make sure we don't have it.

    Also, I read these books multiple times for juicy citations, leaving them bent, scarred, marked up, post-it noted, and sometimes coffee stained. The librarians I know frown upon this level of use.

    Besides, how does the likelihood of reading a book only once render it unworthy of purchase?

    P.S. Michelle is OK. But no one beats Ann for sheer acidity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "1). Do dogs go to heaven?

    No."

    Booo. St. Thomas and I beg to differ.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gregg the Obscure11:38 AM

    Christianizing at gunpoint reminds me of an undergrad discussion: the Salvation Air Force. SAF would acquire those big air-tanker planes used to fight forest fires, fly them over major cities and baptize all inhabitants thereof. I know, it isn't even sophomoric, but we were freshmen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gregg, good one! Unfortunately, that approach undermines the whole "intent necessary for effective sacrament" requirement.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm sure all cats will cheer for #1.

    -J.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Erin,

    Why would dogs go to heaven? Or, who would they go? They do not have a rational intellect that would allow them to enjoy the Beatific Vision, that is, they have no immortal soul.

    Thomas argues that the image of God is not found in irrational creatures. Therefore, there is no divine image in dogs to be perfected through God's grace (i.e. heaven)(ST.I.93.2)

    Aquinas, partially quoting Augustine: "'Man's excellence consists in the fact that God made him to His own image by giving him an intellectual soul, which raises him above the beasts of the field.' Therefore things without intellect are not made to God's image."

    This means that only humans have immortal souls.

    Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joe,

    No reason for them to cheer...they don't go either!

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh, but Father they will cheer...because cats are LIKE THAT.

    -J.

    ReplyDelete
  14. True, true...that's why I like cats.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Nancy Polosi... BWAHAHA!

    Father, where in the Bible does it say it's OK to judge Las Vegas showgirls?

    ;-)

    (A joke from a discussion on Father's facebook page!)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Father, I hope you are wrong about pets in heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Esther,

    This is my teaching...the answer I gave is based on Aquinas and the long Church tradition that makes clear that the Beatific Vision requires an intellect to enjoy.

    This doesn't mean that animals go to Hell. In fact, in at least one way, animals have it better than we do. Without a rational soul, animals are incapable of sin. They are not affected by original sin in the same way we are. IOW, it can be argued that animals are perfected in their natures at physical maturity. Animals enjoy their "heaven" while on earth.

    ReplyDelete
  18. chrisacs9:17 PM

    Father

    Touché and pardon me about the library comment and no there is nothing wrong with buying a book to be read once (unless you move every two years like my family does).

    I am a firm believer in never bring a knife to a gun fight so I’m not debating you with my limited faculty. However, concerning Co-Redemtrix, I have to ask why now? There seems to be this urgency about making, as you say already established beliefs, formal doctrine. Your thoughts?


    chrisacs

    ReplyDelete
  19. Chrisacs,

    What "limited faculties"? That's an excellent question!

    This is probably the only weakest in the Co-Redemptrix supporters argument for the declaration. The link I provide to the Vox Populi site deals with this better than I can here.

    My answer would be something like this: a solemn declaration on the Co-Redemptrix would open a huge vista for theological research in the way we understand Christ's salvific mission by forcing us to review the Latin tradition in salvation theology in light of the Eastern (i.e. Greek) traditions. This fits neatly with the Holy Father's desire to bring us closer to our Orthodox brethren.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Vicki,

    I believe if you look on the First Book of Lascivious, chapter 666, verse 13, you will read:

    "And the LORD said unto the Vegas showgirl, Bambi LaCoco, thou art a dancer for lustful men, and I will spew you out of my mouth, for the dollar bills in thy throng tasteth funny."

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree with you, fundamentally, concerning what a formal declaration of Mary coredemptrix would mean with respect to the East. Yet I was discussing this with an Eastern Catholic priest who felt that it would only further alienate the Orthodox because the pope would be acting on his own without a council. I fear he may be right... Perhaps just as the formal definition of the Immaculate Conception, which reconciled a Western understanding of original sin with a belief in Mary's sinlessnes that we share with the East, further alienated us from both Protestants as well as Orthodox.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Fr. Philip,

    In #7, do you mean, "any real effect"? In which case, the answer would be, "Yes, but a butt whopping would be much more direct ... and satisfying."

    Also, I'm not sure what translation of Lascivious you're using. Mine (NRSV, of course!) reads "the wages in your thong are stale." Although, your version does point out the multitudinous source of those dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  23. tee hee hee hee.....

    but how am I going to warm my sheets in Heaven with no cats?? Who shall I get my purring warm soft snuggles from???

    How will I stay in my chair without a cat on my lap?? Just doesn't seem like "heaven" without a cat or two!!

    course in Heaven my cats wouldn't puke on the carpet or eat the Christmas tree....................

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ah, but you see, Mom, you won't need cats in heaven. Heaven is defined as our perfect human happiness lived eternally before the divine throne. If you need cats to be happy, then you need something other God for happiness. IOW, if God isn't enough for your happiness, then cats can't help you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Br. Robert, of course, you are correct about the effect/affect confusion...one I frequently make.

    As for your thoroughly modern and sanitized version of Lascivious, I say, "Be gone, Satan!"

    ReplyDelete
  26. Alan,

    At this point in ecumenical history, I see the Orthodox as our only real conversation partners. Most of the Prots have gone off the deep end and have nothing to say to us but "Be more like us!" What? You mean suicidally careening into the brick wall of secularism?

    I don't know enough about Orthodox theology to know how they would react to the content of the declaration. That they would balk at this use of papal authority concerns me not in the least. If the content of the declaration is true given revelation, infallible magistrial teaching, and good theology, it should declared.

    Timing for the declaration may be everything at this point but delaying b/c the Orthodox don't accept the Pope as the successor of Peter should be no obstacle. That dogma ain't going no where.

    ReplyDelete
  27. As re. snuggling with the kitties for warmth in Heaven, it is my assumption Heaven is the perfect temperature.

    As opposed to, uh, other places one could wind up.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "the Orthodox don't accept the Pope as the successor of Peter should be no obstacle."

    I don't know many Orthodox who don't accept the pope as successor to Peter. Their objection is one concerning what his primacy and jurisdiction entails. Can he formally define dogma without a church council (as we profess he certainly can), and if he can, should he do this. What does it mean in a unified church.

    No, I don't think it should discourage the pope from acting in what is of best interest to the Church regarding dogma. Nonetheless, the question of how it affects relations with the East is not a trivial one. Even this Eastern Catholic priest expressed difficulty with the possibility of a formal definition of coredemptrix, though neither he, nor any Orthodox he was aware of, fundamentally disagrees with the content of the teaching of coredemptrix.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oh, and taking Father's reasoning -- which I consider both sensible and profound -- a bit further along, it would mean there are no houseplants in Heaven.

    -J.

    P.S. How this all ties in with Mt. 22:30 and/or Mk. 12:25 I shall leave to wiser heads than mine.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Alan,

    I don't understand how one can accept that the Pope is the successor to Peter and then deny that he holds primacy among bishops. The two go together..."on this rock" and all that. Jesus did not say, "On these rocks, assembled together in a council, I will build my Church."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Fr. Philip,

    The question regards the nature of that primacy. Most Orthodox certainly grant a primacy of "honor" to the pope. Whether that also entails jurisdiction is what they dispute. There is a good book on the subject by Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement, You Are Peter: An Orthodox Reflection on the Exercise of Papal Primacy.

    Our present Holy Father has been willing to talk with the Orthodox on this very point, all the while, of course, not denying the pope's real jurisdiction. Orthodox assert that dogma can only be defined by all of the bishops gathered in an ecumenical council.

    My only point in this discussion that while the dogma may benefit our relations with the East, the mode under which the dogma is defined may hinder relations. It isn't a trivial matter with the Orthodox. Benedict knows this, I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Alan, I'm not disputing your point at all...I think you are exactly correctly about BXVI's approach.

    My objection is to the Orthodox position on papal primacy. What they tend to gloss over is that in all three cases of papal dogmatic definition, the Pope made extensive and lengthy surveys of the episcopate. This notion that the Pope just wakes up one morning and starts flexing his infallible muscle is myth.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, I'm not sure they think it's myth; it's just the particular weight they give toward the ecumenical council and what that means.

    The next time Orthodox gather with Catholics in Rome or wherever to discuss papal primacy, you should make sure you attend to add your voice! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  34. "I'm not sure they think it's myth"

    I meant to say that I'm not sure they believe that myth.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Are you marrying Satan?"

    BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

    I should be working.

    ReplyDelete
  36. No pets in heaven? Does that mean the Robin Williams movie Perchance to Dream was theologically incorrect by having his dog waiting for him when he reached heaven? Man, what else in that movie was wrong? {/sarc off}

    "it is my assumption Heaven is the perfect temperature."

    Yay! No global warming in heaven! Although technically it would be called celestial warming.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Does that mean the Robin Williams movie Perchance to Dream was theologically incorrect"

    Oh, you mean "What Dreams May Come?". I suspect the movie went south long before Robin Williams rescued his wife from hell so that they could be reincarnated.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Larry, that "warming" is in the other place

    ;-)

    well, okay, I guess I could do without cats.....but if you take away chocolate too fugetabouddit.

    ReplyDelete