Are we alone?

JMJ

There's been a lot of chatter lately about a UFO encounter that was recently published by the NY Times.

Even on some Catholic forums there's be a debate about what the Church has 'said' about this etc.

The curiosity into this matter is ... frankly ... a little silly.

As Catholics we know from Revelation that we are not alone.

First there is God.
Next there are the Angels, both good and bad.
Next there are Humans (both dead and alive).
Then there are other creatures such animals etc.

What this does not rule out is another order of creatures - just as the Angels are a separate order of creation from Mankind.

With this base what can we reason about the 'encounters'?

That there is either a:

Natural,
Preternatural,
Supernatural ... explanation

On the natural level people love to jump to the conclusion that it is 'aliens'. However, that is a lazy way to look at it. Especially we realize that the laws that govern the universe (laws established by God the Creator), indicate that we can safely conclude that there are no natural 'aliens' visiting Earth.

Next, it is the penultimate example of human pride to think that we know and understand everything that happens on this world. So there are still natural phenomenon that need to be examined, not the least of which is equipment related phenomenon.

Finally, we know that Angels exist and that they are not limited in the way we are. It would be child's play for a demon to create such a display. My personal opinion is that the event was in category #2. Bad Angels messing with the minds of mortals. Once again.

So following the wisdom of the Church in examining these events, we start at the natural and eliminate all possible natural explanations.

Then (and only then) do you move to the next levels!

P^3

Comments

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment. Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid. No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein. Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse? The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin. Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service. It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Regarding Post: Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer no longer ... now Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer (Can't see this being a problem...)

+ JMJ I've been watching the popularity of the post about Fr. Pfeiffer's attempted episcopal consecration and its continued top listing on the 'popular posts' list at the bottom of posts. After some thought, I decided that I don't want to be responsible for anyone joining Fr. Pfeiffer's 'group', however unlikely that would be at this time. So I have reverted the article to the draft state. If anyone wants it reinstated, I would ask that they comment on this post with a rationale for reinstatement. P^3

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

CMTV's Latest Attempt to Slag the SSPX

+ JMJ It has been a couple of months since the last significant attempt to slag the SSPX and I was beginning to wonder if the clicks were subsiding. ... then another article popped up this week. I was wondering if it would contain a new case or simply repeat old allegations and FUD and Ms. Niles did not disappoint. A technique that I learned in dealing with negotiations and conflicts is to review the correspondence with a critical eye and black out all irrelevant contents. This helps to remove all the distracting attacks, innuendos, assumptions, and FUD from view so a person can focus on the important aspects ... like the facts. How much of Ms.Niles text survived my review? About 17.5% or 347 words out of ~1983. The rest was either repeated information or opinion as opposed to fact. Just in case you are curious as to what that looks like, I have attached the blacked out document at the end of this post. Now on to a review of the words that actually bore on the case at hand ...

Tradicat

Search This Blog