Do Catholics read Eusebius anymore?

 

Does God Hear the Prayers of Warmongers?

Marcus Peter, Catholic World Report

 

... The Lord of hosts is never a mascot for bloodlust. ...

 

Oh really? 

 

... Reviewing, I say, all these considerations, [Constantine] judged it to be folly indeed to join in the idle worship of those who were no gods, and, after such convincing evidence, to err from the truth; and therefore felt it incumbent on him to honor his father's God alone.

Accordingly he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after time has established its truth?

 

He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer By This [τούτῳ νίκα]. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.

 

... then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies. ... 

And this representation I myself have had an opportunity of seeing.

Now it was made in the following manner. A long spear, overlaid with gold, formed the figure of the cross by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones; and within this, the symbol of the Saviour's name, two letters indicating the name of Christ by means of its initial characters, the letter P being intersected by X in its centre: and these letters the emperor was in the habit of wearing on his helmet at a later period. ...

The emperor constantly made use of this sign of salvation as a safeguard against every adverse and hostile power, and commanded that others similar to it should be carried at the head of all his armies. 

-- Eusebius, Life of Constantine, 1.27ff. 

The film The Ten Commandments starring Charleton Heston called this The Light of Eternal Mind

 

Did he speak as a man? He is not flesh, but spirit, the light of Eternal Mind. And I know that his light is in every man.

 

John M. Grondelski, here from "Why so much ado about the Ten Commandments?":

Paul is undeterred, arguing that what Israel received in divine revelation, everyman receives in “the law written on men’s hearts” (Rom 2:15). It is a law every man is aware he has at one time violated. He is aware because every man has the experience of obligation (“I ought to do X,” “I ought not to do Y”) yet he also experiences his betrayal of obligation (“I did what I ought not to have done,” “I did not do what I should have”). As these experiences are the lot of everyman (i.e., every man experiences guilt), one can only explain it as man is accountable to a law of which he is not the author. As the young Karol Wojtyła argued in his analysis of the human experience of obligation, man is not the author of that law because, if he was, he could dispense himself. He could waive the duty. But he finds he cannot. The persistence of that sense of guilt indicates that what he violated was more than just his own, self-imposed expectations.

That law “written on the heart” is natural law, the universal human awareness that “I ought to do good and avoid evil.” But that awareness is not limited to just that very abstract principle. It does not take a refined moral genius to conclude that “evil” acts include things like killing, lying, being unfaithful (or wanting to if I could get away with it), and stealing (or wanting to, if I could pull it off). The natural awareness of the status, role, and work of parents leads without too much mental strain to the conclusion that mothers and fathers should be honored. You’ve basically got the second tablet of the Ten Commandments—Commandments IV-X—right there.

Vatican issues new norms to try to keep phenomena like Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina from getting out of hand again

Christopher R. Altieri for The Catholic World Report tends to think "Our Lady" made no appearance in Medjugorje in 1981, but will believe it if the church ever says he must.

 

He notes that the (phony) miracle is a hard case, which has, however, helped millions become better Catholics. (No word is offered on how many millions the superstition has driven away from the faith).

Altieri doesn't tell you that by 1983 the local bishop had decided that the apparitions were Franciscan fabrications, but by then it was too late because the hysteria for the site had already become a worldwide phenomenon.

On the new Vatican norms for the discernment of supernatural phenomena :

Much of the talk last week was about the new Vatican norms for the discernment of supernatural phenomena—apparitions especially, but not exclusively—presented at a press conference in Rome on Friday. ...

Under the old norms, local bishops had to talk with Rome but were free to make their own determinations. Also, and more importantly, the locals had to keep mum about their consultations. Local bishops, in other words, couldn’t say what Rome said to them about the thing(s) the locals were examining.

Local bishops, in other words, bore all of the public responsibility for judgments that were theirs only in part (if they were really the locals’ judgments at all). ...

Under the old disposition, a local bishop could issue a judgment: Constat de supernaturalitate. A judgment of constat de supernaturalitate does not quite say that a phenomenon is certainly of supernatural origin, but only that “it [clearly] evinces [signs of the] supernatural.”

The opposite of constat under the old scheme was—you guessed it—non constat (de supernaturalitate), which simply meant that there were lacking sufficient grounds for agreement on the origin of the phenomenon.

A judgment of constat de supernaturalitate did not compel an assent of faith, in other words, but only proposed its object as worthy of belief. The point is that it did propose something.

The new norms, on the other hand, borrow from bureaucratic argot to create a new category: Nihil obstat, which does not propose anything as worthy of belief but only says that there is nothing standing in the way of believing in the supernatural origin of a given phenomenon. That’s nice to know, but it really only tells us something about what isn’t there. ...

On the one hand, it is now unmistakably clear that the Vatican not only gets the final word but is involved in the investigation and adjudication of purportedly supernatural phenomena from the start. On the other hand, the Vatican will henceforth refrain from proposing even thoroughly vetted phenomena as worthy of belief and will limit itself to saying that nothing stands in the way of believing a given phenomenon to be of supernatural origin.

Purported Catholic Christopher Jolly Hale thinks walls are anti-Christian, but obviously hasn't visited the Vatican

Here.

Is the pope's wall anti-Christian?

Hale used to be a director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which was exposed by Wikileaks as an organization working for a progressive revolution in the Catholic Church.

In other words, he's a commie.

Russell Kirk: I abhor Christ's doctrines

Quoted here:

Additionally, Kirk noted in the summer of 1942, the only Christian body that seems to approach the truth and rigors demanded of Christianity is the Catholic Church. “The closer it comes,” he continued, “the further I draw away from it.” He admired Christ as a person, he continued, but “I abhor his doctrines. Christianity is truly a religion for the expropriated.” When pushed to the quick, Kirk turned to the humanism of Harvard scholar Irving Babbitt. Babbitt’s philosophy offered more rigor and discipline than Christianity, as it contained “a ruinous moral laxity, a sort of indiscriminate sentimentalism.” Christ and Christianity simply could not live up to the highest standards of the good life. In this, Kirk sounds much like the Romans who were appalled that Christians admired King David and, thus, believed it a lesser religion.

---------------------------------------------------

Reading this in the summer of 2014 brings to mind the Russell Kirk of 1985. That summer while reading Paul Elmer More with him in Boulder, Colorado, he asked me what I thought of More. I remember telling him I thought More's ideas repulsive, as More would doubtlessly think mine. Kirk just smiled that wide-eyed grin of his.