A vocation to marriage is a vocation to glorify God in a particular state with its necessary rights and duties. read more

A vocation to marriage is a vocation to glorify God in a particular state with its necessary rights and duties. It can only be combined with the vocation of a pioneer missionary of the classic type if matrimony is felt to be spiritually neutral, irrelevant to God's calling. Marriage can be irrelevant only if we believe that the body -- matter -- is neutral, irrelevant, or evil. Man can not believe that and believe the Christian faith. God made matter, and was incarnate in it: the comparison of the relation of husband and wife to that between Christ and the Church naturally follows. But this conclusion is not always drawn, for orthodox Christians are often prone to speak and behave as if the Lord... became not flesh but spirit.

We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.

We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.

Beautiful sanctuaries, paved parking lots, and new liturgies will do very little for people who sit in worship with their read more

Beautiful sanctuaries, paved parking lots, and new liturgies will do very little for people who sit in worship with their fingers crossed and do not really believe the faith which is expounded. Often the layman dismisses what the preacher says as something irrelevant to his situation and generation. When he joins a group where he is no longer afraid to be frank, the supposedly faithful member often admits that he has never really accepted what he thinks he has heard. He has, for example, grave reservations about the idea of creation. Did not the world evolve of itself? Do we really need the hypothesis of Infinite Purpose to make sense of the physical, biological, and psychological development? These questions seldom come to the surface when the Church provides merely a one-way preaching. There is little chance of renewal if all that we have is the arrangement by which one speaks and the others listen. One trouble with this conventional system is that the speaker never knows what the unanswered questions are, or what reservations remain in the layman's mentality.

Commemoration of Amy Carmichael, Founder of the Dohnavour Fellowship, 1951 To the dim and bewildered vision of humanity, God's read more

Commemoration of Amy Carmichael, Founder of the Dohnavour Fellowship, 1951 To the dim and bewildered vision of humanity, God's care is more evident in some instances than in others; and upon such instances men seize, and call them providences. It is well that they can; but it would be gloriously better if they could believe that the whole matter is one grand providence.

Feast of Anskar, Archbishop of Hamburg, Missionary to Denmark and Sweden, 865 The Church is an organism that grows read more

Feast of Anskar, Archbishop of Hamburg, Missionary to Denmark and Sweden, 865 The Church is an organism that grows best in an alien society.

He is not a good Christian who is not heartily sorry for the faults even of his greatest enemies. And read more

He is not a good Christian who is not heartily sorry for the faults even of his greatest enemies. And if he will be so, he will lay them bare no further than is necessary to some good end.

Feast of Justin, Martyr at Rome, c.165 Commemoration of Angela de'Merici, Founder of the Institute of St. Ursula, 1540 read more

Feast of Justin, Martyr at Rome, c.165 Commemoration of Angela de'Merici, Founder of the Institute of St. Ursula, 1540 It has been said that agapao refers to "the love of God" and phileo is only "the love of men." But this distinction is only a very small part of the difference, and as such is in itself incorrect. Both of these words may convey intense emotion or may be relatively weak in their meanings. These words do not indicate degree of love, but kinds of love. Agapao refers to love which arises from a keen sense of the value and worth in the object of our love, and phileo describes the emotional attachment which results from intimate and prolonged association. That is why in the Scriptures we are never commanded to "love" with the word phileo. Even when husbands and wives are instructed to love one another, the word agapao is used, for it is impossible to command that kind of love which can arise only from intimate association. On the other hand, the saints are admonished to appreciate profoundly the worth and value in others, and agapao is used to convey this meaning. All Christians are not necessarily to have sentimental attachments for one another (phileo). This would be impossible, for our circle of intimate friends is limited by the nature of our lives. But we can all be commanded to appreciate intensely the worth of others.

Feast of Monica, Mother of Augustine of Hippo, 387 Concluding a short series on the Bible: Christ is read more

Feast of Monica, Mother of Augustine of Hippo, 387 Concluding a short series on the Bible: Christ is the master; the Scriptures are only the servant.

It was a real body; there can be no doubt about that. Hundreds of people could not have been so read more

It was a real body; there can be no doubt about that. Hundreds of people could not have been so mistaken, especially when Jesus offered clear evidence of it. But it was not an earthbound body. It was something that bore a developmental relationship to an earthly human body, but it was not identical with it. There was clearly a continuity of life between the body of Jesus and the body of the resurrected Jesus, but in the process of resurrection it had undergone a very fundamental change. That, at least, seems obvious. So much for the list of dissimilarities; the body of Jesus after the resurrection had a different appearance and also a different "form". It was "like" the previous body, it had some sort of developmental relationship to it, but it was obviously not "identical" with it. Now we must consider the similarities. Strangely, they all came down to one factor, but that factor is so important that it outweighs all the dissimilarities. It is simply this: Jesus before and after the resurrection was undeniably the same person. No matter what extraordinary changes had taken place in his bodily form, all who knew him well had no doubt at all who he was. They "knew" it was the Lord.