Good god
Old man posted,
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/?p=28634
Something big is going on with both the Church of
England and the Vatican.....here is Williams telling the
Vatican how it is...."unreal and insane, so contemplate",
think about what this is really all about.
“To be contemplative as Christ is contemplative is to be
open to all the fullness that the Father wishes to pour
into our hearts,”Dr Williams said in the first address by
an Archbishop of Canterbury to the Synod of Bishops in
Rome, The archbishop spoke of the profound
connection between contemplation and the task of
evangelisation, saying it “must be rooted in a profound
confidence that we have a distinctive human destiny to
show and share with the world”.
“With our minds made still and ready to receive, with our
self-generated fantasies about God and ourselves
reduced to silence, we are at last at the point where we
may begin to grow” as individuals and as a church.
The practice of contemplation teaches Christians “how
to look at one another and at the whole of God’s
creation,” he said, noting that “contemplation is the only
ultimate answer to the unreal and insane world that our
financial systems and our advertising culture and our
chaotic and unexamined emotions encourage us to
inhabit.”
Drawing upon Henri de Lubac and Thomas Merton,
Archbishop Williams described contemplation as “the
key” to prayer, art, liturgy and music and “the essence of
a renewed humanity” freed from “self-oriented,
acquisitive habits.”
He also told the bishops the Second Vatican Council
was a sign of the church’s strength and “a sign of great
promise” in its engagement with the modern world.
However, “serious work” remained to be done in
reaching the “post-Christian public.”
Revelation 2:17
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith
unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to
eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white
stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no
man knoweth saving he that receiveth [it].
Reflection
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your mind,
and your soul! (Deu 6:5) For He is ever the rewarder of
those who seek Him! (Hebrews 11:6) Believe upon His
name and taste the true manna from heaven, the true
bread of life, the very Son of God! Ever will He sustain
you and ever will your life be caught up with His, from
life to death to glory everlasting. Praise His name and
rejoice in the bounty of His hand!
Contemplation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Contemplation (disambiguation).
Statue The Spirit of Contemplation by Albert Toft.
Contemplation means "to admire something and think
about it." The word contemplation comes from the Latin
word contemplatio. Its root is also that of the Latin word
templum, a piece of ground consecrated for the taking of
auspices, or a building for worship, derived either from
Proto-Indo-European base *tem- "to cut", and so a
"place reserved or cut out" or from the Proto-Indo-
European base *temp- "to stretch", and thus referring to
a cleared space in front of an altar.[1] The Latin word
contemplatio was used to translate the Greek word
θεωρία (theoria). In a religious sense, contemplation is
usually a type of prayer or meditation.
Meditation is a practice in which an individual trains the
mind and/or induces a mode of consciousness to realize
some benefit.
Greek philosophy
Contemplation was an important part of the philosophy
of Plato; Plato thought that through contemplation the
soul may ascend to knowledge of the Form of the Good
or other divine Forms.[2] Plotinus as a (neo)Platonic
philosopher also expressed contemplation as the most
critical of components for one to reach henosis. To
Plotinus the highest contemplation was to experience
the vision of God, the Monad or the One. Plotinus
describes this experience in his works the Enneads.
According to his student Porphyry, Plotinus stated that
he had this experience of God four times.[3] Plotinus
wrote about his experience in Enneads 6.9.xx....
[edit] Christianity
Main article: Christian contemplation
See also: Christian meditation and Theoria
A woman places a strand of rosary beads on a
devotional image mounted on the wall beside her bed.
[4] The Walters Art Museum.
In Eastern Christianity contemplation (theoria) literally
means to see God or to have the Vision of God.[5] The
state of beholding God, or union with God, is known as
theoria. The process of theosis which leads to that state
of union with God known as theoria is practiced in the
ascetic tradition of Hesychasm. Hesychasm is to
reconcile the heart and the mind into one thing (see
nous).[6]
Contemplation in Eastern Orthodoxy is expressed in
degrees as those covered in St John Climacus' Ladder
of Divine Ascent. The process of changing from the old
man of sin into the newborn child of God and into our
true nature as good and divine is called theosis.
This is to say that once someone is in the presence of
God, deified with him, then they can begin to properly
understand, and there "contemplate" God. This form of
contemplation is to have and pass through an actual
experience rather than a rational or reasoned
understanding of theory (see Gnosis). Whereas with
rational thought one uses logic to understand, one does
the opposite with God (see also Apophatic theology).
Within Western Christianity contemplation is often
related to mysticism as expressed in the works of
mystical theologians such as Teresa of Avila and John
of the Cross as well as the writings of Margery Kempe,
Augustine Baker and Thomas Merton.[7]
2012 November 3 12:00 PM
replied,
Section 32 (1) It's the court's obligation to rewrite
case law to align with "Charter Values". This is the
same as saying that no case law can violate a
charter right?????????
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/s-32-
1.html
[6] Common Law
While complex changes to the law with uncertain
ramifications should be left to the legislature, the
courts can and should make incremental changes
to the common law to bring legal rules into step
with a changing society. Judges can and should
adapt the common law to reflect the changing
social, moral and economic fabric of the country.
Judges should not be quick to perpetuate rules
whose social foundation has long since
disappeared. Nonetheless, there are significant
constraints on the power of the judiciary to
change the law. In a constitutional democracy
such as ours it is the legislature and not the courts
which has the major responsibility for law reform;
and for any changes to the law which may have
complex ramifications, however necessary or
desirable such changes may be, they should be
left to the legislature. The judiciary should confine
itself to those incremental changes which are
necessary to keep the common law in step with
the dynamic and evolving fabric of our society.
Where the principles underlying a common law
rule are out of step with the values enshrined in
the Charter, the courts should scrutinize the rule
closely. If it is possible to change the common law
rule so as to make it consistent with Charter
values, without upsetting the proper balance
between judicial and legislative action referred to,
then the rule ought to be changed: R. v. Salituro,
1991 CanLII 17 (S.C.C.), 1991 CanLII 17
(S.C.C.), 1991 CanLII 17 (S.C.C.), [1991] 3
S.C.R. 654; Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation, 1994 CanLII 39 (S.C.C.), 1994
CanLII 39 (S.C.C.), 1994 CanLII 39 (S.C.C.),
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 835; R. v. Golden, 2001 SCC 83
(CanLII), 2001 SCC 83 (CanLII), 2001 SCC 83
(CanLII), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 679, 2001 SCC 83.
This Court first considered the application of the
Charter to the common law in Dolphin Delivery,
supra. It was held that, pursuant to s. 32(1) of the
Charter, a cause of action could only be based
upon the Charter when particular government
action was impugned. Therefore, the
constitutionality of the common law could be
scrutinized in those situations where a case
involved government action which was authorized
or justified on the basis of a common law rule
which allegedly infringed a Charter right.
However, Dolphin Delivery also held that the
common law could be subjected to Charter
scrutiny in the absence of government action. It is
clear from Dolphin Delivery that the common law
must be interpreted in a manner which is
consistent with Charter principles. This obligation
is simply a manifestation of the inherent
jurisdiction of the courts to modify or extend the
common law in order to comply with prevailing
social conditions and values. The Charter
represents a restatement of the fundamental
values which guide and shape our democratic
society and our legal system. It follows that it is
appropriate for the courts to make such
incremental revisions to the common law as may
be necessary to have it comply with the values
enunciated in the Charter. When determining how
the Charter applies to the common law, it is
important to distinguish between those cases in
which the constitutionality of government action is
challenged, and those in which there is no
government action involved. It is important not to
import into private litigation the analysis which
applies in cases involving government action.
When government action is challenged, whether it
is based on legislation or the common law, the
cause of action is founded upon a Charter right.
The claimant alleges that the state has breached
its constitutional duty. The state, in turn, must
justify that breach. Private parties owe each other
no constitutional duties and cannot found their
cause of action upon a Charter right. The party
challenging the common law cannot allege that
the common law violates a Charter right because,
quite simply, Charter rights do not exist in the
absence of state action. The most that the private
litigant can do is argue that the common law is
inconsistent with Charter values. It is very
important to draw this distinction between Charter
rights and Charter values. Care must be taken not
to expand the application of the Charter beyond
that established by s. 32(1), either by creating
new causes of action, or by subjecting all court
orders to Charter scrutiny. Therefore, in the
context of civil litigation involving only private
parties, the Charter will "apply” to the common law
only to the extent that the common law is found to
be inconsistent with Charter values. When the
common law is in conflict with Charter values,
how should the competing principles be
balanced? In my view, a traditional s. 1 framework
for justification is not appropriate. It must be
remembered that the Charter “challenge” in a
case involving private litigants does not allege the
violation of a Charter right. It addresses a conflict
between principles. Therefore, the balancing must
be more flexible than the traditional s. 1 analysis
undertaken in cases involving governmental
action cases. Charter values, framed in general
terms, should be weighed against the principles
which underlie the common law. The Charter
values will then provide the guidelines for any
modification to the common law which the court
feels is necessary. Finally, the division of onus
which normally operates in a Charter challenge to
government action should not be applicable in a
private litigation Charter “challenge” to the
common law. Rather, the party who is alleging
that the common law is inconsistent with the
Charter should bear the onus of proving both that
the common law fails to comply with Charter
values and that, when these values are balanced,
the common law should be modified: Hill v.
Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59
(S.C.C.), 1995 CanLII 59 (S.C.C.), 1995 CanLII
59 (S.C.C.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; M.(A.) v. Ryan,
1997 CanLII 403 (S.C.C.), 1997 CanLII 403
(S.C.C.), 1997 CanLII 403 (S.C.C.), [1997] 1
S.C.R. 157.
It is our duty as judges to ensure that the common
law develops in a manner consistent with the
supreme law of our country: R. v. Robinson, 1996
CanLII 233 (S.C.C.), 1996 CanLII 233 (S.C.C.),
1996 CanLII 233 (S.C.C.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 683