If someone could give me a good definition of an angel, I'd have a stab at answering the origional question... - Adrian

Well, I'm working with this definition of angels:

329 St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel.'"188 With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they "always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven" they are the "mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word".189

330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendour of their glory bears witness.190

Christ "with all his angels"

331 Christ is the centre of the angelic world. They are his angels: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him. . "191 They belong to him because they were created through and for him: "for in him all things were created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities - all things were created through him and for him."192 They belong to him still more because he has made them messengers of his saving plan: "Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?"193

Free Will

I don't know 'owt about physics. This is frustrating, because though I can spot a dodgy piece of textual criticism at 50 yards and probably am not too shabby at detecting manifest illogic, when it comes arguments about the physical nature of the world, I don't know what I'm working with.

Never mind, I can but try.

I already said this in my own comments boxes (makes me look more popular see), but Norris' argument seems pretty dodgy to me.

No one has free will. Every thing that people do is predictable provided you have enough information, except for some quantum randomness. But, if you had several universes, with the same starting conditions, you could predict how many would have each outcome.
The future is as definite as the past. It just for some reason, we remember the past, entropy increases and the universe is expanding.

K. So firstly there's this business of qunatum randomness. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a little bit of randomness serve to completely undermine the idea of perfect order? Someone said this to me about gravity. The odd thing about gravity, right, is that for it to act as a force, or whatever, it must take into account the whereabouts of all matter simultaneuosly. I think. So every change affects everything else. So to write off "quantum randomness" is wrong.

But Norris has a solution. It involves mulitplying out universes so that you can predict a general trend of probability. To which my response is "Yes, and?" It's still just probability. You can have as many universes as you like, but if you single one out to predict what's going to happen in it you can only say that it might belong in such and such a group of universes with a particular outcome. Of course you can predict the outcome of a universe - it's a different thing to say you can predict it accurately.

And then there's there's idea of "enough information". I think enough information would have to be all information really, wouldn't it - correct me if I'm wrong? The person whose mind could contain that would have to be, in a sense, greater than the universe. Let's call him God Steve. I suppose you might try and say that Steve was in fact the universe, simply consisting of all the requisite information, but predicting is an action, so it takes both the intellect to process the information and the ability to act, which, for the sake of brevity, I'll call will. So you have the material of the universe, um - M, the intellect of the universe, I, and the will of the universe, W.

So at very least, Steve is M+I+W.

Actually, if Steve is the universe, he'd be himself plus the requisite intellect and will to predict with. (M+I+W)+I+W.

No, it'd have to be ((M+I+W)+I+W)+I+W.


I think I can see where this is going. And yes, I am aware that the brackets don't really add anything. So a pantheistic, or materialist Steve, ends up as perpetually being an I plus a W short of self-awareness. And naturally, a being less than Steve hasn't a hope in hell of predicting the universe.

There you are, a little bit of epistemology for you.

"But Mark, isn't this getting a little close to nihilism, the denial of the individual's ability to know anything? Steve's not even self-aware, and if he doesn't know what's going on, how am I meant to?"

But I don't believe in a pantheistic Steve.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Information, the basis of reality (beliefnet.com)

While I'm here, and as I didn't blog on Monday, which is what I intend to try doing for a while, I should probably try and say what I've been up to this week. Not too much I think.

I've been cooking food a bit. I got bored of pasta with sauce, and I can never be arsed to make stir-fries these days, so I bought a book of simple recipes for one person along with a bowl to put fruit in. We had a bit of an online shopping session, so I made a concerted effort to stock my cupboard with handy ingredients. So far I've had creamy mushrooms on toast, which were staggeringly good, and a spinach and pine-nut omlette, which was probably the est omlette I've ever made, but seemed like a lot of effort for the pay-off, flavour-wise.

On Wednesday was Christians Together at County Hall, for the first time after lent. It was odd not to see people until then. We had an impromptu look at the last chapter of John and general chat. The Passion came up again, because someone had just got around to seeing it. They didn't like the fact it wasn't strictly biblical, and when I said that was because it was based "on a vision by some nun", Rikky said that one of the problems with Catholicism was that it had a lot of extra-biblical things in it owing to the gradual acceptance of say, nun's visions, by the Church. I didn't want to get into trying to defend Tradition to that many evangelicals at once, but I couldn't let that slide, so I asked if Rikky wouldn't mind having a chat about it at some point. A little later he said a few more things to me personally, about how there are some ex-Catholics in his church, that "people thinking for themselves" was why he thought they left, and that there are some Catholic churches which are okay, in fact they're pretty much Evangelical, but that quite a lot of them are much too superstitious. He also espoused the simplicity of salvation, with the implication that Catholicism was based on bolting on unneccessary features. Bascially I want to try and present my side of the story, and see if he can make anything of it. It's quite daunting.

Been watching The Games, as people who've read mine and James' blog might be able to have guessed. I don't think it's so entertaining as last year. Not sure why. There's no-one who I particularly want to win, above the others, though I was pleased when Jordan/Jodie (people keep telling me they are not the same person - pah) won the fitness test, despite being in clearly terrible shape. I suppose I'd like to see Pat Sharp do well, but not for anything except comedy value. At work Michaela and Sarah were saying how they thought Katy Hill was being really horrible to Lady Hervey, but I'm pretty sure they're both being stupid in different directions. Katy's not good at shutting up, and Isabella's not good at not being offended. And Jodie's good at being illogical and, without apparent guile, making everything worse. Well that's how I saw it. So they hate each other, I think. And Lady Isabella looks really funny when she's drunk - teetotal's a good look for her.

Does anyone have an opinion on whether or not angels have free-will?

I shall email you some more on this, not because I think I am in 'danger' of being wrong and I’m afraid to have it on here, but somebody who is not a Catholic needs to talk to you about your recent experiences away from (no offence intended) other Catholics and no one down in Exeter seems to be bothered to[...].

[...]

I have posted this in your comments box so the people who read your blog are aware I have not conceded your point and that I am responding to it.

Well let's have it then Gavin; it's practically a week since I was received into the Church!

I do know that the two preceding paragraphs aren't linked by context, but the impression that a reply would be forthcoming was publicly posted on my blog in the interests of fairness, and yet I'm still waiting for your thoughts on the matter.

I wish Jill did not leave caps lock on after her family research work. And another thing Nicholas (he of Carpe Biem) cannot spell his own fathers name!. So much for advanced education

jUST TESTING

Ooh. I didn't pay enough attention to the official letter I got from work saying I got my pay increment. Assuming it's not some cruel hoax, I've gone up two scale points rather than one, resulting in an extra £84.50 per month gross.

Woo.

And happy birthday to Rachel for tomorrow. I don't think she reads this though.

Oh arse.

On Saturday Rachel asked me if she could use the internet on Sunday, and I completely forgot. I expect it's too late for it to be worthwhile now, and that she found a more strenuous way of getting access, but I'd better go round in any case.

But later, when normal people might be up. When do normal people get up on bank holidays?

Oh scratch that - she might be up relatively early. She says the Maltese are early risers. Up with the lark, and, I think, the snail:

The year's at the spring,
And day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn;
God's in his Heaven -
All's right with the world!
- Robert Browning

Too late for a happy Easter? Probably. (Yes James I know...)

Happy Easter!

My Reception at the Easter Vigil

Some Most good things are better experienced than read about e.g. worship in general, the Mass, and, say, oh I don't know, the Easter Vigil. On the other hand, it would be fairly perverse not to mention it I think. So here you are.

Rachel, Norris and I set out at about 1920, arriving a bit early. Tamsin and Martyn unfortunately couldn't make it - Martyn's on some medication for a persistent headache and Tamsin didn't want to leave him, so we can pray for them. It's a bit odd when you do something official in church, like be received. It meant that everyone I knew was scattered round a bit except for the people who were being received with me at the front right. Rachel was meant to sit behind me with the sponsors, Karen Silcox and her husband Colin set up about halfway back, and Norris ended up on the front left. He seemed okay about it, and was getting on okay with Mike's wife, whose name I, embarassingly, could not remember.

Bit of a procession to the back of church to light a stonking great paschal candle. I'm not quite sure why, but when lit it made a fairly hefty whumph, if you see what I mean, which was pretty dramatic. I am given to understand it's meant to represent, in addition to apparent things, the pillar of fire which God provided for the Israelites coming out of Egypt. In any case, we all got our own candles lit off it. I didn't mention that the lights were off did I? Well they were - the idea was to symbolise the darkness of the Old Testament before the final revelation of Jesus.

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New. - CCC

Man alive there were a lot of readings! It was good. The lights remained off until the New Testament readings. I wasn't so sure about some of the solo-singing on the responsorial Psalms, but the choir did an excellent job - holy, beautiful and intelligible - what more could you ask for in a Psalm?

The lights came on in a very theatrical way (they must have done this before) and after that it was Mass like most weeks apart from bits for us guys (and we were all guys, which Fr. Harry seemed pleased about). A restatement of baptismal vows (always a good idea - reminded Norris of The Godfather Part One) a, I must say, bodged profession that "I [,that is, we] believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.", an anointing with oil and that was us in full communion with the Church and permitted to receive. And we did. And about that, perhaps I'd better say very little except that I'm glad. Thank you for everyone who's supported me, especially those who did so, and do so, with little understanding of why I would do such a thing, only seeing that I meant it.

Well, after Mass there was no official thing to do, except that some people wanted pictures of the newly-received, so I just talked to various people I knew, generally wandering round like I don't know what I'm doing, which is usually the case. Norris said that he'd "never been to anything like that before." I'd never been to anything exactly like that before. It's a nice service, in itself.

Mike gave the three of us a life back to the Esso, and we wandered over to the chaplaincy for some Maltese Easter treats, which were good, myself bearing a can of Stella for the sake of a rather childish in-joke. 'Hem.

And then to bed.

Mark Shea ain't the only body that can post poetry ya know, even poetry by George Herbert:

Love bade me welcome: yet my soul drew back,
Guiltie of dust and sinne.
But quick-ey’d Love, observing me grow slack
From my first entrance in,
Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning,
If I lack’d any thing.

A guest, I answer’d, worthy to be here:
Love said, You shall be he.
I the unkinde, ungratefull? Ah my deare,
I cannot look on thee.
Love took my hand, and smiling did reply,
Who made the eyes but I?

Truth Lord, but I have marr’d them: let my shame
Go where it doth deserve.
And know you not, sayes Love, who bore the blame?
My deare, then I will serve.
You must sit down, sayes Love, and taste my meat:
So I did sit and eat.

I was going to post Book 4 of The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis too, but it turns out it's far too long. That link's only the first page...