Showing posts with label australian marian academy of the immaculate conception Tertullian free Jerusalem from Athens beauty Bill Donaghy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label australian marian academy of the immaculate conception Tertullian free Jerusalem from Athens beauty Bill Donaghy. Show all posts

Friday, February 12, 2016

Electrical Engineer Overturns Einstein’s Theory After 97 Years

Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love.  - Albert Einstein

An excellent article written by Arend Lammertink: 

Last week the newspapers were filled with the discovery of “impossible” particles traveling faster than the speed of light. A month ago an “impossible” star was discovered and earlier the Pioneer space probes alsorefused to adhere to the lawThis way, the scientific establishment will slowly but surely be forced to return to reality, the reality of the existence of a real, physical ether with fluid-like properties. The inevitable result of that will be that Einstein’s relativity theory will go down in the history books as one of the biggest fallacies ever brought forth by science. In the future they will look back to relativity with equal disbelief as to the “Earth is flat” concept. The relativity theory not only goes against common sense, as Tesla already said in 1932, a fundamental thinking error has been made by Maxwell in his equations. This eventually lead to the erroneous relativity theory, as is proven in this article. It is therefore no exaggeration to state that the scientific establishment is going to have a religious experience.
 
The scientific establishment has been completely beside the mark by worshiping Albert Einstein and forgetting about Nikola Tesla. This logically thinking realist already wiped the floor with the theory of relativity in 1932 and thus proved for the umpteenth time to be far ahead of his time:
“It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.
Isn’t it just beautiful how Tesla makes perfectly clear that the Emperor of modern physics has no clothes with simple logic?
Think about it. Space is literally no thing, nothing. It is the emptiness, the void, wherein physical stuff exists, but space in and of itself is not part of anything physical. And the way we describe it is nothing more and nothing less than an abstract definition, a mere thought construct to track what is where at any given time. Just like a treasure map: twenty paces north, thirty steps west. And because space is not physical at all, it can have no physical properties. Saying that space becomes curved by large bodies is the same as saying that a street map becomes curved because the cities and villages that are printed on it are so heavy. So, when your theory demands your abstract (nonphysical) “space map” to be adjusted in order to straighten your theory out, then something is seriously wrong with your theory, no matter how many times you repeat it and preach it. Tesla said it like this:
The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.

The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.”
Whereof deed.
Incidentally, Tesla already managed to break the speed limit before 1931 with his system of wireless transmission of energy. The principle of this system is that it transmits longitudinal electric waves through the interior of the earth, which propagate at a speed of pi/2 times the speed of light. He came to the idea of transmitting waves through the interior of the earth after he observed stationary waves caused by lightning. His system based on that observation is not understood by many. Eric Dollard describes it correctly in his book “The Theory of Wireless Power”. Given that the propagation speed of longitudinal electric waves (which according to the current theory cannot propagate trough a vacuum) is about 1.6 times the speed of light, it would be a very interesting experiment to see whether or not moon bouncingcould be achieved practically with longitudinal electric waves. If Tesla is right, we would see an Earth-Moon-Earth round-trip time of in the order of 1.6 seconds, while normal EM waves would take more than 2.5 seconds.
Anyway, now the counter of “impossible anomalies” stands at three, one can safely say that the theory of relativity has been proven to be incorrect. Further investigation shows that the origin of the errors in the theory of relativity can be found in the Maxwell equations. These equations describe the phenomenon of electro-magnetism, or the electromagnetic field, mathematically. A fundamental mistake has been made in the formulation of these equations.
The mathematician James Clerk Maxwell formulated his equations based on the experiments by Michael Faraday. Hereby, he assumed that the electromagnetic fields were caused by charge carriers, matter. Today we know from the particle-wave duality principle and quantum mechanics that matter is nothing but some kind of localized electromagnetic wave. In other words, there’s a hole in the explanation of the mainstream science you can drive a truck through:
Either the fields cause the matter, or the matter causes the fields, but not both at the same time! Make up your mind, folks!
It may be clear by now that quantum mechanics is correct in this respect and that the Maxwell equations are therefore incorrect or at least incomplete. Both the electric and the magnetic field can exist on and by themselves and can also propagate trough space. When the Maxwell equations are corrected for this omission, as Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl does in his paper “Faraday or Maxwell?”, we basically return to the good old ether model. The ultimate result of that is that Einstein’s relativity theory should be referred to the realm of fantasy.
Because Maxwell assumed that charge carriers were the causes of the fields, implicitly a certain reference frame is linked to the description of the fields. That leads to the Maxwell equations being not invariant to the so-called Galilean transform. This sounds complicated, but if you want to describe a ripple in a glass of water in a passing train, you have to take into account the speed difference between observer and train. Well, that’s all the Galilean transform does. So, in order to describe the waves propagating trough the ether “generally”, you have to basically use the same correction. And because the Galilean transform can be applied to all classical mechanics laws, we call these “invariant” for the Galilean transformation:
“Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity is a principle of relativity which states that the fundamental laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. Galileo Galilei first described this principle in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems using the example of a ship traveling at constant velocity, without rocking, on a smooth sea; any observer doing experiments below the deck would not be able to tell whether the ship was moving or stationary.

Maxwell’s equations governing electromagnetism possess a different symmetry, Lorentz invariance, under which lengths and times are affected by a change in velocity, which is then described mathematically by a Lorentz transformation.

Albert Einstein’s central insight in formulating special relativity was that, for full consistency with electromagnetism, mechanics must also be revised such that Lorentz invariance replaces Galilean invariance. At the low relative velocities characteristic of everyday life, Lorentz invariance and Galilean invariance are nearly the same, but for relative velocities close to that of light they are very different.”
What happened is that it turned out that the Galilean transform is not working with the Maxwell equations. In other words, the Maxwell equations are not invariant to the Galilean transform. However, this is ultimately caused by the incorrect assumption that the fields are caused by matter. As Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill argued some time ago, science resorted to the so-called Lorentz transformation, mathematically correct but in fact nonsense in terms of having any physical relevance. And it is this Lorentz transformation which requires the speed of light to be constant, while we actually know this is not the case.
After all, within different materials, different media, the speed of light differs and is less than that in free space. And because materials consist of elementary particles, it is clear that the presence of (elementary) particles affects the speed of light. This is what causes light rays to break in the transition from air to glass. And since we also know from the particle-wave duality principle that all electromagnetic waves in the Universe are particles and we know that the Universe is filled with all kinds of electromagnetic waves, it is clear that throughout the Universe the speed of light is affected by the presence of all kinds of particles. The claim that the speed of light is constant in the Universe is therefore absolutely untenable.
Update (sept 30, 2011):
It turns out that it has actually been experimentally proven that the speed of light in deep space is not fixed, as reported by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.:
“Evidence has surfaced that the speed of light is not c in deep space, based on satellite data from Pioneer 10 and 11. Launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, radio signals received from these satellites contain an “anomalous” Doppler shift. Renshaw showed that this can be explained by assuming classical Newtonian mechanics for the Doppler-shifted radio signal in a heliocentric frame of reference. Staunch relativists take note: Here is a clear case, for both satellites, whereclassical theory gives the correct answer, but relativistic corrections lead to the wrong results.Einstein’s relativity cannot explain this result, and indeed, it is the cause of the problem in the first place!”

“Wallace discovered that radar data for the planet Venus did not confirm the constancy of the speed of light. Alarmed and intrigued by these results, he noticed systematic variations in the data with diurnal and lunar-synodic components. He attempted to publish the results in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable resistance. His analysis indicated a heretical “c + v” Galilean fit to the data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish elsewhere. To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be something of an understatement. He made heated claims that NASA had noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic correction factors to calculate signal transit times.”
I just love coincidences like this. One day you prove theoretically that the speed of light cannot be fixed across the Universe and just two days later you find the experimental evidence just like that. And thearticle by Dr. Cantrell provides much more evidence that Einstein’s relativity theory really is untenable after all.
When we add just this “anomalous” Doppler shift (which is a completely different phenomenon than the slow down anomaly referred to above) and the “anomalous” radar data, the count already stands at five. And still counting, cause I haven’t even finished reading Dr. Cantrell’s article…

Conclusion:
1. The concept of our description of “space” is an abstract concept, comparable to a street-map. Space itself is the emptiness, the void, in which physical (tangible) entities exist and thus space in and of itself cannot have physical properties. Therefore space cannot be curved, because it cannot have physical properties.
2. The field descriptions (Maxwell equations) are incorrect, because of the incorrect assumptionthat the fields are caused by particles. When this error is corrected, the normal Galilean transform applies, which does not demand a fixed speed of light.
3. The speed of light is not constant within the Universe, and therefore the Lorentz transform cannot be applied in the real physical Universe, even if it would have had any physical relevance.
And that means the bottom drops from underneath the whole relativity theory.
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng
Update (Oct 20th 2011): Note that only one of these arguments has to be true on order for Einstein’s theory to be disproven. After all, the whole idea of the speed of light supposedly being fixed is because that is being demanded by the Lorentz transform. So, Tesla’s argument that space cannot be curved, because it cannot have physical properties is just an additional illustrative argument that shows how simple it really is to recognize that relativity cannot be correct. And the argument that the Maxwell equations are incorrect is the root cause that explains how and why physics went bazerk for over a hundred years.

Update (April 6th 2013): Actually, Einstein himself said that “space without aether is unthinkable”:
 
Subsequently, the work of Hans Jenny is very interesting. He published a number of breathtaking videos which show what you can do with sound waves, e.g. in a bowl of water (parts 12 en 3). He shows that many kinds of geometric shapes can be formed using standing sound waves in the fluid, whereby matter flows together naturally to certain areas and stays away from other areas. And that’s also what happens in the ether. So, gravity is simply an electrostatic phenomenon caused by longitudinal standing waves in the ether, which determines the geometry of the solar system, our galaxy, and so on. Everything is connected to everything through these standing waves.
Well, and if you’re that far off with your fundamental theory, it should surprise no one that you get strange results every now and then. The reported Pioneer anomaly is simply due to the distribution of ether pressure, the same kind of ether pressure that keeps our planet in orbit.
And for those who are still looking for the ether wind that they could never find: near the surface of the earth this exercises a force on matter, such that matter accelerates with about 9.81 m/s2 towards the earth. This still unexplained force can therefore be nullified pretty easily using very high electrical voltages, as Thomas Townsend Brown proved in the sixties with his “mysterious” anti-gravity experiments. (Recently replicated on a small scale by Jean-Louis Naudin).
So, IMHO, it’s high time to restore the old ether theory and return to “reality” instead of “relativity”. And to be honest, that seams relatively easy to me.
Arend Lammertink, MSc, September 26, 2011.

In case you feel that I might have little admiration for Einstein, this my favorite quote of this great scientist:
“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
With this one, I totally agree:
“Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the “old one.” I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.”


....

Monday, January 11, 2016

‘I made a huge mistake’ – Why one radical feminist changed her mind on abortion

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Jan 6, 2016 / 04:58 pm (CNA).- Brazilian feminist Sara Winter used to work to legalize abortion. She was one of the founders of a radical group that carries out offensive topless protests at churches.
Now, she says people should learn from religious women who put their faith into action – and reject the powerful forces promoting abortion in her country.
What changed her mind? The birth of her child.
“I understand I made a huge mistake, and I ask forgiveness from the bottom of my heart. The way to achieve public policy changes for women has nothing to do with mocking people’s religions,” she said in a Dec. 15 Facebook post.
“What I was missing was love (which changed when I became a mother), love that came to me after having reflected a lot on today’s militant feminism,” she said.
Sara Winter is the pseudonym of Sara Fernanda Giromin. Three years ago she was one of the founders of the Brazilian branch of Femen, a radical feminist organization of sometimes violent, often offensive activists who protest topless in favor of abortion and LGBT activism.
Winter asked for forgiveness “from all those people, whether religious or not, that I offended during a feminist protest last year involving a same-sex kiss in front of a church in Rio de Janeiro.”
Last month she denounced international funding to promote abortion in Brazil. She asked forgiveness for having been “part of that scheme to get abortion legalized.”
“But I never knew that all that talk about legalizing abortion in Brazil had been the work of organizations controlled by tycoons, rich men interested in reducing my country’s population.”
Sara confessed that she had always thought that an abortion was “something every woman should be able to get.”
“I’m not waving that flag any more. I don’t agree with women being jailed for having an abortion, I think they should always be treated with compassion, but I’m against the promotion of abortion being carried out by the feminist NGOs.”
The young woman also encouraged feminists “to learn from women who are religious.” While feminists are “putting on ridiculous protests (I myself used to be one of them) which are embarrassing to women, there are women of faith with homes protecting rape victims, and other women giving life by providing housing, taking in women in dangerous situations, and providing all kinds of assistance.”
“There are a lot of NGOs and institutions that need a helping hand and volunteers to care for the victims of violence, so let’s get going, help them, do your part. Take care of, assist and love other women,” she encouraged her readers.
Sara first began to speak about this radical turnabout in her life in October 2015.
“I regret having an abortion and today I’m asking for forgiveness,” she wrote on Facebook Oct. 14, almost one month after the birth of her second child. Since her baby was born, she said, “my life has taken on new meaning.”
“I don’t want you to go through the same thing I did,” she told her readers.
Years before, she underwent an abortion using a drug provided by a feminist.
“I almost bled to death and had very serious complications,” she recalled, adding that the person who came to her aid in those circumstances was a man who had “no connection to radical feminism.”
On abortion, she urged, “feminism should be focusing more on taking care of women instead of putting their lives at risk.” She said her prior abortion had caused difficulties early into her second pregnancy.
Sara has also become a critic of transgender ideology. She explained that she has no animus against people who say they are transgender, but she added, “I don’t think that changing your clothes, getting silicone breast implants and making the transition with hormones and surgery can change anybody’s sex.”
By mid-November, Sara was urging Brazilian feminists to “respect women who are religious believers.” Although she has no religious affiliation, she said that “one of the things I regret in my life is pulling away from God and devoting all my time to militant feminism.”
“Having faith is not a retrogression and other people’s religion needs to be respected,” she urged.
Sara said that she has faced a hostile reaction from the feminist faction she has abandoned.
“You have no idea of the reprisals I’ve been a victim of coming from the feminists,” she wrote. “I’m afraid of even stepping out on to the street with my baby, but I have faith that all this is going to go away.”
In early December, Sara published a short digital book about “seven times I was betrayed by the feminist movement.” The book is a compilation of the bizarre experiences she says she had as part of the Brazilian feminist movement, involved orgies, alcohol, drugs and misuse of funds.
For every book sold, she has offered to donate a Brazilian Real (about 25 cents) to “initiatives helping women in violent situations and against abortion.”
Sara stated that “feminism has a cure and I’m the greatest proof of that.”
She said the main reason Brazilian people do not like the feminists is because most of them act hysterically and use social media “to mock and humiliate religious people, preach hatred against men, besides being extremists and disrespectful of other people’s religious heritage.”
“I’m just as guilty. I used to be like that too, but thanks be to God I’ve been healed,” she said.
….


Taken from: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/i-made-a-huge-mistake—why-one-radical-feminist-changed-her-mind-on-abortion-92648/

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

The BOM: Homogenizing the heck out of Australian temperature records

Jennifer Marohasy


There are adjustments on top of adjustments. Homogenised records are being used to correct raw records. Some man-made adjustments can infect data for miles around…


Rutherglen is a long running station in central Victoria. There are no documented site moves, but the long raw trend of slow cooling was adjusted up to a warming trend. What was cooling of 0.35C per century became a 1.7C warming trend.
Jennifer Marohasy, and others, have spent months trying to get answers from the BOM explaining why these massive adjustments were made. Excuses flowed. In the latest round, the BOM claim the changes are necessary to make the Rutherglen record match the trends in the neighboring stations. What the BOM doesn’t say is that there was no warming in the neighbours either,  not until after they were homogenized. The order in which stations are homogenized matters, which rather says something important about the arbitrary nature of the adjustments. Anomalous trends from far distant and poor locations can spread through waves of homogenization until better, longer stations succumb to political correctness and show the “correct” result. Small choices about which stations to to use first in the process can make a huge difference to the end result. Another reason the BOM needs auditing.
A poor Australian citizen might think after seeing this graph, below, from the BOM, that Rutherglen is out of step with its neighbours.  Instead the taxpayer would need to go to Jennifer Marohasy’s site to get the full story. She has added the red notes to the chart to point out what the BOM don’t say: Wagga, Deniliquin and Kerang series were homogenized first. These trends were not what was recorded by thermometers. [UPDATE: Note that many raw records are patchy and not well documented. They often do need adjustment, but the reasons need to be transparent, exact, justified, and Australians need to know how influential these adjustments are.]

Australia, temperatures, graph, Victoria, Rutherglen, Deniliquin
….
Marohasy also plotted the raw data from Deniliquin and Rutherglen, and explains that at the long running station in Wilkinson St Deniliquin there was a statistically significant cooling trend of 0.6C per century from
1910 to 20001913 – 2003. Actual raw data is available for Wilkinson St from February 1867 to June 2003, a remarkably long series.
Graph, temperatures, raw data, Rutherglen, Deniliquin, Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
She has written an open letter to the Chief Operating Officer, Vicki Middleton, pointing out the misleading nature of the Bureau of Meteorology graph, and asking that they correct their “Fact Sheet”.
This is not just about Rutherglen. If we look at historic records from 84 sites, two thirds of Australia’s warming trend comes from the adjustments.

What’s the answer? Replicate the BOM’s work

If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science. The Bureau of Meteorology admits its methods are secret. [UPDATE: See the link -- the Bureau specifically admits no one outside the BoM can replicate their work because it would require detailed instructions, "operator training" and it's too "onerous".]

The BOM needs a full independent audit, staffed by people outside climate studies — we need physicists, statisticians, engineers, people with proven track records in areas of science or technology that work.

The only thing we know for sure about the BOM is that time and again, they’ve had the opportunity to explain their decisions and methods, and they choose not too. It’s an unscientific, “trust us” approach. If they were honest, and sincerely believed in their work, they would welcome the interest in the details of the historic Australian climate.
Would you buy shares in a company on the Australia Stock Exchange (ASX) that refused to allow audits of its finances? You couldn’t even if you wanted too – the ASX doesn’t allow them to list. Public companies welcome audits, to show everyone they are legit.
When the ABC misinforms Australians, the BOM don’t care. That says a lot about their priorities. Not serving the public, just serving “big-government”…

We need to get individual stations in order before we start blending bad data

The concept motivating homogenization is that errors in one station can be detected and corrected by comparing it to surrounding stations — if all the neighbors say one things and one station says something else, then the one station is probably wrong.
But how close need a neighbor be?  Is a temperature record 500 km away to be relied upon to correct measurements taken at a site? Somehow the BOM has got itself in a real mess. Bad data, unrecorded site changes, and anomalous results abound, along with wacky square-wave monthly adjustments that defy explanation. Homogenisation should start with the best stations, but no one at the BOM has even figured out which stations are the best. There’s been no proper detailed historic analysis of each station. Someone needs to go back to photos, letters and newspapers. Lets start with data, dammit.

The only thing we know for sure is that we are not getting good answers

The history of the BOM’s explanations is that the adjustments to Rutherglen are major, and that explanations could be provided in days — but more than three years after ACORN was established there are still no good explanations, just a litany of weak excuses and the fog of evasion. The BOM ignored independent scientists until The Australian started writing up their questions. Only then did they bother to respond, and in the end, they admit they can’t explain something as simple as the reasons for their adjustments in something as scientifically banal as a single temperature sequence. This is not rocket science.
Nothing has changed from when I wrote this nearly a year ago:

Under pressure, Australian BOM puts up facade of “transparency” — too little, too late
Bottom line: The BOM has added a page listing “Adjustments”. It’s two years late, inadequate and incomplete. Skeptics shouldn’t have had to ask for it in the first place, and we still don’t have the algorithms and codes, or rational answers to most questions.  No one can replicate the mystery black box homogenisation methods of the BOM — and without replication, it isn’t science. There is still no explanation of why an excellent station like Rutherglen should change from cooling to warming, except for vague “statistics”, or why any station should be adjusted without documentary evidence, based on thermometers that might be 300 km away*.
The adjustments page is just a glorified rehash of the same old excuses
Effectively the bureau is saying “we need large mysterious transformations of data to make Australian trends look like international trends”. What serious climate scientist thinks Australia is supposed to get hotter, colder, wetter, drier, or cloudier with the exact same timing and patterns to the rest of the world?
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation means that Australian trends are not going to be same as US trends. When it’s rainy here, it’s drier there. Dry soil heats up fast; wet soil keeps temperatures more stable (h/t to Bill for reminding us of the importance of rainfall).
The new gee-wizz data set called ACORN contains thousands of new mistakes that did not exist before, as discussed nearly a year ago. Nothing has changed.

Three years ago the independent audit team, with Senator Cory Bernardi, asked for an ANAO audit of the BOM’s “High Quality” HQ data set. The BOM was not enthused. They dumped the HQ set that they had previously lauded and set up a new one called “ACORN”. We listed some of the errors in June 2012.
TwoThree years on, nothing much appears to have changed. They still haven’t released the algorithms used in the homogenization process. They are still using stations more than 100km away, some 600 km away, to “adjust” temperatures.  The mystery black box adjustments are still producing inexplicable nonsense, and the BOM still can’t explain why — on individual stations like Rutherglen and Bourke — anyone should find their adjustments necessary and scientifically justified.
The BOM’s active silence on the long hot records of the late 1880s and 1890s suggests they are more interested in promoting one message — “it’s warming” — rather than being custodians of the real and more complicated history of the Australian climate.

When will  our elected representatives get the balls to do the right thing for the environment and demand the highest, most rigorous research on the Australian climate? For the sake of our farmers, national policy and land management, how can we predict the future climate if we don’t even know the history of how it has changed? (How Orwellian is that?) If the Greens cared about the climate, they would demand an independent review.

The bottom line on Rutherglen:

I don’t pretend to know what the end point answer should be. Rutherglen is not a perfect station, but we can’t even have a polite and rational conversation about it. The real dishonesty is in pretending that there is a meaningful trend to be found there or anywhere in the smoothed, blurred, and blended ACORN data.  The BOM is not honest with the Australian public about the transformative but mysterious adjustments and the dismal state of our temperature records.

CONCLUSION:  The egregious thing here is the way the trends, and the record events get reported as if they are unquestionable when so much manipulation is going on behind the scenes. That message is used as PR to sell policies, and is marketed as “science” when it is so flagrantly not.

Read the details at Jennifer Marohasy’s.

Rating: 9.5/10 (114 votes cast)
The BOM: Homogenizing the heck out of Australian temperature records, 9.5 out of 10 based on 114 ratings

....

Taken from: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/the-bom-homogenizing-the-heck-out-of-australian-temperature-records/

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Pope Francis: Sundays are a gift from God – don't ruin it

Image result for celebrating sunday holy day



.- Moments of rest and celebration were the focal point of Pope Francis’ Wednesday general audience, during which he spoke out against a profit-centered mentality and encouraged families to live life at a more human pace.

“Celebration is a precious gift from God. It's a precious gift God has made for the human family. Let's not ruin it,” the Pope said Aug. 12.

He spoke to pilgrims gathered in the Vatican’s Paul VI audience hall for his second general audience after taking a break for the month of July.


62K
223
8
62K

As part of his continued series of catecheses on the family, Francis announced he would shift focus to the different rhythms of family life, such as celebration, work and prayer.

Beginning with celebration, the Pope noted that it is God’s own invention, as can be seen in the biblical account of creation when God himself rested from his work on the seventh day.

God teaches us the importance “of dedicating time to contemplating and enjoying the fruits of our labors, not only in our employment or profession, but through every action by which we as men and women cooperate in God’s creative work,” he said.

Francis emphasized that to celebrate doesn't mean “to escape or be overcome by laziness,” but rather involves returning our gaze to the fruits of our labor with both gratitude and benevolence.

Celebration, he said, “is above all a loving and grateful look at work well done,” and means taking time to pause and be with friends and loved ones. He added that celebration is a time to watch our children grow, to look at the home we have built, and think: “how beautiful!”

The Pope observed that it is also possible to celebrate in times of difficulty, even if it means celebrating “with a lump in the throat.”

Pope Francis turned to the workplace, explaining that – without interrupting our work – celebrations can “infiltrate” the environment when we honor events such as a birthday, a marriage, a new baby, a farewell or a welcome.

Such moments of familiarity put a brief stop to “the gear of the production machine: they do us good!” he said.

True moments of celebration make us take a break from the daily grind and remind us that we have been created in the image and likeness of God, who is not a slave of work, but the Lord of work, the Pope observed.

“We must never be slaves to work but rather its master,” he stressed, and lamented how millions of men, women and children are exploited and forced to work as slaves due to an obsession with economic profit.

This over-emphasis on gain and technical efficiency “attacks human rhythms of life and denies man the time for what's really important,” he said, explaining that God wants to set us free from these vices.

“Life has human rhythms,” the Pope added. “Let us banish this idea of a celebration centered on consumption and on debauchery and let us regain its sacred value, seeing it as a privileged time in which we can encounter God and others.”

Francis pointed to Sundays as a particularly important time for rest, because “in them we find God.”

Going to Mass brings the grace of Jesus Christ to each of our celebrations, he said, since it is in the Eucharist that we encounter his presence, love and sacrifice. The Eucharistic celebration, he said, is Jesus’ way of being with us and forming us into a community.

“Everything is transfigured by his grace: work, family, the joys and trials of each day, even our sufferings and death.”

Pope Francis cautioned that the ideologies of profit and consumption want to “eat up” the celebration, and turn it into another way to make and spend money.

“But is this why we work? The greed of consuming, which leads to waste, it's a bad virus which, among other things, in the end makes us more tired than before,” he said.

Francis concluded by praying that the family always be recognized as a privileged place where the gifts that come from our celebrations are understood, guided and sustained, particularly Sunday Mass.

”May the Lord allows us to live the time of rest, celebrations, the Sunday feast, with the eyes of faith, as a precious gift which illuminates family life,” he said.

....

Taken froom: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-sundays-are-a-gift-from-god-dont-ruin-it-73132/

Monday, August 10, 2015

Pope Francis: Say a prayer for creation

Image result for prayer for creation
  


Catholics now have one more thing to pray about: the environment.
Every September 1, starting this year, will be an annual day of global prayer “for the Care of Creation,” Pope Francis said on Monday.
“I wish to inform you that I have decided to institute in the Catholic Church the ‘World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation’ which, beginning this year, is to be celebrated on 1 September,” Francis said in a letter released by the Vatican.





The timing of the prayer gives the pope another method of focusing global attention on climate change. In Paris in December, world leaders will gather in hopes of negotiating a new agreement on carbon emissions, one that puts the world on a path for less than 2 degrees of warming.
The current plans don’t go far enough, according to Climate Action Tracker, a group of research organizations dedicated to analyzing the world’s progress on the issue. The pope has suggested that he hopes to help change that, raising the profile of environmental issues, and linking them to the broader Catholic defense of the poor.
Francis said he was inspired by Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians, who have been praying for the environment since 1980s.
“The celebration of this day, on the same date as the Orthodox Church, will be a valuable opportunity to bear witness to our growing communion with our Orthodox brothers and sisters,” the pope said. “We live at a time when all Christians are faced with the same decisive challenges, to which we must respond together, in order to be more credible and effective.”
Francis has become a leading – some would say radical – defender of the environment. Writing to Vatican cardinals about his decision to create the prayer day, Francis quoted from his earlier papal letter about the need for Christians and all people to protect the environment.
In the letter released in June, Francis called for a “cultural revolution” to save the earth, warning “every living person on this planet” about wrecking the place with “consumerism,” “individualism” and “an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems.”





The 184-page encyclical, one of the highest forms of Catholic writing, stirred furious debate even before its release. That furor is likely to intensify now that the Vatican has created the prayer day, and as momentum builds toward the summit in Paris. Critics have called the pope a communist, and claimed that if he really wanted to help the poor, he would back capitalism, the greatest engine of wealth the earth has ever known.
Instead Francis has attacked the capitalistic pursuit of infinite growth and boundless, buyable pleasures. He diagnosed it as “the deification of the market,” and argued that if we hope to flourish, we need to change the way we live and work.
“When I talk about this, some people think the pope is a communist,” the pope told a gathering of peasants and workers last month. “They don’t realize that love for the poor is at the center of the Gospel.”


....


Taken from: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/pope-francis-say-prayer-creation

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Mary Queen Of All Creation





Image result for Mary and pentecost


ENCYCLICAL LETTER
LAUDATO SI’
OF THE HOLY FATHER
FRANCIS
ON CARE FOR OUR COMMON HOME




....

VIII. QUEEN OF ALL CREATION



241. Mary, the Mother who cared for Jesus, now cares with maternal affection and pain for this wounded world. Just as her pierced heart mourned the death of Jesus, so now she grieves for the sufferings of the crucified poor and for the creatures of this world laid waste by human power. Completely transfigured, she now lives with Jesus, and all creatures sing of her fairness. She is the Woman, “clothed in the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev 12:1). Carried up into heaven, she is the Mother and Queen of all creation. In her glorified body, together with the Risen Christ, part of creation has reached the fullness of its beauty. She treasures the entire life of Jesus in her heart (cf. Lk 2:19,51), and now understands the meaning of all things. Hence, we can ask her to enable us to look at this world with eyes of wisdom.



242. At her side in the Holy Family of Nazareth, stands the figure of Saint Joseph. Through his work and generous presence, he cared for and defended Mary and Jesus, delivering them from the violence of the unjust by bringing them to Egypt. The Gospel presents Joseph as a just man, hard-working and strong. But he also shows great tenderness, which is not a mark of the weak but of those who are genuinely strong, fully aware of reality and ready to love and serve in humility. That is why he was proclaimed custodian of the universal Church. He too can teach us how to show care; he can inspire us to work with generosity and tenderness in protecting this world which God has entrusted to us.



....