Thursday, February 27, 2014

Reflection on March 26, 1980

I was trying to understand what is being discussed here with the word “knowing”. I understand its meaning as “Adam knew Eve” in the conjugal act, but in the first section JPII also points to the fact that Adam “knew” what to name the animals. Obviously the “knowing” has different meanings, but it is also important that Adam and Eve “knew” what to call the creation they helped to make, “man”. “With it man, male-female, not only gives his own name, as he did when he gave names to the other living beings (animalia), thus taking possession of them, but he knows in the sense of Genesis 4:1 (and other passages of the Bible), that is, realizes what the name "man" expresses: realizes humanity in the new man generated. In a sense, therefore, he realizes himself, that is, the man-person.”

Adam named the animals and thus took a type of possession over them, but I don’t think you would say that Adam and Eve possess Cain or that parents possess their children. It feels like there is something deeper in the act of naming something that I am not grasping and that the use of the word “possession” may not mean exactly what we would first think. Parents do name their children, that name makes them unique. (Something I have thought about before is that the name given to you by your parents is eternal, what you will be called in Heaven. There is a lot of responsibility there. Think about that before you name your kid “Apple” or “”) And if you stop thinking of a possession as something you own but more as something you would protect with your every being, I think a child would qualify. A possession is something that you have control over (at least you attempt to). God told man to subdue the Earth, thus man takes possession of the Earth. Man named the animals and in doing so, possessed them in a sense by being above them. Man named their reproduction, thus taking possession, responsibility, for them. Man also learned about himself when taking possession of the animals. He learned of his uniqueness, his original solitude. In naming his offspring, man learns more about himself.

He turns from talking about possession of animals and creation to “knowledge” being linked with “possession” of the other, male and female. Like with other ideas that have been brought up so far, we see that this understanding in its original sense was a beautiful thing that allowed Adam and Eve to “possess” each other, but do so in a pure sense and not with any sense of making the other an object. We struggle against this in our fallen nature. We have the conjugal act, allowing us to have a unique “knowledge” of the other, yet in our sinful nature it is comingled with our sense of possession. Our acts of knowledge will bring us to a struggle to see the other with pure subjectivity and not as an object to be possessed. The further you are from that purity, the more the person becomes an object, the more the person becomes a possession for you to control.

Each of these reflections seems to shed more and more light on the world. How much of this idea of the other as a possession do we see in marriages, in pornography? When reflecting early on the idea of children as possessions (in a negative light) doesn’t that speak to the world’s understanding of abortion and contraception, of pre-school beauty pageants, and other types of children’s activities that we see today? The world has moved farther and farther away from the divinity of creation and the further it goes, the more we become objects to be possessed, in its most negative definition.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Reflections on March 12, 1980

If you have any doubt that male and female are physically different and meant to be different, you have to go no further than witnessing very closely the stages and finality of child bearing. What a woman’s body goes through in this process in miraculous and amazing and is completely and utterly impossible in man. Yet, women in this day and age want to throw that away and want to be exactly like men, treated and looked upon exactly like men. (Although we know that isn’t entirely true. The world is very schizophrenic in this regard. Equal everything like men but use the sexuality of our bodies to sell us anything. They want to use the difference when convenient, but say there is no difference when it suits them.) But they are not the same. Women are made for child bearing, as degrading as some might think that sounds, it is said with the upmost respect and awe. Child bearing is such a beautiful thing that is unique to the female. It is no small surprise that a culture in which women want to be seen as exactly like males in all aspects of life would look upon the most important uniqueness (child bearing) as a disease to be avoided or removed when it occurs.

The idea of objective and “pure” subjectivity as witnessed in the consummation of marriage is much easier to grasp when we have a clearer understanding from before on authentic subjectivity. Male and female discover each other in a unique physical way, thus getting a sense of the objective meaning, how God made them. When the gift is fully accepted and given, they also get an understanding of what they mean to each other, what they give to each other, what the learn about themselves through each other. This experience gives them a “pure” subjectivity. As we stated early, the closer these two are to the same view, the more authentic, the closer to God’s divine and original meaning.

It is something to reflect on, the gift from God that a child is. The conjugal act can take place without anything happening, and sometimes no one can explain why there is no child. There are many times the act happens and despite attempts to stop a child, there is one created. If you believe in a loving God, if you believe He is in control, if you believe that He graces loving couples with children as a gift, then you must stand firm in the cases when a child comes into the world through actions that are not loving. You simply cannot choose when to believe God is loving and all powerful and when you think God has made some mistake. I completely understand how those that do not believe in God can turn their mind to biology and human motives and convince themselves that abortion is always a choice. I cannot understand how a believing Christian can disregard the will of God in bringing a child into the world because the method that child came in. The entire argument that such an evil act cannot bring about any good or is too traumatic has to only look at the cross. If you truly believe God is in control, then you must take what you determine is good with what you see as the bad and realize God’s gifts are all good and He can bring His goodness out of the worst of all evils. Abortion should never be allowed because that child is a gift from God, regardless of how or why that gift was given. God’s plan in for the good, trust in that.

Words I looked up.

Archetype - the original pattern or model from which all things of the same kind are copied or on which they are based; a model or first form; prototype.

Friday, February 21, 2014

Reflection on March 5, 1980;’

I have never heard of “mysterium iniquitatis” (mystery of iniquity) before. JPII talks about it in union with the mystery of death as barriers to the “beginning”. It appears obvious from the context that iniquity is analogous to sin, but I had never heard of sin as a mystery, sin was always just sin. I was thinking why sin is a mystery. We read that St. Paul knows what he should do but doesn’t, that he knows what he should not do, yet does. Is that the mystery, doing things we know we shouldn’t, knowing it will hurt us in the end, knowing it will never truly satisfy yet continuing? Or is it something else.

While I was thinking about the mystery of sin and beginning this speech which starts the Chapter on “Knowledge and Procreation” I was wondering about the inheritance of sin. The fall effected Adam and Eve in a physical and spiritual way. They past this on to Cain and Able, so on and so forth up until us. We were born with original sin, inherited from Adam and Eve. I was wondering what would have happened if Adam and Eve had a child before the fall and what they would have inherited. Along that same lines, Adam and Eve become one flesh (consummate the marriage) before the fall, but no child came from that act. Therefore we can see that God makes the act sacred outside of it being solely for child baring, although it requires the openness to child baring.

It is sad to think that the goal of the conjugal act was to achieve an ultimate knowledge of the person and the world has stripped it so far down that, at my day job, I see mothers who have no knowledge of who the father of their children are. It goes to the deterioration of the meaning of the act, its specialty, its purpose. God created it as a way to obtain a unique knowledge of another. You were only to get this knowledge of one other person, you were to share this knowledge of yourself with only one other person, and you would learn who they were and who you were supposed to be in a very special way.

2 things that I thought about while reading this. The knowing of your spouse, although climaxing in the conjugal act, nevertheless extents to every aspect of life, or at least should. When a husband and wife make that commitment, they are united and should “know” each other in such a way that everything is shared. They should “know” each other in such a way that the anticipate the other, maybe not agree all the time, but understand the other’s motives and where they are coming from. Disagreements may occur because of differing opinions, but arguments and fights should be nonexistent because you “know” each other enough that you know why the person is saying or feeling what they are feeling. The conjugal act is merely a physical demonstration of the knowledge to share with each other on a daily basis at all other times. (LOL, if only it were that simple) But that is where we should strive and image a marriage where a couple “knew” each other that well and in that way and the happiness they would show.

The second thought was, if the gift of this knowledge was intended to be given once and to only one other, what happens to that gift when it is given to others. Obviously, the gift given in marriage is a great gift, you may even be able to call it unique (if only one marriage for life), but something has been taken from it. It is not the full gift it would have been, it is missing something. It makes you think about how important a gift our virginity is and what we give away as nothing in the eyes of the world. The world see virginity as a (crime is the word I want to use) defect. How far from the truth they are when you see it as a gift God has created in you that you can only give once and never again. And how little the gift means, even to a married couple, when it has been given away so cheaply by them before the marriage. Is it any wonder that marriage is deteriorating in a world that cheapens the act? If the act is a climax and image of all that a marriage stands for on a daily basis and the world treats it so cheaply it is not a leap to image it will treat the idea of marriage as cheaply.

Words I looked up.

Iniquity - a violation of right or duty; wicked act; sin.

Thematically - of or pertaining to a theme.

Intentionality - done with intention or on purpose; intended:

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Reflection on February 13, 1980

The two main things that have been looked at in the context of Christ looking back to the beginning are the unity and indissolubility of marriage. The more I read and dig into this Theology of the Body, the more I see the reasoning and beauty of Catholic teaching on marriage and the sexual act. And yet, even in the Catholic Church there are so many that want the teachings to change. - This is a story about a survey sent out to many Catholics and what Catholics in the pews really believe. That, I don’t think, should be a shock to anyone. What was more disheartening was that a Bishop would openly be calling for the Catholic rules on marriage to be done away with. You wonder if he has ever read JPII’s Theology of the Body. (by the way, read up to “they could receive Communion and other sacraments of the church.” This article was in the Pantagraph and that is where they ended the story. They left out the part saying that the teaching has no real chance of changing) And the reason it cannot change is because Christ taught it the way we teach it. We are only on the 18th lecture of 130 and I can see that Christ meant for marriage to be lifelong. Being Catholic is not meant to be something that is obtained easily, it is something to strive to. We are to become saints, the criteria is going to be difficult. Here is a video by Fr. Barron on the Extreme rules of the Catholic Church.

This perfection that we are called to is beyond us. That relates to the barrier that JPII says keeps us from being able to experience this original innocence. But just we cannot fully experience it does not mean we should not try to reflect on it and learn about it. There is a link between us (historical man) and the man of original innocence. This link is there and connects us to that beginning. Not only will learning about the original man help us better understand ourselves, but better understand the redemption that Christ brings. Christ redemption will allow us to cross that barrier in the fullness of time, bring us back to God, allow us to have life eternal in the New Eden.

I saw a post on facebook about interviews of people asking them when they were attracted to the opposite sex. The idea was to show that who we are attracted to is inherent, not a choice. I have also seen things written about the gay gene. I used to think that wasn’t a plausible thing, but in thinking about when I was attracted to females, I had to stop and think. That made me think about “what if” there is a gay gene and it is something people are born with it. Does that change anything the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality. In thinking about it, I don’t think it changes anything. We have been looking at original innocence and man before the fall. But the fall brings about a change in man. All sin and evil comes into play with the fall. God allows sin to exist, but He doesn’t force us to choose to act upon our sinful desires. There are those born with genes that are more vulnerable to cancer than others. Some families are more prone to alcoholism or other abuses. Just because you are born with these inherent weaknesses, it doesn’t give you the right to indulge in sinful acts. If skin cancer runs in your family, they tell you to wear sunscreen all the time and stay away from the sun even more than most. If alcoholism is a family issue, you should probably never start drinking. Is that a sacrifice, yes, but does anyone bat an eye if you say it, no. It is for their own good and the good of their family and society as a hole if those that know they might have been born with a gene that could lead them to danger to do what they can to avoid that. That is all Catholic teaching says to those that may be born with a gay gene. Just because you may have it does not mean you get to act out on it. All the ill effects of homosexual activity that the Church has always argued against do not change.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

Reflection on February 6, 1980

We are again contemplating the idea that we are meant to be a gift to another. Before the fall, there was an inner innocence that allowed a perfect giving and receiving of each other as gift. There were no barriers of accepting the other as anything but what God had created in them. Because of this innocence, this giving and receiving are at the height of dignity. We can apply that scale to our own relationships. The more innocent the giving or receiving of the gift, the higher the dignity of the gift. It follows that when gifts are given under false pretences or received with ulterior motives, the gift loses its dignity. When things are done that are not giving or receiving, but a distorted form of the giving act, we can see that all dignity is lost.

It follows, although JPII brings it up but then says it will be covered in more detail later, that the more you move away from this innocence in giving and receiving, you move further away from the dignity of the giver/receiver. The human becomes less what God intended and more an object, what the world wants us to think we are. As the world spins its tale of freedom and relativism, people have become less and less human and have been objectified. We are nothing but numbers in a system, cogs in the system, stats in an equation. It makes you think about why polls seem so important when decisions are being made and why those in charge want them so bad. People seem not to think for themselves, but rely on numbers to tell them what they are to think and do. Even dating (granted I know people that have met and are very happy to have met online) has been given over to statistics to determine how you are suitable for. The world wants to do everything in its power to remove the dignity from the individual. That is why it is so comfortable calling babies blobs, the hospitalized vegetables, pornography art.

Speaking of pornography, it is obvious that the woman discovers who she is through the man’s acceptance of her. That is what is supposed to happen in the union of husband and wife. At that union, the woman fully realizes her essence in the acceptance of her husband. What type of acceptance can she receive from a husband addicted to pornography? That acceptance can never be fully given, it is not innocent, and it is corrupted. If the acceptance is not there, the woman can never fully understand her own essence. A household where that is an issue is a household that has a chasm between husband and wife because that full acceptance is lacking. There may be other divides that separate many husbands and wives, but with the proliferation of pornography in our culture, this chasm will continue to effect more and more couples, barring true acceptance and depriving dignity from our homes.

He really has not touched on the conjugal act yet, but all the discussion of giving and receiving fully points us in that direction. I think it is clear that he is leading us to a point where we will see that this act is a summation and climax of this union. Each act is a renewal of the vows that husband and wife shared on the day of their marriage, a recommitment to all that they have given and received from each other. Because it points back to this union, it is so fundamental that this act be given and received fully. We are discovering what it means to not fully give and receive, what it takes away from the gift, how it strips it of dignity. It is this fullness of the gift that Catholics rely on as the foundation for its teachings on contraception. We also see that the act relies on a full and complete commitment, thus the teaching that the act outside of marriage is wrong. It is not pointing back to anything, it lacks fullness, it lacks dignity.

Words I looked up.

Dignity - bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.

Transmutation - to change from one nature, substance, form, or condition into another; transform.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Reflection on January 30, 1980

The idea that love can only be perceived in created things is something that I thought was interesting. When I first reflected on that, I thought about how love between a husband and wife is shown through their children, who the participated in creating. But, as I thought about it more, I thought of how it can be much broader. I was thinking of an artist and what they create on the canvas and how that shows what they love. But some art (if you can call it that) is not very tasteful. So, I was thinking that you may not see “love” in the creation, but what the creator loves, which could be evil. But if we take it back to children, all were created in an act that (as God intended it) is the climax of love. So looking at children, you see love, God’s love, God is love, hence, the image of God. Yes there are some children created from an act in which love is not there, but that is not God’s intent, and God can bring about the very image of Himself, vision of love, in the face of a child, regardless of the motivation or lack of love in the act.

I like the idea that God’s love is irreversible, He cannot take it back, even after sin. Many ask why Christ sacrificed His life for sinners, those that had turned away and continue to turn away from Him. But it is that same irreversible love that God had for those two He created in the beginning. That love stays the same, never diminishing, irreversible.

I didn’t know how immunity because of love kept us from shame. I suppose I understand that because we had a complete love, there was no room for shame, whereas after the fall, love is not complete and shame is allowed to seep in. When I think of immunity, I think of impenetrability. But they were impenetrable, they fell. If they were immune from shame before the fall, were they not immune to pride, which caused them to seek what they did not already have.

“Innocence is a mystery of man’s existence before the knowledge of good and evil and, as it were, “outside” of that knowledge.” This is the one line I found most interesting. The world sees freedom as a place with no limits, no boundaries. If you are allowed to do whatever you want, whenever you want, you are truly free. That is not the Biblical understanding of freedom. True freedom is when you live in accordance with God and His will and bring yourself to full obedience to Him. That seems counter intuitive, but this line and talking about what happened after the fall tries to explain it. Before the fall, the two were allowed to live completely free because of their original innocence. They were not bound. After the fall, their freedom was cut short, they became imprisoned by the knowledge that they obtained. As with most sinful acts, the result of the act has exactly the opposite consequence of what was hoped for.


I thought the footnote on nakedness was interesting. It states that in the Middle East, nakedness is seen as a deprivation of freedom, slavery etc. I thought it gave new insight into what we see with them requiring their women to cover up. But, more to reflect on, is what they must think when they see the Western culture. Can you imagine what they thought of the 60’s and 70’s sexual revolution. The West see nakedness as a sign of freedom. Even now, we are over there, in many ways, trying to tear down their culture and Westernize it, and they see Miley Cyrus twerking and riding a wrecking ball. The West sees nakedness as a freedom, but it is a slavery and shows the world its slavery to sin and defilement of the body God gave us in Love.

Words I looked up.

Irradiation - to shed rays of light upon; illuminate.

Immunity – (beautifying immunity) the condition that permits either natural or acquired resistance to disease.

“historical a posteriori” - A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence. I take this to mean the historical knowledge we can gain by looking at experience. This is as opposed to “a priori” knowledge or justification is independent of experience

Sunday, February 09, 2014

Reflection on January 16, 1980

The world we live in today is a selfish world. There is a need to satisfy our urges and fulfill our every desire at whatever cost to others and even ourselves. JPII has focused on the idea that we are, at our essence, a gift. We cannot understand what it means to be human without understanding that we were meant to be a gift. Our lives are only fulfilled when we give ourselves. It is no wonder that the world becomes a darker and darker place the more inwardly we turn. We are moving farther away from what we are at in are very foundation. Selfishness, if we understand that we are a gift at our very essence, is the complete opposite of what it means to be human. But, I think you could say, Selfishness is exactly what the world is telling us we need to be normal.

This idea of selfishness goes along with the idea of self-mastery (self-dominion). What I take from it is that we are to be a gift, but a whole and total gift, a gift that holds nothing back. It is hard not to think of this and not reflect on the example of Christ, the greatest example of a full and total gift of self. You must have self-mastery if you want to be able to give yourself fully, because if are not in full control of yourself, you can only give a partial gift. If you ever watched Seinfeld, they have a famous episode about being “master of your domain”. It really ties in well, though I am sure not by any intention on their part, with this idea of self-mastery and gift. Their question to each other, “are you master of your domain”, is one that we should reflect on as we think about the relationship between spouses and a full gift of self.

JPII talks about the two aspects at the essence of being human: The idea that we are gift and that humans were willed “for its own sake”. There appears to be a contradiction there. On one hand we are to give ourselves, on the other we are for ourselves. But JPII focuses this “for its own sake” on the idea of acceptance of the gift. Adam accepted Eve’s gift as she was made, for her own sake, and she accepted him. They did not want to change the other or desire anything in the person to be different but understood that they were made by God for their own sake and that is what they were to accept. The idea that we are gift is only half the equation because you cannot have a gift with no recipient. In order to understand our essence as a gift, we must also understand acceptance of the gift as God intended, that is fully and totally. If we cannot talk about gift without thinking of Christ, it is hard to think about acceptance without thinking of all those that choose to accept parts of Christ teachings, but not all.

To wrap this up, think of what is meant by humans being made in image of God. That is the humans (male and female united) as the image of God. That, before the fall, was an untainted male and female, being both a full and total gift and fully accepting of the other as they were. Then we have the fall, which destroys the ability to give totally and to accept totally. Christ comes to redeem and reunite that break and does so by being a total gift and we join in bridging that gap by accepting His gift in its fullness, thus, reaching back to what we had “in the beginning”.

Thursday, February 06, 2014

Reflection on January 9, 1980

We seem to skip right over God saying man alone is not good. We look to the first story of creation and everything is good, with the climax of the creation of humanity as very good. But here, God’s sees male alone and says it is “not good”. The first account does not distinguish between male and female, so we can see that male and female being created is very good. But in order to get to that place, we must discover that male alone is not good. God says this and male sees it as well, although whether he knows it from the beginning or discovers it only when he sees female, I couldn’t quite make out.

JPII focuses on the words “alone” and “help” in looking at the essence of humanity. Man was alone and it was “not good”. God says man needs a help. I talked already that I thought man was not complete without woman, but that this is a misunderstanding. SO, we must try to dissect this as showing that a human essence is something different than a complete human. And maybe there is more than one essence of a thing. The essence of the physical human being verses the essence of humans in the image of God.

I think it is important that JPII points out that you do not live with someone, but “for” them. This is a point that, I am sure, will come up more and more. The whole idea of sacrificing “for” another is, what I have come to understand, the most fundamental part of this communion of persons. It took me a while to understand that and I still struggle with it at times, but my life is never more at peace than when I am fully sacrificing myself “for” the other. It may mean I am more tired, it always means I doing something I would rather not, but it also brings me peace unlike any of those things that I always think will.

Reflecting on the idea that the male body was made as a gift for the female and vice versa makes you think about what a gift is. Have you ever given a gift and gotten a very negative response. My poor wife gets this all the time. She has given several gifts that I have not enjoyed, or not enjoyed long enough. For a lawyer, I am not a good liar, so it easy to tell when I don’t care for something. This gift of male to female is a perfect gift, given by God, to fulfill our very essence. Sin brings a barrier and defilement to that gift so that we don’t understand what it truly looked like at the beginning. The world seeks to fulfill the essence of this gift in numerous different ways, but each is only a lie and only goes to damage our understanding of the true gift God gave. That is why Catholics should take contraception, homosexuality, premarital sex and the like so seriously. They are all trying to replace the gift God gave us from the beginning, the gift that made all that God made “very good”.

He says he will get to it in more detail later, and I hope that is true, but he ends here with a point that is obvious from what we have already read, yet new in its form. The sexual act of humans in unique and different than that of the animals. How does the world feel about that. They would say its nonsense. Male organism and female organism unite and a new organism is formed. That is what cows and elephants and deer and humans all do. We are not different. JPII says the difference goes back to this unity of persons being the “image of God”. Because this unity is different, it is unique from all other animal unities. I hope this is explored more and in the sense that when humans put barriers up, like contraception, it takes away that “image of God” aspect and becomes animalistic. The world wants to turn it into an animalistic idea, Satan is helping to lead that charge and we are following his every lead, because he understands how special it was created “in the beginning”.

Words I looked up

Individuation - the determination or contraction of a general nature to an individual mode of existence; development of the individual from the general.

Monday, February 03, 2014

Reflections on January 2, 1980

JPII talked in one of the early talks of a special way Adam and Eve “saw” each other. He expands on that a little more here, calling it an “interior gaze”. They saw more than just what their eyes could see, more than the physical forms in front of each other. This ability to have an interior gaze of someone, from how I read it, is not taken away by shame. Instead of it being peaceful and full, shame makes this interior gaze a thing that is troubling and threatening to us. That makes sense when you think about people being afraid of commitment, of being vulnerable, lack of marriage and increasing co-habitation. We see this other person, we feel strong feelings, we feel ourselves drawn to them, but instead of peace, we are troubled and instead of committing to the feeling and growing in a deeper understanding of ourselves, we push it away, distract ourselves, destroy and degrade those feelings. I don’t think most would describe that fear of commitment with shame, but we do get an understanding of how Adam and Eve “saw” each other in a deeper than physical way and, as opposed to fear, were at peace.

The footnotes bring up the comparison of JPII’s adequate anthropology to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is related to the idea of reductionism (defined below) and JPII says an understanding of adequate anthropology is opposed to this. I understand this opposition much better now after going through the first several of these talks. Theory of Evolution holds as a premise that we were once or evolved from the animal kingdom. No one can explain, and may never be able to (hence it is still “theory”), how animals went from irrational to rational thought, find the “missing link”. But that is what they need to find to use their reductionism. They must explain us and all our actions and a purely scientific manner. An adequate anthropology is opposed because, I believe he is saying, at the bare minimum humans are unique in that they were created in the image of God. Because that is their minimum or adequate starting point, they can never go beyond that boundary, into the animal kingdom and no explanation describing them can take humans beyond that boundary. That is why Theology of the Body may fall on many deaf ears because theory of evolution is seen as fact, yet JPII basic premise is opposed to it.

I have read, and found it to make a lot of sense, that in the Hebrew language they did not have a different type of word for levels (like big, bigger, biggest). Instead they repeat the word 3 times. Thus, when we sing “Holy, Holy, Holy”, we are actually proclaiming that God is the holiest, which like I said, makes sense. In the footnotes it talks about the word creation used in Genesis 1. It says it is used only in Genesis 1:1 and then in the verse regarding man, 1:27. “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”. Notice “created” is used 3 times indicating that man being created is the highest form of created things.

Words I looked up

Reductionism - the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.

Hermeneutics - the science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures.