Shiningpeak is a portal to a various content, mostly a collection of articles and writings on topics such as religion, ethics, current events, politics, stupidity, modernity, antiquity, atheism, theism, etc, including lectures for the college level intro to philosophy class (phi 101). They include sections on logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, proofs of god, natural theology, ancient Greece, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Thomism, and more.
It is easy to find the five or six stanzas of this famous
medieval hymn, but not easy to find the longer version in one place, so I have
placed the 20 stanzas I have found online here for reference. The original
complete Latin title is the "Jubilus Rhythmicus de Nomine Jesu." and
has 48 stanzas. It is dated 1130 or 1140. Because of the length it is not found
in the Church's liturgy in full form, but three parts are broken out into
smaller hymns used in the Roman Breviary.
Jesu dulcis memoria,
Dans vera cordis gaudia,
Sed super mel et omnia
Ejus dulcis præsentia:
Nil canitur suavius,
Nil auditur jucundius,
Nil cogitatur dulcius,
Quam Jesus Dei Filius.
Jesu spes pœnitentibus,
Quam pius es petentibus!
Quam bonus te quærentibus!
Sed quid invenientibus!
Nec lingua vale dicere,
Nec littera exprimere,
Expertus potest credere,
Quid sit Jesum diligere.
Sis, Jesu, nostrum gaudium,
Qui es futurus praemium
Sit nostra in te gloria,
Per cuncta semper saecula.
Jesu Rex admirabilis,
Et Triumphator nobilis,
Mane nobiscum, Domine,
Nos tuo reple munere:
Pulsa noctis caligine
Tua pasce dulcedine.
Quando cor nostrum visitas,
Tunc lucet ei veritas,
Mundi vilescit vanitas,
Et intus fervet caritas.
Jesu, decus angelicum,
In aure dulce canticum,
In ore mel mirificum,
In corde nectar caelicum.
Qui te gustant, esuriunt,
Qui bibunt, adhuc sitiunt;
Nisi Iesum, quem diligunt.
O Jesu mi dulcissime,
Spes suspirantis animae!
Te quaerunt piae lacrimae,
Te clamor mentis intimae.
Mane nobiscum, Domine,
Et nos illustra lumine;
Pulsa mentis caligine,
Mundum reple dulcedine.
Jesu, flos Matris Virginis,
Amor nostrae dulcedinis,
Tibi laus, honor nominis,
Jesu, dulcedo cordium,
Fons vivus, lumen mentium,
Excedens omne gaudium
Et omne desiderium.
Jesum omnes agnoscite,
Amorem eius poscite;
Jesum ardenter quaerite,
Te nostra, Jesu, vox sonet,
Nostri te mores exprimant;
Te corda nostra diligant
Et nunc, et in perpetuum.
Cum Maria diluculo
Jesum quæram in tumulo ;
Cordis clamore querulo
Mente quæram, non oculo.
Jesus ad patrem rediit,
Cœleste regnum subiit :
Cor meum a me transiit,
Post Jesum simul abiit.
Jesum sequamur laudibus,
Votis, hymnis, et precibus,
Ut nos donet cœlestibus
Secum perfrui sedibus.
Dan nobis largus veniam
Amoris this copiam
Da nobis per presentiam
Tuam videre Florian.
Laude tibi nos pangimus,
Dilectus es qui Filius,
Quem Patris atque Spiritus
Splendor revelat inclitus.
Gloria Tibi, Domine,
Qui natus es de Virgine,
Cum Patre et Sancto Spiritu,
In sempirterna sæcula. Amen.
The Gregorian chant for each verse repeats as follows:
How could everything anyone ever knew about men and women just end up being lost? How
can a whole generation be raised without the slightest notion of why
women act the way they do toward men, or why men act the way they do
toward women? It is a sober question, and a sobering one. I think we all know the answer. The world has two stories to tell about this great mystery. The
new story is a story of revolt. In this story, there is no mystery to
explain. The past is a time of darkness and horror, which consists of
rapist men victimizing helpless women. The sexual revolution frees one
and all to enter into any form of contract for the exchange of
copulation rights as “he or she or xe or it” sees fit. No
one has any sexual roles. Instead, one has a “gender” which consists
of a set of preferences as to sexual dress and behavior, which each may
decide for oneself as one sees fit. On the other hand, same sex
attraction is genetically selected by Darwinian evolution to increase
fertility, and cannot be opposed or impeded. The male desire for many
female partners, including non-consenting ones like the Sabine Women in
Plutarch, on the other hand, has no Darwinian reproductive value. In
this story, only fools believe in true love. The sexual appetite is an
appetite to the slaked, and the satisfaction is had when the surface
appearances are met, and the genitalia stimulated. Sex is the
stimulation, not the sex act itself, so any of the fifty genders may
this story, consent is the only sacrosanct rule for determining
whether the exchange of sexual gratification takes place. All sex is
selfish. Love and childrearing play no part in any calculation. The
other story is old. The other story is a love story, where the men
seek love by pursuing, and the women seek love by alluring. In
this story, the man takes charge because bold men take charge, and the
woman plays coy and modest because that is what fair maidens do, for
only the bold deserve the fair. She
arranges obstacles for him, and dallies and flirts with coy and
amorous delay, teasing and tempting. She dare not be over-blunt, nor
rash and rushing to wed, for she cannot distinguish the frogs from the
princes without seeing some sign of princely valor and devotion. In
this story, sometimes a girl is demure, or plays hard to get, but at
other times she may be merely toying with his affection. Likewise
sometimes a boy is a cad and a flatterer, but sometimes he is
true-hearted. Each player in the masquerade goes threw the steps of the mating dance trying to discover which is which. And
sometimes a suitor who sees himself a cad when he thought himself
true, or a girl realizes she is a flirt when she thought herself coy,
because the emotion of infatuation, and the drive of lust, all too often
disguises itself as true love. And,
of course, in the love story, the man picks up the check and pays for
the show whereas the young lady’s contribution is too adorn herself to
look pretty and to be a gay and charming companion. The exchange is unfair, if by this we mean unequal. But,
by nature, the exchange cannot be equal: she is the one being pursued
and persuaded. Her task is to encourage the pursuit by the right sort
of guy. His is to pursue and persuade, and to convince himself and her
of his devotion, accomplishments, and worth. The
tactics for male and female cannot be the same because the goal for
each is different. If he is decent, what he wants is nubile, true and
faithful wife. Blame no man if, for him, lust seeks young and fertile
girls. By instinct, he seeks markers of youth and health, a curvaceous
body able to bear the travail of childrearing. Likewise,
If she is decent, what she wants is a virile, strong and faithful man.
Blame no woman if her lust seeks older, established men, one wealthy
enough to bear the cost of childrearing. Nature
demands different things from either parent. Hence, not the same
things. Hence they cannot be sought in the same way. Hence the wooer
and the wooed cannot won the complementary goals using tactics suited
to the other. When a man holds a woman in his arms on the ballroom floor, both dancers cannot lead. They dance as equals only when separated. While
dating, he picks up the check. After the wedding, she becomes wife and
mother and homemaker, and she gives all she has to give in life. If he
blenches at picking up a check on a date, how is he going to afford to
keep a wife? At
one time, many a boy at least knew the stereotyped expectations of the
elliptical and indirect reasoning of female psychology. He
might not understand the reason why girls were so illogical,
emotional, strange, fickle, and practical, but he knew to expect that. Likewise,
the girl might not understand why the boy was so pigheaded,
unemotional, honor-bound, arrogant, incorrigible, and idealistic, but
many a girl knew to brace herself for it. For
the record, female illogic is perfectly logical once the female
viewpoint is known, and male logic grows grossly superficial and
heartless without a female viewpoint to check it. In
truth, both sexes are not so different in their sins and virtues, but
the expressions and manifestation thereof differ wildly. Many of us used to know that. We knew men were men and women were women. We
used to know the world was round, and East was far from West. Now, in a
strange reverse of the old wives’ tale about Columbus, the children
think the world is flat. Someone
has taken all the experience and hard-earned lore of the ages, half
cynicism and half rose-colored glasses, which used to be carried in
jokes, ribaldry, love songs, novels, and plays and heart-to-heart
conversations with parents or older peers, telling the young about the
thrills and danger, the deceptions and sudden revelations, the whole
wild gamble of the heart known as the mating dance, and flushed it all
down the memory hole. I think we know which group in life is the culprit. Who
interprets all specialization of labor or traditional assignment of
roles and responsibilities as a sinister conspiracy to bewitch and
oppress the weak? Who regards women as ever in the weaker position? Who
sees everything in life, including affairs of the heart, through the
lens of a heartless Darwinian struggle between oppressor and oppressed? Who
pretends that liberty is found by leveling hedgerows, cutting the
brake lines, severing the safety belts, smashing traffic lights and
uprooting road signs, and in a word, abandoning common sense and common
decency? What sort of freedom is it to replace self-control with chaos? Yes,
it is now legal to speed down the highway and run red lights in the
wrong lane, so all are “free” in that respect. It is the freedom of
mere chaos: the freedom of a free for all. But
no one is free to walk away from the resulting wreckage of broken
hearts and broken homes unscathed, or to have friends and family
untouched by the predicted and predictable horrors of high rates of
perversion, infidelity, abortion, abandonment, divorce, child abuse
which flow from unchaining all sexual appetites, wholesome or grotesque. Nor
one is free to breathe the clear moral atmosphere of a society that
honors virginity, marriage, motherhood, childhood, romance, chivalry,
modesty, honesty, fidelity, because no such place exists, not in any
land modernism rules.
( From Just Thomism blog) Denying ”darwinian explanations of life” can mean two things.
1.) If you are denying the explanatory power of natural selection in
biology and various sciences subordinated to it, the denial is idiotic.
Few theories have the explanatory power of natural selection, and any
theory that replaces it will not be an outright denial but either (a) an
explanation of how various phenomena appear darwinian within some very
common constraints but are non-darwinian under abnormal conditions or
(b) a theory that includes selection as a large element in a richer
interpretive set of explanations.*
2.) If you are denying the explanatory power of natural selection in
abiogenesis, the denial is axiomatic. To an outsider like myself
abiogenesis looks like a backwater of research with a whole slough of
theories defended by mavericks from all sorts of different disciplines,
none of whom commands even a plurality of scientific consensus. Since we have no theory at all, much less a darwinian one, the ‘official position’ on abiogenesis can be explained in several ways.
a.) Life arose by chance. ”Chance” in this context means an
event that, while being relevant to the theory, was outside of any of
its predictions. This includes times when we have events with no real
theory at all, and the most familiar way in which this happens is the
“theory” that things form by molecules banging around and forming
things. Sure, if molecules just bang around and form X then, by
definition, you’ll have an X, but you wouldn’t have an explanation of
it. If you see a puddle of water forming underneath your furnace, you
explain its presence by, say, condensation or sabotage but not by
‘molecules banging around’. All “banging around” theory amounts to is
the claim that something somehow happened, which we know simply by
looking. But a theory has to add something to a blank, bovine stare at
the events of the world.
Notice that “by chance” and “improbable” are not only different but contrary. Improbable events have a calculable probability
and therefore exist in a theory whereas events that occur by chance,
even if they are improbable, are not calculated in advance. A royal
flush is improbable in a normal game of poker, but this improbability
can be strictly calculated. A chance event would be one that, strictly
speaking, has no odds of occurring since the theory cannot (or at least
did not) account for it in advance. This is where we are with
b.) Life is a mystery. A mystery in this sense is an wonderful or important cause that is known to be unknown. If calling an event by chance indicates that it is outside of a theory and is neither probable or improbable, calling it a mystery
indicates that we are interested in it or that finding it is important
to us, though we might view probing into it hubristic or irreverent.
c.) God caused life. God is the ultimate mystery in the
above sense, and so to the extent that nature is mysterious it will
inevitably suggest an analogue in divinity. This only gives rise to a
God in the gaps fallacy if we assume the mysteries of nature are
invariant or entirely given in advance while they are in fact
continually shifting. Things that were very mysterious at some times and
some places are not to us, and vice-versa. Some mysteries vanish and
new ones arise.
There are connections not just between God and mystery but also God
and chance. There is a long history of seeing God as uniquely at work in
the unforseeable. We spontaneously feel something divine in a stroke of
good luck, and some divine abandonment or chastisement in a stroke of
That said, we also know how to set chance and divinity against one
another. Divinity is the guarantee that intelligibility goes all the way
down, even if not for us; but chance can be taken as a denial of this
sort of intelligibility. The debate seems to be whether what is
unknowable to us, but real, must be knowable to another.
*As I understand “Intelligent Design”, this is the option they go for.
Below are some bullet points from "Just Thomism" that are thoughtful...
-For devoted Christians looking at their culture, sanity requires
remembering it is a Kingdom under the Prince of the World, where most
dance down the wide road to perdition.
-You’re not happy that most are damned, you’re just freed
from the burden of assuming some recent policy, court decision,
historical trend, influential school or philosopher or whatever sent us
down the road to perdition. It’s not the decline of civilization, it’s
just the world.
-...as with cultures – we assume we are
responsible for the evil that happened. Both are irrational attempts to
gain control of an evil that was mostly decided before we could do
anything to add or detract.
-Much engaging social commentary is a fascination with demonic creativity.
-Take heart, the world is just as God described it. To pull the yoke
with Christ is easy for anyone who wants to and the overwhelming
-The plan for saving society is what it’s always been: prayer, meditation, fasting, mortification, alms and works of mercy.
-If we were saved for doing more good than bad, almost everyone would
be. Relationships don’t work that way, though, but can be destroyed by
single acts no matter the antecedent goods. It would be a clueless
husband who thought that his giving his wife a house, money, security,
etc. meant she couldn’t blame him for a mistress.
-The case against the faith is always convincing and constantly needing to change.