predication.net

This first stage is also called “contact, contact”. It is the first image coming from the imagination, the first thought, the first impulse. So, for example, a miser sees unguarded money and attacks him: “Could I have …hide it.” In the same way, we can have of the flesh, the idea that I’m better than everybody …the impulse to quit your job, etc. In this case. We’re not deciding anything yet; we’re just finding that the opportunity to do evil presents itself to us, and evil presents itself to us in an attractive form. Newcomers to the spiritual life get scared and confess that they “had bad thoughts,” even in church and during prayer. It is said that the saint  Anthony led one of his pupils, who complained bitterly of his evil thoughts, to the terrace and ordered
him to catch the wind with his hands. And after a while, he said, “If you can’t see the wind with your bare hands, much less control your evil thoughts.

How to purify your heart?
And that there is no guilt in the first incitement and that we will not be able to get rid of it as long as we live. Similar to flies, which bother us the more we become impatient. And what does “conversation” mean? This stage is recalled in Genesis chapter 3 when Eve converses with the serpent. Not heeding the first prompting, she leaves as it comes. But man does not normally do that, but instead allows himself to be provoked and begins …to think. So the miser says to himself, “If I take this money, I will put it in the bank.” But then it occurs to him that this is not honest, and besides, it’s dangerous. What if someone finds out about it? And so he thinks it would be better to keep the whole thing a secret. But he can’t make up his mind, but the money has been on his mind all day. The same thing happens to someone angry with someone. For a long time, he dwells on who made him so angry. He imagines how he would have beaten him up, insulted him, and forgiven him magnanimously; then he thinks again what he could have done to him… he forgets it only after a while. What guilt is in these internal “conversations”? Who decided nothing could not have sinned. But how much time and how much
of life energy is wasted in these meaningless internal “conversations”!

Why is the struggle only in third place?
We are on the third step. After a long conversation with …the thought has taken root in my heart; it’s not quickly banished. A sensual man’s imagination is so soaked with impure …that he can’t get rid of them. He’s still free; he doesn’t have to agree. He can, and he has from this struggle of his… but it costs him a great deal of effort: he must fight. His will must stand firm; he must make himself repeat: “I feel the strong attraction of sin, and yet I don’t want to agree; I freely decide the opposite, and I am willing to resist.”

What is consent?
That is the fourth stage. He who has lost the battle decides …to do what he feels compelled to do at the first opportunity… a lousy idea gives his free consent to the temptation of badness. Sin occurs at this stage in the true and proper sense of the word. And though the sin does not take place outwardly, it remains inwardly. Morality calls this a “sin in thought.” Unfortunately, the uninformed and inexperienced confuse the concepts. They think it is sinful to think of sin. So, such people become scrupulous and confess in confession that  they cannot get rid of the “sins of thought.” How do we come out of this confusion? One must be able to stop and say to oneself.
How do I purify my heart?
Do I feel an attraction to sin? Do I like it? I’m very attracted to it, to do it? Do you know if I do it? No! No! No! No! I choose not to do it.” This last decision must comfort us. The moment we made it, we discovered our freedom. Man is what and not what his senses draw him to. At such times, when he gives free consent to evil, he also experiences sin.

Cards. Fortune-tellers… and their ilk have success with the stupid, until time. God is eternal. What we don’t know, and it’s good that we don’t know.

In the Gospel, we hear the harsh words of Jesus Christ: “This generation is an evil generation. He asks for a sign, but he does not receive a sign…” (Lk 11:29). He speaks them to those who have hard hearts and refuse to believe him, that his testimony is much more powerful and convincing than anyone before him. When we want to convey these words of the Lord to the present day, it is first necessary to know that in the time of Jesus, unbelief did not mean denying God’s existence. Everyone believed in God, the Pharisees, and the scribes. Instead, unbelief meant unwillingness to accept that God speaks through Jesus Christ – there was a rejection of God’s voice. In today’s situation, disbelief means atheism, denying God and his existence.

In addition, Jesus says that at the last judgment, our generation will be confronted with the generations that lived in the past long before us. In the ancient past, these were not shadows and bones but lived close to God’s goal. One day, they will look us in the eye and ask how we handled their legacy. Let’s imagine how many generations sold faith in Christ before it reached us at the beginning of the third millennium. Although our ancestors had a difficult life, they knew the most valuable heritage and wealth that must be sold to children and preserved under all circumstances. Nowadays, we have to ask ourselves: Aren’t we the generation in the nation’s history that failed to sell faith in Christ to its own generation? What’s more, isn’t it true of this generation that it has lost its faith? Can this generation be converted and renewed?!

The worst is dull indifference, emptiness, inability, and unwillingness to ask and try to catch God’s voice in the heart. Such serious reflection opens God’s word in us today so that we realize with deadly seriousness what is expected of those who understand, hear, and believe. Let’s ask God to help us find an answer worthy of God.

It is challenging for a natural scientist to leave his world of numbers, matter, and energy and step into the unknown, into the vacuum of philosophy and theology. But we still have to ask the question: What if the world is still something other than a game of matter and energy? What if, to understand the nature of things, it will be necessary to leave the stream of naturalistic reasoning, to step aside from the river of thought and look at the world from elsewhere, from the position of a painter or a theologian? Biologists are very good at mapping the genes that make up material DNA and the visible environment. Still, they have trouble accepting the existence of an immaterial soul and an immeasurable God. Just what if this is true? God or soul lie beyond the reach of the natural sciences, but does that mean they don’t exist?
It’s hard for us because it’s hard to imagine; it’s another world. For scientists, it is qualitatively different and often challenging to think about God because God is from a different world – different from the world of the natural sciences. God is somehow on a separate page, on a separate page of the book. Questions about cause materials, the material cause of things, lead to firmly enclosed answers in the world of matter. Thus,  man/e is a clump of cells, and the chalice is silver. This is the correct answer, but such an answer is only meant to be a stepping stone for further questions.

In this way, Christians emphasize one more thing: the love of God
to man, understood personally, the love of God for me. This move, love, has been in me since childhood. St. Paul writes: I am what I am by God’s grace!  This being surrounded by God’s love, independently of my merits and reflections, perhaps even more clearly in the well-known opening of the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. He is called upon to be a prophet independently of his merits, even before he is born, even before he can do anything good or bad in his life: Before I formed thee in thy mother’s womb, I knew you, before you came out of my womb, I consecrated you, I made you a prophet to the Gentiles.™  1 Cor. 10.
Catholic Christians have a strange custom: they baptize little children. We often talk about how freedom and love are a matter of choice: For the Good for non-Christians or the Good for Christians. That is why we baptize little children. The child does not know what is happening to him and cannot give the information of consent to his baptism. Biblical reasons for baptism. Baptizing children is, moreover, fragile and very indirect. Well, Paul baptized the Psalmist and his whole house, with his wife, any servants, and his children, if he had any. Also, Peter baptized Cornelius the centurion and his relatives. Perhaps there were young children, perhaps not. But the biblical reasons could be more compelling. The reason we baptize little children is theological. The baptism of a child is a beautiful symbol that God speaks the first sentence of the conversation between God and man. All questions about the meaning of being in this world, where I came from, and who, in the Catholic understanding, I think about God, and prayer is only man’s response to the call, the restlessness God puts in him. No, it is not, therefore, that after studying the catechism textbooks and observing the world, I said, yes, I believe that God exists, and I want to be baptized. The decision is correct, but it is only the answer to a question that the Lord God once long ago and quietly voiced in us.

So genes, environment, freedom of the soul, and God’s grace are not the four players playing against each other: all come from God, and so can, therefore, to make this fundamental truth evident, the whole of the Holy Scripture with the phrase, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. So genes, environment, freedom, and God’s grace. Of man’s freedom, of how it is intertwined with God’s grace, and of man’s can be called to a role, often even before he is born, is explicitly stated in Holy Scripture and by many saints and theologians after him. Modern biology supplies the background of genes and the environment that make us shapes us. We are made of inanimate matter, which, like any other piece of matter, is subject to the laws of physics, and yet we tout the matter we can move; we are this matter, and through it, our spirit manifests itself. In this perspective, the ancient biblical image, in which God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into him the breath of life, becomes surprisingly modern.

The beauty of man is in his uniqueness. As the only creature we know, man is a fusion of sensuality and spirituality. Yes, we are composed of the same elements of Mendeleev’s system as the whole universe; all the atoms of the carbon of our bodies were once stars and then plants. Many genes and proteins of our body are the same as butterflies, trees, and birds; in all the cells of our body, we are populated with friendly bacteria. We are one blood with all life on Earth. Similarly, like nature, we reflect God’s beauty – but at the same time, our minds are drawn to God, we think about freedom, we create art and paint icons, the contemplative hearts of monks pray for the world in contemplative monasteries, we are the origin of the Fugue in D minor, the Vatican temple, Gregorian chant, the Song of Songs or the Ode to Joy, we discover and rejoice in knowledge; we can give and not expect back; we struggle with temptations, and for love, we can deny ourselves or even to die; we can forgive and love; we are humble in our greatness – and great if we live in humility; we can celebrate, we rejoice when in good happens in the world, and we are sad when evil is done. We are like angels. We are the most beautiful meeting of sensuality and spirituality. Through the material, we see the spiritual, and the spiritual is reflected in our bodies. As people who believe in God, we can think of Mary and Jesus.’ birth, the spiritual and physical union, and Christ Himself, whom we confess to as true God and true man. St. Athanasius says that God became man so that man might become God.

Let’s try to imagine our churches without statues of the Virgin Mary. They probably wouldn’t be what they are anymore. Many of us cannot even imagine our prayers without the rosary. Perhaps many of you, as well as me, were taught by grandmothers to respect the Virgin Mary from childhood. Her life was very mysterious and extraordinary. Let us not be surprised at the woman in the crowd when she exclaimed: “Blessed is the life that bore you and the breasts that you enjoyed” (Luke 11:26).

The teaching about the Virgin Mary appears at the very beginning of the history of Christianity. Holy Scripture mentions little about her life. Jesus beautifully comments on the event from the Gospel: “Certainly, but more blessed are those who listen to God’s word and keep it” (Lk 11:28). Jesus loved his mother, and with this text, he says that he loves us too. The Church teaches that the Virgin Mary is in heaven with body and soul. God has prepared a place for each of us in heaven. The Virgin Mary is one of the greatest mysteries of our faith. The mystery always gives space for searching and thinking and gives us space for the most diverse answers. That is why many Virgin Marys love her, even hate her, worship her, and reject her.

One of the causes of the split between the East and the West in the Church, when the Orthodox Church separated from us, was the lack of respect for the Virgin Mary in the West. In the East, she has always been adored and worshiped to a degree that is often incomprehensible to us. For Orthodox Christians, respect for the Mother of God is increased directly in faith’s very foundations. On the other hand, some of you may have noticed that Marian devotion is a big thorn in the side of believers in evangelical churches. But even among Catholics, there are all kinds of opinions about the figure of the Mother of God. For example, let’s think of some controversial Marian pilgrimage sites for many, such as  Međugorje, where the church authorities have difficulty expressing themselves due to known circumstances.

The Virgin Mary is a mystery, and mysteries are there to capture our attention and occupy our minds. And that is precisely why we have not forgotten the Virgin Mary and often think of her and pray to her. Perhaps precisely because of this, the power of her intercession, which she speaks to God for us, has been manifested many times in the history of the Church. And that’s good because we need it. The importance of Marian’s devotion is immense, even so significant that we cannot adequately explain it. It is precisely because of her modesty and humility that we know so little about her because she did not want to be in the foreground in front of everyone’s eyes. She did her part in salvation quietly in the background. Marian’s devotion is not a human invention. It was given to us from above for our good, sanctification, and salvation. And as the Lord Jesus descended through Mary, we can ascend to Jesus through Mary. Through Mary, God gives us a helping hand. We will not refuse her. 

 Quite naturally and logically, the idea that in terms of answering the question of what was before the Big Bang, one can, between scientists can be found as a group of materialistically oriented people who, by their postulate of eternity, uncreation, and indestructibility of matter, assume the existence of some form of matter before the Big Bang and a group of idealistically oriented ones who prefer the so-called “creation ex nihilo,” i.e., creation out of nothing. But it’s different. Some materialistically oriented scientists admit the possibility of the universe coming from nothing, and some idealistic-oriented scientists do not reject the possibility that God could have created our world out of something, provided, of course, that the “something” also came from him. As can a materialist reconcile himself to the notion that matter could come into existence by itself and out of nothing? The expert answer to this question is that it can and can do so by the so-called law of conservation with “zero right-hand sides.” Let us try to explain this further. We know that natural phenomena compensate each other so precisely that they add up to zero. A trivial example of this is, for example, the condition where we have a certain of money, but we have just as much debt. Our total financial situation is zero. That is precisely how it behaves in nature, like an electric charge. There is precisely as much positive in it as much negative electric charge, so the total electric charge in the universe is zero. If such a law were for energy or mass, there would be no problem imagining the creation of the universe out of nothing; it would just have to be arranged to start the simultaneous generation of positive and negative energy, respectively.

Positive and negative mass. This presupposes that, as in the case of
electric charge, there is a place in the universe for both positive and negative energy and positive and negative matter. What is the actual reality? Everyone will readily acknowledge that there is motion associated with matter and  positive energy. To set any body in motion requires exerting a specific (positive) effort, which measures the respective (motion) energy. But we also know situations in which  we do not have to exert effort, but on the contrary, we can gain. For example, when we (inadvertently) let fall on our head  a stone, we will feel convincingly that we have not expended any energy but, on the contrary, that we have received a certain amount of energy.

Where did it come from? It was produced by what, in physics, we call
the gravitational field. By its effect, all bodies fall towards the Earth. It follows from the above example that while matter itself needs to be assigned a positive energy, the gravitational field is given a negative energy. In nature, therefore, there are “deposits” of both positive and negative energy. But the question is whether their quantities are equal. So far, we don’t know exactly, so we can’t say that our universe
has the law of conservation of energy with a zero right-hand side. Even less clear is the situation with the matter. However, there is no shortage of attempts to work out specific “super-unified” theories that should be natural for both positive and negative matters.

In the case of the validity of the conservation mentioned above, laws with zero right-hand side, one could, therefore speak of a “creation ex nihilo,” but it is there is one open problem: it requires a stimulus that would to set in motion the separation of the “positive” from the “negative” and, thus, actually the process of the emergence of something tangible out of nothing. It must be said that such a “initiators” are known in contemporary physics. These are the so-called vacuum fluctuations,29) the chaotic eruptions of pairs of particles and antiparticles from the vacuum, in which these particles briefly “borrow” energy from the vacuum and, after a very a short time, they give it back without any residue. The physical vacuum behaves like as a source of packets of energy (vacuum fluctuations), which – if they are large enough – can materialize into a pair of particles and antiparticle, which, after its extinction, returns this energy to it.

The above mechanism could represent a model of generating real-world particles from a vacuum. Still, it doesn’t explain where these particles would get the energy that would allow them to exist in the real world.30) Even for this, some possible prescriptions. Such a source could be a sufficiently strong gravitational field. We can see that there is no lack of attempts in modern physics to explain the universe’s origin out of nothing, but the assumptions under which this could be done are only in the realm of hypothesis. If it were so easily feasible, we might ask why such a process has occurred only once and why we haven’t seen anything like it in the real world since we have not observed it. We can see that we “solve” one problem by making the mystery out the window, and another, perhaps even more significant, moves in through the door.

Although this question has been controversial since the earliest times
of human civilization, it was in 1929 that the modern cause broke out.
Astrophysicist Erwin Hubble irrefutably proved that our universe is not stationary but dynamic. He found that all distant galaxies are away from each other, which means the universe is expanding. When the is increasing, it means that in the past it was smaller, and the current question of what minimum volume it’s growing from. To solve the most famous physicists of the time (Stephen Hawking, Arthur Peacock, and others), the result of their study was surprising: the universe must expand from a “singular point,” which is, in layman’s terms, from “zero.” Science has thus (by scientific methods) arrived at
a knowledge which, since the beginning of humanity, has been proclaimed by all religions that the universe has a beginning, i.e., that it is not eternal. It is an earnest insight for philosophy, so it is no wonder that the problem of the Big Bang, as the moment of birth of the universe, has been and still is given special attention.

If we look at this problem in more detail, it doesn’t hurt. We know from history that the deeper we delve into it, the less accurate and confident we are of individual events and personalities. And this is information from a few millennia at most. There is talk of the Big Bang, which is said to have taken place about 15 billion years ago. On what basis can we so confidently claim that a particular extraordinary event took place that many billions of years ago? What do we have to guarantee that it took place at all? And so, quite naturally and insistently, the problem arises: Was there or was there not a Big Bang? The idea of the Big Bang was born in the 1930s and was formulated by the Russian physicist George Gamow, who left the then-Soviet Union to live in the USA. He even predicted that there would be a direct witness to this glorious event in the universe, so-called relic radiation, but his idea was sparked earlier by a smile. At that time, only one other observation suggested the possibility of a Big Bang – Hubble’s universe expansion.

The discovery of the existence of the Gamow-predicted relic radiation (1965) by the American astrophysicists Robert W. Wilson and Arne A. Penzias. When added to this was an excellent agreement of data on the composition of the oldest of the oldest stars, with the prediction arising from the existence of the Big Bang, a situation arose in which only a negligible fraction of the world’s public does not believe that it happened. So, we now have three experimental proofs that the Big Bang did happen, and further evidence appears to be on the horizon. To reinforce our belief that our universe began with the Big Bang, we’ll review all three pieces of evidence for its existence. The first is Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of the universe. The subjective circumstance that allowed Hubble to detect the universe’s expansion was the good fortune of having a telescope to observe even the most distant galaxies. The objective factor that helped him to make his world-famous discovery is known as It is a physical phenomenon that anyone can try and whose nature is not difficult to understand. Perhaps the ordinary person is not even aware of it, but if it were brought to his attention, he would certainly notice that when the source of the sound approaches him, he hears a higher pitch than when the source is moving away from him. This observation also applies to light because it is also a wave. The case is interesting for astrophysics because the latter deals, among other things, with the reception of light (and different types of electromagnetic radiation) from astrophysical objects. An increase in wavelength means a shift of light to the red color, and a decrease shifts it to the violet color of the spectrum. Therefore, the “red” or “violet” shift has been adopted.

If Hubble focused the telescope on closer objects, by the expectation, it measured redshift or purple shift, depending on whether the object was moving towards or away from it. When he focused only on the most distant galaxies, he measured only the red redshift, which indicated that all the distant galaxies were moving away from the observed “reference point.” This receding is insignificant, as it might seem at first glance. At present, the most distant galaxies are moving away from us (and are moving away from each other at speeds comparable to the speed of light (i.e., about 300,000 km/s). In this context, laypeople often ask whether this speed, which, according to Einstein’s theory of relativity, is the maximum possible, can also be exceeded. The answer is yes – in this case, it is mainly a matter of receding due to the expansion of space-time and not the motion of galaxies in it.

Several Old Testament prophets used the image of a feast to portray a relationship and encounter with God. We also heard it in today’s first reading (Is 25, 6-10). And it’s a nice picture: dining with God.

Jesus often used similar images. For him, however, it was not only about words; dining was also essential in his teaching. While dining, he often talked with sinners; while eating together, he left a memory of himself. Some exegetes say [1] that if we ignored his dining, the very words he spoke while he was eating would have a completely different meaning.

Today, we heard Jesus’ story about the feast again. In it, he mentions mainly two groups of people. The first group was chosen and invited people to the royal banquet. However, they talked about it: some to their field, some to their business. If we were to use Luke’s Gospel as well, we could cite excuses such as: “I got married, so I can’t come,” “I bought oxen, I have to try them,” “I bought a field, I have to go see it.” Essentially, we could say that these people are telling the king that they do not need him. They don’t need him, his feast, or his son’s wedding.

In the words “I need – I don’t need,” I see a fundamental key to understanding current behavior. Sometimes, it is precious if we find that we do not need something: so many clothes, so much food, so many useless things. Then, it is usually the beginning of a good turn. But sometimes, the “I don’t need” attitude can signify turning away from the good. If the child says he “doesn’t need that school, ” he indicates how he will continue treating it. If a teenage child says he “doesn’t need his father’s or mother’s advice,” it suggests his parents’ paths will diverge more from his own. If someone says that they “don’t need faith,” “don’t need decency,” “don’t need honesty,” if society declares that they “don’t need old people”… these are all severe statements that indicate problems.

Let’s be glad that we live in a society where we can express ourselves this way, where no one will expel us from the community when we claim something similar. We can still live and survive, even if we don’t need other people. But at the same time, it’s good to remember that saying “I don’t need” may not be a correct assessment of the situation.

The second group of people mentioned in today’s Gospel are people invited from the Ways of the Cross, both bad and good people. This part reflects what Jesus often said about the Heavenly Father. The king in the parable ordered the servants to go to the crossroads and invite everyone. The crossroads was not just a crossroads. They were the places where the official roads of the Roman Empire ended, and all kinds of roads and paths into the country began. And so they were also places where a different society, a different group of people started. The word “periphery” is used in Greek [2], which reminds me quite a bit of Pope Francis. He often uses this word; he sees the periphery as a place where we should find our place of work – i.e., with people who, for various reasons and in multiple ways, are on edge, misunderstood, singled out, and pushed aside. So, the king in the parable invited these people from the periphery. We could see that the story talks about the bad guys first and then the good ones who came. Participating in the feast was not a reward for goodness but an excellent gift for the needs of the people. That is why it is about God, as Jesus often presented Him. God’s love is not given as a gift to the good but to all. It’s up to us what we do with it.

I will try to simplify what this parable can mean for us a little. During one mission, Richard Rohr – an American Franciscan – found indigenous people who begged God never to build houses of stone. When he asked them what such a prayer meant and why they prayed like that, he received the answer that he must know: where there are houses made of stone, there will be doors, then locks, then fences… And the natives did not want to set up their lives this way. They wanted to preserve the fact that nothing is stolen from them, that they look out for each other, that they see the needs of others… The story does not want to say that we should leave the “houses of stone” to renounce the achievements of culture. We wouldn’t be able to do it, nor would it be good. But he wants to remind us that despite all the achievements of culture, we are all one family; we are all invited to “dining with God.” “Dining with God” is also a move toward one another. God’s invitation is the opposite of those above: “I don’t need anyone.”

A father meets his son one day, and the son asks him. “Daddy, are you a penguin?” “Yes.” “And Grandpa is also a penguin?” “Yes, Grandpa is too.” “And great-grandfather is also a penguin?” “Yes, great-grandfather was also a penguin, just like us.” “And I’m a penguin too?” “Sure, you’re a penguin too; why do you ask?” “Then why am I so cold?” The coldness or disinterest in our lives often makes us wonder what our lives are like.

Jesus, in today’s Gospel, speaks prominent words about division and its consequences. “Every kingdom inwardly divided will be broken up” (Lk 11:17). Jesus’ words are apparent and certainly understood by those who listened to him. But some of them understood it as something that could endanger them in the future, so they began to refer to him as deranged, or possessed by an evil spirit. The holy one is likened to the damned? God is a generous Giver, but He has allowed man to be tested: ‘From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat’ (Gen. 3:1). But man disobeyed and sinned.

We know from Holy Scripture the tragic consequences of man’s fall. Despite everything, Jesus wants us to live in unity and not in division. That unity, the foundation of every other unity, is unity with God. It is the condition of all our harmony, whether in ourselves or about others. If there is no sin in our soul, we invite God into our lives, and He heals every wound that sin has inflicted. Union with Christ is the prerequisite for our harmony and concord. We know where our problem is, and we know the way to solve it. Even so, we often try and long to live life to the fullest, but apart from God, we only remember Him on Sunday morning because it is the right thing to do. After all, our parents taught us to do it. Let us not pretend we are so good that we can live entirely without Christ’s friendship. We might often have to be ashamed of ourselves during the day if we were so consciously aware that Jesus is our constant companion. Sin is the cause of our shame, and why not do something about it when Jesus so desires our holiness…?

Sincere prayer, in which we talk to Him, is a prerequisite for improving our relationship. Let us often ask ourselves, what would Jesus do in my place? How would he behave in this or that situation…? What would he do to save that person…? Would he have been as indifferent to shortcomings as I am? He is always near us and wants to be helpful in our lives; we need to open the door of our souls to Him and invite Him to come in. Every act of ours also has a repercussion in our surroundings; it either builds up or tears down, depending on what it is.

We often experience different situations in our lives. We have problems with others and with ourselves. Jesus is our torch that brings light and warmth into our lives and not only into our lives but also into the lives of those with whom we form a community. Winter symbolizes sleep and rest, and summer, on the contrary, of life and harvest.

Evangelist St. Luke recorded these words of Jesus for us: “Ask and you shall receive!” Seek, and you shall find! Knock, and they will open to you! For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks will find, and to him who knocks it will be opened” (Lk 11:9-10). The fact that Jesus prays and the way he does it evoke a request that is interpreted by one of his disciples: “Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1). Thanks to this unknown disciple, the world receives instructions for the most beautiful prayer, the Lord’s Prayer, a conversation with God. The words of St.

James the Apostle: “You have nothing because you do not ask.” You ask, and you do not receive, because you ask badly, you want to use it for your passions” (James 4:3-4).

The prayer must be true. It should be imbued with hope because we turn to God. There is no bargaining with God in prayer. God is not a machine that will give us what we wish on the flip of a coin. Prayer is not a crucifix around the neck or an agnustka in the pocket, which we would understand to be enough as a ticket to heaven. True prayer is not calculated prayer. God is mindful. God educates us. We can quickly forget resolutions from the Sacrament of Reconciliation, pilgrimages, and solemn events. God cannot be deceived. God cannot be imagined as a sclerotic older man. Knowing God only when it suits me is an insult, not a sign of friendship. God wants to give us great things, but He also asks us to do equally great deeds. Isn’t this how a father and mother act when they raise their child? And don’t parents love their children, then? Jesus’ words apply: “If you, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him” (Lk 11:13). Who asks he realizes that he is delivered into the hands of the one he is begging. It is good if we recognize this while praying. We must not neglect to ask with faith, pure heart in a state without sin. The priest remembers one family in his parish. When he came to the parish, he was experiencing an internal crisis. It was difficult for him to leave the previous one. In the new one, he saw St. masses of certain spouses who took turns every evening. One evening, the wife came; the following evening, the husband. He could see they were having difficulties, but they didn’t complain. On the contrary, he felt peace and special joy from them at every meeting. After half a year, they invited him to visit. The priest says: “I will never forget that evening! They showed me their only child. It was lying in the crib. His head was as big as a grown man, and his body was like a one-year-old child. That’s when I understood their situation, and my crisis disappeared.”

Prayer, prayer, prayer. That’s not a phrase. That’s medicine. Hope. It is knowing God’s love. Prayer is undoubtedly one of the most needed forces in history. Prayer does not change the world, but it changes people, and people change the world. Prayer is like a golden ladder reaching heaven, on which one ascends to God.  He saw St. masses of certain spouses who took turns every evening.