Used Aluminum Boats For Sale In Florida

22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time

22nd Sunday in Ordinary Time / C
29/08/2010
Luke 14, 7-14 (p. 468)
this Sunday's Gospel shows us Jesus participating in a meal. It would be interesting to note in the Gospels every meal which the Lord has participated until the final meal of the Last Supper, by which he instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist. We could also meet all the parables that feature a feast. The meal of our Gospel is not ordinary: it is the Sabbath, a feast, a sacred meal, and it does not unfold in a man 'any' but with an important person, a leader of the Pharisees A "great" of the religious society of the time. On the occasion of the meal, the Lord was wont to teach. He did not do so in the manner of an academic course but starting from concrete situations. Here he observes the guests and noted that they choose the best seats first. It is from this simple observation that Lord will teach us through a parable. If we do not take account of its conclusion ("Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, who humbles himself will be high"), this dish is actually a teaching of human wisdom, common sense and even somewhere human calculation. Besides Jesus invents nothing. The wisdom tradition of the Old Testament had already given similar advice in the book of Proverbs: "Do not be important to the king, do not put yourself in the midst of the great, better to be told: 'Monte here! " than to see you lowered in the presence of the prince. " We note that this Human wisdom has nothing to do with humility, but instead a clever calculation we act so that our pride is not hurt. In the wisdom what motivates our choice it is our first interest. In this context "the condition of the proud is without remedy." This tactical wisdom does not cure our pride, on the contrary it strengthens the guise of false humility. Jesus gives a decidedly new meaning to this traditional teaching by the conclusion of the parable: "Who shall be abased; who humbles himself will be high." It also reminds us of what we heard last Sunday: "There are last who will be first, and first who will be last." So yes this parable may be an exhortation to cultivate the virtue of humility. Under absolutely necessary for the person who wants to become a disciple of Jesus Christ. For pride, we know, is the cardinal sin, and probably the original sin: "The condition of the proud is no remedy, because the root of evil is in him." With Jesus we finally have a remedy for our pride, we have the means to uproot this root in us, the origin of evil. How? By a love more intense and true to Christ, meek and humble of heart, and his mother Mary and our mother, humble servant of the Lord. The extent to which we really love Jesus and Mary that we desire to imitate them. And therefore we allow ourselves to grow in the virtue of humility. While all of these cases first or last place will seem quite ridiculous compared to the treasure we have gained, that of a humble soul and unified. Humility is indeed a valuable treasure because it is the truth. Humility is not humiliation, though sometimes we must go through the humiliation of the cross to be released from our pride. Humility is simply the truth, the truth about ourselves and our relationship with God. Is to remember that we are creatures dependent on God, mortal creatures. Pride is a thread by which the tempter catch us lying to us, making us believe that we are absolutely autonomous beings, immortal beings. The Christian who is moving in the true Wisdom of Jesus Christ, can no longer be caught by these lies and illusions. It is no longer a slave to lust so well described by St. John: Everything is in the world, the selfish desires of human nature, the desires of the eyes, pride of wealth-all this comes not from the Father but from the world. Yet the world with its desires is disappearing. But he who does the will of God abides forever.
The last part of our Gospel on the invitation to dinner was a link with what we have to meditate. Jesus asks us to act and not free from interest, to get something in return. As we have noted, if we just take the last place in a meal just to keep our pride is hurt, we are not in humility but we do indeed in view of our interest. In fact there is a big difference between human wisdom and that of Jesus Christ. Human wisdom advises us the ability, action calculator for our interest. Divine wisdom requires us to be in truth what we are: creatures, loved and redeemed by Jesus. Imitate Jesus means giving up the calculation for free love and joy. It will give and give by accepting that this may involve lowering. He who is humble is always happy place it is the last or first. He is perfectly free purified because of jealousy and pride.

Swatches Everyday Minerals Foundation

Saint Augustine of Hippo, Father of Social Sciences.

Saint Augustine of Hippo, Father of Social Sciences


The foundations of the new mimetic anthropology.

By

Madelenat Nicolas Di Florio,

From the Society of Literary History of France.

A Professor Naudet, remembering our conversation about the relativity of value.
A C., with the best thoughts of the author.

De Saint Augustine of Hippo (354-430), the bad critics and historians lax retain only the De Doctrina Christiana , better known by the French translation of "City of God". This is a great advantage for them to immediately classify this great philosopher in a small box of religiosity, as we know that our time and intellectual habits condemn the field of belief in general, lame adaptation of the principle of secularism .

Augustine, however, is not a bigot or a classical theologian. In rereading his works carefully keys City of God and the Confessions , it is impossible to ignore the tremendous advances, innovations of the author in the fields we'll call later social sciences. In these disciplines us moderns, researchers and academics of all stripes, will give two major types of missions based on our ideological affiliations. The first, which I share, is to understand the human individual, training, and its relationship to human society. The second, which I condemn as it is tainted by the inability anthropological dear to the socialist-Marxist, is to use the state as a way to change the individual, of debasing its foundation in a formless mass and manipulated.

But Augustine says that the society of men? Lot. Above all, He justified the state as a means, not an end in itself. ( Confessions, Book III, Chapter 8). Ie it says the moral of individuals to their own free will and not a father-State Almighty. Yet we are still far from the first stirrings of liberals. And Augustine added that the human individual must make mistakes, he must be mistaken, or even commit crimes in order to recover and turn his mind towards a virtuous life. In essence, the social sciences found there an assertive brand of individual responsibility and the ability of individuals to decide their own future. To be even more clear and direct, the philosopher condemns the excesses of future alienation of individual dignity by the approaches of mass, socialist-Marxist thinking that we need to centuries of subjection to moral barbarism, a state that almighty prevents the development of individual wills and individual capacity. But also, by eliminating the stroke of a pen the stupidity that will be proposed later by Rousseau in The Social Contract, which will govern the thinking for centuries, still polluting the political class, the thinker observes, humanistic, that Man made the state, it is the basic unit, but the ultimate reason. The machine state is not superior to whom he should obey, but a structure that guarantees everyone's right to difference and ensuring relative peace between people. And

present, too, the basic mechanisms ensuring the construction of the individual and society. Because for Augustine of Hippo, theorized idea and expanded by Academician René Girard, founder of the theory of mimetic rivalry, the basic mechanism for the training of the individual is mimicry ( Confessions, Book I, Chapter 8), ie reproduction by imitating each other. Place this phenomenon from any structure, it is discharged into nothingness two major approaches of social sciences of the twentieth century, the Freudian approach (everything is about sexuality) and socialist / Marxist approach (everything depends on the struggle of classes). But you'll care, applied readers, wondering what the dominant thought in the field of training of human and society, between St. Augustine and the twentieth century. The answer is quite interesting, although surprising. Few things in fact, if not a great fight schools and sects, like philosophy were in ancient Greece. Lights (XIIX century) brought however, a semblance of order and reason in trying to impose unity of science. This same unit can be defined by the need to acquire them by gathering notions that were scattered in our minds as ( Confessions, Book X, Chapter 11). This concept, however, was already the subject of a chapter in the Confessions by St. Augustine.

But this healthy philosophy, we also have a tremendously important concept in the field discussed here is private property ( Confessions, Book 6, Chapter 14). For who speaks own claims of ownership by the individual as an element of society in interaction with others and not as a mere fragment swappable and replaceable. What Augustine reminds us in condemning the excesses of the "put everything together and see what happens" is what will become the bloc confrontation during the Cold War, but especially a question that should guide us in years to come out of crises and slumps where we dived a policy often blind to the expectations of citizens. Namely so that solidarity should be voluntary and not imposed without which it is experienced as a flight by those who would voluntarily but do not want to undergo strain. This is the basis Our French social system, this is also the tax base of state funding and its multiple jurisdictions.

Centuries after his death the works of Augustine of Hippo still shines in the European and global intellectual landscape not so much as a setting but shut himself up like a beacon guiding them towards the liberation of man cons its own follies and his natural violence. Embrace the path laid by Augustine in his renunciation of excessive consumption, seem, to unreasonable costs, the excesses of financial and material means to be an enlightened man of his own humanity and not a creature slave of his own animality. Start doubt is believing implicitly in the existence of truth and knowledge desired (St. Augustine, The City of God ).

Ulcerated Colitis More Condition_symptoms

21st Sunday in Ordinary Time

21st Sunday in Ordinary Time / C
22/08/2010
Luke 13, 22-30 (p. 421)
"Lord, there will he few people be saved? "The question posed to Jesus the unknown is the salvation of mankind. It is therefore a key issue and serious. If original sin for us and our sins are realities, realities that separate us from God or draw us away from him, we know from experience how much we need to be saved. This question is on the number of rescued creatures: are there many or not? Even if Jesus does not directly answer this question, it remains an unavoidable issue for the Christian. Jesus is en route to Jerusalem, he goes to his sacrifice for just the forgiveness of sins and salvation. When the institution of the Eucharist he will deliver these significant words: "This is my blood, the blood of the covenant which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins." The blood of the Son of God, poured out for many as another translation, he will obtain the salvation of mankind, or only one of a select few ? Throughout the history of Christianity optimists and pessimists have given their interpretation. Here Jesus says that access is difficult at hello: "Strive to enter through the narrow gate." He did not answer the question of the number of elected officials. But the parallel passage in Matthew seems to be leaning in the direction of "pessimistic"
Enter through the narrow gate. She is tall, the door is wide, the road to perdition: and they are many who enter through it. But it is close the door, it is tightened, the path that leads to life, and they are few, those that find it.

In Matthew when the Lord says the difficulty for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, the disciples also raise the question of salvation: "Then who can be saved? "And their Lord answered:" For men this is impossible, but for God everything is possible. " Thus we see by browsing through the Gospels that the question of salvation is approached differently depending on context. The Gospel of this day reminds us not all go to Heaven automatically. We must use our freedom to the will of God, that is to say, enter through the narrow gate, to get there. At the same time the kingdom of God is not part of human rights is a gift from God and only God can take us there through His Son Jesus our only Savior.
The second part of our Gospel can be understood only in light of its conclusion: "There are last who will be first, and first who will be last." In his teaching Jesus gives us the decisive test of the value of our human life in God's eyes. Some take comfort on the cheap: "We ate and drank in your presence, and thou hast taught in our streets." Again the version of St. Matthew complements the words of Jesus:
that day, many will say: 'Lord, Lord, is it not in thy name we have been prophets in your name we cast out demons in thy name we have done many miracles? " Then I will declare to them: 'I've never known. Stand back from me, you who are evil! " Who are these
first that may become final? Some Jews first of all that, out of pride (we are the chosen people, we have the temple) could forget the essential: the practice of goodness and justice. But some of us who are practicing Catholics ... If we forget that our faithfulness to church Sunday and prayer life must go hand in hand with our desire to put our lives in accord with the will of the Lord. We will not be judged by an hour in our week, but all our actions and daily choices. "Get away from me, all who do evil," or as another translation "you workers of injustice." The lesson of this Gospel could be: instead of you asking theological questions about the number of elected officials, act as the good and justice. It is not for you to know the date and time of the trial and the number of the saved. But I made you the gift of freedom so you can cooperate with your hello by your actions. Enter through the narrow gate is therefore to question, do not rest on its laurels, and understand that we do not naturally and instinctively good. We often treat us with violence in order not to fall into selfishness, hypocrisy, or religious pride of the first who are actually the last. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves thrust out. So we come from the east and west, north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God. Even if the Lord does not directly the question of numbers, it gives us hope of salvation for many. Some Jews will be saved and with them men of every race, language and nation. This reference to the geographical extension, included in the Apocalypse, we show that it is not in vain that Christ gave his life. Yes, hello it gives us is truly universal!

Coli More Condition_symptoms

From Ethics and moral

end the confusion of the senses.

By

Nicolas Madelenat di Florio

From the Society of Literary History of France,

Philosopher.

Before defining the delicate notion of Ethics, I quickly come to ask the specialists in words the meaning of it. Naturally, then, and my random choice, here I am bewildered by the dictionaries, these masterpieces of human intelligence, which should contain all the wisdom of history of thought. However, no definition seems correct. The Dictionary Richelet, yet so full generally recognized by experts as a pearl of finesse, I must point out that ethics and morality are not the same thing. Indeed, at the entrance "Ethics", it gives "feminine name. Corporate; term didactic (teaching and education). Example: The Ethics of Aristotle , his moral works. " Other works, more contemporary astray too. These two concepts are fundamental yet who wants to understand human societies, can be mixed, even confused, which is worse.

The first appearance of the term dates back to Aristotle's Ethics. It is this philosophy that we should mark the beginning of this particular study if the place should be left to humans. I then quickly turned to wonder what gave rise to the idea of clarifying that, for example, life is not an inalienable right but an imperative coupled with the human condition. A history of thought to answer and justify the writing of what would become one of the most important intellectual movements, humanism. But we're not there yet. Aristotle sees Greece waving, and the world tremble under the repeated blows of waves rising, it is the madness of men to destroy. If this particular context of a violent world will generate many ideas from the philosopher, and more widely across the intellectual class of the day.

But the real question of the separation of ethics and morals, the question that occupies me here, must be read, early in Plato when in laws, they questioned the origins of the concept of rules, norms, whether they are interested attributed to a God or any human being ¹ . This may seem innocuous at first glance. Yet this is the pinnacle of thought and political criticism in the sense of the word intelligent. Because the policy is primarily the ratio of men to one another (thought not been polluted by the socialist-Marxist nonsense inspired largely by the social contract and other nonsense) and the right balance between their expectations, needs, and what Saint Augustine (354-430) ² then René Girard (1923 -...) will add, regulation of violence by the state. The instrument state, the machine state is then a simple way of ensuring relative peace and sustainable relationship between individuals. This insistence on the report of the Ethics in human society is permanent in Plato and Aristotle. In his book, the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle can not even imagine that we want to separate invidivu the study of its relation to the other, but also in society. In sum, it is the philia , the report harmonious, peaceful and beneficial to all, it must entrust the task of guiding social organization. This philia dear to Aristotle and logical thinkers, is the ethics that should guide the choice to give everyone a place that suits him, respecting each other and difference.

But then, what about the relationship between ethics and moral terms? I seems to myself away from my original desire the contrary. For by insisting on the Platonic distinction rules of conduct internal and external to man, I already reached the heart of the future division between those words. The universal rule, and beyond all divisions and dogmatic religious followers, it is Ethics, which means that we will respect our neighbor because he is human. The moral, in turn, cut across the specific rules of life among individuals, and change a society, a time, from one group to another. The morals are regarded by philosophers as relative (ie changing, variables), and Ethics as objective (not influenced by individuals), since it does not depend on the human mind but from his own essence, being both internal and external to his being as not being subservient to his time, education.

Ethics then called an interesting approach with a philosophical concept that guided the lives of many philosophers and has been taken over by the Roman thinkers, virtue. Monsieur de Voltaire, in Philosophical Dictionary gives this conscious attitude and provoked an interesting definition, saying it is the sensus communis , and intersected the common sense but also humanity and sensibility. Here is the first confirmed my hypothesis on the applications of Ethics and its fields of competence. It is and should be a beacon prevent vessels (the life of Men), to come crashing on the reefs of their own folly, a safeguard against violence and its manifestations. For corporations, these unwritten codes guardians of social cohesion, to replace the sails and raise the winds of individual wills, making the navigation on the sea of life. One can not be conceived without the other, and both must be kept in their own fields.

Yet, no need to wait to find Voltaire this central idea is that it takes to Virtue entrust the task of directing the lives of mortals like us. A philosopher, a disciple of Socrates, a contemporary forgot to Plato and Aristotle explained very well is Antisthenes, the father of the cynical school of philosophy, first to publicly denounce the social convention as a human creation, not divine (which allowed for example to change his condition, an interesting approach in the land of slavery). So here it is brought to mock Plato, openly, explaining that pride is a consequence of looking the other eye, that same look that is useless flattery when it stresses that a set of social masks and pre-defined roles, in short, it is not free but a slave to these codes by which disregards the principle existence. From Antisthenes course of history, with the help of Plato, will take care to erase education, preferring to avoid vanity and being fought an intelligent approach is proposed instead. This approach, however, taken up by Aristotle, is to obey all his "inner compass", ie the Ethics.

You will be careful, then, to emphasize that I seem confused now, after having denounced, ethics and morals. You will, almost right. For there are times when ethics and morality overlap, de facto. There are rules that can see live these two fundamental concepts. This is true of respect for life, again. This example is particularly interesting for it has a terrible. Explain that everyone will respect the right to be alive on the other may seem slight. Yet many religions erect the ultimate sacrifice as a gesture of submission and adoration. But then, our argument, our argument no longer holds, the structure of thought collapses. That moment has not come. Because on the altar in one of their fellows, and opening his chest to a dagger, the priest is no longer a man but the representative of God. In sum, it rises above the mortal, temporal, which prevents the killing, and the breath of eternal accomplished the ultimate gesture in communion with the divine element it represents. It can no longer go conversely its essence, since the same species seen temporarily changed its nature.

In conclusion, I wish to emphasize the foundation of the concepts presented and defined here. Moralities make us creatures living in society in relative peace. Ethics, in turn, makes us human.

1 Plato, The Laws , 624a.

2 Augustine of Hippo, City of God .

--------------------------------------------- -----

Some remarks

The perspective of an economist

by Jean-Yves Naudet

Centre Director Research economic ethics

economist has little to add to the philosopher prolegomena on the use of words in the philosophical tradition and the evils engendered by the confusion of words. Ethics is the universal rule, enshrined in the hearts of every man, as shown by the emblematic example of Antigone on unwritten laws, and morality (in the strict sense: the habits) are the application in a given society.
But ethicist contemporary economic is forced to see an evolution in the recent years, which may cause confusion in the minds of readers, as they consult a recent book or a classic of previous centuries. So now we talk about business ethics, business ethics, bioethics, applied ethics that are so variable over time, conversely, the term moral, having been written ("bourgeois morality" for example) is used increasingly to discuss the foundations, principles, they are rooted in God or simply a design and secular humanist. So there is a reversal of the meaning of words in recent works, and if you must miss her, we must be aware to decipher the various texts. This also corresponds to the fact that morality is under used (as they are now the main principles) then becomes ethically almost a hackneyed term (as in "ethics of citizenship" which is an expression of political correctness .)

These problems-of-essential vocabulary being posed (because the confusion of ideas often comes from confusion of terms), the issue of business ethics, as they say so common today, is extremely complex, which explains many apparent disagreements fault clear bases. Consider an example that appeared at the opening of our group de réflexion, dans les premières remarques spontanées sur le mur. Parmi les protestations "éthiques" des membres, la question du profit est apparue en premier, autour des idées "notre société ne pense qu'au profit ou au matérialisme" ou "le profit est illégitime". Le premier point porte sur la confusion des ordres sociaux. Il est évident que la vie de l'homme est multiple. Nous sommes des "homo oeconomicus", portés à l'échange et là l'intérêt joue évidemment un rôle, donc le profit aussi; nous sommes des "homo civis", des citoyens dans l'ordre politique, et là l'essentiel tourne autour de la protection des droits fondamentaux et des vertus civiques of life in society we are the "pater familias", within the Community (associations, family, religion, etc..) where our decisions are based on affection, love, solidarity, feelings. Can we blame the modern world is an overflow of an order on another, when politics invades all (totalitarianism, but also welfare state), or when religion seeks to govern society (theocracy) or when Economy claims respecting any social life, including the rhythms of life. We can not blame the exchange, the market order and economic based on the best interest of everyone; this we must denounce this overflow of an order on another, each area must have its place. is a first point and this is the condition of a harmonious society.

But there is a second point. The market order is based on finding a well-being: food, shelter, clothing, health care, educate, entertainment, travel, ... In some ways (but it is a complex debate about which we shall return), there is a search for a personal interest, or at least what we call his own good: it is not wrong to want a better life and better health , better housing, etc.. This requires means and in a market society, this means revenue. There are various motivations for economic activity, but the gain in income is one of the important motivations. We have seen about the distinction of orders that man, fortunately, was not just for this, but deny that necessity is making the naïve. Gold revenue (outside of the flight, by nature immoral) can only come from our economic activities, direct (wages, interest, profit) or indirectly (social redistribution through taxes and contributions paid out in benefits, on delicate subject which we shall return). Everyone agrees that the salary remunerated work "employee" and that pays interest on savings. And profit?

Denounce profit in itself does make a lot of sincere people, but also the fact that Marxism is based on ignorance of the following fact: in itself, the advantage is that the remuneration of the contractor. The latter, as the employee and the investor, provides services (the chief architect of the large enterprise): it assumes the risk, anticipating future needs, innovation, organization of production, and especially it is one that sees (or thinks is going on, it may be wrong) before other unmet needs and therefore new ways of satisfy. For this, it is legitimate to be paid. But the peculiarity is that it undertakes (except bankruptcy) to save the employee and the risk of a bond variable remuneration: wages and interest are fixed by contract rather profit is a random balance, positive if managed well, negative if it was mismanaged, and this encourages him to manage, but the risk is always present when it has made bad choices. We can not denounce the general principle of profit.

But there is a necessary and perfectly ethical question legitimate when we ask under what conditions this gain has been made: the entrepreneur he deceived his world (the problem of information, fraud, false advertising and it was already great concern in the Middle Ages to the likelihood of faking scales ...); he received a privilege, as an arbitrary protectionism, or a monopoly guaranteed by the state, closed or occupation which distorts competition, etc.. In other words, under what conditions this advantage has been obtained, the he rules of the game have they been correct, which requires high-quality institutions. All Scholastic Medieval discussed these issues around the "right price" before realizing that the result itself was neither fair nor unfair (what a "profit too high"), but the question was whether the rules were fair or rigged: the great debate of outcome justice / procedural justice. There is therefore an ethical question about profit, but it is not about principle (legitimate) but on the modalities for its implementation, and there, indeed, there may be much to criticize.

In conclusion, this example takes advantage of this to say: nobody dares speak medical ethics without knowing a word of how medicine, nobody talks about bioethics without some knowledge of the living and the mechanisms of life to speak of applied ethics, we must understand the application domain. How about ethics of profit, because it was the example, without understanding what the profit. And therefore the prerequisite for any discussion of business ethics, not to be manipulated by ideology, to bring a true value judgments, is to understand the economic mechanisms behind them. Who could speak with such financial ethics, topical, relevant way, and suggest solutions without understanding how the credit or financial markets? That is why in this area there are many a priori , animated by good feelings, even by great generosity, which lead to distorted judgments for lack of technical competence. Moral authorities, as they say, show us the path of modesty required, such as Pope Benedict XVI, to write his last social encyclical, has himself said she was released late because he wanted to understand economic mechanisms before making ethical judgments on them. To judge the ethical economy, we must make the effort to understand the economic mechanisms.

Bridal Shower Chapstick

ASSUMPTION OF THE VIRGIN MARY

Assumption of the Virgin Mary
15/08/2010
Luke 1, 39-56 (p. 1173)
In his paper on the mystery of the Church which the Second Vatican Council speaks of the place of the Virgin Mary in the life of Christians. At the end of this long reflection on the nature of the Church Chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium refers to "the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the mystery of Christ and the Church." If we really want to know Mary, his vocation, mission and its place in our Christian life, we must always look "in the mystery of Christ and the Church." That's because she is the mother of Christ it is also the mother of the Church and of every baptized in it. Mother of the Church, it is also, after the Council, "one member absolutely preeminent and unique Church." "She became for us in the order of grace, our Mother ". The Council speaks of the Virgin Mary in the mystery of her Assumption, and let me quote it here to introduce us to the true meaning of this feast: "After her Assumption into heaven, the role of Mary in salvation does s' interrupts not: through her intercession she continues to repeat the gifts we provide our eternal salvation. Her maternal charity she cares for the brethren of her Son, whose pilgrimage is not completed, or are engaged in the perils and hardships, until they reach the heavenly homeland. "
I will return later in the text of the Council. I would now like from the word of God contemplate Mary in her person and in his mission. The book of the Apocalypse makes us see this striking mural, located at the end of time, where two signs confront and fight: The Woman and the Dragon. The Catholic Tradition has seen this woman in the image of Mary. Curiously, while the scene is at the end of time, this woman is shown to give birth. And it is against the child of this woman that the dragon is unleashed. A bit like the mystery of Christmas was to be repeated at the end of time, during the final battle between God and the powers of evil. After the Nativity this dragon had to name King Herod. Remember the massacre of the Innocents for killing the son of Mary, the newborn Jesus. Eschatology in this dragon is probably an image of Satan. The evil spirit has a horror of the incarnation. The fact that God become man in Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, this reduction in our divine favor, the union with the divine flesh and sensitive, put Satan in a rage. For the incarnation reflects not only the immense goodness of God, his mercy, but also his humility and willingness to unite the poor and imperfect creatures that we are mortal. And if the Virgin Mary was chosen from eternity by the Father to be the Mother of the Saviour, in large part because of his humility. It is somehow anti-Satan. And if we first read in conjunction with the second, we understand even better. Mary's Assumption by already fully involved in the resurrection of his Son. She is perfectly united in its victory over the powers of evil and death. With Christ she continues to fight against the machinations of the devil who wants to frustrate the divine plan of salvation for humanity. Mary is the first creature to be completely saved. It is the living sign of what union between God and human creatures is again possible by and in Christ. The Gospel account of the Visitation highlights the virtues of Mary, "blessed among women". If Mary is not happy at first because she is the Mother of the Saviour. That's because she answered "yes" in a perfect way to God's call. These are virtues that have enabled this to say "yes" total and definitive to the Lord. In the Gospel of this feast of Mary two virtues are highlighted. His first great faith: "Blessed are you who believed in the fulfillment of the words which were spoken by the Lord. " And then his humility: "He leaned on his lowly servant ... He lifted up the lowly." Yes, in her Assumption, Mary was taken up body and soul to heavenly glory because her whole life she has continued to live humbly in the sight of God, and his body was the tabernacle of the Word of God. In this context Marian of virtues that Vatican II may help us understand what true Christian devotion to Mary: "Let the faithful remember that true devotion consists neither in sterile and ephemeral sensitivity, nor in a vain credulity, true devotion proceeds from true faith, which leads us to recognize the excellence of the Mother of God, and we grow to love this Mother of filial love, and continue to imitate her virtues. " In this holiday ask Mary, fully united with the Triune God, make us grow in the virtues of faith and humility. May we truly love imitating and giving day after day the joy of the Risen Christ in our world.