10

Dear Jorge, You Have Provided Me The Justification For Virtuously Disobeying  Everything You Say & Strolling Into Heaven, Head Held High

 

 

Jorge Bergolgio has said many things that Catholics must do; but he has also proclaimed a new moral code, or code of immorality as the case may be, with attempted magisterial oomph, in the proclamation Amoris Laetitia, (“AL”) which gives anyone the basis for disobeying him, ignoring what he says, and publicly denouncing him and his minions. The new Bergoglian Immorality:

  1. No one is condemned forever.
  2. What may be wrong in one situation is not wrong in another, including actions that hitherto were taught to be wrong in all circumstances, intrinsically evil actions.
  3. God wants you to continue in what the Church says is sin, even what it used to call “mortal” sin, if you have heard His voice, your conscience,  tell you it is not sin – and such doing by you is not only what you then must do, not only virtuous, it will be your ticket to heaven. This is the very heart of the joy of love, that God can tell you to sin, and to continue in sinning, even publicly.

[If I am confused about AL, or have misunderstood its implications, which are clear to me, I welcome a  true shepherd to lead me to the truth and dispel my dubia].

Based on his new morality, summarized above, we do not have to do anything  that Jorge Bergoglio has said, over the last five years,  we must  do .  With the answer to, “Oh, Hell where is thy sting?” now established as “Hell hath no sting,”  with sin abolished, we can, for example,  say  “No way, Jorge,”  when he says something is morally required, or must be done. His own new morality undercuts his demand that  we must be obedient to him and definitively accept the new immorality as proclaimed by him.

Thanks to him,  we can, with moral impunity and eschatological hope,  do the following which have recently been prohibited:

You can breed like rabbits.

You can ignore illegal aliens

You can call the pope a liar, again and again, publicly

You can intentionally  increase global warming

You can call the pope a heretic, again and again, publicly

You can say publicly the pope has contradicted Jesus

You can think that everything is black and white

You can champion the death penalty

You can be an amoral capitalist

You can disobey Jorge Bergolgio always, in everything, until death

You can publish articles like this

 

Here is a good summary of how, in accord with Jorge’s new immorality, you can now live your life, happily and virtuously,  if thou get thy mind right and thy pastor discerneth with thee:

  1. Thou mayest have strange gods before thee other than the one true God.
  2. Thou mayest take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
  3. Thou mayest keep unholy the Sabbath day.
  4. Thous mayest dishonor thy father and mother.
  5. Thou mayest
  6. Thou mayest commit adultery.
  7. Thou mayest steal.
  8. Thou mayest bear false witness against thy neighbor.
  9. Thou mayest covet thy neighbor’s wife.
  10. Thou mayest covet thy neighbor’s goods.

 

One can get absolutely giddy anticipating the new Sacraments to be proclaimed soon. Imagine how Valentine’s Day will be celebrated in churches next year.

 

3

The Church Of The Sacred  Brothel & Holy Hell

 

In addition to differing with Jorge Bergoglio in thinking that Hell is eternal and men and women really can be condemned forever, St. John Chrysostom’s writings make a stunning, yet apt, comparison between whorehouses and a church that would celebrate sinners and allow unrepentant adulterers to receive the sacraments. Unlike recent papal exhortations that speak in terms of how the Church  “must” incorporate such adulterers into the ongoing daily life of the parish and diocesan communities,  St. John Chrysostom (349 – 407 A.D.), Archbishop of Constantinople,  exhorted the faithful to “drive them from the fold.”   The excerpts below present his powerful words which are true for us today, all these centuries later.

The full text of his homilies on the Gospel of John is here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240163.htm

 

Homilies On The Gospel Of John

Excerpts:  Homily  LXIII [Emphasis Added]

St. John Chrysostom

“Paul,  . . . in his letter to the Hebrews he thus speaks and exhorts them, “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” ( Hebrews 12:14).  By holiness, meaning chastity, so that it behooved each to be content with his own wife, and not have to do with any other woman; for it is impossible that one not so contented should be saved; he must assuredly perish though he have ten thousand right actions, since with fornication it is impossible to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Or rather, this is henceforth not fornication but adultery; for as a woman who is bound to a man, if she come together with another man, then has committed adultery, so he that is bound to a woman, if he have another, has committed adultery. Such a one shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, but shall fall into the pit. Hear what Christ says concerning these, “Their worm shall not die, and the fire shall not be quenched.” ( Mark 9:44).  For he can have no pardon, who after (possessing) a wife, and the comfort of a wife, then acts shamelessly towards another woman; since this is henceforth wantonness.

. . . .

Not so concerning a harlot; but what? If any man put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, he causes her to commit adultery. (Matthew 5:32).  For if the coming together makes one body, he who comes together with a harlot must needs become one body with her.  .  . .1 Cor. 6:15 . . . “.Shall I then make the members of Christ the members of a harlot? “. . . .A dreadful, a dreadful thing is fornication, and an agent for everlasting punishment; and even in this world it brings with it ten thousand woes. . . . Wherefore I exhort you to be freed from this malady, and if you obey not, step not on the sacred sanctuary. Sheep that are covered with the scab, and full of disease, may not herd with those that are in health; we must drive them from the fold until they get rid of the malady. We have been made members of Christ; let us not, I entreat, become members of a harlot. This place is not a brothel but a church; if then you have the members of a harlot, stand not in the church, lest you insult the place. If there were no hell, if there were no punishment, yet, after those contracts, those marriage torches, the lawful bed, the procreation of children, the intercourse, how could you bear to join yourself to another? How is it that you are not ashamed nor blushest? . . .  . .but you bring in another while your wife is yet alive. What lustfulness is this! Learn what has been spoken concerning such men, “Their worm”, It says,” shall not die, and the fire shall not be quenched.” (Mark 9:44).  Shudder at the threat, dread the vengeance. The pleasure here is not so great as the punishment there, but may it not came to pass that any one (here) become liable to that punishment, but that exercising holiness they may see Christ, and obtain the promised good things, which may we all enjoy, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, for ever and ever. Amen.”

 

In the new Bergoglian churches, to be sung at the Offertory to the tune of If You’re Happy And You Know It, Clap Your Hands; and choreographed with a welcoming, lusty rhythm for the liturgical dancers:

Praise the Lord for adultery, clap your hands.

Praise the Lord for adulterers, clap your hands.

If in Church they belong,  a happy,  holy throng,

Praise the Lord for adultery, clap your hands.

 

 

 

3

Abortion, Homosexual, Women Priestessses, Same-Sex,  Heresy, Jorge, & Sin

 

Now that I have your attention –even without including Sola Scriptura, Purgatory, the Papacy in Holy Writ, Sprinking vs. Immersion, Sola Fide, Confessing To Oneself, and Infant Baptism –  and with sincere apologies to all the internet trolls who felt compelled to read thus far or who were taken in by the graphic –  here is what this article is really about: Hell !

Since we are dealing with Hell and the possibility of never-ending pain for sinners, I felt the subterfuges were OK; and if there is no Hell, my prevarication does not matter  – as Snoopy once told Charlie Brown: “A hundred years from now, who will care?”

If Hell is not forever, you know, eternal fire and everlasting torment, and all that never-ending agony for sinners stuff, you can proceed to:

Never ever clothe the naked. Keep your  three winter coats.

Not once ever in your life to give a drink to the thirsty.

Turn your glance away from all the homeless, never caring for  a stranger.

Never care for any sick person, not ever, not even your Mom.

Drive by jails and  prisons, but never go in.

Making sure you yourself never miss a meal,  and always have a scrumptious dessert,  never feed anyone who is hungry.

Because if Hell is not forever, even if you never do any good act, you know that somehow – however dimensions of time out-of-time after bodily death are measured – you will eventually be in heaven.

If, put in other terms, everyone – eventually – will, without doubt, inherit the Kingdom, you can now proceed to steal, assault little boys, get stinking drunk regularly,  abuse young men,  slander any and everyone, commit adultery daily, worship idols, and swindle little old ladies out of their life savings. Why? Because at some point, even if you are being tortured after you die and are in unbearable pain, it will stop – if Hell is not forever – and you will inherit the Kingdom and be clothed in the regal raiment of a Prince or Princess of God.

Despite what Jesus told us in His own words, and ignoring the words of of divinely-inspired Holy Scripture to the contrary, you could attempt to proclaim, even under the guise of magisterial teaching, that

“No one is condemned forever.”

If Hell is not endless,  if this new illogic of the good news is true, then even you who proclaim this will, someday, somehow,  be in heaven with the God whom you have contradicted, as will all those who, hearing your words, believed you and did any and all of the things mentioned above.

But, what if Hell is what Jesus said it is?

2

Sound Familiar? St. Basil  Speaks To Heretics In The Church Today

 

I have no standing to cry out in anguish “How long, O Lord, how long?” about the dismal darkness of Jesus’s Church today because I have contributed to it, especially by silence. So I am comforted that there are present-day Basil’s who can speak truth to evil power and confront the “rulers of this present darkness” in Holy Mother Church.

St. Basil, 329-379 A.D., also known as Basil The Great, was an influential deacon, priest, and then bishop of Cappadocia, in what is Turkey today in Asia Minor. As both a very public bishop and an expert theologian, he vehemently opposed Arian and Apollinarian heretics. He is remembered for how he dealt with an emissary of the Roman emperor, Valens, who was himself an Arian heretic. The emissary, imperial prefect Modestus, was taken aback when Basil, without deference, told him how there was no “making nice” with heretics for the sake of peace and that compromise with those who oppose the truth is impossible. Modestus, affronted, told him no one had ever addressed him in this way. Basil replied, “Perhaps you have never had to deal with a bishop.”

Would that we had a multitude of bishops like this today instead of the handful with the moral courage to decry heresy in the Church. It is refreshing to read the writings of Basil.  In confronting the widespread acceptance of heresy, even by those of rank and power within the Church, Basil wrote his own version of  “How long, O Lord”:

“For, when life is buffeted by so fierce a storm that all the intelligence of those who are instructed in the word is filled with the deceit of false reasoning and confounded, like an eye filled with dust, when men are stunned by strange and awful noises, when all the world is shaken and everything tottering to its fall, what profits it to cry, as I am really crying, to the wind?”  (Basil, On The Holy Spirit, Chapter 29).

Basil then goes on to say why one must not give up. In his Chapter 30 that follows the above quote, Basil describes the Church as if he had a crystal ball and could see the world in 2018.

There are many sources for Basil’s writings on the Internet; e.g. at the New Advent site: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm.  In concluding this post,  I will quote, probably too extensively,  from his On The Holy Spirit, Chapter 30. It is recommended  in its entirety.

Chapter XXX

Exposition of the present state of the Churches.

  1. To what then shall I liken our present condition. . . . The disorder and confusion is tremendous, for the extremity of misfortune, when life is despaired of, gives men license for every kind of wickedness. Suppose, too, that the men are all smitten with the incurable plague of mad love of glory, so that they do not cease from their struggle each to get the better of the other, while their ship is actually settling down into the deep.
  1. Turn now I beg you from this figurative description to the unhappy reality. Did it not at one time appear that the Arian schism, after its separation into a sect opposed to the Church of God, stood itself alone in hostile array? But when the attitude of our foes against us was changed . . ., so that all men were stirred to a state of inveterate hatred alike by common party spirit and individual suspicion. But what storm at sea was ever so fierce and wild as this tempest of the Churches? In it every landmark of the Fathers has been moved; every foundation, every bulwark of opinion has been shaken: everything buoyed up on the unsound is dashed about and shaken down. We attack one another. We are overthrown by one another. If our enemy is not the first to strike us, we are wounded by the comrade at our side. . . .. And who could make a complete list of all the wrecks? Some have gone to the bottom on the attack of the enemy, some through the unsuspected treachery of their allies, some from the blundering of their own officers. We see, as it were, whole churches, crews and all, dashed and shattered upon the sunken reefs of disingenuous heresy, while others of the enemies of the Spirit of Salvation have seized the helm and made shipwreck of the faith. …. The luminaries of the world, which God set to give light to the souls of the people, have been driven from their homes, and a darkness verily gloomy and disheartening has settled on the Churches.. . .Harsh rises the cry of the combatants encountering one another in dispute; already all the Church is almost full of the inarticulate screams, the unintelligible noises, rising from the ceaseless agitations that divert the right rule of the doctrine of true religion, now in the direction of excess, now in that of defect.  . . . No oaths of confederacy are so efficacious in keeping men true to sedition as their likeness in error.  . . The institutions of the Gospel have now everywhere been thrown into confusion by want of discipline; there is an indescribable pushing for the chief places while every self-advertiser tries to force himself into high office. The result of this lust for ordering is that our people are in a state of wild confusion for lack of being ordered; the exhortations of those in authority are rendered wholly purposeless and void, because there is not a man but, out of his ignorant impudence, thinks that it is just as much his duty to give orders to other people, as it is to obey any one else. . .
  2. Now there is no one to receive the weak in faith . . . but mutual hatred has blazed so high among fellow men that they are more delighted at a neighbour’s fall than at their own success. Just as in a plague, men of the most regular lives suffer from the same sickness as the rest, because they catch the disease by communication with the infected, so nowadays by the evil rivalry which possesses our souls we are carried away to an emulation in wickedness, and are all of us each as bad as the others. Hence merciless and sour sit the judges of the erring; unfeeling and hostile are the critics of the well disposed. And to such a depth is this evil rooted among us that we have become more brutish than the brutes; they do at least herd with their fellows, but our most savage warfare is with our own people. . . .
  3. . . . I was taught too  . . . that, when there is no one to support the cause of true religion, we ought alone and all unaided to do our duty.  . Wherefore we too are undismayed at the cloud of our enemies, and, resting our hope on the aid of the Spirit, have, with all boldness, proclaimed the truth.
2

Mary Christmas!

 

And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:37)

With those words from Mary, the first Christmas was “on.” From that moment, God’s plan went into glorious effect for the celebration, nine months later, of His Son’s birthday. It was beginning to look a lot like Christmas.

No Mary, No Christmas

Mary’s “Yes” was incarnated in the Baby Jesus, in the flesh, conceived within her before she was even aware He was there. Her “Yes” is the reason for the Reason for the season. Mary’s “Yes” was a yes for all of us, for all time.

Mary’s choice was to have the Baby Jesus.  God did not force her to be the Theotokos, the God-bearer.  Mary freely decided to bear and give birth to the Son of God. She freely chose not to abort Him, to kill Him in her womb, or to kill Him once He was born; although infanticide was almost as common in the ancient world as it is today. Because her “Yes” meant the possibility of eternal life for all of us, to say Mary was prolife is the understatement of all time.

What if Mary had said “No,” or “No!” ?

This is difficult to ponder. Would there have been no salvation of all mankind? Would there have been no Christmas?  Did God have a second choice in mind, a runner up? Had someone already turned God down? Was there a No. 2, an understudy in the wings? We do know that God knew Mary would say “Yes,” although His foreknowledge did not prevent her from freely agreeing to bear and birth this holy Child.

If Mary had said  “No,” if there was no Christ Child, no Christmas, then, to plagiarize from a famous source and apply it to this hypothetical:

“The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.”  (Yes, Virginia, There Is A Santa Claus;  F. Church , 1897)

Part of our joy at Christmas is our joyful awe and thanks to Mary. Her “Yes” was yes for all God’s children. It meant, as the angel of the Lord told Joseph in a dream, that – because Mary agreed to mama this Child,  named “Jesus,”  –  we would all be saved  from our sins.  (Mt 1:21).

Mary Does Not Name Her Own Son 

Mary and Joseph are both told by the angel of God what the Child’s name will be. (Mary: Lk 1:31 ; Joseph: Mt 1:21).  Mary, the mother, and Joseph, the ostensible head of the family whose job it usually was, do not get to name Jesus; but they both, without grumbling, accept that God will name this Baby.

In Holy Scripture, naming someone is an act of power, and a name is a thing of power. Again and again, beginning in Genesis, naming is a major theme, including God naming things, God naming human beings, men and women naming things and offspring,  and God re-naming men and women.

The first book of Samuel makes it clear that a person is what a name says. (1Sam 25:25).  For the Jewish people a name was much more than a label, or a tag for distinguishing between persons. A name was the equivalent to the person himself or herself. A person’s name was his or her very person, identity,  worth, character, reputation, authority, will,  ownership, and power. 

In Hebrew, the name God gives His Son – Jesus – literally means “Yahweh helps” or “Yahweh saves.”  God is naming His Son God.

God’s naming His son Jesus is God’s announcement  – His, “Yes, that’s My Boy, chip off the old [very old] block” – gift of this Son. The Bible does not mention God handing out cigars. Such naming is referred to in Isaiah:

“Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the Lord called me; from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.” (Is 43:1).

By naming His Son Jesus, God makes available to all of us the power of that name, the power of His Son.  For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Rom 10:13)Bottom of Form

Why Would God Let Mary Birth His Son?

Why would God send His own Son to us? Why, after the Fall of Adam, does God want His divine Son to become man?  Man, that creature of God as Francis Thompson tells us in his poem, The Hound Of Heaven, “of all God’s clotted clay, the dingiest clot.” St. John says: “Et verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis.” (Jn 1:14). It is easy to think of reasons God would not want to “pitch His tent with us” (literal translation of “habitavit”) and let His Son live on earth as a man; and  reasons for His not having wanted to redeem us.

Still, God saw something in us, in each of us. To paraphrase some lines from Thompson’s poem,  whom would love ignoble me and you enough to come here and shiver in the cold  in Bethlehem so we did not burn in the eternal heat of hell? To be convinced of “how little worthy of any love though art” when we sin, all one need do is look in a mirror. I  think about all the times I have been to confession, and all my sins, since that day so long ago at St. Paul’s Parish in San Antonio, going in to talk to the very priest who had baptized me six years earlier, the preist who had married my Mom and Dad, and  even then and since being fully aware of my ignobility. Why would God want to redeem me? or any of us? Why would He want to ransom us from this ignobility and make us celestial nobles, His heirs, heavenly aristocrats, His princess, His prince?

The besutiful answer is in a poem, Love Came Down At Christmas,  by Christina Rosetti:

“Love came down at Christmas,

Love all lovely, Love Divine,

Love was born at Christmas,

Star and Angels gave the sign.”

Know Mary, Know Christmas

This embodied Christmas Love began with Mary’s love of God. But for that love, there may have been no Christmas.

So, what is there to learn from Mary’s not only talking the Christmas talk – “Yes. I’ll have this Baby” – but also her walking the Christmas walk ?  It’s about ninety miles from Nazareth to Bethlehem,  and it would seem much longer if you were about to deliver a child . (The scope of this writing is way too limited to enter into the discussion of whether or not she rode on a donkey. The ensuing intense theological debate will not be discussed here).

Mary’s “Yes” is startling evidence of her humility, obedience, generosity, trust, and love, love not only for God, but for all of us. Gabriel tells Mary her Son will be named “Jesus.” Mary knows what that name means in Hebrew, and she knows that God the Father Himself has given her Son this name.

As the angel proclaims to the shepherds, “a savior has been born for you.” (Lk 2:11).   Mary says “Yes, I will have this Baby for everyone.”

Merry Mary CHRISTmas!

 

10

The Son, The Ordained Priest At The Cross

 

Why, hanging on the Cross, did Jesus single out His mother and St. John and say, “Woman, behold your Son” ?

Presented here is a theory, a possibility, an opinion that, just before He died on the Cross, when Jesus said “Behold, your son,” He was announcing that, after He died, He would be present in person in this young man, the apostle John, and in all men subsequently who would receive, and whose being would be changed by, His new sacrament of Holy Orders. He instituted this sacrament the night before Good Friday and then administered it to John and the remaining men, all apostles. This happened before Pentecost, the birthday of His Church.

 

At the Foot of the Cross

On Calvary when Jesus was crucified and died, His final significant act, before saying “I thirst,” and “It is accomplished,” was this, as the divinely-inspired words of John’s Gospel tell us:

“Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, behold your son,” and to the disciple, “Behold your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.  “ (Jn 19:26,27)

Of all the people present, in these words Jesus speaks directly to only two of them – He singles out His mother and the “apostle whom He loved,” John. There is no give-and-take conversation, only the words of Jesus.

 

Traditional Interpretations

Some traditional interpretations of what happened and why Jesus did what He did are that: Jesus wanted John to care for His mother after he died; Jesus is recognizing His mother as the mother of not only John, but of all Christians; and Jesus is saying that the Church, His Church,  all of us, are now His family.

Some writers have that John, who had been ordained in the sacrament of Holy Orders less than twenty-four hours before, was present at the Cross as an ordained priest.  No other apostle – no other ordained priest – was there. (For example: The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Role in the Celibate Priest’s Spousal and Paternal Love;  Monsignor John Cihak, S.T.D.; Ignatius Insight;  http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2009/jcihak_maryandpriests1_july09.asp).

 

What Jesus Did Not Say

Jesus could have chosen to say anything. He knew that John was there and He knew that some years later John, divinely inspired,  would write down His words, and then for all time people would read what He had said. Interestingly, Jesus did not say any of these things, which He could have said:

“Mother, behold your children.” [referring to not only John, but the other Marys present, including Mary Magdalene].

“Woman, behold your son, John, and your daughter, Mary Magdalene.”

“John, treat this woman now as your own mother.”

“John, take care of My mother.”

“Mother, behold everyone here.” [including the women, any representatives of the high priest, the Roman soldiers, the Centurion,  the two thieves, and the Gentiles].

“Woman, behold all these people here ”

“Everyone, love one another.”

“Woman, this young man is now to be like a son to you.”

“Everybody hear Me. My mercy will now cover all your sins and all sins for all time.”

But Jesus chose not to say any of these things.

 

Why Speak Only To Mary, and Only To John?

Jesus chose to speak to Mary and John. So why the words reported in the Gospel of John and why did He speak only to  Mary, His Mother, and only to the young apostle John?

Perhaps there is no reason to ask why and the words should simply be taken as written. Considering, however, some facts –  that John was the only ordained priest present; that this was done immediately before Jesus dies; Jesus uses the word “son;” and that years later John was inspired by God to recount verbatim  what happened for everyone to read until the end of time; that the sacrament of Holy Orders had changed John’s very being –  there may be some interesting paths to pursue, even if clear, certain, and  unambigous insights are not possible.

 

Opinion etc.

What follows, although stated in declarative sentences, is opinion or theory; and, if these make no sense, some more learned can, and there is hope they will, explain why this is “mere” opinion and “mere” theory.

The words Jesus chose, “woman” and “son” have meanings deeper than what they literally signify.

 

The Woman, Mary

It is fairly well accepted that Jesus, in addressing Mary as “woman” is calling to mind Genesis 3:15:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
This – “woman” – is how He addressed her previously at Cana, when He performed His first miracle.

It is Mary’s offspring, her Son, who defeats Satan and all evil.

 

The Son, John

The word Jesus uses for “son” is the same word used throughout the New Testament, in the words of the angel Gabriel to Mary and to Joseph, in the words of Jesus, in the words of His apostles, in the words of demons, in the words of the evangelists, and in the words of the other New Testament writers. He does not say to Mary “John here is now like me, like your son.”

 

Why Did Jesus Say This?

This is the opinion/theory:  In saying “Woman, behold your son,” Jesus is saying to His mother, and to all of us who through the centuries and who today read these words:

“This ‘son,’ John, is now Me in person. I have made him so, changed his very being, by the change effected in My new sacrament of Holy Orders. Woman, I am your only Son, and when I am no longer here, I will be here as your Son in person in all men ordained and for all time to be ordained My priests. Here right now, after I have said this, I will offer the sacrifice of my life on this Cross, I will die.  Then, I, from now until the end of the world, will be actually present for you and for all, and with you in person – body and soul, and body – in a special sacramental way in these men, and not in this way in any other human beings. I will act in person in these men who will re-present for Me to My Father this sacrifice of Mine.”

 

Holy Orders – Priests & Priests Only, In Persona Christi

The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it clear that Jesus is present today in person in His priests in a way in which He is not present in anyone else:


“In the person of Christ the Head . . .

“1548 In the ecclesial service of the ordained minister, it is Christ himself who is present to his Church as Head of his Body, Shepherd of his flock, high priest of the redemptive sacrifice, Teacher of Truth. This is what the Church means by saying that the priest, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, acts in persona Christi Capitis:[citing Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 10]

“It is the same priest, Christ Jesus, whose sacred person his minister truly represents. Now the minister, by reason of the sacerdotal consecration which he has received, is truly made like to the high priest and possesses the authority to act in the power and place of the person of Christ himself (virtute ac persona ipsius Christi) [citing Pius XII, Mediator Dei].” (Catechism 1548)

“1563 ‘Through that sacrament priests by the anointing of the Holy Spirit are signed with a special character and so are configured to Christ the priest in such a way that they are able to act in the person of Christ the head.’ ” (citing Vatican II, Presbyterorem Ordinis). (Catechism 1563)

“1591 . . . the task [of the ordained priest] is to serve in the name of and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community.” (Catechism 1591)

 

Sacrifice of the Mass – Jesus In Person In His Priest

Jesus in present in person in His priests at each Mass, and only in His priests who are there in persona Christi:

“1566 ‘It is in the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic assembly of the faithful (synaxis) that they [ordained priests] exercise in a supreme degree their sacred office; there, acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming his mystery, they unite the votive offerings of the faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord, the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father.’ “ (citing Vatican II, Lumen Gentium).

 

In Person?

No matter which accepted definition of “person” is used and followed, a “person” is not only a soul or not only a body. A person is a soul/body, a body/soul, an “ensouled body,” or an “embodied soul.”  No matter how you define “person,” the body is there.

When Jesus is present with us today in person, He is with us totally, wholly, soul/body, body/soul. He is with us in the person of His priests, their persons which are both soul and body, in the person of their embodied souls, in the person of their ensouled bodies. This is why from the time of the Last Supper until today the Church has faithfully obeyed the Command Of The Lord that only males be ordained; and why is it senseless, in terms of theology, sacramentality, and ecclesiology to think that anyone other than a male even could receive Holy Orders and be ordained a priest to be Jesus, in person, for us.

 

Clues From The Original Greek of St. John’s Gospel

Here is a literal translation of John 19:26-27 :

“Jesus therefore seeing and knowing the mother and the disciple having stood by whom he was loving, says to the mother, Woman see and know the son of you. Then He says to the disciple, See and know the mother of you. And from that hour the disciple took her into his own.

The verb Jesus uses, typically translated as “behold,” means more than simply “see.” It means to both see and then to realize what you are seeing, to see and to know. Jesus is telling His mother, and us today, you see this young man here, he is now more than he was, he is now configured to Me so that in him I can be with you, in person, in the “son of you, mother,” in the person of My priests.

He is also speaking to John, and in speaking to John speaking to all priests for all time: You, now that you have been ordained My priest, see and know that you are now so changed in your very being that you are My mother’s Son, taking my place here in earth, her son in a way that no one else is.

 

Holy Orders

There are three sacraments you can receive only once: Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. This is so because they effect a real change which cannot be reversed and is a change forever. This has been described as an indelible mark on the soul and the imprinting of a sacramental, spiritual character on the soul. (See, e.g. Catechism 1582; and Canon Law 1008 and related commentaries)

By His sacrament of Holy Orders, a man is changed, a new reality comes into existence in the person of the priest. Jesus is not  there merely in spirit, He is there in person, in His priest:

“The ordained ministry, which may never be reduced to its merely functional aspect since it belongs on the level of “being,” enables the priest to act “in persona Christi” and culminates in the moment when he consecrates the bread and wine, repeating the actions and words of Jesus during the Last Supper . . . The Eucharist, like the priesthood, is a gift from God “which radically transcends the power of the assembly” and which the assembly “receives through episcopal succession going back to the Apostles” (Encyclical “Ecclesia de Eucharistia,” 29). The Second Vatican Council teaches that “the ministerial priest, by the sacred power that he enjoys … effects the Eucharistic Sacrifice in the person of Christ and offers it to God in the name of all the people” (Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 10).” (Letter of John Paul II to Priests, Holy Thursday, 2004).

Conclusion

This is what is being proposed here. Jesus is telling Mary that, since He is going to heaven, and as He is her Son, the offspring who crushes the head of evil, these men He has really, sacramentally changed are now her sons, her offspring through His sacramental power and they will now be here on earth for Him, in person.

1

How To Know & Deal With Heresy Today – Part III

Nothing can substitute for reading the entire text of the Commintory of St. Vincent of Lerins on heresy. It is available on several internet sites, e.g. at newadvent.org:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

 

This is Part III, the last of the summary of Vincent’s work on heresies. In the excerpts below, a pithy comment in brackets precedes some paragraphs  of Vincent’s own words.

 

“The Notes of a true Catholic.

 

[A single man does not and cannot determine the true faith]

 

“[48.] This being the case, he is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above every thing, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever; who sets light by all of these, and continuing steadfast and established in the faith, resolves that he will believe that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time . . .

 

“Exposition of St. Paul’s Words.— 1 Tim. vi. 20.

 

[Wicked novelties of  heresies will be decapitated with a spiritual sword]

 

“[51.]  . . . I cannot sufficiently wonder at the madness of certain men, at the impiety of their blinded understanding, at their lust of error, such that, not content with the rule of faith delivered once for all, and received from the times of old, they are every day seeking one novelty after another, and are constantly longing to add, change, take away, in religion, .  . . as with a spiritual sword, all the wicked novelties of all heresies often have been, and will always have to be, decapitated,

 

[Heretics teach furtively, and in secret; and tell us “silly wretches” they, despite centuries of error, now have the true faith]

 

“[52.] After words such as these, is there any one of so hardened a front, such anvil-like impudence, such adamantine pertinacity, as not to succumb to so huge a mass, not to be crushed by so ponderous a weight, not to be shaken in pieces by such heavy blows, not to be annihilated by such dreadful thunderbolts of divine eloquence?  . . .Falsely called indeed, as applied to the doctrines of heretics, where ignorance is disguised under the name of knowledge, fog of sunshine, darkness of light. Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Professing what? What but some (I know not what) new and unheard-of doctrine. For you may hear some of these same doctors say, Come, O silly wretches, who go by the name of Catholics, come and learn the true faith, which no one but ourselves is acquainted with, which same has lain hid these many ages, but has recently been revealed and made manifest. But learn it by stealth and in secret, for you will be delighted with it. Moreover, when you have learned it, teach it furtively, that the world may not hear, that the Church may not know. For there are but few to whom it is granted to receive the secret of so great a mystery.  . .

 

 

“A more particular Exposition of 1 Tim. vi. 20.

 

[Heretics are thieves and adversaries]

 

“[53.] But it is worth while to expound the whole of that passage of the apostle more fully, O Timothy, keep the deposit, avoiding profane novelties of words. . . .

What is Keep the deposit? Keep it, because of thieves, because of adversaries, lest, while men sleep, they sow tares over that good wheat which the Son of Man had sown in his field. Keep the deposit.. . . . Keep the deposit. Preserve the talent of Catholic Faith inviolate, unadulterate. That which has been entrusted to you, let it continue in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold; give gold in turn. Do not substitute one thing for another. Do not for gold impudently substitute lead or brass. Give real gold, not counterfeit.

 

“On Development in Religious Knowledge.

 

[Adulteration of the faith is not real progress]

 

“[54.] But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith.  . . .

 

[The frenzy of the ungodly, the impious fraud. If one doctrine domino is allowed to fall, is contradicted, or is denied, all the doctrines fall; as does the Church itself]

 

“[58.] For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God’s mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.

 

“Continuation of the Exposition of 1 Tim. vi. 20.

 

[Shun him who proclaims heresy as you would a poisonous snake]

 

“[60.] But let us return to the apostle. O Timothy, he says, Guard the deposit, shunning profane novelties of words. Shun them as you would a viper, as you would a scorpion, as you would a basilisk, lest they smite you not only with their touch, but even with their eyes and breath.  . . .  Receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed, for he that bids him Godspeed communicates with him in his evil deeds. 2 John 10

 

[Heretics do not speak clearly, and they cite Holy Scripture for their evil purposes]

 

“ [65.] But the more secretly they conceal themselves under shelter of the Divine Law, so much the more are they to be feared and guarded against. For they know that the evil stench of their doctrine will hardly find acceptance with any one if it be exhaled pure and simple. They sprinkle it over, therefore, with the perfume of heavenly language, in order that one who would be ready to despise human error, may hesitate to condemn divine words.  . . .So too do these act, who disguise poisonous herbs and noxious juices under the names of medicines, so that no one almost, when he reads the label, suspects the poison.

 

[Like Satan, their father,  heretics may seem to be of the light]

 

“ [67.]  . . .And no wonder, he says, for Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. It is no marvel then if his servants are transformed as the servants of righteousness. Therefore,  . . . there is no doubt that they are following the cunning devices of their father, which assuredly he would never have devised, but that he knew that where he could fraudulently and by stealth introduce error, there is no easier way of effecting his impious purpose than by pretending the authority of Holy Scripture.

 

[Heresy can be the newly-devised error of one man, who could put our eternal salvation in jeopardy]

 

“[72.] . … But whatsoever a teacher holds, other than all, or contrary to all, be he holy and learned, be he a bishop, be he a Confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and be separated from the authority of common, public, general persuasion, lest, after the sacrilegious custom of heretics and schismatics, rejecting the ancient truth of the universal Creed, we follow, at the utmost peril of our eternal salvation, the newly devised error of one man.

 

[Be wary of an individual man who arrogantly proclaims that he alone has the truth]

 

“[74.] And lest any one, disregarding every one else, should arrogantly claim to be listened to himself alone, himself alone to be believed, the Apostle goes on to say, Did the word of God proceed from you, or did it come to you only? And, lest this should be thought lightly spoken, he continues, If any man seem to be a prophet or a spiritual person, let him acknowledge that the things which I write unto you are the Lord’s commands.”

 

 

5

How To Know & Deal With Heresy Today – Part II

Let him, the heretic,  be accursed.

St. Vincent of Lerins warns that the current heresy must not be  “blessed, praised and welcomed.” It is our duty, he says,“To anathematize those who preach anything other than what has once been received, always was a duty, always is a duty, always will be a duty.”

You would think St. Vincent of Lerins time travelled to the twenty first century:

“Nauseating the truth.”

“Garbage of heretical novelty.”

“He means, though Peter, though Andrew, though John, in a word, though the whole company of apostles, preach unto you other than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

 

Full text, excerpts From the Commintory of St. Vincent, 5th Century Anno Domini:

“Exposition of St. Paul’s Words, Gal. i. 8.

“[21.] When therefore certain of this sort wandering about provinces and cities, and carrying with them their venal errors, had found their way to Galatia, and when the Galatians, on hearing them, nauseating the truth, and vomiting up the manna of Apostolic and Catholic doctrine, were delighted with the garbage of heretical novelty, the apostle putting in exercise the authority of his office, delivered his sentence with the utmost severity, Though we, he says, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8

“[22.] Why does he say Though we? Why not rather though I? He means, though Peter, though Andrew, though John, in a word, though the whole company of apostles, preach unto you other than we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Tremendous severity! He spares neither himself nor his fellow apostles, so he may preserve unaltered the faith which was at first delivered. Nay, this is not all. He goes on Even though an angel from heaven preach unto you any other Gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. It was not enough for the preservation of the faith once delivered to have referred to man; he must needs comprehend angels also. Though we, he says, or an angel from heaven. Not that the holy angels of heaven are now capable of sinning. But what he means is: Even if that were to happen which cannot happen—if any one, be he who he may, attempt to alter the faith once for all delivered, let him be accursed.

“[23.] But it may be, he spoke thus in the first instance inconsiderately, giving vent to human impetuosity rather than expressing himself under divine guidance. Far from it. He follows up what he had said, and urges it with intense reiterated earnestness, As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other Gospel to you than that you have received, let him be accursed. He does not say, If any man deliver to you another message than that you have received, let him be blessed, praised, welcomed,— no; but let him be accursed, [anathema] i.e., separated, segregated, excluded, lest the dire contagion of a single sheep contaminate the guiltless flock of Christ by his poisonous intermixture with them.

“His warning to the Galatians a warning to all.

“[25.] Or perhaps the anathema pronounced on any one who should preach another Gospel than that which had been preached was meant for those times, not for the present. Then, also, the exhortation, Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh, Galatians 5:16 was meant for those times, not for the present. But if it be both impious and pernicious to believe this, then it follows necessarily, that as these injunctions are to be observed by all ages, so those warnings also which forbid alteration of the faith are warnings intended for all ages. To preach any doctrine therefore to Catholic Christians other than what they have received never was lawful, never is lawful, never will be lawful: and to anathematize those who preach anything other than what has once been received, always was a duty, always is a duty, always will be a duty.

“[26.] Which being the case, is there any one either so audacious as to preach any other doctrine than that which the Church preaches, or so inconstant as to receive any other doctrine than that which he has received from the Church? That elect vessel, that teacher of the Gentiles, that trumpet of the apostles, that preacher whose commission was to the whole earth, that man who was caught up to heaven, 2 Corinthians 12:2 cries and cries again in his Epistles to all, always, in all places, If any man preach any new doctrine, let him be accursed. On the other hand, an ephemeral, moribund set of frogs, fleas, and flies, such as the Pelagians, call out in opposition, and that to Catholics, Take our word, follow our lead, accept our exposition, condemn what you used to hold, hold what you used to condemn, cast aside the ancient faith, the institutes of your fathers, the trusts left for you by your ancestors and receive instead—what? I tremble to utter it: for it is so full of arrogance and self-conceit, that it seems to me that not only to affirm it, but even to refute it, cannot be done without guilt in some sort.”

More to come.

1

How To Know & Deal With Heresy Today – Part I

For Our Time, For This Time,

Sound familiar?

Commintory, St. Vincent of Lerins (early 5th Century Anno Domini)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

Excerpts

“A General Rule for distinguishing the Truth of the Catholic Faith from the Falsehood of Heretical Pravity.

“[4.] I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

“[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholics, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

“What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest.

“[7.] What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

“The evil resulting from the bringing in of Novel Doctrine shown in the instances of the Donatists and Arians.

“[9.] But that we may make what we say more intelligible, we must illustrate it by individual examples, and enlarge upon it somewhat more fully, lest by aiming at too great brevity important matters be hurried over and lost sight of.

“In the time of Donatus, from whom his followers were called Donatists, when great numbers in Africa were rushing headlong into their own mad error, and unmindful of their name, their religion, their profession, were preferring the sacriligeous temerity of one man before the Church of Christ, then they alone throughout Africa were safe within the sacred precincts of the Catholic faith, who, detesting the profane schism, continued in communion with the universal Church, leaving to posterity an illustrious example, how, and how well in future the soundness of the whole body should be preferred before the madness of one, or at most of a few.

“[10.] So also when the Arian poison had infected not an insignificant portion of the Church but almost the whole world, so that a sort of blindness had fallen upon almost all the bishops of the Latin tongue, circumvented partly by force partly by fraud, and was preventing them from seeing what was most expedient to be done in the midst of so much confusion, then whoever was a true lover and worshipper of Christ, preferring the ancient belief to the novel misbelief, escaped the pestilent infection.

“[11.] By the peril of which time was abundantly shown how great a calamity the introduction of a novel doctrine causes. For then truly not only interests of small account, but others of the very gravest importance, were subverted. For not only affinities, relationships, friendships, families, but moreover, cities, peoples, provinces, nations, at last the whole Roman Empire, were shaken to their foundation and ruined. For when this same profane Arian novelty, like a Bellona or a Fury, had first taken captive the Emperor,and had then subjected all the principal persons of the palace to new laws, from that time it never ceased to involve everything in confusion, disturbing all things, public and private, sacred and profane, paying no regard to what was good and true, but, as though holding a position of authority, smiting whomsoever it pleased. Then wives were Then wives were violated, widows ravished, virgins profaned, monasteries demolished, clergymen ejected, the inferior clergy scourged, priests driven into exile, jails, prisons, mines, filled with saints, of whom the greater part, forbidden to enter into cities, thrust forth from their homes to wander in deserts and caves, among rocks and the haunts of wild beasts, exposed to nakedness, hunger, thirst, were worn out and consumed. Of all of which was there any other cause than that, while human superstitions are being brought in to supplant heavenly doctrine, while well established antiquity is being subverted by wicked novelty, while the institutions of former ages are being set at naught, while the decrees of our fathers are being rescinded, while the determinations of our ancestors are being torn in pieces, the lust of profane and novel curiosity refuses to restrict itself within the most chaste limits of hallowed and uncorrupt antiquity?

 

“[20.] But to return to the matter in hand: It behooves us then to have a great dread of the crime of perverting the faith and adulterating religion, a crime from which we are deterred not only by the Church’s discipline, but also by the censure of authority. Fore very one knows how gravely, how severely, how vehemently, the blessed apostle Paul inveighs against certain, who, with marvellous levity, had been so soon removed from him who had called them to the grace of Christ to another Gospel, which was not another;  Galatians 1:6 who had heaped to themselves teachers after their own lusts, turning away their ears from the truth, and being turned aside unto fables; 2 Timothy 4:3-4 having damnation because they had cast off their first  faith;  1 Timothy 5:12 who had been deceived by those of whom the same apostle writes to the Roman  Christians, Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause  divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not the Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple, Romans 16:17-18 who enter into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with diverse lusts, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth; 2 Timothy 3:6 vain talkers and deceivers, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake; Titus 1:10 men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith; 2 Timothy 3:8 proud knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, destitute of the truth, supposing that godliness is gain, 1 Timothy 6:4 withal learning to be idle, wandering about from house to house, and not only idle, but tattlers also and busy-bodies, speaking things which they ought not, 1 Timothy 5:13 who having put away a good conscience have made shipwreck concerning the faith; 1 Timothy 1:19 whose profane and vain babblings increase unto more ungodliness, and their word does eat as does a cancer. 2 Timothy 2:16-17 Well, also, is it written of them: But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 2 Timothy 3:9

Part II to follow.

 

 

6

The Young People Will Never Give In – Never Doubt The Miracle

 

For some years now I have been standing and praying for an end to the murders;  and praying for an end to the bloody money trail from abortion businesses to office holders, to (mostly democrat) candidates for office,  to the government coffers at all levels, city, county, state, nation; then the tax dollars flowing back to abortion businesses and on and on and on, in a deathly, seemingly eternal, cash-for- death/cash-for-politicians/death-for-cash cycle.

But, there is a glow, a glimmer at the end of this ghastly, deathly, dark tunnel; and there is a sparkling, effervescing, coruscating, vibrant, alive, shining, spectacular, hope-filled, joy-full  explosion of energy, goodness and light which will dispel this darkness, permanently.

There are some poignant lines from the end of the play and movie, Camelot , when King Arthur, before battle, tells a young boy to let the world know about “one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot”:

Arthur: Run boy! Through the lines!

Pellinore: Who is that, Arthur?

Arthur: One of what we all are, Pelly. Less than a drop in the great blue motion of the sunlit sea. But it seem some of the drops sparkle, Pelly. Some of them do sparkle! Run, boy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTgoseyWoU

The boy runs off, quickly, courageoulsly, and does not turn back.

The young people fighting for the unborn do sparkle; and it is they, with God’s sparkling light,  who will conquer this evil .

Go to any organized prolife  event, meeting, march, conference, seminar, or gathering . Go to many college or university service days; go to any sidewallk outside an abortion business, well almost any, and, as I have, you will see young people, many of them proclaiming Hey I Am PostRoe And I Made It Out Of the Womb Alive!  They say “I am here to be a voice for those whose voices cannot be heard”.

You cannot warn them off, deflate them, or deter them. You cannot tell them they will fail.

I truly believe that it is the young people (and that is a whole lot of folks younger than my seven decades) who are the lifeblood of the prolife cause and who will make real, for a prolife America, both the words of Wm. Barrett Travis from the Alamo – “I shall never surrender, victory or death” – and the words of Winston Churchill after the disaster of Dunquerqe, spoken in defiance of the prodeath evil engulfing Europe and threatening the entire world, the evil proclaiming some human beings as subhuman – “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.”

After Dunquerque, the British fought and won the air Battle Of Britain, against overwhelming odds, practically without the support of any other nation.

In Fall 1941 Churchill went to his high school, Harrow, and spoke to the young students there, knowing that in months, if not weeks, many of these teenagers would be laying down their lives for their fellow Englishmen.  His words ring true again for the young prolife already-born brothers and already-born sisters of America:

“But for everyone, surely, what we have gone through in this period  . . .  surely from this period of ten months this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. . . . We stood all alone a year ago, and to many countries it seemed that our account was closed, we were finished. All this tradition of ours, our songs, our School history, this part of the history of this country, were gone and finished and liquidated. Very different is the mood today. Britain, other nations thought, had drawn a sponge across her slate. But instead our country stood in the gap. There was no flinching and no thought of giving in; and by what seemed almost a miracle to those outside these Islands, though we ourselves never doubted it, we now find ourselves in a position where I say that we can be sure that we have only to persevere to conquer.”

At the foot of the Cross as Christ hung there in anguish, dying, there were no Sons of Thunder present, no apostle Peter brandishing a sword and saving Our Lord, no brave apostles – but one, the teenager John. Today’s young prolife apostles are now with Jesus on His Cross. They were not born around12 B.C. (or, if you choose, B.C.E., Before the Christ Era) so they could pray for the Holy Innocents killed at Bethlehem. They were not born around 1842 A.D. so they could tell the world that Dred Scott, his wife and their unborn child were not subhuman property. They were not born around 1922 so they could peacefully stand and pray outside Auschwitz and the other camps as subhuman Jews, non-master-race priests, blobs-of-cells children, handicapped persons, and mothers were tortured, experimented on to death, and gassed. No, God wanted these young pray-ers  here now. They are His soldiers, His army, navy, air force and, semper fi, His marines. They are also His special beloved. As David slew Goliath, they will be victorious.

The courageous young prolifers, all over this country and around the world,  do not flinch, and they will conquer, because they truly believe. They will never give in to the apparent might  of the power of evil. This is their declaration:

“We shall defend our preborn sisters and unborn brothers,  all of them, always, whatever the cost may be, on the streets, outside the abortion businesses in the minority neighborhoods, before the many silent pastors and priests, in the classrooms, in reply to mute theologians,  in the face of the rulers of this present darkness, in the legislatures, in courtrooms, in city halls, everywhere, everywhere, everywhere. We shall overcome. We shall never, never, never, never, never surrender.”

Guy McClung,  Texas

60

Is “No One Is Condemned Forever” Perversely Compassionate, According To St. Augustine ?

In his masterpiece, City Of God, St. Augustine devotes seven entire chapters of Book XXI to this subject, as stated at the beginning of Chapter 17: “Of Those Who Fantasize That No Men Shall Be Punished Eternally.”

It was as if St. Augustine got an advance copy of the papal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, and read its proclamation that: ”No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves.” (Para. 297).

This discussion assumes – particularly since it has not been denied or clarified in response to responsible questions and reasonable doubts – that Amoris Laetitia teaches that there is no eternal punishment for sin, for any sin, of any kind, in any situation. Should the questions be addressed and the doubts dissolved, and the words of Jesus and the constant teaching of the Church for about two millennia be affirmed (that indeed, a person can go to Hell forever), then the following discussion can be shredded and  thrown into the bin.

Tender-Hearted Christians

St. Augustine begins with a reference to “tender-hearted Christians”:

“I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man’s sin.” (Chapter 17; Book XXI, City Of God; henceforth in the form “17:XXI”)

Mercy For The Devils In Hell ?

If no sinner will be condemned forever, St. Augustine wonders why this will not apply to the fallen angels:

“Which opinion, if it is good and true because it is merciful, will be so much the better and truer in proportion as it becomes more merciful. Let, then, this fountain of mercy be extended, and flow forth even to the lost angels, and let them also be set free, at least after as many and long ages as seem fit! Why does this stream of mercy flow to all the human race, and dry up as soon as it reaches the angelic? And yet they dare not extend their pity further, and propose the deliverance of the devil himself. Or if anyone is bold enough to do so, he does indeed put to shame their charity, but is himself convicted of error that is more unsightly, and a wresting of God’s truth that is more perverse, in proportion as his clemency of sentiment seems to be greater.” (17:XXI)

It Is In Sinners’ Interest To Deny an Eternal Hell

St. Augustine notes that there are some whose opinions he has heard, who live a bad life, who profess that God’s mercy will be their salvation:

“There are others, again, with whose opinions I have become acquainted in conversation, who, though they seem to reverence the holy Scriptures, are yet of reprehensible life, and who accordingly, in their own interest, attribute to God a still greater compassion towards men. For they acknowledge that it is truly predicted in the divine word that the wicked and unbelieving are worthy of punishment, but they assert that, when the judgment comes, mercy will prevail.” (18:XXI)

Conjectures, Absurdity & Arguing Against God

St. Augustine, again and again, makes the point that those who would rely on total, encompassing-all-sin, divine mercy, while denying endless punishment, are simply making absurd arguments. For example:

“ . . . Or is perhaps the sentence of God, which is to be pronounced on wicked men and angels alike, to be true in the case of the angels, false in that of men? Plainly it will be so if the conjectures of men are to weigh more than the word of God. But because this is absurd, they who desire to be rid of eternal punishment ought to abstain from arguing against God, and rather, while yet there is opportunity, obey the divine commands. . . . And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end.” (23:XXI)

Asserted By No One Sound In The Faith

St. Augustine sees that some proclaiming that divine mercy trumps divine justice “attempt to invalidate the words of God,” not to proclaim the extent of His mercy, but “in their own interest . . .under the guise of greater tenderness of sprit.” (24:XXI). He wonders how far those who promote these errors will go:

“Or will there, perhaps, be someone hardy enough to affirm that even the holy angels will make common cause with holy men (then become the equals of God’s angels), and will intercede for the guilty, both men and angels, that mercy may spare them the punishment which truth has pronounced them to deserve? But this has been asserted by no one sound in the faith; nor will be. Otherwise there is no reason why the Church should not even now pray for the devil and his angels, since God her Master has ordered her to pray for her enemies. The reason, then, which prevents the Church from now praying for the wicked angels, whom she knows to be her enemies, is the identical reason which shall prevent her, however perfected in holiness, from praying at the last judgment for those men who are to be punished in eternal fire.” (24:XXI)

God’s Words Are Truth, Not An Empty Threat

St. Augustine says that these declarations about mercy are contradicted by the clear words of Jesus and of Holy Scripture:
“As for those who find an empty threat rather than a truth in such passages as these: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire; and These shall go away into eternal punishment” [Mt 25: 41,46]; “They shall be tormented for ever and ever” [Rev 20:10]; and “Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched, [Is 66:24] — such persons, I say, are most emphatically and abundantly refuted, not by me so much as by the divine Scripture itself.” (24:XXI)

Later in this Chapter 24, St. Augustine refers to those who deny that some sinners will be subject to eternal punishment as “perversely compassionate.” (24:XXI).

It Is Error To Say God Will Condemn No One

In discussing Romans 11: 32 – “For God has concluded all in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all” – St. Augustine says that this statement of St. Paul “ . . . does not mean that He will condemn no one . . . “ (18:XXXI)

Conclusion

The false position on mercy has come be called the “universalist heresy,” the heresy that all persons will be saved due to God’s mercy, and that a God who is merciful will not condemn anyone to an eternal hell. If the words “No one is condemned forever” stand as written and promulgated, without change or explanation, then they are a statement of the universalist heresy.

30

Male Priests Only; Can This Command of The Lord Be Disobeyed?

Before He ascended into heaven, Jesus commanded that only males were to receive His sacrament of Holy Orders – ordination as deacon, priest, and bishop. Before the first Pentecost, the birth day of His Church, Jesus commanded that only males, and not females, could receive His sacrament of Holy Orders.

With only the eleven remaining Apostles present, before His ascension, He ordered the Apostles to “go to the mountain” which He designated and there He said to them: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. “ (Mt 28:19-20).

Can the Commands Of The Lord regarding the male-only priesthood now be disobeyed ?

Males Only

The constant Church teaching on the males-only-priesthood Command Of The Lord, since the first century, is reflected in current Canon Law: “A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.”   (Canon 1024; Code of  Canon Law, 1983). Papal teaching has always held, proclaimed and made clear what Pope St. John Paul II said in his apostolic letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994):

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful”

This statement by Pope St. John Paul is in accord with the conditions for an infallible statement and is clearly worded in such a manner.

Failed Ordination Attempts

A rebel bishop lays hands on a woman, says the words of the Sacrament of Holy Orders for deacons, correctly; says all the prayers, performs all the associated gestures and ritual. He then says, “I have just conferred on this woman the Sacrament of Holy Orders and she is now an ordained deacon!” A dissident archbishop lays hands on a woman, Jane Doe, goes through the required rubrics, says the mandated prayers and words, and does the stipulated gestures and actions, and declares, “I have ordained this woman to the priesthood. She is now Father Doe.”

To any of these fictional scenarios, add this: “But my bishops conference said this was legitimate, this is OK, this is valid, and that I can do this.” Or, purely hypothetically, fantastic as it may sound, ratchet this up a few more ecclesial notches, “But the Pope said this is in accord with his magisterial teaching and that now women can be ordained deacons and priests.”

The woman is not a deacon.   Why not?  Jane Doe is not Father Jane. Why not? The hypothetical episcopal and papal changes and validations had no effect. Why not?

What Actually Happened ?

To answer these ‘Why not?’ questions, beginning in the beginning is always a good place to begin.

History is important here.  Did the Church, after it came into existence on the first Pentecost, after it then received the Holy Spirit, did it form a Committee On Getting Grace To Flow from Jesus to His Christians? Did it hold a synod with 10% of the Apostles to create ways to bring God’s life to people ? Did this new Church develop rituals, signs, regulations, prayers, and rubrics for the Church ? Did the Church set all this out and make it subject to change in the future by a group of bishops, by a pope in concert with a council, or even by a pope alone?

The chronology in fact was this: in time, the sacraments came first, then the Church. Jesus made and gifted us with His sacraments before He ascended into heaven, before the first Pentecost. Before His Church was instituted, Jesus gave us his words, directives, instructions, laws, limitations, orders, His “commands,” regarding His seven sacraments, including His sacrament of Priesthood.

What Is a Sacrament ?

Catechisms have answered the question:  ‘What is a sacrament?’ :

Baltimore Catechism No. 1, 1885 A.D. : “A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 A.D. :  The seven sacraments are “this treasure from the Lord.” (1117). Quoting from the Council of Trent, 1547 A.D.: “Adhering to the teaching of Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consensus . . . of the Fathers,” we profess that “the sacraments of the new law were . . . all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1114).

This is the clear and unambiguous teaching of the Church, including that of Vatican II: “ They [the sacraments] must always however be referred to Christ, from whom their effectiveness derives . . . Of themselves, they certainly express the effective will of Christ the Savior  . . ..  (from the General Catechetical Directory, paras, 55, 56, published by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy,  in accord with the directive in the Vatican II Council’s Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church). 

The Sacrament of Holy Orders

Two keys to understanding the Sacrament of Holy Orders from these definitions are: 1.  that Jesus made the sacraments; and 2. they are gifts to us from Him. As His gifts, the sacraments are not mere incidental unimportant signs that the Church now today can substantially change – the Church must take them as Jesus has given them. Pope Pius XII, in accord with the teachings of the Council of Trent, stated, “The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments, that is to say, over what Christ the Lord, as the sources of Revelation bear witness, determined should be maintained in the sacramental sign.” (Sacramentum Ordinis, No. 5).

Through All Church History

Holy Scripture, the tradition of the Church, and the constant teaching of the Church for now almost two millennia is that Jesus commanded that only males would be His priests, that females can not be ordained bishops, priests, or deacons.

Scripture

Only twelve males were selected by Jesus as the first Apostles. When Jesus said “He who receives you receives me,” He sent out only males. Only the twelve Apostles were present at the Last Supper when He instituted the sacrament of Holy Orders and, by His command, ordered them, and only them, to do what He was doing in remembrance of Him, to act as priests in persona Christi in re-presenting Jesus’s sacrifice to His Father.

Although some women witnessed to the Resurrection, Jesus did not make them Apostles. Only males were considered as replacement for the Apostle Judas. When, at the end of Matthew’s gospel, Jesus tells the remaining eleven Apostles that they must do what He has commanded, no women are present.

St. Paul, recognizing that in Christ there is neither male no female, still is inspired by God to write that what he is saying about order in the Church, including the male-only priesthood, is not simply his own personal opinion, a personal directive, or a church custom, but is a “command of the Lord” already in effect:

“Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored.(1 Cor 14:36-38).

Church Fathers

Throughout Church history, through and past the Middle Ages, the Church Fathers, scholars, and theologians uphold the Command of the Lord that women cannot be ordained as bishops, priests, or deacons. “Whenever the Church Fathers have occasion to speak, directly or indirectly, about ‘women in the priesthood,’ they reject it clearly and unanimously.” (Hauke, p. 425).

Two Milllenia

“In fact, ordination of women has been rejected in the Church with remarkable unanimity throughout two thousand years. This testimony is all the more impressive when – above all during the early period in Church history – it stands in contrast to existing ‘emancipatory’ trends. If women are ordained among the heretics or even if they only take on official teaching or baptismal duties, then such behavior is branded not only as a breach of Church discipline, but as heresy.” (Fr. Manfred Hauke, Women in the Priethood? Ignatius Press, 1988, p. 478).

“In sum, the Tradition has been so firm throughout the centuries that, as  Inter Insigniores, no. 8 notes, “the Magisterium has not felt the need to intervene in order to formulate a principle which was not attacked, or to defend a law that was not challenged. … each time that this tradition had the occasion to manifest itself, it witnessed to the Church’s desire to conform to the model left to her by the Lord.” [Inter Insigniores,  Declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, On the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood, 1976]. But of course such principles and laws have been challenged in the past thirty years. Hence, the recent Magisterium has had to respond, and it has done so carefully, patiently and firmly. (Mark Lowery, The Male Priesthood the Argument From Tradition,  https://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/MALEPRIE.TXT.).

But . . .

All of the law, Holy Scripture, tradition, magisterial declarations, documents, treatises, reasoning, history,  teachings, and Jesus’s words themselves make no difference to those who now demand that women be ordained, first deacons, then priests, eventually as bishops, and finally, some day, a female pope. Their response to the Command Of The Lord that His priests will only be males and that women will not be priests is one of:

  1. There is no such Command
  2. There is such a Command, but it does not apply today
  3. There is such a Command, but it can be ignored
  4. There is such a Command, but it can be disobeyed
  5. There is such a Command, but it must be disobeyed
  6. There is such a Command, but it can and must be reinterpreted today
  7. There is such a Command, but a pope can countermand it
  8. There is [or is not] such a Command, and there are exceptions; there were female deacons, “deaconesses,” who were ordained; and there were female “apostles”
  9. Right, justice, social justice, equality, recent research, and/or good, and/or the changing times, demand that women be ordained deacons and priests

Full treatments of such positions, and the reasons that they are wrong, can be reviewed in detail in the Hauke and Lowery works cited above, and in Eamon Keane’s The Ordained Priesthood, at https://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/ORDAINED.TXT.

Conclusion

It is not possible to put in words this author’s debts to  Fr. Hauke, Dr. Lowery, and Mr. Keane – whose works are cited above – for the information and sources on the Command Of The Lord regarding male only priests. Of course, none of them is responsible for anything said here.

Why say it?  There was a time when the faithful heard that there was going to be a Synod on the Family, and what was expected was a discussion of glorious, sharing heterosexual marriage between a loving man and a loving woman, and the joys of children. In truth and reality, as it turned out, the event was explicitly a Sin-od on Virtuous Adultery and, by implication, a Sin-od on loving virtuous sinful relationships of all types. It was also a vehicle for the proclamation of new teaching, including that the reception of Holy Communion by continuing adulterous sinners is permissible, and that the  ecclesial community must “integrate” such ongoing, public sinners into the active life of the Church.

The faithful have now been alerted to what is termed a Synod ostensibly dealing with youth and “vocations.”  Based on how things have been going, it seemed  a good time to make clear that Jesus gave His Church a command that men alone will receive His sacrament of Holy Orders;  that women cannot and will not be ordained, priests, deacons, or bishops; and  His Church will never have a female pope.

3

Abortion Ended Worldwide Forever – Loving People Teamed Up With God

 

by Guy McClung

 

 

That will be the headline someday. No discussion, no debate, no other possible outcome. God is Almighty, “Patrem Omnipotentem,” the unborn babies are His children, He never forsakes His own. It may be the most classic case of Texas Horse & Rabbit Stew [Recipe: 1 horse, 1 rabbit], but God + Us cannot be beaten. We plus God win; not “if,” but “when.”  That wished-for and prayed-for headline will someday be the truth.

 

A real headline  recently announced “PLANNED PARENTHOOD TEAMS UP WITH SATANISTS TO PROMOTE ABORTION IN MISSOURI.” Really? Well, finally, Planned Parenthood is publicly proclaiming what it has been all along. Now it admits and says it does not matter that this is a human child, and now it is refreshingly candid about abortion  – “Let’s-all-dance-and-celebrate-baby-killings” – so it is no surprise that Planned Parenthood has decided to also flaunt publicly its for-decades-deal with the devil. Don’t they know that the Father Of Lies never keeps a deal? Don’t they know what happens when the demons face off against Jesus and His Mom? I seem to remember something along the lines of “head crushing” and the opening up of a large can of good ole spiritual Texas whup butt.

 

When you calm down after reading the recent headline, you realize that each person – including each Planned Parenthood executive, nurse, doctor, technician, administrator, supporter, and employee – is made by God in His image, He wants each of them back with Him; and He will do everything in His almighty power ‘til they draw their last breaths to welcome them home with Him. So – once you get past the disgust, anger, and revulsion – there must be prayers for each and every one of these Planned Parenthood people. Otherwise, the Father of Lies and his demonic minions will rejoice over their suffering souls for all eternity.

 

John Newton, former slave ship captain, (1725-1807 A.D.) became an Anglican priest and wrote the hymn “Faith’s Review & Expectation,” which has come to be known by its first words, “Amazing Grace.” Newton, who was instrumental in the shipment and sale of what to him were once profitable subhuman blobs of living cells (not just parts, but whole living breathing human beings), had a conversion. The role of God’s grace in that conversion is the theme of his famous hymn.

 

That grace is the life of God Himself, and each unborn child has this Life. Thank you to John Newton for the inspiration for the song below about God’s creatures whom some regard as subhumans, not entitled to God’s love, or to His life. God plans all parenthood, and each of His unborn babies – sweet, unique, special, loved –  is our hope. Each of these children will live from now on forever, and each of them blesses all of us.

 

Unborn Grace

 

Unborn, unborn grace, how sweet this child,

A gift from God above.

A precious child since first conceived,

Bright shining star of love.

 

‘Twas grace made this tiny heart to sing,

And grace keeps it beating on.

Amazing child, unique in all of time,

Amazing, wondrous song.

 

The Lord has promised love to us,

This child that hope secures.

This child a blessing here for all of us,

As long as life endures.

 

Unborn, unborn grace, how sweet this child,

A gift from God above.

A precious child since first conceived,

Bright shining star of love.

 

© Copyright Guy McClung 2017

The author grants a royalty-free license to sing this song at abortion businesses, abortion clinics, abortion hospitals, Planned Parenthood abortion business locations,  at any offices and events of Planned Parenthood and of any abortion provider, and at any location where abortions have been or are being committed.