California Assembly Bill Would Ban Bible, Most Books on Christian Morality……. April 24, 2018
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Bible, cultural marxism, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, unbelievable BS.comments closed
…….or anything that has to do with opposition to the “sacred” act of sodomy, one of the sacraments of the sexular pagan religion (along with abortion – the anti-baptism, “gay marriage” – the anti-matrimony, and others). A new bill under consideration in the California Assembly purports to ban any book or publication that inveighs against the acts of Sodom and Gomorrah and those who choose to define themselves by those same acts. Thus the Bible could quite easily – and predictably – be found beyond the scope of state-approved literature, since there are of course nearly 20 clear denunciations of sodomy and the lifestyle associated with it in both the Old and New Testaments.
Of course, the radical Left that is pushing this bill claims that the old fuddy-duddy Christofascists are wrong again, postulating slippery slopes where none exist. But based on how previous bills have been used to ban opposition to sexual license, or punish bakers and florists who refuse to service a same-sex couple’s pretense of a wedding, my money will be on this very broadly worded bill being yet another attempt by the Left to force Christians out of the public square and deep underground. Which may well be the very best thing that could happen to a Faith that has become lazy and complacent, so if it were not for the damage that would result, one could almost say bring it on:
If liberal lawmakers in California get their way, that west coast state may be one step closer to being unrecognizable as part of the United States. A bill currently pending in the legislature would essentially ban the sale of books that include traditional Christian views on marriage and sexuality.
Shockingly, the proposed law could even be construed to make it illegal to sell Bibles, since they include verses that the far left finds unacceptable.
“Assembly Bill 2943 would make it an ‘unlawful business practice’ to engage in ‘a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer’ that advertise, offer to engage in, or do engage in ‘sexual orientation change efforts with an individual,’” explained National Review.
That’s a lot of legalese to digest, so let’s break it down. What the bill basically says is that anything that can be seen as trying to impact a person’s sexual orientation would be illegal to sell or offer. [Looking even farther down the road, it is not inconceivable to foresee an attempt to define church services as a kind of “transaction” and thus also open to meddling by a segment of the population that never sees any need for limits to the state’s power – when used against their enemies]
This would almost certainly include traditional Christian counseling services and books.
“The bill then defines ‘sexual orientation change efforts’ as ‘any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex,” continued National Review (emphasis added). [And you can see how this is really about imposing a wholly new, and totally hostile, moral order on the state/country. The rights of unrepentant sodomites trump those of repentant ones. Anything that alludes to Christianity can and must be suppressed and persecuted. “Bu- bu-but tax write offs for church donations! That proves there is no persecution!” Uh huh. That will be one of the final steps, once all the other institutional supports for Christianity have been not just removed, but inverted and turned into means of persecution.]
“Efforts to change behaviors” is where the real problem is. After all, almost all counseling and even common psychiatric care are intended to “change behaviors” in various ways.
If you think about it, that’s the entire reason people seek help in the first place: They want to stop drinking or becoming angry or, yes, having troubling thoughts about their sexuality.
It’s also worth pointing out that the bill as written would apply to people who are trying to change their own behavior. This would mean that if a person was struggling with same-sex behavior or sexual identity and they themselves wanted to change, it would be illegal for them to buy any book meant to help them with this……… [Of course. Because sodomites want to be told that their sin is an unalloyed good, and nothing may be permitted that undermines that belief.]
……….You don’t even have to particularly agree with the Bible verses mentioned here to see the problem. Efforts like the proposed bill represent dangerous slippery slopes that would use the legislature to attack traditional beliefs, and even mainstream views that happen to be at odds with the far-left agenda.
If nothing else, it’s an affront to the free exchange of ideas — yes, even ones that someone might dislike — and a censorship of speech.
“No one doubts that (Christianity’s) teachings on sexual morality are increasingly unpopular,” summarized National Review. “But they remain constitutionally protected, and no state legislature should be permitted to ban a ‘good’ (such as a book) or a ‘service’ (like counseling) that makes these arguments and provides them to willing, consenting consumers.”
It’s amazing that the same liberals who bemoan “government in the bedroom” eagerly jump at the chance to give the same government control over sexual and moral topics the moment it helps their cause.
“No government in the bedroom” was always a convenient lie. Just like “born that way,” “safe, legal, and rare,” and “federal government involvement in schools won’t lead to politicization.” All these statements have simply been means to an end, a wedge to use against Christians in the public eye as a means to split unthinking people from core cultural/social beliefs that evolved over centuries to produce that great construct known as Christendom, by far the greatest culture the world has ever known. It was all as hypocritical and cynical as hell, but that’s how they’ve managed to subvert the culture almost totally, while their opposition – in a sense rightly – preferred to adhere to their principles and clutched their collective pearls at it all.
Blessed Are the Meek – But Who Are the Meek? Cornelius A Lapide Tells Us March 22, 2018
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, reading, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.comments closed
I’ve been reading – slowly – The Great Commentary by Cornelius a’ Lapide, in the Loreto Press version with the introduction by none other than Charles Coulombe. It’s an excellent if exhaustive biblical commentary. I can see why it is so often used by traditional priests – there are insights to Scripture I’ve never seen anywhere else, though a few are dated (like the medical references to the latest 16th century medicine).
Nevertheless, it’s an excellent if expensive biblical commentary. I strongly recommend it.
As I said, it’s an exhaustive commentary, a’ Lapide does not manage to cover all of St. Matthew’s Gospel in a single 600 page volume (not including a ~130 page introduction). In fact, he doesn’t even make it halfway. Sometimes it does get a bit draggy into really minute detail. Overall, however, it’s the best Catholic biblical commentary available in English, at least until someone finishes translating Bellarmine, which hopefully Ryan Grant is working on (Mediatrix Press, by the way, has a 10% off sale for Lent. It’s a good time to save).
I haven’t done enough Lenten content this year due to circumstances, but here’s a nice exegesis on Saint Matthew Chapter V verse 4, Blessed are the Meek. But who is meek, and what is meekness? Aside from Christ’s exhortation to be meek, what role does meekness play in God’s plan for our salvation? Divine Intimacy certainly provides many answers, but these from a’ Lapide are quite worth sharing, as well. I pray you find this useful:
Fittingly are the meek conjoined to the poor in spirit, because the poor and lowly are wont to be meek, as vice versa, the rich and the proud are often impatient and quarrelsome. Poverty and meekness are neighbors, and related virtues………For “the meek,” says Chromatius, are “those who are gentle, humble, modest, simple in faith, patient under all injury, who set themselves to follow the precepts of the Gospel and imitate the Lord’s example of meekness. Therefore, the meek are those who rule over impatience, anger, envy, vengefulness, and other disturbances and troubled movements of the soul, and do not murmur against God when He permits adversity, nor become indignant at injuries caused by neighbors, nor seek revenge upon those who harm them, but bear all things placidly in God’s providence, who orders all these things to His glory and for their salvation, when they practice resignation and acquiesce in them. This is why the meek, by the sweetness of their manners, reconcile to themselves the souls of all.
Christ alludes to what David says in Psalm xxxvi:11, The meek shall inherit the land, and shall delight in abundance of peace.
Meekness, therefore, makes us 1. pleasing to God and men 2. like Christ, Who says, Learn of Me, because I am meek, and humble in heart (Matt xi:29), 3. apt for wisdom and gaining celestial goods. For capable of receiving these is the heart which is meek, placid, and tranquil, as Psalm xxiv:9 says: He will guide the mild in judgment: He will teach the meek His ways.
The grades of meekness and the beatitude consequent upon it are these: 1. To converse with all with a meek heart and lips. 2. To break the anger of others by a meek reply. 3. To bear with gentleness all injuries and wrongs. 4. To rejoice in being injured and wronged. 5. By our meekness and kindness to overcome the malevolence of our enemies and those who are angry with us, and win them to be our friends. [This is very hard to do, especially in our proud and selfish age, where we are taught in ways subtle and gross to always exalt the self, to always get what we want, when we want it, and to take great offense if we do not. But this is not the way of Christ, or of the great Christendom that existed for many centuries. I count myself at the head of the list of those who fail in meekness.]
Finally, Climacus gives the reason, indeed several reasons, why the meek are blessed when he says: “Meekness is the helpmate of obedience, the leader of religious community, a curb to those who steal, a power that expels the wrathful, the teacher of joy, the imitator of Christ, the property of the heavenly, fetters and bonds of demons, a shield against bitterness and harshness of spirit. The Lord rests in the hearts of the meek. The turbulent soul is the nest of the devil. The meek shall inherit the earth, or better, shall rule the lands, while the furious shall be driven our out of their lands……….
[This last bit is not entirely related, but it was so good i had to include it]……..Moses promised earthly goods to the Jews, but Christ promised heavenly goods to Christians.
Better and fuller with St. Jerome – by earth in this place, understand Heaven, which is the land of the living, since this earth is the land of the dying, as it is said in Psalm xxvi: “I believe to see the good things of the Lord in the land of the living.” [so meekness is a necessary to be with God in Heaven]
————End Quote———–
I think that’s it for today. I’m sure enjoying a Lapide – I only wish I had more time to read, to soak up this glorious Faith of ours, which always seems, providentially, to provide an answer to one’s yearnings, even if those yearnings were unrecognized. Sometimes you don’t know what you need, or what really hurts, until God shows it to you. May He be forever praised!
God bless you!
So I Had to Break My Mom’s Heart Today…….. March 1, 2018
Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Bible, Domestic Church, family, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Interior Life, martyrdom, mortification, sadness, Tradition.comments closed
…….and hurt my dad, as well. I probably also permanently terminated any chance of having a relationship with my sister, which relation has already been horribly strained due largely to my traditional Catholic Faith (and other matters) over the past 7-8 years.
My family, and my wife’s family, are polar opposites. My wife’s family is Catholic, mine is protestant. My wife has 60 nieces and nephews, I have one niece. That niece is to be married in April to a fallen away Catholic from Mexico. They are being married outside the Church. I did not ask, but I was told he was fallen away. Well from then on we simply could not attend the wedding, and I dreaded having to break the news, because family is probably the most important thing in this world to my mom especially, and this would break her heart. But I spoke with every priest at the parish and they were unanimous – no, I cannot attend a religious wedding/simulation of the Sacrament of Matrimony involving a Catholic.
There is a dim hope he was not actually baptized, but it’s exceedingly unlikely.
So we cannot attend. And my family does not understand. I barely understand, but I know I just can’t do it. And because family means so much to my mom, and because, aside from my wife and I’s 7 kids, the family is so small, everything tends to get magnified to the Nth degree. But the issue from a doctrinal standpoint is totally clear – I cannot support a Catholic in committing an act of grave sin against the Faith. I certainly could not confuse and scandalize my children by involving them, and their presence is practically the whole point to my mom.
So I really hurt my parent’s feelings, which I absolutely did not want to do, and they cannot comprehend why. That’s the reason I’m sharing this here, because they’re right, 99.5% of Catholics in the US today would go ahead and go to the outdoor “wedding” ceremony. Who am I to say I am so right? How can I hold myself up as such a prideful elitist looking down on other Catholics and all other Christians? Heck Francis himself would probably castigate me as a vicious sinner for failing to go, calling me to make human hearts happy as the highest end. And yet the Truth remains………
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at strife against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.
So do not let it be said that my faith in Jesus Christ, flawed and as imperfect as it is, has not cost me anything. It has cost me dear, and cost others as well, people whom I love who do not share this faith of mine and who I have to hurt because of my faith. But this is one of the moments that, to me, defines whether one really believes or not. Am I willing to stand with Christ, to choose Christ over even mother or father or sister or niece, all of whom are so very dear to me? I pray I am. I can tell you, there were several times during the unfortunate scene today when I wanted to cave in, and one time very nearly did. But in the end, I could not.
I am very sorry for that, in fact it’s been a brutal experience, but I can do no other than what I feel in conscience I must. I write this here, because I felt that if anyone would understand, you would.
May God have mercy on us all for our human failings. And may He in His infinite benevolence bring about a miracle of conversion for all my family so that we may all be united fully in Faith and charity.
Handy Refutations of protestantism and Modern Errors from Sacred Scripture January 31, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, different religion, Ecumenism, error, Francis, General Catholic, paganism, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Virtue.comments closed
Saint Matthew Chapter xiii verses 11-13, to be exact. The verses are directly below, followed by handy commentary from Fr. George Leo Haydock. Some brief and powerful refutations of protestant errors are contained in the commentary, and I think very strong, almost prophetic refutations of modern errors can easily be extrapolated from the commentary for verse 13, including those promoted by the clique surrounding the Bishop of Rome, as he frequently styles himself. I add a few comments of my own:
11 He answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.
12 *For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound, but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.
13 Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Commentary from verse 11 (edited in some respects):
To you it is given. The mysteries of the kingdom of God are not disclosed to the Scribes and Pharisees, who were unwilling to believe in Him, (though it was the duty and occupation of the Scribes to expound the sacred oracles to others) but to those who adhered closely to Christ, and believed in Him: let us therefore run in company with the apostles to Jesus Christ, that He may disclose to us the mysteries of His gospel. (St. Thomas Aquinas) — Can we then suppose, for a single moment, that the mere putting of a Bible into every man’s hand, will convert the world. The command given to the apostles and their successors in the ministry is, Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, &c. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world. (St. Matthew xxviii. 20). There is not a single word to them about writing.During 2,500 years, from Adam to Moses, were the patriarchal families and other servants of God in a state of ignorance, concerning either the positive instructions of the Almighty respecting the sabbath-day, the rites of sacrifice, or their moral duties? Yet there was no Scripture during all that period. For more than 400 years after Jesus Christ, the canon of Scripture, as now generally received by Protestants, remained unsettled. Had the apostles and evangelists done nothing more than publish their writings, and disseminate them to every pagan country, not a single nation, not a single pagan, would have abandoned their gods to believe in a crucified Jesus.
Now the commentary from verse 12:
But he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath. We read again, (Matthew xxv. 29.) That also which he seemeth to have, shall be taken away; and in St. Luke, (Chap. viii. 18.) That also which he thinketh he hath. One passage helps to expound another: so that each of these texts, with a little reflection, will be found true; and such a truth, as ought to be a subject of fear and apprehension to all that are negligent and indolent in the service of God. For, as St. Augustine observes, they who have received graces and favours from God, and have not made good use and profited by them, they may be said not to have them, although they are not yet taken from them. And why but because they make no more use of them, than if they had them not. See the parables of the talents, Matthew xxv, and Luke xix. (Witham) — He that hath, to him shall be given the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God. But such as are incredulous, and resist my words, like the Pharisees and other Jews, so far from being enriched with my spiritual gifts in my kingdom, shall even be deprived of the benefits they now possess. Thus the Jews were deprived of their temple, priesthood, kingdom, and even the true worship of God. (St. Jerome) [And so we may fear the human element of the Church may be deprived of much, if it continues to stray from right belief and worthy worship of God. Yay, perhaps even Rome itself may be overrun by the heathen.] — They rejected Jesus Christ, the fountain and corner-stone of virtue; all therefore they had acquired, or possessed, shall be taken from them, and given to the apostles. (St. Jerome) — Whoever has a desire of complying with the divine precepts, that desire shall not only be increased, but all other virtues shall be added unto him; but if he be devoid of this desire, the virtues he already possesses, or seems to possess, shall be taken from him, not that God will deprive him of these without cause, but he will render himself unworthy of them. (St. Chrysostom)
And the final commentary from verse 13:
Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, &c. This passage, by which the prophet Isaias (vi. 9.) was ordered to foretell the obstinate blindness of the Jews, in refusing to receive and believe in their Messias, is cited six times in the New Testament; to wit, here in St. Matthew, also Mark iv. 14[12?]; Luke viii. 10; John xii. 40; Acts xxviii. 26; and Romans xi. 8. In all these places we must detest the false interpretation of those who, not without heresy and blasphemy, would have God to be the author and cause of sin. [And yet isn’t this heresy and blasphemy rife in the Church today, even, I might say especially, among the hierarchy, when they pretend that God does not provide sufficient Grace to souls to overcome sins like fornication and adultery, who claim it is “too difficult” to abstain from grievous sin when one is in “difficult circumstances?” Is this not virtually the entirety of the “Franciscan” moral program, proclaiming to the world that God is fine with sin and fails to provide the means to overcome it? I agree with Father Haydock, such claims should be detested for the hideous blasphemy and heresy they are] When it is said, (Isaias vi. 9.) blind the heart of this people, &c. the prophet is only commanded to foretell their blindness, of which, by their willful obstinacy, they were the true cause. And when we read in St. Mark, that to those that are without, all things are done in parables, that seeing they may see, and not see, &c. the word that does not signify the cause, nor the end, but only the event, and the consequence of what would happen by the willful blindness of the Jews, and by the just permission of God. St. Matthew here expounds to us the words of the prophet, by which it clearly appears that they were the cause of their own blindness; and that, by their obstinacy, they had made themselves unworthy of particular lights from God. For the heart of this people (ver. 18.[15.?]) is grown gross … and their eyes they have shut, &c. The Jews therefore shut their own eyes, hardened their own hearts, which God only permitted. [Has God not permitted a similar blindness to descend upon the minds and hearts of the progressive modernists in the Church?] — If this blindness were natural, then indeed I would have opened their eyes to see and understand, but since this blindness is voluntary, he says, that seeing they see not, and hearing, they hear not; i.e. they have seen me cast out devils, and they said, in Beelzebub he casteth out devils; they heard I drew all to God, and they say, this man cometh not from God. Since, therefore, they assert the very contrary to what they both see and hear, the gift of seeing and hearing me shall be taken away from them.
———End Quote———-
Regarding that last, ominous statement, this occurs to men when they have chosen lies over truth, sin over virtue, for so very long, God allows their sense of faith to become so corrupted they are said to develop a contrary sense, a diabolical sense – the reprobate sense. I would not hazard to guess whether individual souls are afflicted with this terrible, almost always irreversible state – readers may draw their own inferences as they like – but I would say there is serious danger of a general reprobate sense descending upon the great mass of people who claim the name Catholic. That would be if they continue to accept the protestantization of the Church, other modern errors, and the immorality rampant in our times. Such is to be greatly feared and lamented, so disastrous it would be not only for the souls in question, but for the entire Church and world.
Take this as a corollary to Fr. Rodriguez’ excellent video from yesterday, which I highly recommend all of you to watch. Anyone attached to the Traditional Latin Mass and the traditional practice of the Faith will be enormously impressed by Father’s catechesis, and his strident denunciations of the heresies, blasphemies, and impurities which have deeply invaded the (human element of the) Body of Christ.
Some Classic Refutations of protestant Errors on the Bible January 16, 2017
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Interior Life, priests, reading, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.comments closed
From the Preface to the New Testament in the Haydock Study Bible, some excellent commentary on common protestant claims regarding Sacred Scripture as the sole rule of faith under the private interpretation of each individual (or the leader of each sect, as is more typical). Much of the commentary below comes from Archbishop Rene Fenelon. All of it is great. Some of the key points addressed below:
- The absolute need for a sole authority to settle questions of Scripture
- The extreme danger that results from private interpretation and the pride that inspires this interpretation
- The error of protestant use of supposedly superior knowledge of the Bible against Catholics as a weapon to rend souls from the Church, when in fact they simply twist Scripture to their own ends. Those souls would be far better off with a Catechism than a panoply of biblical studies.
- Scripture cannot be the sole rule of Faith
Begin quote:
If there be no infallible authority, which may say to us all, “this is the true meaning of the holy Scripture:how can we expect that illiterate peasants, or simple mechanics, should engage in a discussion wherein the learned themselves cannot agree? God would have been wanting to the necessities of almost all men, if, when he gave them a written law, he had not at the same time provided them a sure interpreter, to spare them the necessity of research, of which they are utterly incapable. Every man of common understanding has need of nothing more than a sincere sense of his ignorance, to see the absurdities of the sects, who build their separation from the Catholic Church upon the privilege of deciding on matters far above their comprehension. [Or even if not above their comprehension, per se, we still see the effect of private interpretation in the proliferation of warring sects, each holding a different view of various parts of Scripture and their meaning. Most of those have to be wrong. And in point of fact, much of protestant Scripture “scholarship” is nothing of the sort but simply an exercise of ex post facto effort to twist Scripture to find in it the doctrines they’ve already decided upon, as Luther and Calvin did in identifying “total depravity” as a rule of Scripture in order to justify the elimination of works as necessary for salvation and thus most of the 10 Commandments] Ought we then to hearken to the new reformers, who require what is impossible; or to the ancient Church, which provides for the weakness of our nature?” If we listen to the former, we should soon be found to resemble those men of latter days, who St. Paul tells us to avoid: ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of truth; (2 Timothy chap. iii. ver. 7,) because they trust to their own lights, and not to the visible authority appointed by Jesus Christ. How evident does all this speak for itself, when we behold a Voltaire extracting mental poison from the Song of Solomon; or, another Cromwell reading to a ruthless soldiery God’s ordinances concerning the smiting of the Ammonites and Chanaanites, in order to induce them to kill every Catholic, man, woman, and child; or the fanatic, maintaining from the Revelations, that no king is to be obeyed but King Jesus; or, finally, when we hear those dangerous comments of our modern Moravian and Antinomian Methodists on St. Paul’s Epistles, importing, that they being made free by Jesus Christ, are not subject to any law either of God or man. Surely, in such cases, it would be advisable, if possible, to withdraw the Bible from every such profaner of it; and instead of it, to put into his hands the Catechism, in which he would find the bread of God’s word, broken and prepared for his weak digestion, by those prelates to whom this duty particularly belongs. This the Protestant owns, when he finds the Socinian [Society of Friends – Quakers] abusing private interpretation, by repeatedly citing and expounding the sacred text against the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the Presbyterian against the episcopacy……
……..The learned Walton (Prolegom. chap. iv. 56,) asserts, what every one versed in antiquity must allow, that “some parts of the New Testament were doubted of for some ages, till at length by consent of the whole Church, all the Books, as they are read at present, were received and approved.” [Indeed. The Canon of Scripture was settled by the Church. The protestants accept all of the New Testament canon, even though Luther wanted to exclude at least the Catholic Epistle of James because it was too contrary to his new doctrine. He was only prevented from doing so by allies of his due to human concerns – rejecting portions of the New Testament so long settled would cause even more division and scandal and undermine his new sect. But from a standpoint of logic, the protestants have no reason not to exclude all manner of books from Old or New Testament, nor to add works like the Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of Thomas, or the Shepherd of Hermas – they have rejected Authority in favor of their own private judgment to arrive at answers predetermined in advance, so why not use these other works? The only reason they do not has to do with human concern, e.g., what people would think] Here then we see that for a chief proof of the inspiration, authenticity, and due rendering of the word of God, we are referred to the general consent of Christians; therefore Scripture, though the rule of faith and life, cannot be the whole rule;since from Scripture alone, an exact canon of the sacred books cannot by human art be learned…………
………St. Augustine goes so far as to say: I would not believe the gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not determine me. (Epis. cont. Fund. chap. v, n. 6.) “This, says Fenelon, is the most simple, short, and decisive of all controversies.”……..[This is the key. Scripture has authority because the Church determined it to have it, not the other way around. It was the Church that predated the Canon of Scripture or indeed any individual Gospel or Letter. Tradition ultimately is greater than Scripture, and it is a sad testimony that far too many priests and bishops today, cowed by supposed protestant knowledge of the Bible, mimic their arguments in favor of Scripture, turning reading the Bible into an end in itself rather than as simply being the support and basis for what the Church believes. Priests would be far better off advising the souls in their charge to read a solid Catechism like the Catechism of the Council of Trent or This Is The Faith than the Bible, honestly. Mind, I am not discouraging those sound in the Faith from reading the Bible, I read it every day, but I am saying that in this time when so few people are really able to understand much of Scripture, and with the proliferation, especially in this country, of erroneous protestant biblical studies, and very aggressive “bible study groups” seeking to make converts of poorly formed Catholics, that it is more prudent to first form souls deeply in the Faith before turning them loose on Scripture.]
………..There are such inimitable instructions in the five letters of Fenelon, to a lady who wished to be admitted a member of the Catholic Church, that a brief analysis of the same cannot but be very acceptable to the biblical scholar: — In the first, the prelate shews that there can be but one true religion, and one only Church, the spouse of Jesus Christ. Our Lord would have only one; men are not entitled to make more. Religion is not the work of human reasoning; but it is our duty to receive it, such as it has been given us from above. One man may reason with another man, but with God we have only to pray, to humble ourselves, listen, be silent, and blindly follow. This sacrifice of reason is the only proper use we can make of it, weak and contracted as it is. Every consideration must yield, when the supreme reason decides…….. [Awesome]
……..In the second, he shews the necessity of a visible authority. Religion, he says, is all humility. The mysteries are given us to subdue the pride of reason, by making us believe what we cannot comprehend. Without this authority, the Scripture can only serve to nourish our curiosity, presumption, jealousy of opinions, and passion for scandalous disputes: there would be but one text, but as may interpretations as religions, and as many religions as heads……..
……..In the third, he teaches how to hear the Church, and to obey it without any apprehension of error. The infallible promises of God are our surety. He tells the lady, if she wish for any reform, not to seek it, like Dissenters, out of the Church, but by frequently reverting back to her thoughts upon herself, and by reforming every thing amiss there; by subduing all that savours of self; by silencing the imagination, listening in silence to God, and imploring his grace for the perfect accomplishment of his will……….
……..In the fourth, he gives her comfort and instructions how to act under her trials. The kingdom of God suffers violence. We cannot die to ourselves without feeling it; but the hand that afflicts us, will be our support……..
………..In the fifth, he give excellent instructions, on the promises of Jesus Christ to his one true Church. He remarks the Jesus Christ does not say, if you will not hear the church of this country or that; he does not suppose a plurality of churches, but one universal Church, subsisting through all ages and nations, and which is to speak and to be obeyed from one extremity of the globe to the other. Not an invisible church composed of the elect only, but a Church that can be pointed out with a finger. A city elevated on the summit of a mountain, which all can see from a distance. Every one knows where to see, to find, and to consult her. She answers, she decides; we listen, and believe: and woe to those who refuse to believe and obey her: if he will not hear the Church, &c………
————-End Quote————-
Such sage wisdom! Thank God for providing us – even if in the somewhat distant past – shepherds whose cooperation with Grace and docility to the will of God inform all they said and make of them a great light to souls of this and every age. We live in a time when such souls are few, almost non-existent, among the men given the sacred charge of holding watch over the souls of millions, but we have the inestimable gift of Tradition and the wisdom of the past to guide us still, even in this our own faithless age. That is a gift beyond measure. And one that, in spite of herculean efforts on the part of modernists, cannot be taken away.
Love ≠ Moral Acceptance of People Doing Whatever They Want October 4, 2016
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Admin, Bible, Domestic Church, episcopate, error, family, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.comments closed
In all things I have tried to accord the conduct of my life and especially my belief to the Doctrine of the Faith as it is has been exculpated and practiced for centuries, especially the centuries prior to the modernist/leftist infiltration of the Church beginning in the early 20th century. I am more successful, probably, at the latter – the believing – than the practicing.
As I have mentioned numerous times in the past, I have radically altered many previously deeply held beliefs to be more in accord with the Doctrine of the Faith. A few examples of these:
- Contraception is always and everywhere wrong and gravely immoral – I used to not believe this
- Porn use/self-abuse are always and everywhere wrong and gravely immoral – ditto
- Usury, commonly found in capitalist systems, is always and everywhere wrong and gravely immoral – again, I changed
- The form of government established in the USA is fraught with moral problems and compromises that made our present inevitable. So I’ve gone from “USA is the greatest country that ever could be” to………..this thing is a very serious problem and is probably not fixable.
- Abortion is wanton murder of innocent life. There is never any justifiable reason for it – I used to be a bit squishy
- Jesus Christ exists whole and entire in the Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament of the altar – I always thought it a “symbol”
- Homeschooling is by far the best, and quite possibly the only moral, option for educating children in this day and age – I definitely found this weird
- Sacramental Confession is morally vital for salvation and must be frequently availed of
And the list goes on. I cannot stress how much of a rah-rah USA is the best typical Republican I used to be. That was a core part of my personality, my belief set (even while I had strangely contrary things going on in private). But having learned the Doctrine of the Faith and the myriad ways in which the USA, at its founding, was deliberately contrived to be very contrary to that Doctrine, I now see things very differently.
I was as attached to sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments as anyone could be. Those were, so to speak, my “original sins.” That kind of thing was my first addiction. And I went very, very far down a path of personal immorality and horrific abuses to which I was constantly wedded. I mean, this was a daily, almost constant occurrence. And this later manifested in other, worse things I won’t go into. You could even say that these sins were who I was, so profound a part of my identity they had become.
Obviously, they took many years of enormous pain and effort and sacrifice to overcome. I am by no means perfect in this regard, but I have completely altered my beliefs and almost totally successfully modified my behaviors, and have come to see, with grim realism, the evil that was involved in them, and the harm they did to myself and many others. I am leaving out scads and scads of details, which would shock and dismay most if not all readers. I have a very, very dark past.
But I am hardly unique. Most everyone in this fallen age, having to swim in the moral sewer we occupy, have had similar experiences. Some were more fortunate than others. Some were able to (largely) overcome their sins through much prayer and sacrifice by themselves and often others but basically kept their lives intact. Others have not been so fortunate, and have experienced divorce, collapse of business, etc., as a result of their attachment to sin.
We swim in a sea of lies. The primary one is that the culture, under the influence of leftist thought which has penetrated very deeply into the Church, purports that love = endorsing/approving of everything someone really really wants to do especially if it is of a sexual nature or somehow serves the agencies of the political-cultural Left. This is a total corruption of the proper understanding of love. Love, true love, must always, everywhere, be ordered to the eternal good of souls.
What we see described as “love” even by high-placed Church leaders is really a degraded form of sentimentality that is as pernicious as it is destructive. We absolutely must practice love/charity universally, but the modern world has twisted love from its roots in the salvation of souls to being something very perverse, requiring an endorsement or at least tacit acceptance of things that we know with absolute certainty will lead souls to eternal ruin.
This is not some made up belief I am proclaiming. These are not just my opinions. We have the divine words of Jesus Christ Himself to make this clear to us, as recorded inerrantly – without error – in Sacred Scripture.
Romans i:24-28, 32
24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, *to uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie: and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
27 And, in like manner the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge; God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient………
32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they, who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to them that do them
Matthew xviii:15-17
But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Matthew x:14:
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.
Matthew x:34-35
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. ForI came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
To sum up all the above, Saint Paul makes clear the continuation of the constant revelation in the Old Law against those sins which have always been judged by the Church to be particularly noxious for souls and offensive to God. Our Lord tells us very plainly that those who refuse the Doctrine of the Faith are to be excluded from the community of believers, and those who do so obstinately must even at some point be, in a manner of speaking, left apart. And of course Our Blessed Lord told us that His beliefs, which are so contrary to our fallen natures and the evil rulers of this world, would cause strife and division even within families.
ALL OF THIS IS BASED COMPLETELY ON LOVE. True love, that is, love ordered for the best eternal end of souls. That love may seem shockingly contrary to this fallen world and its lying “wisdom,” but it remains all the same.
The early Church was rife with confirmations of all these beliefs. The particular sins decried by Saint Paul were regarded with a particular revulsion by the early Church and were viewed as being particularly egregious. As I noted in another recent post, the martyrs wouldn’t even do something so small as burn a pinch of incense to the emperor. Do you think they turned a blind eye to sins that were so obviously and plainly denounced in the Bible?
What is outlined above is a very brief but also very holistic explanation of the nature of true love ordered for the salvation of souls. It is not sentimental. It is, from the eyes of a world that has become a past master at twisting Scripture to its own ends and finding souls eager to listen, “hard,” unfair, even.
There are many more aspects at play. Much of what we hear within and outside the Church is riven with overtones of moral blackmail. If you “judge,” you don’t love. This is so wrong as to be evil. What we see described as “love” even by high-placed Church leaders is really a degraded form of sentimentality that is as pernicious as it is destructive. We absolutely must practice love/charity universally, but the modern world has twisted love from its roots in the salvation of souls to being something very perverse, requiring an endorsement or at least tacit acceptance of things that we know with absolute certainty will lead souls to eternal ruin. “Love the sinner” has become “never question or correct the sin.” Especially with the particular sin we are discussing now, we are presented with a particularly reprehensible form of blackmail: either you endorse my lifestyle choices, or you do not love me. But in fact the highest act of love is to always work towards the eternal good of souls, which may, at times, require very painful choices.
The one great danger I have seen in these types of situations is that simple, tacit acceptance is rarely enough. There is always heavy pressure to transform that acceptance into full-throated endorsement. That is what has happened to the “Always Our Children” groups here in the Diocese. Whatever they might have been in the beginning, today, these are nothing but vehicles for the proclamation of the glories of perverse lifestyles and the squashing of all opposition.
There’s much more, but I’m running quite long as it is. One additional thing I’d like to bring up is that this blog takes a very strong stand on these matters, especially those related to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, for several reasons. For one, this blog has always been ordered primarily towards the confirmation of the faithful, and much less for those outside the Faith or wavering.
Secondly, I take a very strong stand and use sometimes harsh terms because manipulation of the language is probably the prime means by which the political-cultural Left and the perverse agenda has gained its many “victories.” Yes I decry these sins in terms many find harsh, shocking, and maddening, but it is done to provide a sort of counterweight to the many, many voices out there in the culture declaring 2+2=5, perversion of grace-filled faculties = love, and all the rest.
Finally, I believe God commands it. Many have deeply imbibed a very feminized, or probably better, demasculinized, understanding of the Faith, where the Christian must always been meek and surrendering. That’s not the way most Saints conducted themselves, especially prior to the protestant revolt. What some may believe is harsh uncharitability, others find to be badly needed clarity.
Anyway, perhaps this helps some folks understand a little better where I come from and why I do what I do. I have the zeal of the converted in more ways than most folk can probably imagine.
Language warning:
Either Saint Paul Is a Blazing Hypocrite, Or protestants Are Dead Wrong September 29, 2016
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, history, reading, Restoration, Society, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.comments closed
Strangely enough, I doctor I have seen for many years is also an evangelical protestant minister. He, quite improperly, really, likes to try to evangelize his patients. I walked into his office with a copy of St. Francis de Sales in my hand recently, and he gave me a stern look at told me to read Galatians iii. Galatians chapter 3 verse 10-11 are one of those go to Bible phrases, taken completely out of context, that protestants love to quote to try to prove the rightness of their false and short-lived version of Christianity. Others include Romans 3:28 and even, amazingly, Romans 1:17, which is also taken out of context and is all the more silly for what follows, viz, Romans i:29-32, wherein Saint Paul, like our Blessed Lord in Saint Matthew Chapter xxv:31-46 among many other places, makes certain behaviors – sins – so contrary to the Faith as to deny one eternal salvation:
29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.
32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they, who do such things, are worthy of death: [eternal death, denial of salvation] and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to them that do them.
Here Saint Paul is saying two things – one, those who lack sanctifying Grace will almost invariably fall into myriad sins, but also that those who commit such sins lack – or LOSE – sanctifying Grace, if they already had it, and thus will be damned when previously they could have been saved.
Eschewing sin and leading a moral life is most definitely a work. Similarly Galatians iii:10-11, which says:
10 For as many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse. For it is written: *Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.
11 But that by the law no man is justified with God, it is manifest: *because the just man liveth by faith.
What was the context of Saint Paul saying this? He was writing to the Galatians because they had fallen under the influence of “Judaizers,” Christian converts from Judaism who demanded that all Christians must submit not only to the Law of Christ but also the Law of Moses, including abstaining from various meats and receiving circumcision. Saint Paul was rejecting this Judaizing influence, telling his readers that the Law of Moses was dead, and had been totally supplanted by the new Law of Christ? But is Saint Paul saying that all works, then, are useless for salvation?
Absolutely not. Quite the contrary, as we see in Philippians ii and iii, Saint Paul knew quite well – as did the entire early Church he helped found – that works are extremely necessary for salvation, and that “faith alone” is a shabby lie and a sign of a boundless effrontery before God.
Philippians ii:10-14 (I include the surround verses only for context, which protestants almost always leave out):
10 *That in the name of Jesus, every knee should bow of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth; [bowing/kneeling, showing reverence/penitence before God, is also a work]
11 And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. [confessing the Lord is a work over and above internally held faith, which protestants judge to be sufficient for salvation]
12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence) work out your salvation with fear and trembling. [If one is saved by faith alone, why would one ever need to work out his salvation with fear and trembling? I was arguing with a protestant once not long ago, and as we were being forced to go our separate ways, I told him I would pray for his conversion and salvation, and he hit back with what I think he thought was the ultimate rejoinder – “I don’t have to worry about my salvation, I know I’m saved.” And I thought, what immense narcissism, what unbelievable effrontery. Anyone of us, at any time, can lose our faith at any moment. Faith isn’t a magic spell that immediately changes our consciences and makes us 100% proof against sin. This is an obvious lie. Faith, especially protestant faith, is no guarantee against any sin, even mortal sin. Once saved always saved is an American invention from the late 19th century and is one of the most perverse, reductive heresies ever visited upon the world. Faith is in fact demonstrated by works. Otherwise, why would protestants evangelize Catholics so hard? If Catholics accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, which any observant Catholic certainly does, they are irretrievably saved. Is it just about money, then, that evangelicals pursue Catholics with such gusto?]
13 For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish, according to the good-will.
Accomplish what?!? Good works, done in sanctifying Grace, which are eminently helpful to our sanctification and salvation, just as Christ commanded, “Take up your cross and follow ME!!!” Yes Jewish works done outside sanctifying Grace are profitable for nothing, which was Saint Paul’s message to the Galatians, but not that all works are useless, that a one time profession of faith assures salvation, else why would he say this in Philippians iii??!!?:
17 Be followers of me, brethren, and observe them who walk so, as you have our model.
18 *For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping) that they are enemies of the cross of Christ:
19 Whose end is destruction [damnation] whose God is their belly: and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.
20 But our conversation is in heaven: whence also we expect the Saviour, our Lord Jesus Christ,
Saint Paul is speaking directly of people here who were of the Faith, who had accepted Jesus Christ and were in a state of Grace (saved, in protestant parlance), who due to their sinful attractions and appetites, fell away from the Faith, fell out of the state of Grace, and whose end is subsequently destruction!!
But what is avoidance of sin, but a work? What is practicing restraint in food and drink and sex and money and all the rest, but a work, the practice of the great virtue of temperance?!?
But that is not all. Regular readers will know that I am reading the Victories of the Martyrs by Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori. He recounts the deaths of martyrs from the 1st through the early 4th centuries (so far – I haven’t read it all).
What did these martyrs die for? Faith in Jesus Christ? But why on earth would they die, if their faith alone assured their salvation, if no work or failure of work could ever cause them to lose that salvation?!? Why should any Christian ever die for his faith, if we are saved after a one time altar call and pronouncement of acceptance? And don’t give me this garbage about “higher levels of Heaven” and all that claptrap, that’s not what the martyrs thought at all.
No, quite the contrary, every single one of these martyrs, when tempted by the Roman magistrates to burn just a pinch of incense to the “god” emperor, refused, not because they would lose a better seat in the heavenly movie theater, but because they knew acknowledging any other god – even under the most severe duress – would be a violation of the 1st and 2nd Commandments and cause not the loss of their place in the heavenly pecking order, but their entire salvation!
Again, these martyrs testified to this fact going all the way back to the 1st century. This martyrdom was most assuredly a work, and a work that the Church judged worthy of salvation from her earliest days.
Protestants like to pretend – they are compelled by their disobedience and rejection of authority to pretend – that the early Church somehow apostasized from the Truth of Jesus Christ and imposed some evil Babylonian cult upon millions of Christians, somehow. This is a rather amazing claim, given the REAL heresies the early Church endured and overcame. These ill-educated souls even try to claim it was Constantine that tried to force this erroneous belief on the Church, when in reality, it was the Church that fought off Constantine’s attempt to impose the Arian heresy (Christ is just a man) under severe punishment!
What we see clearly from the martyrs, and from every other early source we have available to us, from Saint Ignatius of Antioch to Saint Justin Martyr to Saints Basil and John Chrysostom clear through to the present day, is a constant attestation to the SAME set of beliefs, the SAME set of practices, as what is outlined in the Dogmas of the Church. Even more, we see the SAME beliefs in all the ancient Churches, those dating back to the first 4-5 centuries of Christianity, even though most of these fell away on some error or another such as the nature of the Will and Person of God or the Authority of the Roman See. On all these issues related to the Eucharist, the efficacious nature of works, gaining/losing Grace, all these ancient Churches share the same beliefs.
It is only the johnny-come-lately protestant heretics who have thought differently, even while they endlessly bicker amongst themselves as to which of their tens of thousands of sects is the “right” one.
That is, Catholics have myriad sources confirming our beliefs – Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the testimony of the martyrs and Saints, the confirmation of sadly separated brethren like the Orthodox and Copts, hostile works written against the Church by those outsider her but confirming her core beliefs, etc., etc.
All protestants have is the Bible – a great source, to be sure, but a bible their early leaders mangled in order to try to better support their errors – and the private judgment of a few very fallible men, outside the State of Grace, who imposed an interpretation on the Bible based on their pre-conceived notions and desires rather than conforming themselves to the constantly understood beliefs and practices of the Christian Church.
I know which side I’ll be sticking with, thank you very much, and I thank God every day for making me an aspiring good Catholic, rather than the protestant I once was.
Romans i: An Extended Catechesis on the Condemnation of the World July 25, 2016
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Bible, catachesis, different religion, General Catholic, Saints, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, true leadership.comments closed
Romans i is one of those portions of Sacred Scripture highly inconvenient to the culture and the modernist-progressives who have molded it. Not only does it condemn many of the modern world’s favored sins, not only does it absolutely castigate, in the strongest possible terms, the fashionable immorality of today the Left pushes in support of its broader agenda, but it also casts severe doubt on the idea, prevalent within the Church (primarily from modernist-progressives), that those who fall into sins like sodomy or fornication might be innocent of moral guilt for these sins, or, at least, have only a slight guilt.
Saint Paul heard similar excuses in his day, and would have none of it. God’s Law is written on our hearts, God gives sufficient lights for all souls to be saved, and the Truth Christ revealed through His Church was broadcast loud and clear for centuries, even if it is a bit muted today.
Verses 16-32 below, from the Douay-Reims Commentary of Father George Leo Haydock (my emphasis and comments):
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.
17 For the justice of God is revealed therein from faith to faith: as it is written: *The just man liveth by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven, against all impiety and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice. [A warning to the Pharisees, yes, but also to all those who would try to prevent the Truth of Jesus Christ from being proclaimed in His Church, and instituted in the civil sphere.]
19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it to them.[Translation: The light of reason demonstrates the existence of the One God, the maker and preserver of all things, and ALSO the moral law which He has written on the hearts of all. God’s Truth is manifest from His Creation and from reason.]
20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. [One can derive from nature, for example, the right-use of those faculties suitable for the procreation of children, and also comprehend their abuse.]
21 *Because that, when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, or give thanks: but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened:
22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [I cannot think of a more apt description for the self-anointed cultural/political elites of our own time, even as they laugh Christ and His Church to scorn, they are only revealed to be the more foolish themselves]
23 *And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God, into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things. [or they worshipped their own lusts, or their perverse ideas, or made an idol of money and power, among other things]
24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, *to uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie: and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. [The leftist project described in a nutshell, both within and without the Church: “they exchanged the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator]
26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [which is condemned as shameful, perverse, immoral, sinful]
27 And, in like manner the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [Thus it is no coincidence that when Christianity/the Church is full of millions of souls holding dire errors, that the most heinous immorality would result. It is in fact God’s positive Will, according to St. Paul, that such would occur. When people reject Christ and the Truth of His Church, God allows them to be afflicted with the most grievous sins, which have their own natural consequence in the afterlife]
28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge; God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient, [for their salvation]
29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers,
30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [In verses 28-31, St. Paul establishes the clear equivalence between sins like those of Sodom and Gomorrah, and other mortal sins. Thus the excuse-making of the sodomites, pretending that Genesis or St. Paul or Leviticus is speaking not of sodomy, but of some other sin (lack of hospitality!), is revealed as totally bankrupt. Christ, through St. Paul, is most definitely condemning sodomy, and in fact placing it at the head of a list of very severe sins, including murder. That excuse-making, that twisting of Scripture to their own nefarious ends, is, in fact, the precise consequence, ordained by God, of their own immoral behaviors]
32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they, who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to them that do them. [Ouch. There are a lot of cardinal’s with burning ears right now. Among others……]
————End Quote————
Shorter St. Paul: you have no excuse for your sins, but because you revel in them, God has given you over to a reprobate sense, compounding sin on sin and placing your soul in the greatest possible jeopardy.
I apologize if the commentary above breaks up the flow of the text, but I really wanted to expand on some of those points. But I do ask for your opinion – would it be better to do all the commentary below the verses, referencing to each verse above as I go along?
Do you think the above would be an effective argument against those lost in this lifestyle? If not they, might it convince those who are not in the lifestyle but who have rolled over to the cultural bullying, buying into pseudo-sodo-marriage and all the rest – especially self-described Christians, who believe that you can be an active same-sex sodomite and a “good Christian?”
Some biblical exegesis you might find helpful June 23, 2016
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Ecumenism, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Our Lady, sanctity, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.comments closed
The commentary in the Haydock Study Bible is sometimes criticized for being a bit too on the nose and obvious, but, at other times, it delves deeply into the sublime. I found that to be the case in re-reading Acts of the Apostles Chapter 3, especially some of the commentary from verses 1, 6 and 21.
In the below, first the relevant verse (or verse plus a few preceding, for context) and then the commentary:
1 Now Peter and John went up to the temple at the ninth hour of prayer.
In Catholic countries, the toll of a bell at morning, noon, and evening, announces the time for the recital of the Angelus Domini, a short prayer, in honour of the incarnation. At these moments, all, however employed, whether at labour in the field, or at home, all cease from their employment, till they have recited the prayer. The repetition of this, and similar practices, cannot be too strongly recommended to Catholics of the present day. They are of singular advantage in recalling the soul, which is too easily dissipated and distracted, to God, her first beginning, and her last end. [oh that this tolling had not been forgotten in the awful changes that have overtaken the Church in the past century! What a glorious and pious custom this was, and should still be! I understand that in parts of Germany Angelus bells still toll, at least at certain times of year, though I’ve never seen/heard such.]
2 And a certain man who was lame from his mother’s womb, was carried; whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple, which is called the Beautiful, that he might beg alms of them that went into the temple.
3 *He, when he had seen Peter and John about to go into the temple, begged to receive an alms………
…..6 But Peter said; Silver and gold I have none: but what I have, I give thee: in the name of Jesus Christ, of Nazareth, rise up, and walk.
……Not without reason is this Name in the Canticles compared to oil, in its three-fold properties, of affording light, food, and medicine. When preached, it enlightens; thought on, it feeds us; and called on, it assuages our grief. Whence has such a sudden light of faith spread over the world, but in preaching the Name of Jesus? How did this light shine, and attract the eyes of all, when proceeding like lightning from the mouth of Peter, it strengthened the weakness of the lame man’s feet, and enlightened the minds of many spiritually blind? Did he not then scatter fire, when he exclaimed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, arise and walk? This name is food too. Are you not refreshed, as often as you recall it to your mind? What is as powerful in consoling the mind? What so soon repairs our wearied senses, and gives new vigour to our strength; encourages virtues, cherishes chaste affections? All food is dry to me, if not seasoned with this oil; insipid, unless sprinkled with this salt. If you write, I relish it not, unless I read the name of Jesus. If your read, or speak, I take no pleasure in it, unless I hear the name of Jesus. Jesus is honey in the mouth, music to the ear, but ecstasy to the heart. This is also my medicine. Are you sad? let Jesus enter your heart, and thence ascend upon your tongue. And behold, at the rising of this star, every cloud will retire, and serenity return. Do you fall into a crime, or run on the brink of despair: call on this name of life, and you shall be restored to life, &c. [Most of the above taken from St. Bernard’s Sermon xv Cant. prope’ medium]
20 That when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ,
21 Whom heaven indeed must receive, until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets from the beginning of the world.
Whom heaven indeed must receive, as also in the Protestant translation not contain: nor can any argument be drawn from hence, that Christ’s body cannot be truly at the same time in the holy Sacrament, especially after a different manner. The true sense of these words is, that heaven is the place of Christ’s abode, till the day of judgment, and that it was in vain for them to think that he would come to take possession of any temporal kingdom. (Witham) — The restitution of all things. Jesus remains in heaven, till his second coming to judge the living and the dead. That is the great day, when every thing shall be finally settled, and restored to its proper order. He shall avenge the injuries done to God; restore peace to the afflicted just men of the earth, and justice to their persecutors. He shall exalt his Church, and himself receive the homage of adoration, from every tribe of men. (Calmet) — See 2 Peter iii. 13. which text, together with what we read in this place, joins inseparably the last coming of Jesus Christ, with the universal re-establishment promised in both these passages, and completely excludes the Millennium, which some erroneously expect to take place between the accomplishment of the first and second of these events. See Bossuet’s reflexions on the 20th chapter of the Apocalypse, where the errors of many Protestant writers, especially of Dodwell, are refuted. To shew that the error of the Millennium cannot be assigned as a general cause which impelled the primitive Christians to martyrdom, it will suffice to produce this decisive passage of St. Justin, who after Papias, was the first supporter of that system: speaking to Tryphon concerning this temporal kingdom, which Christ was to enjoy here below, in the re-established Jerusalem with the saints risen from the dead, for a thousand years, he says: “I have already confessed that many others, with myself, were of this opinion; … but there are many others, and persons of sound faith, and exemplary conduct, who reject this opinion.” (In dialog. cum Tryph. n. 84.) — Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, and Origen, lay down principles diametrically opposite to this system. It has also been expressly combated by Caius, and St. Denis of Alexandria, one of the greatest luminaries of the third century, as we learn from Eusebius, and St. Jerome. [So, the idea of a peaceful 1000 year long reign of Christ on earth after goofy things like “the rapture” and general tribulation by during the final days (Parousia) have been judged by the Church to be false, even though the idea did carry some currency among some early Christians. Yet again, protestants have merely dusted off an ancient heresy and called it new, as they have in so many other places.]
So, that’s it, a nice exhortation to the Angelus, some spirituality via St. Bernard, and refutation of a key protestant error. All from one chapter of Acts of the Apostles! Ahh, Scripture, the gift that keeps on giving.
St. Francis de Sales on protestant butchery of Scripture May 24, 2016
Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Bible, catachesis, Ecumenism, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, history, reading, Saints, sanctity, Tradition, Victory, Virtue.comments closed
I’m reading a very good book containing St. Francis de Sales writings against the protestants of the Chablais from the 16th century. These pamphlets were combined into book form under the title The Catholic Controversy. St. Francis is a very thorough writer whose pamphlets tend to be quite complex. As such, they are not easy to condense to blog post length. I’ve been meaning for weeks to try to share some of this content with you, but I’ve had a hard time finding excerpts of appropriate length that would still be understandable.
Deo Gratias, I believe I’ve found some in the chapters on protestant butchery of Sacred Scripture in order to justify their false beliefs. This is quite key, and really shocking, in that protestants who claim to rely on Scripture as the sole rule of Faith, in fact excluded many books (for reasons that are false, as St. Francis clearly demonstrates) specifically because they contained matters of belief they refused to accept! That is to say, they did not start out honestly examining Scripture and somehow found that books present in the Canon of Scripture since the 4th century were somehow false or “apocryphal,” quite the contrary, they started with false beliefs and then modified Scripture to only support those beliefs. Furthermore, in addition to excluding various Old Testament books, they also edited the content of others that they retained, even including the New Testament.
With that background, the great Doctor of the Church, St. Francis de Sales (my emphasis and comments):
What likelihood is there that the Holy Spirit has hidden Himself from all 
antiquity, and that after 1500 years he has disclosed to certain private persons the list of the true Scriptures? For our part we follow exactly the list of the Council of Laodicea, with the addition made at the Councils of Carthage and Florence. Never will a man of judgment leave these Councils to follow the persuasions of private individuals. Here, then, is the fountain and source of all the violations which have been made of this holy rule; namely, when people have taken up the fancy of not receiving it save by the measure and rule of the inspirations which each one believes and thinks he feels. [One of satan’s most effective traps, getting pious souls to assert their own judgment over that passed on by the Church Fathers. So much destructive has man’s pride in his own intellect – or, worse, his feelz – wrought!]
Now, how can an honest soul refrain from giving the rein to the ardor of a holy zeal and form entering into a Christian anger, without sin, considering with what presumption those who do nothing but cry Scripture, Scripture, have despised, degraded, and profaned this divine Testament of the eternal Father, as they have falsified this sacred contract of so glorious an alliance! O 
ministers of Calvinism, how do you dare to cut away so many noble parts of the Bible?! You take away Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Machabees, why do you thus dismember the Holy Scripture? Who has told you that they are not sacred? There was some doubt about them in the ancient Church but was there not doubt in the ancient Church about Esther, the Epistle to the Hebrews, those of St. James and St. Jude, the Second of St. Peter, the last two of St. John, and especially of the Apocalypse? Why do you not also erase these as you have done those [that is, the books of Scripture they excluded] ?
Acknowledge honestly that what you have done in this has only been in order to contradict the Church. You were angry at seeing in the Machabees the intercession of the Saints and prayers for the departed; Ecclesiasticus stung you in that it bore witness to free will and the honor of relics. Rather than do violence to your notions, adjusting them to the Scriptures, you have violated the Scriptures to accommodate them to your notions; you have cut off the holy Word to avoid cutting off your fancies……Open your heart to the Faith and you will receive that which your unbelief shuts out from you. Because you do not will to believe what they teach, you condemn them; rather, condemn your presumption and receive the Scripture………. [de Sales has it right. Protestants are loathe to admit it, though]
[We now switch subjects from excluding books from the Canon of Scripture, to deliberately flawed biblical translations]
…….Your fine church has not contented itself with cutting off from the Scripture entire books, chapters, sentences, and words, but what it has not dared to cut off altogether it has corrupted and 
violated by its translations…….In our age, behold arise a thick mist created by the spirit of giddiness, which has so led astray these refurbishers of old opinions formerly current, that everybody has wanted to drag, one to this side, one to that, and always according to the inclination of his own judgment, this holy and sacred Scripture of God…….[in this way] as soon as we are assured that the ordinary edition [The Latin Vulgate] of the Church is so out of shape that it must be built up again anew, and that a private man is to set his hand to it and begin the process, the door is open to presumption……[Upon which, all of protestant opinion is built]
[After demonstrating how protestants mistranslated key bits of Scripture, for instance, Lk xxii:20, trying to pretend that Christ’s Sacrifice was only spiritual or allegorical by changing the words of Scripture]……You see something, then, of the violence and profanation your ministers do and offer to the Scriptures; what think you of their ways? What will become of us if everybody takes leave, as soon as he knows two words of Greek, and letters in Hebrew, thus to turn everything topsy turvy? I have therefore 
shown you what I promised, that this first rule of our faith has been and still is most sadly violated in your pretended church, and that you may know it to be a property of heresy thus to dismember the Scriptures, I will close this part of my subject with what Tertullian says, speaking of the sects of his time: “This heresy” [of the gnostics],” says he, “does not receive some of the Scriptures; and if it receives some it does not receive them whole…..and what it receives in a certain sense whole, it still perverts, devising various interpretations…….” [earlier in the book, de Sales demonstrated how virtually every major heresy of protestantism was simply the recreation of some ancient heresy. There is nothing new under the sun, or Son]
———-End Quote———–
Thank you Lord for sending us great Saints like St. Francis de Sales, to refute the errors of heretics and shine the light of Truth on their errors. His words are so apropos to our own time, too, when so many in the Church have fallen into protestant errors.
St. Francis later goes on to attack vernacular translations of the Bible as prone to causing division and confusion, in addition to the fundamental problem of translations serving as sources of error. You can imagine what he would think of the vernacular Mass, then!
The testimony of a Doctor like de Sales is all the testimony I need to find vernacular Mass severely wanting.
I also fully endorse his practice of ecumenism – converting protestants by the tens of thousands. One wonders what kind of place St. Francis de Sales would find in the Church today?
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 