Monday, April 25, 2016

WDTCAT?


 A popular sign among Protestants (as well as some members of the Vatican II sect) is the symbol "WWJD?" Present on jewelry, t-shirts, and bumper stickers, the letters stand for "What Would Jesus Do?" It sounds nice, but it's actually more Protestant private interpretation. Just as they interpret the Bible apart from the Teaching Authority of Christ's One True Church, they ask you to attempt and "read God's Mind." But God's ways are not like our ways, so who's to say what Christ would do in any given situation? Even some Traditionalists are guilty of this kind of subjectivism, when I hear them say things like, "Can you imagine Pope St. Pius X making changes in the rubrics like Pope Pius XII?" I can't read the minds of prior popes, and weren't each of them equally protected by the Holy Ghost as the Vicar of Christ on Earth?

 I bring this up because last week during a conversation covering many topics, someone I know told me, "Jesus never condemned homosexuals." I asked him how he knew this, and he told me (I kid you not) he learned it  from former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, whom he described as a "theologian" who knew the Bible well. My friend, a member of the Vatican II sect, was seeking guidance from his personal knowledge of the Bible and the so-called "expertise" of  a president turned preacher. Not condemning sodomy and approving the sodomite lifestyle is allegedly an example of "doing what Jesus would do." When you turn to private interpretations, public mistakes are sure to follow. Without an infallible guide, your personal likes and dislikes are attributed to Christ; He becomes like you, rather than vice-versa as the "WWJD" would lead you to believe.

 As a result, the "Jesus" many follow is One Whom:

  • will allow everyone to go to Heaven because He "loves you just the way you are" (no apologies to anti-Catholic bigot Billy Joel)
  • thinks of peace and not divisiveness
  • doesn't require obedience
  • requires a "holiness" that means being "nice"
  • only teaches "love" including love of the acts committed by sinners
  • will never say anything to offend anyone for any reason
  • will never tell anyone they are evil for their deeds
  • will never require penance
  • calls everyone (even those who don't believe in Him) "His children"
  • will never allow anyone to go to Hell
  • wants you to do whatever makes you happy
  • never requires self-sacrifice
  • wants everyone to live in luxury
  • transforms the Commandments into suggestions

This is an evil caricature of Jesus Christ. They (wittingly or not) have Satan as their guide. As to homosexuality, my friend told me that Jesus never mentions homosexuality and it is discussed in the Old Testament (e.g. Leviticus) but is "misinterpreted." Sodom and Gomorrah were condemned for not being hospitable, not for homosexuality.  Rather than discuss the sorry sect that is the "church of Begoglio," I decided to show how badly informed Mr. Carter was on the issue.

Sodom and Gomorrah Were Condemned for Homosexuality

The story of Sodom, told in Genesis 19, explains how Lot (Abraham's nephew) was met by two strangers at the gate of the city. These men were actually angels in disguise. Lot brings them to his house and, after a meal but before going to bed, the men of Sodom (young and old) surround the house and demand to have sex with them. Lot refuses to allow the gang rape of his guests and (tragically) offers them his virgin daughters instead. The men of Sodom are not interested in the women, only wanting sex with the men. The mob is about to break down the door of the house, when the "men" reveal themselves and save Lot by striking the mob with blindness. Revisionists tell us this is a case of attempted gang rape and  being "inhospitable" to guests, it is not "loving and consensual relations" that God would not condemn.

That Sodom was condemned for unnatural vice (later to be named after the city itself--"sodomy") is made clear by the New Testament, specifically, the epistle of St. Jude 1: 7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." (Emphasis mine). Doesn't leave much room for declaring "the sin of Sodom" as being a lack of hospitality.


Jesus Christ refers to Sodom in the Gospel no less than Four Times

 Each time Our Lord refers to that immoral city, He refers to its sinfulness and agrees that it stands condemned:

  • St. Matthew 10:15, "Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." (Clearly implying that on Judgement Day, Sodom and Gomorrah will stand condemned)
  • St. Matthew 11:23-24, "And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hell. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."
  • St. Luke 10:12, "I assure you, even wicked Sodom will be better off than such a town on judgment day."
  • St. Luke 17:30, "But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from Heaven and destroyed them all."



The Inescapable Logic

First, Sodom was destroyed by God for it's "sexual immorality and perversion." (St. Jude 1:7)

Second, this perversion is homosexuality, because Genesis 19 clearly states it was men wanting sex with two angels who appeared as men, and they had no (sexual) use for women.

Third, Our Lord Jesus Christ is recorded referring to Sodom no less than four (4) times, and each time He agrees the city stands condemned for this sin ("sodomy") and calls Sodom "wicked." 

Therefore, Jesus Christ condemned homosexuality. True, He never uses the word "homosexuality," but He never specifically condemned "rape" by name, so are we thereby to blasphemously assume He didn't condemn it? Jimmy Carter's theology is no better than his politics. Unfortunately, this did not register with my friend because "it's just your interpretation," there are other scholars who disagree with "my" interpretation, and doesn't Frankie say, "Who am I to judge"? It was getting late, I had to go and wished my friend well. 

 However, this encounter serves to illustrate the problem with the Vatican II sect, Protestants, and the "recognize and resist"(R&R) pseudo-Traditionalists of the SSPX and Salza/Siscoe. They don't accept an unchanging, infallible Magisterium (Teaching Authority). Protestants privately interpret the Bible to their liking, as does the Modernist Vatican and the R&R with both the Scripture and past Church teaching. If they really want to know "What Would Jesus Do?" the correct question to ask is "What Does The Church Actually Teach?" 

10 comments:

  1. Great entry thank you for posting.
    I'm sorry to say this but we as a western civilization are perpetually blind,in general.
    Hope I am wrong but at the moment it seems like that fact isn't ever going to change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. One thing about discovering the True Catholic Faith is that it clears up so much confusion on the issues we face in this modern world. Instead of trying to read all sorts of different opinions and come up with your own conclusion on the matter you just ask yourself "What Does The Church Actually Teach?" Of course it complicates things with your friends and family because they have never heard the issues addressed from the point of view of the Catholic Church. I try to be nice but sometimes I just want to yell like Tom Cruise "you can't handle the Truth!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cliff,
      You just gave me an idea for a new movie, "A Few Good Traditionalists" starring Mel Gibson, perhaps? ;-)

      Delete
    2. Haha! I like it. I hope Mel Gibson confesses his sins and amends his life soon. We need him to make some movies.

      Delete
    3. Last winter I was conversing with a novus ordo sect member.
      In his dishonest desperation,he brought up Mel Gibson,his affair,his 2nd marriage,his child with 2nd wife,etc...
      I told him I have no idea what Mel Gibson is doing and he doesn't motivate nor control my religion and salvation.
      You know the debate might be going your way if the opponent is bringing up complete strangers,who happen to be celebrity millionaires.

      Delete
    4. "Cliff,
      You just gave me an idea for a new movie, "A Few Good Traditionalists" starring Mel Gibson, perhaps?"

      Great Idea! It'll make Abe Foxman apoplectic.

      Delete
    5. It was actually Jack Nicholson who screamed, "You can't handle the truth" TO Tom Cruise. Be that as it may, I wish someone who is beyond reproach could make a blockbuster movie, ala "Passion" that would shake Foxman, et. al., off of their Holohoax soapboxes.

      Delete
  3. Romans 1 - excluded fro the Novus Ordo 'missal' : 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 women, 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; [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,

    [26] God delivered them up: Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.

    [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; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

    ReplyDelete