Contending For The Faith---Part 41

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

A Fine-Tuned Universe

I wish to acknowledge the various sources I used in compiling this post, from hardcopy and online apologetics resources. I take no credit for the material herein. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post.---Introibo

The Vatican II sect has ceased to teach apologetics; and why should they? If all religions lead to God there's no reason to prove one right and another wrong. Moreover, Bergoglio even claimed atheists can go to Heaven, so why the need to prove to them God exists? For those of us who keep the One True Faith, we realize that we must make converts and spread the truth. The Vatican Council of 1870 defined: The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light of human reason, by means of created things; "for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made" (Romans 1:20)... (Emphasis mine). 

One of the proofs of God's existence, that may be used against atheists and agnostics is the argument from the fine-tuning of the universe. If we consider some of the standard beliefs about the nature of God, for instance, that God is omnipotent and supremely good, then it is not at all surprising that if God exists, he would create a world that is highly complex, ordered, intelligible, and well suited for the existence of life, including intelligent life that enjoys the possibility of knowing about the universe and its creator. It is at least less surprising than that such an orderly world would exist purely by chance. Unless the existence of God is inherently more improbable than fine-tuning by chance, it would seem that fine-tuning is evidence--indeed proof of God's existence. 

Let me clarify that the fine-tuning argument is not "Intelligent Design" as advocated by Philip Johnson and others beginning in the mid-1990s. That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist. 

What could account for this fine-tuning? It could be necessity, chance, or by purpose. The first possible explanation for fine-tuning is physical necessity. This means that either the constants are necessary, brute facts of reality or that they deterministically derive from a deeper necessary law of physics. As physical necessity is not a very good theory to begin with (it doesn’t seem plausible that physicists will be able to derive the precise values from a deeper theory) and, more importantly, it doesn’t explain why the constants are fine-tuned (this just remains an immense coincidence), it’s reasonable to discard physical necessity as an explanation of fine-tuning.

The second possible explanation for fine tuning is chance. If there is only one universe, physicists calculate that it would be incredibly unlikely that the values of the constants would be in the small range that would allow our complex universe to exist. Chance only becomes plausible if there are a tremendous number of alternate universes with different values of the constants — a multiverse. However, the multiverse fails to be a good solution for numerous reasons. The multiple universe hypothesis is essentially an effort on the part of partisans of chance to multiply their probabilistic resources in order to reduce the improbability of the occurrence of fine-tuning. The fact that positing an untestable speculative theory of an infinite number of observable universes is a clear deviation from the tried-and-true scientific method is reason enough to discard chance.

With the elimination of two of the three possible explanations of fine-tuning, we are left with the only remaining explanation: the values of the constants are the result of intentional design by an intelligent agent, Whom we call God. 

Below is a list of different parameters which the universe must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for physical life of any conceivable kind to exist. None of the information is mine; it comes from many sources, and I take no credit---Introibo

I would like to credit the following sources as indispensable (but not an exhaustive list):

Bernard J. Carr and Martin J. Rees, “The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World,” Nature, 278 (1979), pgs. 605-612.

John M. Templeton “God Reveals Himself in the Astronomical and in the Infinitesimal,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984 (1984), pgs. 194-200.

Jim W. Neidhardt, “The Anthropic Principle: A Religious Response,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, December 1984 (1984), pgs. 201-207.

Richard Swinburne, “Argument from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, edited by John Leslie (1990), pgs. 154-173.

For a Life-Permitting Universe, There Must be A:

strong nuclear force constant: if larger: no hydrogen; nuclei essential for life would be unstable; if smaller: no elements other than hydrogen

weak nuclear force constant: if larger:  too much hydrogen converted to helium in Big Bang, hence too much heavy-element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars; if smaller: too little helium produced from big bang, hence too little heavy-element material made by star burning; no expulsion of heavy elements from stars

gravitational force constant: if larger:  stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly if smaller: stars would remain so cool that nuclear fusion would never ignite, hence no heavy-element production

ratio of electron to proton mass: if larger: insufficient chemical bonding for stable molecules to be possible, if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding for stable molecules to be possible

polarity of the water molecule: if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist; if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life’s existence; liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed; ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up

ratio of proton to electron charge: if larger: inadequate chemical bonding; if smaller: inadequate chemical bonding

axial tilt of Earth: if greater: latitudinal surface temperature differences would be too great; if less: latitudinal surface temperature differences would be too great

Getting things "just right" in any singular category above would be astronomical; for all of them combined--all but impossible absent an Intelligence.

Scientists now know that any of these constants, if they were changed even a small amount (sometimes a few percent bigger or smaller), the complex universe as we know it wouldn’t exist. In other words, without the constants being precisely fine-tuned, there would only be fundamental particles — they wouldn’t come together to form atoms, molecules, planets, stars, galaxies, or life.

Conclusion

The argument from fine-tuning is a great refutation to use against atheists and agnostics. When atheists object "that's not evidence," ask them what they mean by "evidence." If they mean God cannot be the result of a scientific demonstration, they are correct. Yet we know many things with real evidence outside of a scientific demonstration; to say otherwise is scientism not science. If they persist that only scientific demonstrations give truth, ask them how that very contention ("only scientific demonstrations give truth/produce evidence") was scientifically demonstrated. Second, ask if they believe his/her mother loves (loved) him/her. If they say "yes," ask them how it was scientifically demonstrated. Yet, they have evidence and are totally justified to say their mother loved them.

Finally, I'd like to quote the great St. Athanasius who mention fine-tuning so many centuries ago. Not far into On the Incarnation, St. Athanasius celebrates the evident beauty and design of the cosmos. Here is a paragraph worth quoting in full:

[Some] say that all things are self-originated and, so to speak, haphazard. The Epicureans are among these; they deny that there is any Mind behind the universe at all. This view is contrary to all the facts of experience, their own existence included. For if all things had come into being in this automatic fashion, instead of being the outcome of Mind, though they existed, they would be all uniform and without distinction. In the universe everything would be hand or eye or foot. But in point of fact the sun and the moon and the earth are all different things, and even within the human body there are different members, such as foot and hand and head. This distinctness of things argues not a spontaneous generation but a prevenient Cause and from that Cause we can apprehend God, the Designer and Maker of all. (p. 27)

Sharia Law: Coming To A City Near You?

 

Here in New York City (aka "Sodom on the Hudson" or the "Big Mohammedan Apple") the people are on the verge of electing Zohran Mamdani, a 33 year old NYS Assemblyman, as the first Moslem mayor. This would have been unthinkable only 15 years ago. Mamdani has the support of the wave of Moslem immigrants, who have a multitude of children, while members of the Vatican II sect contracept and barely replace themselves. The candidate of the infidels is also an avowed Socialist who wants all government services to be "free," by taxing the "rich." (Therefore, the harder I work, the less money I make, so I can subsidize others who don't work to have a better lifestyle). 

Islam poses an ever-growing threat to our world. Of course most people don't see it, and label anyone who exposes this evil sect as "Islamophobic," another made-up word (like "homophobic") that implies a mental illness ("phobia") for those who dare to disagree. I have sounded the warning against Islam here on this blog since its inception.  The rehabilitation of Islam began (where else?) with Vatican II. In its heretical document Nostra Aetate:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom. (para. #3; Emphasis mine). 

In the document Lumen Gentium, it is heretically taught:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. (para #16; Emphasis mine).

Two falsehoods are presented: (1) Moslems worship the same God as Catholics, and (2) it is more important to forget the murder and torture of Christians and to stop trying to convert Mohammedans to the One True Church; what matters is purely naturalistic "social justice" in "mutual understanding" with these barbarians. It is also presented as acceptable to view Christ as a mere "prophet" and to put the Satanic Mohammed on the same level with Our Lord. Sheer blasphemy. 

The first subtle brainwashing came in the form of changing the name by which followers of Islam were called. In the time of my Patron Saint, the great King St. Louis IX, the word Saracen was used. Its meaning is aptly "thief, marauder, plunderer." 

 (See books.google.com/books?id=W4H97SA6pMAC&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false).

The term Moor was used loosely as "infidel," and Mohammedan designated them as followers of the fake prophet they served.

Until I graduated high school in the early 1980s, all textbooks referred to the followers of Islam as Moslems--one of the terms I still use. Since the mid-1990s, the term was replaced by Muslim. The following explains why the change was made:

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means "one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z...Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups.

(See historynewsnetwork.org/article/524; Emphasis in original). 

This post will center on two matters: (1) the totally false idea from Vatican II (and ubiquitous on social media) that Moslems worship "the same God" as Christianity; (2) the danger of Sharia law. Throughout this post, the false book of Islam will be spelled "Koran" or "Qur'an" depending on the spelling used by my source at that juncture. I wish to credit my numerous sources I read regarding Islam (in addition to the ones specifically cited), both print and online. I take no credit except for the compilation of the information into a terse and readable post.---Introibo

Asking the Right Questions

Some apologists for the Vatican II sect teaching on Islam have asserted (without citation to be read in context) that some approved theologians and Church historians pre-Vatican II claimed Moslems worship the True God in a false manner. I cannot attest to the veracity of this but what might have been meant (if it was really written) is that Moslems may intend to worship the True God. The question should not be "Do the Moslems worship the True God," rather, it should be asked, "Does Islam profess the True God?" It will be made obvious it does not. Since they worship what they profess, Islam does not objectively worship the True God. 

Islam has always been placed in the same category as the Jews--"infidels"--aka non-baptized monotheists. Mohammed combined the beliefs of pagans (hence the Koran speaks of a "Pegasus"), Jews (they do not eat the flesh of "unclean" animals like pigs), and Catholics (veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary). For both Moslems and Traditionalist Catholics, God is not just an additional fact about reality; rather, God is the foundation underpinning the whole of reality. There is nothing commendable about merely believing that God exists: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder." (St. James 2:19). The question we need to answer is not "Is there a God?" but "Who is God?" What is God’s character, nature and identity? What are his attributes? The answer to these questions will make it clear that Moslems do not profess the True God of Catholicism.

A Morally Defective "God" That Produces Evil Followers

It is my contention that Allah is morally defective, is lacking in omniscience, and gives commands that are contrary to basic ethical principles. All this is easily explained because the Koran is a book written by Mohammed under the guidance of a demon he thought to be the angel Gabriel. Islam relies on a multitude of revelations. But only one, the Koran, (also spelled Qur'an) is considered to be the eternally existent word of Allah, channeled through his chosen prophet six centuries after the crucifixion of Christ. It is considered to be uncreated and unalterable, inerrant, having ethics beyond question, and eloquent above anything the world has ever experienced.

The evidence proves this wrong. The Koran comprises 114 suras (chapters), some revealed in Mecca, others in Medina. Meccan suras feature Mohammad as God’s final prophet—a prophet greater than all the prophets who came before him. Far from being divine, the Koran is clearly written by a human and has its origin from the Father of Lies. If Allah is God, he would be omniscient. If the Koran was dictated by angel Gabriel from Allah himself, the Koran must be inerrant. Using the Koran (The Holy Qur'an Arabic Text with English Translation [2013]) it will be shown that Allah cannot be omniscient and therefore is not "God." 

Allah Doesn't Understand the Theology He Condemns

• Allah thinks since Christ was begotten, it means there was sexual reproduction. In Koran 6:101, the book asks rhetorically, "How can He [Allah] have a Son when He has no consort?" 
• Allah thinks Christianity teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is part of the Most Holy Trinity. "And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?" (Koran 5:116) 
• Allah tells an historical falsehood; Christ was not crucified by the Jews. "And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain." (Koran 4:157-158). 

Far worse than the above is the immorality that is openly commanded by Allah. That will be examined next.

God is Necessarily Morally Perfect

 God is the greatest conceivable Being. (I'm not using St. Anselm's ontological argument. It is what both the Church and Islam teach). If a being is in some way morally imperfect, then it is not a perfect being and therefore not the greatest conceivable being (i.e., not God).  Moral perfection entails being all-loving; wanting what is best for others. This, to me, is axiomatic. Every good parent knows this fact. A rebellious teenage son or daughter will break a parent's heart precisely because they love him or her despite his or her defiant and wicked behavior. If a parent didn't love their child, it wouldn't hurt so bad. The fact is that parents do love their children, despite their waywardness.

Allah has a different character than the True God. It is significant that of the "99 beautiful names for Allah," which Moslems memorize and use for worship, not one is "love" or "loving." The Koran stresses that Allah loves only those who do good, and that he does not love those who do evil. Here are the suras and verses:

"Allah loves not transgressors" (2:190)

"He loves not creatures ungrateful or wicked" (2:276)

"Say: 'Obey Allah and His Apostle;' but if they turn back Allah loveth not those who reject Faith." (3:32)

"Allah loves not those who do wrong" (3:57, 140)

"Allah loveth not the arrogant the vainglorious" (4:36)

Compare to Jesus Christ:

"Christ died for the ungodly... God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us...If when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life? (Romans 5:6,8,10). Christ loves all humans, hates all sin, and Wills their salvation contingent upon them coming freely into the Church and dying in the state of grace. No one is lost except through their own fault.

Allah hates sinners which is why he:

Commands the murder of non-Moslems: "Koran 2:191: "And kill them (non-Moslems) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Moslems)."

Koran 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers (non-Moslems) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …"

Allows Moslems to commit adultery with slave girls: Koran 4:24, "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."

Commands Moslems to steal from Non-Moslems and enjoy doing it: “Enjoy what ye took, for it is lawful and good” (Koran 8:69).

Allows Moslems to lie, for Allah is himself a deceiver: The Koran overtly teaches that Allah is the master of deception. As Koran 3:54 and 8:30 put it, “Allah (is the) best (of) the deceivers” (literal translation)

Commands Moslems to fight, kill, or violently subjugate non-Moslems simply for being non-Moslems: "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (Koran 9:123)

"Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain." (Koran 9:111)

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Koran 9:29)

A False and Morally Bankrupt Prophet

Mohammed behaved wickedly, just as the false moon god he served taught. There is an excellent circular I read compiled by Mr. Stanley Robertson. Although not a Traditionalist, Mr. Robertson has done an excellent job of exposing Islam as a false and wicked sect. Below, I set forth some of his pertinent points. The author's citations are retained as he wrote them.

Mohammed:

• Said Allah hates those who don't accept Islam. (Qur'an 30:4, 3:32, 22:38)

• Permitted stealing from unbelievers. (Bukhari 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764)

• Permitted lying. (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857)

• Murdered those who insulted him. (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)

• "If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him" (Qur'an 2:194)

• Jihad [War] in the way of Allah elevates one's position in Paradise by a hundred fold. (Muslim 4645)

• Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves. (Bukhari 5:268, Qur'an 33:50)

• Slept with a 9-year-old child. (Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)

• Ordered the murder of women. (Ibn Ishaq 819, 995)

• "O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (Qur'an 9:123)

• Encouraged his men to rape enslaved women. (Abu Dawood 2150, Qur'an 4:24)

• Demanded captured slaves and a fifth of all other loot taken in war. (Qur'an 8:41)

• Was never tortured, but tortured others. (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764)

• "And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39)

• Blessed the brutal murder of a half-blind man (al-Tabari 1440)

• What are the Greatest Commandments? "Belief in Allah and Jihad [War] in His cause" (Muslim 1:149)

• Died fat and wealthy from what was taken from others in war or demanded from others in tribute

• Advocated crucifying others. (Qur'an 5:33, Muslim 16:4131)

• According to his followers: Had others give their lives for him. (Sahih Muslim 4413)

The True Triune God worshipped by the One True Church of Jesus Christ is not the object of worship professed by Islam. Therefore they do not worship the same God. Allah has been shown to be (a) non-Trinitarian, an essential attribute God revealed; (b) culpably ignorant of theology he opposes; (c) morally defective and commands evil of his so-called prophet and followers. 

Speaking of Evil: Sharia Law

Moslems derive the term sharia from the Qur'an, where Allah declares, “Then We put thee on the (right) way of religion: so follow thou that (way), and follow not the desires of those who know not” (45:18, Ali). The Arabic for “way” here is sharia, which in this context refers to the commands Allah delivered to Mohammad. Since the Qur’an (4:65) also orders Moslems to obey Mohammad’s decisions, the body of laws that came to be called “sharia” includes the commands of both Allah and Mohammad. 

The Evil of Sharia Law

Sharia Law involves the following:

Jihad: Jihad is holy war against the infidels of the world. All Muslims are obliged to kill the infidel. An infidel (or kafir) is a non-Moslem. Many Moslems think that killing an infidel guarantees going straight to paradise.

Apostasy: All apostates are to be killed. An apostate is any person who renounces Islam and changes his religion. Christians are not allowed to convert Moslems to Christianity. Conversion is perceived as blasphemy and carries the death penalty. Distributing Christian literature can result in a five-year prison sentence under Sharia Law.

Criticism of Islam: The death penalty applies to Moslems who criticize Mohammad, the Qur’an or Sharia Law. Severe penalties also apply to Christians who speak out against Islam.

Freedom of Worship: Although Islam pays lip service to “people of the book” (other "Abrahamic religions"), the reality is that most all Islamic countries are persecuting Christians, targeting their places of worship, and killing and imprisoning believers. Persecution is intense in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Maldives, and other countries with a strong Islamic influence.

Female victims of rape: Sharia Law protects rapists. A woman making an accusation of rape has to provide four male witnesses. If she is unable to do so, she will be charged with zina, for which the prescribed punishment is flogging or stoning. Thousands of women are imprisoned as a result of unsuccessful charges of rape. Some are even stoned to death. On October 27, 2008, Aisha, a 13-year-old girl in Kisayu, Somalia, was stoned to death for adultery; later, her aunt told the British Broadcasting Corporation that Aisha had been raped by three armed men. Rapists are seldom brought to trial, let alone punished.

Miscellaneous crimes: Fornication and adultery: Fornicators are to be whipped, and adulterers are to be stoned to death. Theft: Any person found stealing is to have a hand cut off. Battery and assault: An injured plaintiff can extract legal revenge; lex talionis (“an eye for an eye”) is in effect.

The strongest evidence that Sharia makes Islam more oppressive than other religions is the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (CDHRI). 45 Islamic nations have signed the Cairo Declaration that proclaims a number of human rights only to renege on them if they contradict Islamic Sharia. It is a devious way to give the appearance of caring about human rights when in reality it guts the historic 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by declaring Sharia the only source for Muslim 'human rights'. It was revised in 2020 to not specifically invoke sharia law, but it does not renounce it. A good PR job and nothing more. 

Doesn't The United States Constitution protect us from Sharia?

For now it does. In November 2011 the MacDonald-Laurier Institute poll of Canadian Moslems found that 75 percent of respondents want Sharia Law. In December 2012 the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the imam at Australia’s largest mosque had issued a fatwa (legal ruling) against Christmas. In July 2011 Moslems called upon England to establish three independent states within the U.K. There are also Moslem groups in the United States calling for the implementation of Sharia Law in America. For a terrifying expose on Sharia Law and the threat it poses to America, see:

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1495&context=honors

Conclusion

As America and other Western (formerly Catholic) countries become "Islamified" the infidels who worship a false moon god will have greater representation and influence to change laws, and perhaps even amend the Constitution itself. Think it farfetched? In the wake of 9-11 (just 24 years ago) If I had said there would probably be a Moslem mayor in the near future, I would have been laughed to scorn. Now, it is Zohran Mamdani who is laughing as Christian dupes (like AOC) join Islam in seeking his election as mayor of New York City. 

Consider how Vatican II has paved the way for Mohammedans:

"Pope" "Saint" John Paul II kissed the Koran and prayed, "May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam." Maybe he should be given the title "John Paul the Great Mohammedan."

"Pope" Benedict XVI  called for Christians "to open their arms and hearts" to Moslem immigrants and "to dialogue" with them on religious issues. Ratzinger told participants that the Catholic (sic) Church is "increasingly aware" that "inter-religious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world."

"Pope" Francis prayed towards Mecca and said, "Islam is a religion of peace, one which is compatible with respect for human rights and peaceful coexistence."

Do not be fooled. Any Traditionalist who behaves immorally does so in spite of Church teaching. Any Moslem who behaves immorally does so because of the teachings of Islam. As the population of Moslems nears the one million mark in NYC, and continues to swell unabated in once-Catholic Europe, remember well the words of Pope St. Pius V, "[Moslems] are the enemy of the Catholic Faith." (See Salvatoris Domini, March 5, 1571).

Let us pray from The Litany of St. Louis IX, King of France (for private use only):

St. Louis, victor over the Saracens, pray for us!

The Heresy That Keeps Coming Back: Reincarnation

 

I was having dinner recently with an old friend of mine from law school. He is a "conservative" member of the Vatican II sect, and it is my hope to see him convert one day. He was upset about a recent exchange between himself and a paralegal. He had asked the paralegal to do some extra work for him (he was in a bind) and he would make sure she got some extra time off when she wanted it. The lady (in her mid 30s) agreed. When she handed him the completed work, he said jokingly, "I'll give you some more tough work soon!" She responded, "That's fine. In my next life, I'll be your boss and get even!" My friend replied, "You only get one life." "No," she retorted, "reincarnation was taught even among early Christians." She later gave him a pamphlet, which my friend took out of his pocket and gave to me. "Is there any truth to this?" my friend asked. I assured him there was not. 

There is a movement afoot that is trying to convince people that you can believe in reincarnation and be Catholic. This post will expose and refute such claims, showing reincarnation to be both a heretical and evil teaching. N.B. I have complied this information from many sources in addition to the ones cited, which includes many online articles and books I have acquired. I take no credit for the information, only for condensing it into a terse and readable post---Introibo

What is Reincarnation?

According to a 2018 Pew Research Poll, 36% of Vatican II sect members believe in the pagan teaching of reincarnation; up from 28% just eight years earlier. Reincarnation is the belief that people's souls go through cycles of birth, death, and re-birth until they achieve Nirvana (which means to be "blown out" like a candle) so as to escape the cycle and achieve "oneness" with the universe (a type of pantheism). The idea that people keep "coming back" as other people after death continues to grow in popularity  while the notion of returning as another life form, e.g., a dog, is by and large  rejected by "modern reincarnationists."

(See pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/01/new-age-beliefs-common-among-both-religious-and-nonreligious-americans).

 Before 1965, almost all who believed in reincarnation were either Hindus or Buddhists. Since then, there are those who have converted to those pagan religions because of that doctrine. Now, there's the new development (especially in the wake of Vatican II) of "mixing and matching" beliefs to fit personal desires about what people want to be true rather than seeking truth itself--even to the point where chosen ideas are mutually exclusive.  There are three major reasons for this continuing rise and acceptance of reincarnation: 

1. Ecumenism fostered by Vatican II. 

The Vatican II Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate,  states in paragraph #2:

Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our human condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God... Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination...The Catholic (sic) Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

There is no condemnation of these pagan religions both of which teach reincarnation, instead they are lauded. Reincarnation was explicitly condemned in the schema of the Dogmatic Constitution De Deposito Fide Pure Custodiendo, which was drawn up by thoroughly orthodox theologians and canonists under the direction of Cardinal Ottaviani during the preparatory phrase of the Council. Roncalli saw to it that it was rejected and replaced by the Council because of its paucity of "ecumenical character." The heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II makes it clear that even pagan religions have "elements of truth," and that "all paths lead to God." If so, why not choose "the path of least resistance"? 

Accepting reincarnation erodes morals because you can live like a heathen and there is no Hell, just another life to try and "get it right" and achieve nirvana, which is basically extinction--so no one suffers in the end. This wicked idea would mean that there is no real difference between being Joseph Stalin or St Francis of Assisi; Stalin would only need to be reincarnated more times than St. Francis. If the Church (sic) "regards with sincere reverence...those precepts and teachings...differing in many aspects from the ones she (sic) holds and sets forth..." why not be a "reincarnation-believing Catholic (sic)"? 

2. Occultism.

 As I've warned many times, we are experiencing an occult revival unseen since before the birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Reincarnation is integral to the occult both philosophically and experimentally. All that I've researched indicates the following: (1) people who have reincarnation experiences are usually occult practitioners, or have occult activity in their family history. Again, reincarnation experiences usually occur within an occult environment—culturally or individually; (2) Almost all occultists teach reincarnation and most committed reincarnationists hold to at least some beliefs common to occult philosophy or practice. Books authored by reincarnationists typically encourage occult activity or teach occult doctrines—e.g., books by Jeane Dixon, Edgar Cayce, etc.; (3) Conversely, numerous occult disciplines depend upon reincarnation as a major component—Astrology, Tarot, parapsychology, spiritism, etc. For example, although it might not be initially evident in general, reincarnation is a principal pillar undergirding both mediumistic and spiritistic philosophy and practice. 

If reincarnation is true, there are millions of spirits who exist in the postmortem spiritual world. Contrary to popular opinion, “the great majority of reincarnationists believe that death is not immediately followed by reincarnation in the new body. In the Bhagavad Gita the interval is spoken of as a “immensity of years,” and in the Republic Plato speaks of a thousand-year cycle.​ Other cultures vary from several months to several years; the point is that because of a belief in reincarnation, endless numbers of human spirits are believed to exist in the spirit world. As humans, they have an interest in human affairs. They are learning and/or otheby those with proper mediumistic “gifts” and gleaned for their postmortem “wisdom.” 

Reincarnation thus supports the specifically mediumistic hypothesis of discarnate humans in the spirit world who may be contacted for human welfare. Spiritism, in general, believes that the spirits contacted are the human dead existing in the postmortem state prior to their next incarnation. The underlying premise of the concept of a spirit guide is that because it has lived life already, it has gleaned new wisdom from its postmortem experience and may convey that wisdom to humans; it is indeed a qualified spiritual guide who can more successfully lead and direct one’s life. In this view, since unrepentant humans do not go to judgment at death but are floating around in the spirit world, the Church must be in error when it teaches otherwise. 

Personal contact (as in mediumism) with what are actually demonic entities is reinterpreted as contact with deceased, but now more spiritually advanced humans—something much more acceptable and desirable. After all, if humanity naturally progresses into the next life, why should we not contact them? Indeed, what a fascinating, hopeful endeavor—such is the drawing power of mediumism and the reason demons support the practice. After all, social and personal relationships exist here; why should we prohibit the joy of fellowship with our friends, family—even noble strangers—from the other side, when it is to our benefit? They are, after all, just people. Why not contact them for comfort, spiritual insight, (they do live in the spiritual world), wisdom, help, secret information, etc.? How are we to engage in such contact? By means of the local occultist—guru, medium, spiritist, etc. A belief in reincarnation provides demons with the opportunity to act out their own natures, especially in poltergeist and related phenomena. If some spirits were evil humans, fulfilling their karma in this life, and have not repented in the afterlife, they can be expected to be brutish, deceiving and cruel. In any case, they believe they are still dealing with the spirits of humans, not the spirits of demons.

 In the field of parapsychology, reincarnation research is a common theme, and it further “endorses” the above conclusions with a “scientific” acceptance. Reincarnation “evidence” is almost universally derived from occultism—certain altered altered states of consciousness (trance, hypnosis, meditation, yogic consciousness), mediumism and other forms of possession. In the millions of pages of published revelations from the spirit world, reincarnation is one teaching that is stressed by them as having pivotal importance—i.e., it is a major doctrine or revelation from the spirit world, regardless of the variety of spiritism it occurs in. It is, in fact, so common to spiritistic revelations, so integral to occultism, and so consequential spiritually and culturally, that I suspect the origin of the doctrine was from the spirit world at the outset. 

3. Pantheism. 

Pantheism, either asserts that the universe and God are identical (which is basically atheism with reverence for nature), or nature is an integral part of God (for example, my heart is not me, but an essential part without which I cannot survive). Allegedly, the true nature of everything, including humanity, is impersonal divinity. Our true nature has nothing to do with material or personal existence. The only problem is that we do not yet realize it. Everything is "god" including "you." The message, "You are God" makes you feel important and powerful. Pantheism was condemned as heresy by the Vatican Council of 1870. 

Infallibly taught by the Vatican Council of 1870:

1. If anyone shall deny One true God, Creator and Lord of things visible and invisible; let him be anathema. 

2. If anyone shall not be ashamed to affirm that, except matter, nothing exists; let him be anathema. 

3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema. 

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema. 

Vatican II "Theologians" and Reincarnation

Even despite an increasing phenomenon of both secularization and paganization, to say something is “biblical” makes it sound profound or tends to legitimize it spiritually. Likewise, to say something was a teaching of Jesus means it must be good and wise and godly. Thus, as is true in parapsychology, yoga and other occult disciplines, there exists in the area of reincarnation many books defending the idea that Christianity and reincarnation are indeed compatible. One hears of Christian reincarnation in the exact same way one hears of "Christian parapsychology," "Christian yoga," "Christian Zen," and "Christian Marxism." The result is the promotion of the latter half of the equation with at best a normal or weak Christian veneer.

A leading proponent of "Christian Reincarnation" is Vatican II sect "theologian"  John J. Heaney (1925-2017) who received his doctorate in theology from the Institut Catholique in Paris. He taught theology at Fordham University where he specialized in fundamental theology and Christian revelation. One of his major texts is entitled, The Sacred and the Psychic: Parapsychology and Christian Theology, [1984]. This is an integrative text seeking to incorporate/integrate the findings of the present-day scientific study of the occult with Christian revelation. For example, he accepts the parapsychological investigation of mediumism and seeks to apply its findings to "Catholic" faith. In his chapter on reincarnation, Heany stated: Should a Christian theologian deny outright that reincarnation might be a reality? Must he reject reincarnation because of Christian doctrine? This would seem to me to be most inappropriate. (pg. 192)

Heaney continues:

Notice that after New Testament times, the Catholic tradition, basing itself merely a few hints in Scripture, developed the doctrine of purgatory. The ethical idea behind this evolution seems to have been that since life is so short, we do not all reach the goal at the end. Think, for example, of infants who die. We need a slow process of maturation. Whether this would be on this earth or in the next world would not seem to be the major point. Later, as the doctrine of evolution moved into religion, as with Teilhard de Chardin, the slow processes of the universe are seen by many, even by Protestant thinkers today, to continue after death. Why should this law of slow maturing in the evolutionary process operate everywhere in the universe but end suddenly with a person’s death? (pgs. 216-217). 

Gone are the days of the approved theologians using razor-sharp Neo-Scholastic reasoning under the direction of the Magisterium in compiling theology manuals. The comparison of reincarnation to Purgatory is a blasphemous joke. Moreover, Heaney goes on to refute that reincarnation is compatible with Catholicism, and yet affirms if anyway (!):

The most formidable theological objection to reincarnation is that Jesus did not teach it and it is not proposed in the New Testament (nor in the Old Testament). This is a strong objection.... It would be inconceivable that Jesus implicitly accepted a doctrine of reincarnation. In the New Testament we have the parable of the last judgment (Matthew 25:31) where no second chance is implied, and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19) where the rich man is unable to return to earth to warn his five brothers about the way they are living. Furthermore, texts in the New Testament which seem to imply individual preexistence do not teach reincarnation. Apart from Christ, in the case of ordinary people, they imply existence as ideas in the mind or plan of God. No other explanation is allowed by the context. We seem to have met the great obstacle to the doctrine of reincarnation: neither Jesus nor Scripture teaches this doctrine. (pgs. 213-214; Emphasis mine). 

He then declares that reincarnation is incorporated into the Christian faith “only with great difficulty,” but suggest this incorporation is not impossible, although it's not clear why. He also wishes Catholics to remain open to the idea. One can only wonder why. Were the disciples “open” to Gnosticism? Heaney, ordained a Jesuit in 1955, became a disciple of Modernist Fredrich von Hugel in the wake of Vatican II and studied the occult. He asked for (and received) laicization from Montini to get married. 

Stafford Betty, a professor at Cal State has commented on why so many "Catholics" believe in reincarnation. He presents two reasons:

1. "Many Catholics think that a single life of anywhere from a few seconds' duration to 110 years is not enough time to determine the destiny of a soul for all eternity. They feel that God would be unloving if He (excuse the conventional pronoun) were to condemn a sinner to hell, but irrational if He rewarded a baby born dead with heaven. Some of these Catholics see the wheel of rebirth as a more plausible form of purgatory. "

2. "The other main reason that Catholics -- and other Americans -- adopt a reincarnational worldview turns on evidence. Much, perhaps most, of what passes as evidence comes from the popular media. Stories about people who have seeming memories of a previous life or mysterious phobias or obsessions or talents that cannot be explained by events in this life abound, and they often set people to wondering. The History channel serves up occasional stories of apparent rebirth, and these are based on research by paranormal investigators. 

There is also some reputable academic research being done on reincarnation that trickles down into public awareness. This is the work of Ian Stevenson, the famous reincarnation researcher affiliated with the University of Virginia who died in 2007. Stevenson and his associates traveled over the world tracking down little children, usually aged between 3 and 5, who claim to have memories of past lives. In hundreds of cases from all over the world their memories would match actual events that happened to the adult they remembered being." (See http://www.hinduismtoday.com/blogs-news/hindu-press-international/-why-do-so-many-catholics-believe-in-reincarnation-/10313.html)

The Case Against "Catholic" Reincarnation

It's obvious that reincarnation is incompatible with Church teaching. However, I wish to respond to the reasons most commonly given above by Professor Stafford Betty for belief in this false doctrine. It is based on feelings and sensation more than anything else, which is why an appeal to the teaching of the Church or quoting the Bible will usually hold no sway over such believers. Deja vu (from the French for "already seen") is the sensation that something you are experiencing (usually for the first time) has been experienced by you in the past. This is then attributed to having done the particular experience "in a past life."   There are sound arguments to reject the reincarnationists' reasons in addition to Church teaching; these I offer below.

1. One lifetime is enough to decide your eternal fate. What difference does it make if a person lives 7,000 years in various incarnations or 70 years in one lifetime when compared to eternity? Are not both infinitesimal when compared to eternity? Everyone is given ample opportunity to get to Heaven, and no one goes there unless they choose it! Not all experiences admit of second chances. Reincarnationists are fond of comparing life to a test that a kind teacher lets you retake if you fail. I could just as easily analogize to someone committing suicide by shooting himself in the head. There is no "do over," and the result is permanent. Provided that the person was of sound mind, the choice was freely made. Purgatory is for getting rid of imperfections; the person has already decided to choose God within their lifetime, so reincarnation is nothing like the dogma of Purgatory.

2. Reincarnation does nothing to explain evil and is unjust unlike Hell. Children can be baptized because they did nothing wrong in contracting Original Sin. It is simply the deprivation of sanctifying grace caused by the Fall of the first man. In a similar way, if a wealthy couple squanders millions of dollars, their children will be born into a poor state through no fault of their own but those children can work their way to wealth. Children who die without baptism are generally thought to enjoy some natural happiness (Limbo) because of no personal fault. Contrast this with reincarnation. In what sense does your self continue? If you have no memory of what you did in a past life (and you may not even exist as the same gender or on the same planet/dimension), in what sense do you survive death? If there is no bodily continuity, memory, or intellectual awareness, it seems like you're suffering for what someone else did, which is unjust. 

Reincarnation also offers no solution to the problem of evil. For example, if someone is born with no arms because they assaulted people in a prior life, and they assaulted people in a prior life because before that life they couldn't control their temper, whence did evil originate? It's an infinite regress of past lives with no explanation. How did suffering begin in the first place if each life of suffering was caused by past bad karma? Moreover, there would be no free will in the view of reincarnation. Eventually, everyone will come to some "Nirvana." So it doesn't matter if you're Hitler or St. Francis of Assisi, you both get to the same place regardless of what you do. On the other hand, Heaven and Hell are freely chosen with the wicked punished and the good rewarded.

3. Deja vu, hypnotic recall of past lives, and "spontaneous recall" are easily explained without reincarnation. 

According to a 2012 study in the peer reviewed journal Consciousness and Cognition 21 (2) 969-975, it was suggested recognition based on familiarity can cause a sensation of deja vu. Using virtual reality technology, it was found that similarity between a scene's spacial layout and the layout of a scene previously experienced (but not recalled) can lead to a subjective feeling of "having been there before despite knowing otherwise." This is also known as "cryptoamnesia." In simple terms it means that the subconscious relates a present event with a previous one that the conscious mind does not remember. One event is similar to another and the mind fuses them together, giving the sensation that this "happened before." 

So-called "past lives" brought out under hypnosis are fraught with difficulties. According to hypnosis expert James E. Parejko in an article published in the Journal of the American Institute of Hypnosis (Jan. 1975), he listed four factors of subconscious intervention during hypnosis: (a) Expectations of the hypnotist, (b)  diminished critical thoughts in the mind that accompany deep trance states, (c) a triggering idea by the hypnotist, and (d) the ability of the mind to hallucinate.

A case in point of inherent unreliability was that of Bridey Murphy. Through hypnosis, a woman allegedly regressed to 18th century Ireland. She suddenly spoke Gaelic, described the coastline where she lived, discussed the customs and spoke like a life-long Irish native. Upon further investigation, "Bridey Murphy" (the name of the person she allegedly was in this "past life") never existed but was a figment of the woman's imagination. She was raised by her grandmother who spoke Gaelic and kept history books on Ireland which she related to her granddaughter. The hypnotic subject had forgotten the language and history as she got older, but it was brought back under hypnosis with the mind giving life to the memories by manufacturing a name. (Let's not forget that some of these subjects, who dabble in the occult, could be under demonic control).

In the famous cases of Dr. Ian Stevenson, who investigated children claiming to have "spontaneously recalled" a past life, the doctor himself admits of bias in his study due to cultural conditioning. He wrote, "...the principal sites of abundant reported cases are: northern India; Sri Lanka; Burma; Thailand; Vietnam; western Asia, especially south central Turkey, Lebanon, and Syria; and northwest North America, among the natives of that region. The peoples of these areas (of the groups among whom the cases occur) believe in reincarnation." (See Stevenson, Ian, "The Explanatory Value of the Idea of Reincarnation," Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Sept. 1977, 308).  He further admits, "Neither any single case nor all the investigated cases together offer anything like a proof of reincarnation." (Ibid, 325). So much for  the most reputable research they have to date.  

The Evil Consequences of Belief in Reincarnation

On December 7, 1977, Eldon McCorkhill (age 33) and Linda Cummings (age 28) were having drinks at a bar in Redlands, California. Their conversation eventually came to the subject of life after death. Cummings said she was firmly convinced that reincarnation was true. A spirited debate ensued, as McCorkhill was not a believer in cycles of birth, death, and rebirth. They argued all the way back to McCorkhill's apartment; once there, he took out a loaded gun and handed it to Cummings, saying, "If you believe in this, let's see what you'll come back as." Linda Cummings took the gun, pointed it at her head, and without hesitation, pulled the trigger. (See San Francisco Examiner, December 8, 1977). Ideas have consequences. 

 The True Church of Christ has always taught--along with the Apostle St. Paul---"(Just as)people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" (See Hebrews 9:27). I have read much occult literature over the years in my study of the subject to better expose it. Reincarnation, as I explained above, comes hand in glove with many other occult beliefs and practices.  Here are some logical consequences of belief in reincarnation:

1. Promotion of Abortion.

In occult literature one discovers that the idea of reincarnation is utilized to justify abortion. Allegedly, the fetus does not become “living” until the spirit enters it, usually at delivery, sometimes months later, but rarely at conception or during the first six to nine months. In fact, spiritistic communications often encourage abortion because the baby is merely a vegetable or “dead flesh” until the soul enters it. The parents must not be burdened with unwanted baggage we are told. Only “wanted” babies should be allowed to live; only mature parents, etc., should have children: so the message is clear; go ahead and abort.

2. Promotion of Divorce and Adultery.

So-called "psychics, "spiritual advisors," and "therapists" who believe in reincarnation, often tell their clients that their adultery and divorce are permissible, because they did not marry their proper “soulmate,” that is, the one they allegedly lived with in a previous life. If they wish to advance spiritually, they must now join with this new partner or “suffer” the karmic consequences of being spiritually mismatched.

3. Promotion of LGBTQIA++ Evils.

If a male seems feminine, that may well be the effect of having been a woman in one or more "past lives." Maybe a sex change is in order; or perhaps that's why he feels attracted to men. If you can be both male and female in past "incarnations" then gender really is "fluid" and sex acts can be good with either gender--or both.

Conclusion

 The Church makes clear that this life is the only one we will ever have, so get things right the first and only time you're here. Don't talk about "karma" and "your next life," as these are false, pagan ideas completely incompatible with Catholicism. 

Suicide: The Wrong Exit

 

It is with heavy heart that I composed this post. I had never personally known anyone who had committed suicide---until last month. I received a phone message that my friend "Peter" (not his real name---Introibo) had tragically taken his own life. I had written on the painful and incredibly sad life of Peter before; See introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/04/covering-up-obvious.html. I cannot do his story justice here in a short synopsis, so I kindly ask you to read the whole story at the above referenced post.

Suicide is tragic in the extreme. I'm still reeling from the shock and sorrow in the aftermath, and wondering if there was anything more I could have done. He showed no signs of being suicidal and left no note. I'm writing this post to honor Peter's memory. I will set forth Church teaching on the topic, explain the possible causes of suicide, and expose the modern world's attempt to make taking your own life seem acceptable (at best) or even noble (at worst). In this way, maybe I can prevent someone from taking their life, no matter how bad their circumstances may be; and although we all must all leave this world one day, they may realize that suicide is the wrong exit.  

Church Teaching on Suicide

Suicide is either direct or indirect, according to both the intention and mode. A person who kills himself from knowledge and choice makes the act direct. The mode is direct if what is done tends by its very nature to cause death (e.g., taking a lethal dose of cyanide). Someone who is mentally ill would only kill himself indirectly. The mode is indirect if that which is done tends from its nature to another end, i.e. to struggle with a criminal wielding a gun. It is wrong to assume that all people are mentally ill, and the suicide is only indirect (although one is free to assume a majority may be psychologically disturbed). N.B. If someone mentally disturbed  kills himself, it would, in most cases, not constitute mortal sin, and they may not be damned. For sin to be mortal, the matter must be serious, and it must be done with full knowledge it is wrong and full consent of the will. The mentally disturbed will most likely lack the full knowledge and/or full consent of the will for mortal sin---Introibo

 Direct  suicide is always a mortal sin that deprives the person of ecclesiastical burial unless they were able to give signs of repentance before death (See Canon 1240, section 3). If the person who attempts suicide is unsuccessful, they are subject to various penalties pronounced in Canon 2350, section 2. If it is doubtful that the person killed himself, the doubt is decided in the decedent's favor that he did not, provided there would be no scandal. 

Suicide is a grave sin for three (3) reasons:

1.It is a most grave offense against the rights of God. The act usurps God's authority over life and death. "Thou, O Lord, hast the power of life and death." (Wisdom 16: 13). Human life has intrinsic worth because it comes from God, and God wills the salvation of all. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity took on a human nature and died for humanity, to give all a chance to get to Heaven. 

2. It is a grave offense against society. A community has the right to be benefited by the lives of their members. It has a demoralizing effect on those who loved the person. People valuable to society would rashly kill themselves in a fit of depression thinking they are not valuable. Even members of society not able to contribute in any substantial, material way would deprive others of an example of fortitude, or the opportunity to show charity and mercy to the needy. 

3. It is a grave offense against the natural law. You cannot "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless there is love of self (not inordinate). Those who kill themselves to escape pain and miseries, incur the greater evils of death and moral cowardice, to be followed by eternal damnation--the greatest of all evils and suffering.  

(Material above condensed from theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, [1930], 2: 117-123).

The Alarming Statistics

Between 2020 and 2021, suicide rates alarmingly increased.  According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the statistics are startling:

• Suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the U.S.
• Suicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for individuals ages 20 to 34.
• Suicide rates increased 37 percent between 2000 and 2018 and decreased 5 percent between 2018 and 2020. However, rates nearly returned to their peak in 2021. 
• Each year, nearly 48,000 Americans die by suicide – that is 132 per day or 1 death ever 11 minutes.

(See brownhealth.org/be-well/rise-suicide)

Those are scary numbers. Next, consider the suicide statistics concerning young people from jasonfoundation.com:

• Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for ages 10-24

• Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for college-age youth and ages 12-18 

• More teenagers and young adults die from suicide than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung disease, COMBINED

• Each day in our nation, there are an average of over 5,240 suicide attempts by young people grades 7-12

Common Causes/Risk Factors of Suicide

• mental health conditions
• serious or chronic health conditions, particularly chronic pain
• traumatic brain injuries
• recent suicide attempts or recent discharge from a psychiatric unit
• access to lethal means
• prolonged exposure to stress
• stressful life events, such as a death, relationship break-up, or job loss
• exposure to another person’s suicide
• a history of suicide attempts
• a family history of suicide
• experiencing childhood abuse, neglect, or trauma
• use of alcohol and/or drug abuse

(See Op. cit.)

Things Connected to Suicide and Almost Never Discussed

There are four (4) contributing factors to suicide in today's culture that are hardly ever discussed. Each will be examined in turn. They are:

• Involvement with the occult
• Protestant and Modernist theology
• Glamorization of suicide in the media
• Acceptance of assisted suicide for the sick and elderly

Involvement with the Occult

I came across this article, written in 2017, which demonstrates exactly this point. The website containing the article is non-religious, and well worth reprinting here:

As occult practices are on the rise, contemporary theologians become increasingly interested in psychology, with many Christian authors wrestling with the question of how demons can influence mental disorders.

It is only fair to say, people with psychological problems should receive psychological treatment: and indeed the majority of therapists will point blank refuse to link depression with virtually any form of witchcraft, magic or occult involvement. But an increasing number of theologians appear less inclined to accept occultism as an innocuous pastime.

So, the question is: Can we screen episodes of mental illness from, literally, the devil's work?

While many forms of depression result from a chemical imbalance, it is usually a combination of events and a variety of long-term or personal factors, rather than one immediate issue that breed anxiety and depression. And as any mental disorder goes, it will be medical practitioners and therapists who administer treatments upon tracing the root cause of the problem.

But whereas it may be difficult to tell whether certain patterns of depressive behavior are innate or inherited, the article published last week in Open Theology suggests, a contact with the Satanic and occult rituals may trigger off psychopathological reactions. Psychopaths are generally less likely to suffer from typical depressive disorders, but drawing upon an extensive research, Dr. Zlatko Sram from Croatian Center for Applied Social Research argues, that people who practice black magic or have otherwise occult bondage in their history are particularly susceptible to comorbidity of depression and psychopathy.

The author conducted a survey on over one thousand participants and found strong evidence that people suffering from depression and psychopathy simultaneously are attracted to satanic practices as a means of obtaining magical power and control over their destiny—regardless of their sex or ethnic origin. The research categorized different esoteric practices that spanned from psychic séances, through black magic, to engaging with an occult society or reading books and magazines dealing with esoteric and occult issues. Psychopathy and depression were significantly predictive of "satanic syndrome" in individuals who had been subjected to the occult involvement, suffering bouts of depression and mental disorders nearly twice as often compared to the rest of society. Given the nature of the satanic syndrome, namely the fact that it is measured by specific occult practices, the author suggests to verify the scale of the problem in psychiatric hospitals and clinics.

This key correlation yields new perspective on the early-onset depression. "This is an important study in that it takes ontological claims seriously and supports the real possibility that demonic forms of bondage may be linked to psychopathology as [...] evil forces can interfere in human behavior." comments Prof. Ralph W. Hood from University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

(See medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-occult-depression-psychopathy.html; Emphasis mine). 

Protestant and Modernist Theology

The Protestant doctrine of "salvation by faith alone" lends itself to suicide. After all, if you believe in Christ and are guaranteed Heaven, if your life on Earth is miserable, why not kill yourself and go to paradise? The typical Protestant response to get out of that logical extension of their doctrine is to say, "If you REALLY believed, you wouldn't commit suicide" (so you can never be sure your faith is "real"), or "Once you are born-again you will not want to kill yourself" thereby implying you're not really "born-again" if you commit suicide. 

The Vatican II sect has eliminated any idea of Hell (or if it does exist no one--or almost no one--goes there. Peter was hit by a double dose of heresy, from the Vatican II sect in which he was raised (and abused), and from the "born-again" heresy to which he converted. It might have convinced him suicide would put him in a better place.

Glamorization of Suicide in the Media

Here, I give but two examples:

In 2017-2020, there was the Netflix series, 13 Reasons Why, which was based on an internationally bestselling book of the same name by author Jay Asher. It chronicles the story of Clay Jenson who has received cassette tapes in a package and hears the voice of deceased classmate Hannah Baker. He's one of 13 people who receive Hannah's story, which details the circumstances that led to her suicide. The show glorifies teenage suicide. Hannah was a victim of rape, cyber-bullying and other evil acts. She kills herself to "get revenge" on the thirteen people who wronged her. This female "protagonist" is shown as a "martyr," thereby displaying the show's complete disregard (and a warped understanding) of martyrdom. It also romanticizes suicide as "heroic."

The 2016 movie Me Before You is a PSA for assisted suicide. The movie tells the story of Will Traynor, who is a good-looking, wealthy, and intelligent young man. Will's spinal chord is irreparably damaged when a motorcycle strikes him as he crosses the street chasing a cab. He cannot accept his new life as a quadriplegic facing profound physical limitations, pain, and recurring episodes of pneumonia that undermine his efforts to rehabilitate what is left of his upper body function. He is determined to end his life even after meeting and falling in love with Louisa Clark (Lou), a quirky, young working-class woman from his hometown whom his mother employs in the hopes her companionship can help Will find the desire to live. He eventually argues that his death is his gift to Lou to free her from the bonds her devotion to him would place on her life. It seems a strange way to say “I love you.”

He is committed to dying because he used to be an athletic, adventurous, sexual player with considerable resources to thrill-seek in stunning international locales. One cynically could conclude if Will had been introverted, clumsy, and less attractive, the tragedy of his loss might have been more bearable for him. There is frequent mention of how much pain he is in, but it is difficult to determine whether this is primarily psychological pain. At one point Nathan, Will’s in-home medical healthcare provider, illustrates Will’s suffering for Lou by explaining Will often dreams he is his old self skiing, then endures the pain of waking up to this terrible reality. That is reason enough for Nathan to voice his full understanding of Will wanting to die.

The primary moral justification offered to support the choice for suicide is that this is Will’s decision, a direct appeal to the principle of autonomy. In this regard, Me Before You continuously begs the question in relation to the issue of physician-assisted suicide. All protestations are met with assurances that this is simply Will’s choice. No character is ever asked to argue whether this is a morally legitimate choice. No alternative voice is offered from other people living with this same condition that enjoy life. The film assumes the very thing that must be argued in continuously framing the issue as a settled matter of autonomy--and you, the movie viewer, should agree.

Acceptance of Assisted Suicide

A form of euthanasia, physician assisted-suicide is legal in many countries and in ten (10) U.S. states as well as Washington D.C. The term active euthanasia in this section is the same as assisted suicide.

Most Common Assisted Suicide Arguments:

1. The Autonomy Argument. Since biological life is not the real, moral issue, then life is not intrinsically valuable or sacred simply because it is human life. The important thing is that one has biographical life and this involves a person's ability to state, formulate, and pursue autonomously chosen interests, desires, and so on. If a person autonomously chooses to end his life or have someone else assist him in ending his life, then such action is morally permissible. One should be free to do as one chooses as long as no harm is done to others.

2. The Mercy Argument. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person that his or her life be mercifully ended in order to avoid unnecessary suffering and pain.

3. The Best Interests Argument. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable. In some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights. Therefore, in those cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable. 

4. The Golden Rule Argument. Moral principles ought to be made universal. If I don't want someone to apply a rule to me, I shouldn't apply it to them. Similarly, if I want someone to apply a rule to me, I ought to be willing to apply it to others. Now suppose I were given a choice between two ways to die. First, I could die quietly and without pain, at the age of eighty, from a fatal injection. Or second, I could choose to die at eighty-plus-a-few-days of an affliction so painful that for those few days before death I would be reduced to howling like a dog, with my family standing helplessly by. The former death involves active euthanasia, and if I would choose it, I should be willing to permit others to choose it too. 

Replies to the Common Assisted Suicide Arguments:

A) Reply to the Autonomy Argument. First, it begs the question that there is no God and no Natural Law/Divine Law. The same could be said for all five arguments. However, all fail on separate and independent grounds as well. As to this argument, if we only need to protect people with "biographical lives," it would seem, then, that a person who no longer has such a life, who has no point of view, is no longer covered by the duty not to kill. However, if the person has lost the right not to be killed, it would seem that other rights would be lost as well, since the right to life is basic to other rights. In this case, it would be morally permissible to experiment on such a person or kill him brutally. Why? It is because we are no longer dealing with an object which has the relevant rights. 

B) Reply to the Mercy Argument. First, there are very few cases where modern medicine cannot alleviate suffering and pain. It is wrong ethical methodology to build an ethical doctrine on a few problem cases. The mercy argument violates this methodological principle by placing too much weight on an argument which only applies to a small number of situations. 

Second, though this can be abused, there is a point to suffering. One can grow through it; one can teach others how a wise, virtuous person handles life's adversities including suffering and death. The person can expiate his/her sins and offer the suffering up in union with the suffering of Christ.  One can also show that one cares for his or her membership in community with others and that is not right to withdraw from one another in time of need. Further, one can affirm the fact that people have value and purpose beyond happiness, the absence of pain, or the ability to pursue autonomously chosen goals.

Third, life is a gift and we are not the sole, absolute owners of our lives. We are made in the image and likeness of God. He decides matters of life and death, not us. 

C) Reply to Both the Best Interests and Golden Rule Argument. Two responses have been offered which apply equally to the Golden Rule argument and the Best Interests argument. First, the arguments beg the question against a sanctity-of-life view in favor of a quality-of-life view. In other words, if life is sacred, or if persons have intrinsic value simply by being human and, thus, are ends in themselves, then active euthanasia inappropriately treats a person as a means to an end (a painless state of death). Not everything a person takes to be in his own best interests is morally acceptable. Similarly, not everything a person would wish to have done to him or her is morally good. Quality-of-life judgments are often subjective and can be morally bad.

Put differently, a person can dehumanize himself--- and actually does so--- in active euthanasia by intentionally killing himself (or if someone else intentionally kills the person). Hence, when one engages in active euthanasia, one abdicates one's privilege and responsibility to live out one's life in community with and for others. This signals a failure of the community to be present to the sick person in a caring way. It also signals a failure of the person himself to die in a morally appropriate way (e.g., to teach others how to suffer and die) and to undergo a manner of dying which does not hinder those left behind from remembering the person in a morally helpful way. 

Conclusion

I grieve for Peter and pray for the repose of his soul. I ask all of my readers to please do the same. I wonder if I did enough to try and get him out of his apartment and help him. If anyone you know seems depressed and going through a hard time, please listen to him and let him know you are there to help. Don't be afraid to ask if they have thoughts of suicide. There are hotline numbers to call (now you can call 3 digits here in the U.S. --988). PRAY FOR THE PERSON. 

Suicide is a great way for Satan to get a soul in Hell. Never let anyone convince you otherwise. Call on the Blessed Virgin Mary when you feel alone and depressed. God will win in the end, not suffering and evil. However, you must stay close to Him and never despair in His help. "I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your seed." (Deuteronomy 30:19). 

The Catholicity Of The Church And Sins Against The First Commandment

 

To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the importance of the First Commandment, and how we must be diligent in following all this Divine precept compels and forbids us to do. Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Catholicity of the Church and Sins Against the First Commandment

by John Gregory 

The following is from the beloved Catechism of Trent (COT):

 

From you is spread abroad the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place, your faith which is toward, is gone forth (1 Thessalonians 1: 8).

 

THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH

“CATHOLIC”

 The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic; that is, universal.  And justly is she called Catholic, because as Saint Augustine says: she is diffused by the splendor of one faith from the rising to the setting sun.

 

In the Mass for the 6^th Sunday after the Epiphany the Introit is as follows:

 

“Adore God, all you His angels: Sion heard, and was glad and the daughters of Juda rejoiced.  The Lord has reigned; let the earth rejoice: let many islands be glad.”

 

Very appropriately the introit speaks of Sion, the heavenly Jerusalem.  Sion can refer to the Mother of God who contained God within her womb, the universal Catholic Church, which she embodies, and heaven itself.  In the most holy Mass, we adore God in the most perfect way possible on earth.  The best the protestants can do is pray.  The Catholics have Jesus offering Himself to His Father every day on our holy altars throughout the world. Making present to us in an unbloody manner the one sacrifice of His death on the cross and applying to our souls the merits He won for us on that cross for the sanctification of our souls.  Christ died for our sins, yes.  But His merits must be applied.  It is not a name it and claim it Gospel.  I believe, therefore I am saved.  No.  His merits must be applied to our souls through His valid ministers through the aforementioned daily Mass, the Holy Eucharist, the sacrament of Penance and the other sacraments which the protestants do not have, apart from baptism in some instances. It is only the Catholic Church's ministers, her bishops and priests, who are sent by Jesus for the instruction and sanctification of His chosen people’s souls. 

 

Unlike states of human institution, or the sects of heretics, she is not confined to any one country or class of men, but embraces within the amplitude of her love all mankind, whether barbarians or Scythians, slaves or freeman, male or female.  Therefore it is written: Thou . . . hast redeemed us to God, in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made us to our God a kingdom. (Apocalypse 5: 9, 10) Speaking of the Church, David says: Ask of me and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession; (Psalm 2: 8) and also, I will be mindful of Rahab and of Babylon knowing me; (Psalm 86: 4) and man is born in her. (Psalm 86: 5) The Psalmist is proclaiming the glory of the Messianic Kingdom, the Church, to which all nations shall be gathered.

 

In the Collect for this Mass the Catholic Church “asks” God for detachment from worldly things and attachment to heavenly things, so that we may avoid sin and be pleasing to God:

 

“Grant us, we beseech Thee, almighty God, ever to think of spiritual things and in every word and work always to do what is well pleasing in Your sight.  Through Jesus Christ, thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end.”

 

We should not be attached to worldly things, things we perceive with our senses as an end in themselves, but a means to an end, which is always our eternal salvation.  We are not attached to our jobs or money as an end in themselves, but as a means to an end.  For example, some may be attached to the prestige of their jobs, the high regard others have for them because of the position they hold.  This is an inordinate attachment to what others think of you.  If your end goal is to make as much money as you can, so people can admirer you for all the special things you can afford, then you have money as and end instead of a means to an end.  The purpose of our jobs and money is so that we can support ourselves and our families with the necessities of life. We sanctify our souls, strive for salvation, by fulfilling our natural state of life, whether that be the single life, married or religious.  The husband and father, for instance, fulfills his state in life by being a good husband and father.  Such a one has a job and earns money so he can provide for the necessities of his family.  If this is done for the love of God, then such a one is using his job and money as a means to an end.  Though his is and his family's eternal salvation being foremost in his mind as he strives to raise godly offspring who know and practice the faith.

 

Moreover to this Church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, (Ephesians 2: 20) belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time; all of whom are founded and raised upon the one corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near to them that are far.

 

She is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the Flood.  This (note of catholicity), therefore, is to be taught as a most reliable criterion, by which to distinguish the true from a false Church. (COT - p. 106)

 

In the Gradual we see that despite calling all to salvation, that most of chosen people of the old covenant, ceased to be chosen by refusing the new and everlasting covenant that the Gentiles embraced.

 

“The Gentiles shall fear Thy name, O Lord, and all the kings of the earth Thy glory.  For the Lord has built up Sion, and He shall be seen in His glory.  Alleluia, alleluia.  The Lord has reigned, let the earth rejoice: let many islands be glad.  Alleluia."

 

We must fear the Lord.  Our souls are in His hands.  What happened to the Jews can happen to us.  They were the chosen people.  God’s most favored first-born.  But they rejected Him, over and over again, finally they rejected Him, God the Son, completely and irrevocably when they clung to their power, prestige and money, by holding the people who supported them to the Old Covenant and spitting on the New Covenant, despite the countless miracles that proved Christ was Who He said He was, and His dying to establish the New and everlasting Covenant. We were grafted on in place of the Jews, when they rejected and we accepted Christ.  At the eleventh hour they could replace us again.  Since Vatican 2, how many gentiles have an authentic belief in Christ AND act accordingly?  A faithful remnant?  When Christ comes will He find faith on earth?  The implication is that if He finds any, it won’t be many who hold to it.  And if there is barely any faith left when He comes, what about love?  How many will be in a state of sanctifying grace when He comes again?

 

THE SINS AGAINST THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

You turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God (1 Thessalonians 1: 9) (COT - p. xliii)

The words of the First Commandment “Thou shalt not have strange gods before me, both command and prohibit or forbid.  The (COT) teaches that the words of the Commandment “is equivalent to saying: Thou shalt worship me the true God; thou shalt not worship strange gods.” 

WHAT THEY COMMAND 

The (mandatory part) contains a precept of faith, hope and charity.  For, acknowledging God to be immovable, immutable, always the same, we rightly confess that He is faithful and entirely just.  Hence in assenting to His oracles, we necessarily yield to Him all belief and obedience.  Again, who can contemplate His omnipotence, His clemency, His willing beneficence, and not repose in Him all his hopes? Finally, who can behold the riches of His goodness and love, which He lavishes on us, and not love Him?  Hence the exordium and the conclusion used by God in Scripture when giving His commands: I, the Lord. 

WHAT THEY FORBID 

The (negative) part of this Commandment is comprised in these words: Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.  This the Lawgiver subjoins, not because it is not sufficiently expressed in the affirmative part of the precept, which means: Thou shalt worship me, the only God, for if He is God, He is the only God; but on account of the blindness of many who of old professed to worship the true God and yet adored a multitude of gods Of these there were many even among the Hebrews, whom Elias reproached with having halted between two sides, (3 Kings 18: 21) and also among the Samaritans, who worshipped the God of Israel and the gods of nations. (4 Kings 17: 33) 

IMPORTANCE OF THIS COMMANDMENT 

After this it should be added that this is the first and principal Commandment, not only in order, but also in its nature, dignity and excellence.  God is entitled to infinitely greater love and obedience from us than any lord or king.  He created us, He governs us, He nurtured us even in the womb, brought us into the world, and still supplies us with all the necessaries of life and maintenance. 

SINS AGAINST THIS COMMANDMENT 

Against this Commandment all those sin who have not faith, hope and charity.  Such sinners are very numerous, for they include all who fall into heresy, who reject what holy mother the Church proposes for our belief, who give credit to dreams, fortune-telling, and such illusions; those who, despairing of salvation, trust not in the goodness of God; and those who rely solely on wealth, or health and strength of body.  (COT p. 368-369) 

THEY FORBID IDOLS A ND REPRESENTATIONS OF THE DEITY 

As far as this Commandment is concerned, it is clear that there are two chief ways in which God’s majesty can be seriously outraged.  The first way is by worshipping idols and images as God, or believing that they possess any divinity or virtue entitling them to our worship, by praying to, or reposing confidence in them, as the Gentiles did, who placed their hopes in idols, and whose idolatry the Scriptures frequently condemn.  The other way is by attempting to form a representation of the Deity, as if He were visible to mortal eyes, or could be reproduced by colors or figures.  Who, says Damascene, can represent God, invisible, as He is, incorporeal, uncircumscribed by limits, and incapable of being reproduced under any shape. This subject is treated more at large in the second Council of Nice.  Rightly, then, did the Apostles say (of the Gentiles): They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things; (Romans 1: 23) for they worshipped all these things as God, seeing that they made the images of these things to represent Him.  Hence the Israelites, when they exclaimed before the image of the calf: These are thy gods, O Israel, that have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, (Exodus 32: 4) are denounced as idolaters, because they changed their glory into the likeness of a calf that eateth grass. (Psalm 105: 20) (COT p. 374) 

In the post communion we ask assistance to avoid seriously outraging God through sin: 

“Nourished by Thy heavenly food, O Lord, we beseech Thee that we may always strive after those things that give us true life.  Through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen.”

 

What things do we strive for?  Beer?  Games?  Entertainment?  Leisure?  Sumptuous feasts and extravagant vacations?  To be admired and esteemed?  To die with the most toys?  Flirtatious exchanges with women who are not our wives?  Men who are not our husbands?  To gain the whole world at the expense of our souls?  In every Mass we are reminded to have our focus on the right things.  The things that are above.  Spiritual things.  Leading a good moral life.  Detachment from worldly things.  God.  Heaven.  

THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH FROM SAINT MATTHEW

The Sins Against the First Commandment.—The kingdom of heaven is likened to a grain of mustard seed which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and dwell in the branches thereof (Matthew 13: 31, 32).

Those who understand the above verse do indeed marvel at the things that come from the mouth of God as stated in this Mass’s Communion:

“They all marveled at these things that came from the mouth of God.”

 

Here are a few words from God that should make all men marvel and accept the fact that the Catholic Church is only Church founded by God for our salvation.  The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: 

 

All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.  Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

 

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.  And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.  When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.  Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

 

I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.  Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.  For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.  As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

 

The Lapide commentary continues with the description of the catholicity of the Catholic Church on the above verse from Saint Matthew: 

In Arabic: “to such an extent that the birds of the air are overshadowed by its branches.”  This is Christ’s third parable (the mustard seed), the occasion and cause of which Saint Chrysostom gives as follows: “Because the Lord had said that of the seed three parts perish, and one is preserved and again of that which is preserved, this great loss on account of the cockle which is sown over it, lest people should say, who then and how many will believe?  He removes this fear by the parable of the grain of mustard seed, and, therefore, it is said, another parable He proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, etc.” 

You will enquire in the first place, what it is which is here compared to the kingdom of heaven, and likened to a grain of mustard seed?  First, Saint Hilary understands it of Christ Himself.  He says, “The Lord compares Himself to a grain of mustard seed, which is very sharp and the least of all seeds, and whose virtue and power are increased by the bruising and pressure.  After this grain had been sown in the field—that is, when He was apprehended by the people and delivered to death, and His body was buried, as though in a field by a sort of sowing—it grew above the measure of all herbs—i.e., He exceeded the glory of all the prophets.  For the preaching of the prophets was given to Isreal like an herb to a man who is sick; but now in the branches of the tree, lifted above the ground on high, the birds of air dwell.  By these we understand the Apostles, lifted up by the power of Christ, and they overshadow the world with their branches.  To them the gentiles flew for the hope of life; and when they are vexed with whirlwinds, that is by the blasts of the devil, they rest as in the branches of a tree.”  Hear Saint Gregory, who in like manner expounds this whole parable, part by part: “Christ Himself is the grain of mustard seed, who was planted in the sepulcher of the garden, and rose again a mighty tree.  He was but a grain when He died; a tree when He rose again.  A grain through lowliness of the flesh; a tree by the power of His majesty.  A grain, because we saw Him, and there was no comeliness; but a tree because He was fairer than the children of men.  The branches of this tree are sacred preachers.  And let us see how widely they are spread.  For what is spoken concerning them?  Their sound is gone out into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world.  The birds rest in their branches, because holy souls who lift up themselves from earthly thoughts by the wings, as it were, of virtues are refreshed after the fatigue of this life by their words and their consolations.”  Similar expressions are found in Saint Augustine. 

You will say, how can Christ be called the kingdom of heaven, when He is not the kingdom, but its king?  The response is: just as a king is, so to speak, the head in a kingdom, so in turn a kingdom is as the body of the king, its head.  Therefore, a king represents the whole state or kingdom.  Hence according to the rule of Ticonius, often in scripture what belongs to the Church (which is the kingdom of Christ) is attributed to Christ, and vice versa. Then again, the plain meaning is as if to say: The kingdom of heaven is like someone who sows in it, as though in God’s field, a mustard seed, i.e., Christ, who grows exceedingly high and spreads its branches in all directions.  We heard a similar phrase in verse 24.

 

2. More plainly and aptly, the kingdom of heaven and the grain of mustard seed are the Church, especially the primitive Church.  Thus Saint Chrysostom.  Saint Augustine claims that it stands for faith, or rather the gospel and the evangelical doctrine, as Saint Jerome, Saint Ambrose, Saint Bede and others assert (although all these things amount to almost the same thing).  The Church (or her doctrine) is compared, first, to the seed [being sown] (vv. 3, 24); second to a mustard seed (this verse); third, to yeast (v. 33); fourth, to a treasure hidden in a field (v. 44); fifth, to a precious pearl (v. 46); sixth, to a dragnet cast into the sea (v. 47).  She is called the kingdom of heaven, because by her God reigns in us and leads us to His kingdom in heaven.

 

You will enquire, in the second place: Why is the gospel compared to a grain of mustard seed, and what are the resemblances between the two things?  I answer, the first reason is that Christ by this parable intends to signify the immense power and fruitfulness and propagation of evangelical preaching, for what had a very small beginning with Christ, and by a few Apostles, diffused itself over the whole world.  For a grain of mustard seed is “the least indeed of all seeds”, as the Syriac and Arabic have it (Vulgate: “less than all seeds”).  The Greek is “less than all seeds”, meaning the smallest.  This must be understood according to the common usage of speech, by which we call what is very little, or one of very small things, the least; for otherwise to speak precisely, poppy seed, and the seed of rue, basil and some other herbs, is less than mustard seed.  Thus the preaching of the gospel was carried on at first by Christ and the Apostles and was very limited. 

2. [sic] A grain of mustard seed, especially in Syria, grows into a tree, so that birds dwell (Syriac, “build their nests”) in its branches.  Thus the gospel grew and filled the whole world, so that the birds of heaven, i.e., men lofty in knowledge and understanding as well as kings and princes dwelt in its branches.  (See Daniel 4: 9 and 19).  Some understand by the birds, the angels, because they have wings, and are very swift.  Hear Saint Augustine: “Peter is a branch; Paul is a branch; blessed Laurence, whose birthday [into heaven] we are celebrating, is a branch.  All the Apostles and martyrs of the Savior are branches; and if anyone will bravely lay hold of them, they will escape being drowned in the waves of the world.  He who dwells under their shadow shall not feed the fire of hell, and shall be secure from the storm of the devil’s tempest, and from being burnt up in the day of judgment.” 

3. And chiefly by mustard is denoted the fiery force and efficacy of the gospel.  “Pythagoras,” says Pliny, “considered that mustard holds the chief place amongst those things whose force is borne upward; since there is nothing which more thoroughly penetrates the nose and the brain.” A grain of mustard refers to the fervor of faith, says Saint Augustine.  “For the dogmas of the philosophers,” says Saint Jerome, “when they have grown up, show nothing of life or strength, but watery and insipid they grow into grasses and other greens, which quickly dry up and wither away.  But the gospel preaching, though it seems small in its beginning, when sown in the mind of the hearer, or upon the world, comes up not a garden herb, but a tree.”

4. Mustard seed must be crushed; for when it is crushed it emits its igneous force and flavor.  So, too, the preaching of the gospel was, as it were, crushed by a thousand oppressions and persecutions which the Apostles suffered; and then it breathed forth its igneous force and strength. 

5. Mustard seed, as Pliny says, is sharp and biting.  It draws tears, purges away phlegm and cerebral secretions and facilitates excretions; it is masticated for toothache; when ground up with vinegar it is applied to the stings of scorpions and the bites of snakes; it is an antidote to the poison of fungi; it is most useful against stomach illnesses; it is beneficial for the breast and lungs; it is useful against epilepsy, dropsy, asthma, lethargy, baldness, psoriasis, kidney stones and many other diseases.  Thus the gospel expels poisons, that is sins, by the emetic of confession; it is sharp and biting, because it teaches penance and the cross; it excites the tears of compunction; it is medicine for all the faculties of the soul, and especially it dries up concupiscence, expels vices and animates to virtue.  “The bitterness of its words is the medicine of souls,” says Saint Augustine.

 6. Mustard seed by its sharpness seasons food, and renders it palatable.  So also the gospel renders palatable everything which is hard and difficult by means of the example of Christ, and by the hope of future glory which it promises.  Almost all these things are taught by Saint Augustine in sermons 31 and 33 “On the Saints,” which are the second and fourth about Saint Laurence.  The same sermons are found in Saint Ambrose, volume 5, sermons 19 and 20, for the Sixth Sunday after Epiphany, but the style is redolent of Saint Augustine’s phrases.  He expresses himself there as follows: “A grain of mustard seed is great, not in appearance, but in virtue.  At first glance it seems small, worthless, despised, not marked by any flavor, nor surrounded by any odor, nor giving any sign of sweetness; but once it is bruised, it sheds abroad its odor, displays its sharpness and exhales nourishment of a fiery taste.  It is so inflamed with the fervor of heat that it is a marvel how much fire can be enclosed in such a slight thing.  Indeed, men put this grain into their food, especially in the winter-time, for its great flavor and also to drive away cold, to expel humors and to warm themselves inwardly.  For this reason they often apply it as a medicine, so that if there is some infirmity or illness, it is cured by the fire of mustard.”  After this he applies the qualities of mustard to the gospel and the Christian Faith: “Thus, too, the Christian Faith, at first sight, appears small, worthless and frail, not manifesting its power, not carrying any semblance of pride, nor conferring grace.  But as soon as it begins to be bruised by divers temptations, immediately it manifests its vigor, indicates its sharpness, breathes the warmth of belief in the Lord, and is possessed with so great ardor of divine fire, that both itself is hot and it compels those who participate to be fervent also.  As the two disciples said in the holy gospel, when the Lord spoke with them after His passion, ‘Did not our hearts burn within us by the way, while the Lord Jesus opened to us the Scriptures?’  A grain of mustard, then, warms the inward members of our bodies, but the power of faith burns up the sins of our hearts.  The one indeed takes away piercing cold; the other expels the devil’s frost of transgressions.  A grain of mustard, I say, purges away corporeal humors, but faith puts an end to the flux of lusts.   By the one, medicine is gained for the head; but by faith our spiritual Head, Christ the Lord, is often refreshed.  Moreover, we enjoy the sacred odor of faith, according to the analogy of mustard seed, as the blessed Apostle saith, ‘We are a sweet savor of Christ unto God.’”

Tropologically, all these things may be applied to a faithful soul. And especially to an Apostle, and to a suffering Christian, or to a martyr, who hears the word of God, like a mustard seen, meditates on it and preaches it, transmitting it both to his own heart and to the hearts of others. Therefore, the Church adapts this parable to Saint Laurence, as the gospel for his festival.  As Saint Augustine says, in the work already cited, “We may compare the holy martyr Laurence to a grain of mustard seed; for he, being bruised by various sufferings, merited to become fragrant throughout the whole world by the grace of his martyrdom.  He, when he was in the body, was humble, unknown, and held in low estimation; but after he had been bruised, torn, and burnt he diffused the odor of his nobleness in the churches throughout the world.  Rightly, therefore, is this comparison coupled with him.  For Laurence, when he suffers, is inflamed.  The heat of being ground down moves the one; the other breathes forth fire in his manifold tribulations.  Mustard, I say, is cooked in a small vessel; Laurence is roasted on the gridiron by the fiery flame.  Blessed Laurence the martyr was burnt outwardly by the flames of the raging tyrant, but he was inflamed inwardly by the far greater fire of the love of Christ.”  The Arabians have a proverb, “A grain of pepper is more powerful than many large gourds,” because if it be bruised it emits a fiery force, and makes itself felt in everyone's nostrils.  You may say the same of a grain of mustard.  A believer, therefore, should be a grain of pepper or mustard, and breathe everywhere, and upon all, a divine fire, and so pepper all men, and make them like himself, zealous that is, and ardent in the love of God. 

Let us benefit from what Saint Jerome has to say on this Gospel:

 

The kingdom of heaven is the proclamation of the Gospel, and that knowledge of the Scriptures, which leadeth unto life, and whereof it is said to the Jews: The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Mathew 21: 43) Therefore is this kingdom like to a grain of mustard-seed, which a man took and sowed in his field.  By the man that sowed it in his field, many understand to be meant the Saviour, because He is the Sower that soweth in the souls of believers; others understand every man that soweth good seed in his own field, that is, in himself and in his own heart.

 

Who is he that soweth, but our own mind and soul, which take the grain from preaching, and by nourishing it in the soil, cause it to sprout in the field of our own breast?  The preaching of the Gospel is the least of all doctrines.  He that preacheth, for his first lesson, God made man, Christ dead, and the stumbling block of the Cross, receiveth at first but little credit.  Compare such teaching as this with the doctrines of the Philosophers, with their books, their magnificent eloquence, and their rounded sentences, and thou shat see how the grain of the Gospel, when it is sown, is the humblest of all seeds.

 

But when the doctrines of men grow up, there is therein nothing piercing, nothing healthy, nothing life-giving.  The plant is drooping, and delicate, and soft.  There are herbs and grass whereof it may truly be said that the grass withereth and the flower fadeth. (Isaias 40: 8) But the grain of Gospel seed, though, when it was sown, it seemed to be the least of all seeds, when once it is rooted in the soul of man, or in the whole world, groweth not into an herb, but becometh a tree so that the birds of the air (whereby we may understand, either the souls of believers, or the (angelic) powers bound to the service of God, come and lodge in the branches thereof.  I consider that the branches of the Gospel tree, which groweth from the grain of mustard-seed, are the diverse developments of doctrine, on which the birds above mentioned find resting places. (From the Divine Office)

 

Conclusion

May the Catholic Church’s teaching on her Catholicity help us appreciate the truth contained in the offertory of this Mass:

 

The right hand of the Lord has wrought strength; the right hand of the Lord has exalted me: I shall not die, but live, and shall declare the works of the Lord.