Lying For Luther

 

On April 7th of this year, the Argentinian apostate, Jorge Bergoglio (aka "Pope" Francis), calumniated a true pope:

Pope Francis on Thursday recalled the 500th anniversary of the election of Pope Adrian VI, who sought reconciliation between the Catholic Church and Martin Luther during his short pontificate.

“In his brief pontificate, which lasted only a little more than a year, he sought above all reconciliation in the Church and the world, putting into practice the words of St. Paul, according to which God entrusted precisely to the apostles the ministry of reconciliation,” Pope Francis said on April 7.

For this reason, Adrian VI sent the nuncio to the Imperial Diets of Nuremberg “to reconcile Luther and his followers with the Church and expressly asking forgiveness for the sins of the prelates of the Roman Curia,” he stated.

“Courageous,” Francis added. “He would have plenty of work today.”

Pope Francis spoke about Adrian VI, who was elected in 1522, during a meeting at the Vatican with the community of the Pontifical Teutonic Institute of Santa Maria dell’Anima, a college for German seminarians in Rome.

Adrian VI is buried in the Roman church Santa Maria dell’Anima, which is connected to the seminary. 

Born in Utretcht, then part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, Adrian was the last non-Italian pope before the election of the Polish Pope John Paul II in 1978.

Pope Francis noted that, “in the political sphere, overcoming much resistance, [Adrian VI] worked to reach an agreement between the two bordering powers, King Francis I of France and Emperor Charles V of Habsburg, also so that together they could stem the increasingly threatening designs of conquest by the Ottoman army.”

“Unfortunately, Pope Adrian, due to his premature death, was unable to conclude any of these projects. Nevertheless, his witness as a fearless and tireless worker for faith, justice and peace remains alive in the memory of the Church,” Francis said.

He urged the members of the college seminary to follow the example of Pope Adrian VI to grow in their vocation as servants of the Church.

“In particular, thinking of his solicitude for the promotion of concord and reconciliation, I urge you to follow in his footsteps above all in your role as ministers of the sacrament of penance. This is important: The task of the confessor is to forgive, not to torture. Be merciful; be great forgivers: That is what the Church wants you to be,” he said.

“This means giving time to listening to confessions and doing it well, with love, with wisdom and with great mercy.”(See ncregister.com/cna/pope-francis-praises-adrian-vi-s-attempt-to-reconcile-with-martin-luther). 

Did Pope Adrian VI seriously "ask forgiveness for the sins of the Roman Curia" from Lutheran heretics? One immediately gets images of Wojtyla (JP II) wringing his hands and shedding crocodile tears as he "apologizes" to 

• women
• Jews
• those convicted by the Inquisition
• Moslems killed in the Crusades
• anyone else the Church "wronged"

He went so far as to "celebrate" a day of "Prayer for the Forgiveness of the Sins of the Church" on March 12, 2000. The name is blasphemous, as the members of the Church may sin, but the Church Herself cannot give evil. From July 24 to 29, 2022, Bergoglio visited Canada on a "penitential pilgrimage" for the supposed abuse of the Catholic Church in her treatment of the Native Indians, and "subversion of their [pagan] culture" by the "white European devil." 

Since the Church has been "driven underground" by Vatican II and without a visible Head since 1958, most can be forgiven if they thought this is what Pope Adrian VI was doing. For Bergoglio, who was raised pre-Vatican II and was educated in the Faith, there is no such excuse. According to Church historians Neill and Schmandt:

Adrian had been shocked at the conditions he found in Rome. The cardinals who met him were indistinguishable in dress and appearance from worldly princes. Rome was a motley collection of parasites, prostitutes, armed retainers, and diverse hangers-on who all partook one way or another of the Church's revenues. (See The History of the Catholic Church, [1957], pg. 360).  

To be clear, the problem was involving money, not Church teaching. He regretted genuine scandal given by these clerics, but never said it was a rightful cause of the so-called "Reformation." New World Encyclopedia has this to say:

Adrian came to the papacy in the midst of one of its greatest crises, threatened not only by Lutheranism to the north but also by the advance of the Ottoman Turks to the east. He refused to compromise with Lutheranism theologically, demanding Luther's condemnation as a heretic. However, he is noted for having attempted to reform the Catholic Church administratively in response to the Protestant Reformation. His efforts at reform, however, proved fruitless, as they were resisted by most of his Renaissance ecclesiastical contemporaries, and he did not live long enough to see his efforts through to their conclusion. (See newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pope_Adrian_VI; Emphasis mine). 

Finally, Adrian had a tendency to exaggerate, which the enemies of the Church used to their advantage:

His [Pope Adrian's] exaggerated acknowledgment that the Roman Court had been the fountainhead of all the corruptions in the Church was eagerly seized upon by the Reformers as a justification of their apostasy. (See newadvent.org/cathen/01159b.htm; [1913 Catholic Encyclopedia]; Emphasis mine). Pope Adrian VI was not on bended knee, asking Luther for "forgiveness;" he acknowledged the worldliness of some clergy and asked Luther and his followers to renounce their heresy and return to the One True Church, outside of which no one can be saved. 

This is not the first time in his false pontificate that Bergoglio has praised Luther. Twice (2016 and 2021), Francis placed a statue in the Modernist Vatican of arch-heretic Luther. In 2016, to begin the "celebration" of the 500th anniversary of the "Reformation" in 2017, Bergoglio said of Martin Luther:

The Church's greatest reformers are the saints, in other words the men and women who follow the Word of the Lord and practice it. This is the path we need to take, this is what reforms the church and they are great reformers. They may not be theologians, they may not have studied, they may be humble, but these people's soul is steeped in the Gospel, it's full of it and they are the ones who successfully reform the Church. Both in the Lutheran and Catholic Churches there are saints, men and women with a holy heart who follow the Gospel: they are the Church's reformers. (See lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2016/10/13/news/pope-those-who-defend-christ-but-turn-away-refugees-are-hypocrites-1.34786963; Emphasis mine). 

During the same talk, he gave his high estimation of the Catholic Faith:

The Pope picked up on a question put to him by a girl from Saxony-Anhalt, about the fact that 80% of locals do not belong to any Christian denomination: “Should I convince these friends - who are good and happy people - of my faith?” Francis said, repeating the question. “What should I tell them to convince them? Listen,” he said, “the last thing you should do is ‘tell’. You should live as a Christian who is chosen, forgiven and forging a path. It is not right to convince them of your faith, proselytism is the most powerful poison against the path of ecumenism...(Ibid; Emphasis mine).

What, then, should be the proper view on Martin Luther? Was he some misunderstood and brave reformer? The second part of this post will take a close-up look at the apostate priest.

The Martin Luther of History

(This section draws on several works, most notably, The Facts About Luther, by O'Hare; Luther's True Face, by Gleize, and Luther and Lutherdom, by Denifle, to which I give full attribution in the compilation of this section---Introibo). 

1. Was Luther a "Good Christian"?

The best judge of this question would be how he was viewed by many Protestant historians, with no love for the Catholic Church.

• One of these fearless writers was the Protestant Professor Seeberg of Berlin. He was no friend of the Catholic Church, but his deep study of the man and his movement forced him to say: “Luther strode through his century like a demon crushing under his feet what a thousand years had venerated.” The same author further remarks:“In him dwelt ‘The Superhuman’ or, in Nietzsche’s Philosophy, the ‘Uebermensch’ who dwells ‘beyond moral good and evil.’” 

• In November 1883 the English Protestant Bishop Bewick applied to Luther the epithets “foul-mouthed” and “scurrilous.” 

• In the December “Century” issued in 1900, Augustine Birrell, a distinguished English Protestant writer, declared that “Luther was not an ideal sponsor of a new religion; he was a master of billingsgate and the least saintly of men. At times, in reading Luther, one is drawn to say to him what Herrick so frankly says of himself: ‘Luther, thou art too coarse to love’

• Encouraged others to sin saying, "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly... No sin will separate us from (Christ), even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." (Letter from Luther to Philip Melanchthon, August 1, 1521 A.D.)

• Wanted churches and convents destroyed 

• Promoted bloodshed 

• Permitted divorce and "remarriage"

• Broke his priestly vows to "marry" a nun, declaring the vows that both made to God non-binding by his own authority

2. Did Martin Luther Make the Bible Well-Known?

The story goes that Martin Luther "discovered" the "prohibited Book" (Bible) and read it, leading to his "conversion to authentic Christianity." This fable was first put into circulation by Mathesius, Luther’s pupil and a boarder in his house. Did Luther really "save the Bible" from the evil, "popish clerics" who allegedly hid it from the faithful? In a word: NO.

That Luther did not discover and was not the first to give the Bible to the people in the latter’s own language is easily proved.

• Fr. Lucian Johnston, in an able review of Grisar’s Work, says: Luther as well as every other man of education of his day was accustomed to the Scriptures from his youth. Like thousands of others in any other schools, he was a regularly appointed professor of Scripture. It was precisely this position as teacher of Scripture in his monastery that gave the outlet to his peculiar views. Had the Bible been as unknown as the popular biography supposes, Luther might not have developed as he did along Scriptural lines. Here again Luther’s memory played him tricks. He fell back for excuses upon- the supposed lack of Scriptures just as he did upon the presence of abuses, when, as a matter of fact, there is no evidence from his own earlier works to prove that these things exercised any material effect upon his early mental development.

• “Luther’s studies,” according to McGiffert, a non-Catholic writer, in his biography of the Reformer published in 1912, embraced the writings of the Church Fathers and particularly the Bible, to which he was becoming more and more attached. It was in his twentieth year, he tells us, that he first saw a complete copy of the Scriptures in the university library of Erfurt. He had hitherto supposed they embraced only the lessons read in the public services and was delighted to find much that was quite unfamiliar to him. His ignorance, it may be remarked, though not exceptional, was his own fault. The notion that Bible reading was frowned upon by the ecclesiastical authorities of the age is quite unfounded.  [The Scriptures] were read regularly in church and their study was no more prohibited to university students of that day than of this.

3. Luther Admits The "Reformation's" Failure

In Luther's own words:

• Unfortunately, it is our daily experience, that now under the Gospel [his] the people entertain greater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice and money-grabbing than before under the Papacy.

• The people feel they are free from the bonds and fetters of the Pope, but now they want to get rid also of the Gospel and of all the laws of God.

•  Everybody thinks that Christian liberty and licentiousness of the flesh are one and the same thing, as if now everybody was allowed to do what he wants.

• Townsfolk and peasants, men and women, children and servants, princes, magistrates and subjects, are all going to the devil.

• If we succeed in expelling one devil, he immediately is replaced by seven others who are much worse. We can then expect that after having driven away the monks, we shall see arise a race seven times worse than the former.

• Avarice, usury, debauchery, drunkenness, blasphemy, lying and cheating are far more prevalent now than they were under the Papacy. This state of morals brings general discredit on the Gospel and its preachers, as the people say, if this Gospel were true, the persons professing it would be more pious. 

True Reunion As Taught By A True Pope

Pope Pius XI issued the monumental encyclical Mortalium Animos, on true religious unity.

Para. #9: Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching: "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you." For which reason, since charity is based on a complete and sincere faith, the disciples of Christ must be united principally by the bond of one faith.

Para. #10: So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. 

Conclusion

Bergoglio is lying for Luther. He sanitizes his life and false doctrines. He decries proselytism and exalts false ecumenism. The opening words of Exurge Domine, the decree of Pope Leo X condemning the errors of Luther, applies equally to false pope Francis:

Arise, O Lord, and judge your own cause. Remember your reproaches to those who are filled with foolishness all through the day. Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod.  

Truth Be Told

 

"You certainly stuck up for your truth," the young associate at my law firm said to me. About two months ago, one of the partners had uncharacteristically confronted me outside his office where many others could see and hear us. He thought I had done something that was not in the best interest of one of my clients. I told him he was wrong, and a loud argument ensued. It ended with me pulling out a court paper which proved a fact of which he had been ignorant. He started to stutter and said in a loud voice, "We'll discuss this more later!" and proceeded to go back to his office. A small number of attorneys had congregated around us to hear what was transpiring. They went back to work, except for the associate who made that remark to me.

 "My truth?" I asked. "Sure," she said, "you needed to tell your side of what happened; that's your truth. You know, there's three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth." The associate in question is in her late 20s and Jewish. She was hired just prior to the COVID outbreak. Still being angry from the argument, and a hothead by nature, I asked her, "Do you believe six million Jews died in Nazi Germany?" She looked perplexed and answered, "Of course." I replied, "We'll that's your truth. There's three sides to the story, the Jews, the Nazis, and the truth." If looks could kill, I wouldn't be here. She hasn't spoken to me since.

Although I should have handled it better, my point remains: objective truth exists and we can have knowledge of it. Among those under age 40, the idea that truth can never be known for certain, and/or truth is somehow unique to each individual, is near ubiquitous. Truth, they say (especially moral and religious truth), is not something objective, but totally relativistic. This has affected people's approach to religion and morals. The attack on morals came first, because the enemies of God knew that there's no faster way for someone to lose their faith than by losing their morals. It started prior to the Robber Council. Religious relativism followed Vatican II, as the new sect taught that all religions are more or less true, and lead to Heaven.

The focus of this post will be to combat moral relativism and also the idea that the truth cannot be known objectively, only what's "true for you." 

The Beginning: Situation Ethics

While moral relativism has always been around, the incredible resurgence in the 21st century can be traced back to situation ethics which began prior to the Robber Council. Simply put, situation ethics is "a moral theory where the situation is taken into account first, before deciding on the rules of right and wrong. There is no set of principles, because what might be considered immoral in one situation could be considered the most moral thing to do in another." Hence, there are no intrinsically evil or good actions. The morality of any given act must be considered within the totality of the circumstances. This was solemnly condemned by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1956:

Contra Doctrinam

Contrary to the moral doctrine and its application that is traditional in the Catholic Church, there has begun to be spread abroad in many regions, even among Catholics, an ethical system that generally goes by the name of a certain "Situation Ethics," and which, they claim, does not rest upon the principles of objective ethics (which ultimately is rooted in “Being” itself), rather, it is not merely subject to the same limit as objective ethics, but transcends it.

The authors who follow this system hold that the decisive and ultimate norm of conduct is not the objective right order, determined by the law of nature and known with certainty from that law, but a certain intimate judgment and light of the mind of each individual, by means of which, in the concrete situation in which he is placed, he learns what he ought to do.

And so, according to them, this ultimate decision a man makes is not, as the objective ethics handed down by authors of great weight teaches, the application of the objective law to a particular case, which at the same time takes into account and weighs according to the rules of prudence the particular circumstances of the "situation", but that immediate, internal light and judgment. Ultimately, at least in many matters, this judgment is not measured, must not and cannot be measured, as regards its objective rectitude and truth, by any objective norm situated outside man and independent of his subjective persuasion but is entirely self-sufficient.

According to these authors, the traditional concept of "human nature" does not suffice; but recourse must be had to the concept of "existent" human nature, which in many respects does not have absolute objective value, but only a relative and, therefore, changeable value, except, perhaps, for those few factors and principles that pertain to metaphysical (absolute and unchangeable) human nature.

Of the same merely relative value is the traditional concept of the "law of nature". Thus, many things that are commonly considered today as absolute postulates of the natural law, according to their opinion and doctrine, rest upon the aforesaid concept of existent nature and are, therefore, but relative and changeable; they can always be adapted to every situation.

Having accepted these principles and put them into practice, they assert and teach that men are preserved or easily liberated from many otherwise insoluble ethical conflicts when each one judges in his own conscience, not primarily according to objective laws, but by means of that internal, individual light based on personal intuition, what he must do in a concrete situation.

Many of the things set forth in this system of "situation ethics" contradict the truth of the matter and the dictates of sound reason, betray traces of relativism and modernism, and wander far from the Catholic doctrine handed down through the centuries. In many of their assertions they are akin to several non-Catholic ethical systems.

Having considered these things, in order to avert the danger of the “New Morality,” of which the Supreme Pontiff Pope Pius XII spoke in the Allocutions held on the days of March 23 and April 18, 1952, and in order to safeguard the purity and intactness of Catholic doctrine, this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office interdicts and prohibits this doctrine of "Situation Ethics” from being taught or approved, under any name whatsoever it may be designated, whether in Universities, Athenaeums, Seminaries or houses of religious formation, or in books, dissertations, lectures, whether, as they say, at conferences, or by any other means of being propagated or defended.

Given at Rome, from the Palace of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, on the day of February 2, of the year 1956.

[signed] Giuseppe Cardinal Pizzardo, Bishop of Albano, Secretary

(See theologians Ford and Kelly, Contemporary Moral Theology, [1958], pgs. 121-123; Emphasis mine). 

After the Robber Council, situation ethics became rampant, even in Vatican II sect schools. This was followed by Values Clarification. The "exercise-simulations" in values clarification are outright wicked. There is one such insidious simulation called "Lifeboat." In this (and similar scenarios) there are more people on the boat than food to survive. You're given a list of people with "pros" (a scientist) and "cons" (the scientist is also a paraplegic). You must then decide (individually or as a group) who will live and who gets thrown into the ocean to drown. What's the purpose of doing something so hideous? It has nothing to do with critical thinking and everything to do with the evil idea that some people have a fundamental right to choose life or death for others.

 The values clarification movement was developed primarily by philosopher John Dewey, an atheist. Accordingly, behavior should be the result of free, uninfluenced, autonomous choice, based on personal analysis of a given situation coupled with the moment's emotions and desires. Rather than adherence to an external moral code, Dewey pushed something he called "valuation" in which a given situation is explored and various "solutions" discussed. This directly contradicts Church teaching on making choices based on a rightly formed conscience.

 Hence, choices are good or foolish, never right and wrong. Sin and repentance are never mentioned.

Human sexuality programs came next in both schools and "religious education" programs in an attempt to inculcate appreciation for "waiting until marriage" by cultivating fear of bad consequences: pregnancy, disease, and heartbreak. They never state that premarital sex is sinful and they do not urge sinners to repent. Therefore, the dilemma posed to youth by their teachers is no longer a question of morality--- it is a health issue. And, yes, I'm talking about programs in Vatican II schools, not just public schools. 

Moral Relativism is further reinforced by our therapeutic era. Sin, repentance, and forgiveness have given way to self-realization or self-authentication. Treatment is in; consequences are out. We’re victims, not responsible moral agents. But we actually demean humans by refusing to hold them accountable for their actions. This therapeutic view has no room for evil—only what is statistically abnormal. It’s just another variation of relativism, this one dressed up in a psychiatrist’s white coat.

In contrast, the Church teaches there are objective morals. According to theologians McHugh and Callan, "Morality is the agreement or disagreement of a human act with the norms that regulate human conduct with reference to Man's Last End." (See Moral Theology, [1929], 1:22). Therefore, morality is based on God and is external, eternal, and unchanging. To further clarify:

1. Moral duties—positively (ought) or negatively (ought not)—aren’t a function of individual or cultural preferences or opinions. We don’t make up or invent morality and then it becomes right; objective morality is applicable to all.

2. Objective morality also includes (a) obligation—a duty to comply with what we ought to do (right) and to avoid what is forbidden (wrong)—as well as (b) virtue or character. We ought to pursue the good, and that for its own sake. We are duty-bound to do certain things and refrain from others, and we can’t forgo the cultivation of character.

Answering Moral Relativism

These days, a person will more than likely encounter a relativist who will spew one of two objections if anyone dares to assert moral absolutes:

• Your values are true for you, but not true for me
• Don't impose your morality on others

Each will now be considered.

Your values are true for you, but not true for me

 It is an observed and recorded fact that cultures disagree over what is right and wrong, even when the terms in dispute are clearly defined and accepted by both groups of people. This proves that moral codes are mere social conventions invented by people. What is good for one culture might be considered bad by another. To be moral simply means to act in accordance with one’s society. Even the U.S. Supreme Court speaks of a "relevant community" for determining what constitutes "obscenity." (See Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 [1973]). In Miller, the Court says to look towards the "contemporary community standards" and rejects attempting even a "national standard" for determining what materials shall be deemed "obscene."

Reply: First, cultural relativism is descriptive, not prescriptive. It merely describes the way things are factually, without reference as to why things ought to be a certain way. Many disagreements are really factual, not moral. In the battle over abortion, the pro-abortionists never concede the unborn child is human. That would put them in a position of advocating for the killing of innocent babies, which everyone understands to be wrong. Instead they de-humanize the pre-born into mere "cells" and make the issue about "choice." Even the evil Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the infamous majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (legalizing abortion in the United States, 1/22/73 and thankfully reversed on 6/24/22), admitted in his very opinion that if the fetus was a person abortion could not be made legal.   This proves that many underlying moral precepts are shared by all humans irrespective of society. As another example, no culture has ever valued cowardice in battle.

Second, it does not follow from the premises of the thesis that no moral code is correct or can be known by people. Different cultures have disagreed in the past as to the shape of the Earth, but it does not follow that no one can ever know the correct shape of the world.

Third, the Supreme Court has done nothing to clarify moral judgments. Miller can easily be attacked for obfuscating the issue. Why is any given "relevant community" correct in its ethical assessments?  If there is no external Moral Norm, how could the Nuremberg Trials condemn Nazis for following the moral dictates of their relevant community? It might also be asked where, precisely, we find the apposite community. People hold simultaneous membership in several communities, each with differing moral codes. In New York City, one could belong to his/her family, extended family, social club, place of employment, religion, and New York State. Which one is the "relevant community?"

Fourth, normative relativism suffers from what has been deemed the "Reformer’s Dilemma."  If cultural/normative relativism is true, then a reformer who wishes to correct a perceived injustice becomes a logical impossibility. The reformer, such as a Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi, must stand outside the society’s moral code and pronounce some feature of it to be wrong. However, if you are moral if and only if you conform to society’s standards, the reformer is immoral by definition and there is no allowance for any substantial change to practices like apartheid. (See "Sociological Approaches to Ethics: Cultural Relativism" at http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil220/relativism.html).

Fifth, there are at least two logical inconsistencies with moral relativism. Suppose Society X believes that killing deformed babies is immoral, but Society Y thinks it’s moral to do so. How should a member of Society X view the killing of deformed babies in Society Y?  According to the moral code of Society X, he should condemn the acts as murder, but if the member of Society Y can only be ethical by following the code of his own community, how can you condemn that person for being moral by his society’s standards? The implication is that you can never condemn the acts of another relevant community. The logical extension is that the U.S. had no right to condemn the acts of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, and the North had no right to condemn slavery in the Confederacy. Lastly, cultural/normative relativism violates the Law of Non-Contradiction: To assert that "All morality is relative" (to culture or in general), you’ve just made an absolute statement that applies to all people in all cultures!  How can you deny the existence and/or ability to know moral oughts, and then pronounce that we ought to do/abide by the standards of our relevant community? This line of thought is self-refuting.

Don't impose your morality on others

If someone expresses disapproval of another's actions (e.g., they support abortion or use marijuana, etc.), the moral relativist will almost inevitably speak up by saying something like "You shouldn't try to impose your religious beliefs and morals on others."  This is especially used by those who don't want laws "imposing morality" (e.g., pro-life laws). 

Reply: All States should be Catholic because "error has no rights." This seems extreme in today's world where religion is seen as no more than opinion. However, morals are always legislated. For example, those who are in favor of capital punishment want those who intentionally kill innocent people to be executed and remove them as a danger to society forever. This involves morality. Those who oppose capital punishment also impose a moral viewpoint on both the victim and society. They are saying the crime against the murdered victim does not merit execution, and society need not be forever protected from repeat murderers. Therefore, the people against "legislating morality" are not opposed to legislating any moral standard (that would be impossible), but rather want to replace one set of moral standards for those of their own choosing. 

Even apart from law, those who tell you not to impose your morality are claiming it's immoral to impose your morals, and hence, self-refuting. We are all guided by the Natural Law.  Natural law is rooted in the teaching of Saint Paul, “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts.” (Romans 2:14-15; Emphasis mine). The guiding principle of the Natural Law is inflexible: “Do good and avoid evil.” It might not always be clear as to what is good or what is evil, but it is what everyone seeks. 

The Truth About Truth

Generally, there are two ideas about truth today; the one advocated by my colleague, and what is called the "Correspondence Theory of Truth."

 View #1: Truth Is What’s True for You: In this view, truth is relative—a subjective opinion. “Truth” becomes true to you as you believe it. In other words, I’m convinced of it, so that settles it. Someone with this view might say, “You have your truth, and I have mine.”

View #2: Truth Is What Matches the Facts: In this view, truth is absolute—an objective reality. Truth isn’t personal, and it doesn’t belong to me or to you. Whether everyone, or most, or few, or nobody believes it, truth is what matches up with what’s real. In other words, It’s true, so that settles it, whether or not I believe it. It "corresponds to objective reality." Modernism, which has infected society, rejects the objective for the subjective. Hence, View #1 is all around us.

The definition of the Correspondence Theory of Truth can be put in simple terms: “Truth is what matches reality.” Or again, “Truth matches the facts.” People once believed the earth was flat and thought that if you sailed too far from land you’d fall off. It is true that people believed this, but that didn’t make it true. The earth was and is round, no matter what anyone has believed. No opinion about the planet’s shape has altered reality. Another way to describe truth is to say, “Truth is telling it like it is.” What we claim to be true must match the way things really are. My claim to have a thousand dollars in my savings account is only true if I actually have a thousand dollars there. If only a hundred dollars is in my account, my statement isn’t true—I did not tell it like it is.

In summary:

1. We don’t invent truth; we discover it. In the early 1500s, Ferdinand Magellan sailed around the world by heading west and returning from the east. His demonstration of the earth’s roundness wasn’t the invention of a new truth. Rather, he discovered what had always been true. 

2. Our understanding of the truth can change, but truth itself does not change. After Magellan’s voyage, people had a new understanding of what had always been true: The earth is round. 

3. Truth does not depend on how fervently or sincerely we believe something to be true. The correct answer to this true/false question: “The Twin Towers in New York City were attacked on September 11, 2000” is false. The date was September 11, 2001. It wouldn’t matter how strongly someone believed that event took place in 2000; the answer is still false.

4. When something is true, it’s true everywhere, for all people, at all times. Some cultures used to believe a dragon living under the earth (not the movement of tectonic plates) caused earthquakes—that the earth moved when the dragon moved. It’s true that they believed this, but that didn’t make it true. No one’s beliefs make anything true or false. Truth is true, and falsehood is false, no matter what anyone believes.

Bergoglio: Situation Ethics Celebrated

The very situation ethics which were condemned by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII, are now taught by false pope, Francis. In 2016, Bergoglio issued Amoris Laetitia, which de facto permits those who divorced their legitimate spouse and shack up with a "civil marriage" in adultery can receive the Vatican II sect "communion." How is this accomplished? The use of situation ethics. In para. # 301:

For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised.  The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.  More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule.  A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.  (Emphasis mine). 

Here, someone who "know(s) full well the rule" (objective norm of morality as Traditionally taught by the Church) can be in a “concrete situation” where he has no choice but to live in mortal sin (!) and is justified in staying in that condition. 

Para. #303 teaches:

Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It [conscience]can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.(Emphasis mine).

In plain English, this is a blasphemous statement that a person can come to the "realization" that God Wills him to stay in his sinful condition.

Is it any wonder immorality is so rampant? 

Conclusion

"True for you, but not for me," is a statement that is false in and of itself. The idea of "my truth" comes from those who reject the objective order of the world created by Almighty God and replace it with their own "reality" setting themselves up as little "gods." In the teaching of my spiritual father:

"Suffice it to say that there will always be a chasm dividing those who believe in God as the ultimate norm of morality for man created for a supernatural end, and those who look upon man as another temporary worker experimenting on this globe in order to get the best and the most out of this short existence."--Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, leader of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (founded 1964), in The Educational Rights Of The Church And Elementary Schools In Belgium, his dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of Doctor of Canon Law, Catholic University of America Press, Washington D.C. (1953). 

Blessed Be Her Glorious Assumption

 

To My Readers: Thanks to Lee, I get a much needed break as he is the guest poster this week. It is a timely post that helps us better understand and appreciate Our Blessed Lady's Assumption into Heaven, which we celebrate next Monday, August 15th. It is my favorite Marian feast day. Please feel free to comment and ask questions as usual. Any questions/comments specifically for me will be answered as always, but it may take me a bit longer to respond this week. For those of you who are interested, and haven't heard my interview for Catholic Family Podcast regarding Father DePauw, it may be accessed here:

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

My screen was blank and voice distorted to protect my anonymity.  I highly recommend Mr. Kevin Davis's Catholic Family Podcast. He is an outstanding Traditionalist Catholic gentleman.  

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

Blessed be Her Glorious Assumption

By Lee

1950 was a year of exultation in the Catholic Church because on November 1st, Pope Pius XII proclaimed and defined as a dogma the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Munificentissimus Deus (MD). Prior to this time, the Plenary Council of Baltimore (1885) had kept the Holy Mother's Assumption (August 15th) to be among the six feasts as holy days of obligation in the United States. It had great significance years before being proclaimed a dogma.

According to St. John of Damascus, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Roman Emperor Marcian requested the body of Mary, Mother of God. St. Juvenal, who was Bishop of Jerusalem replied “that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; where from the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven,” the saint recorded. This is known as the Dormition of Mary which many have held in the Eastern Churches.

Whether she died ("fell asleep") and her body and soul was taken up into heaven by God, or whether she was spared death and carried off much like that of Enoch (Gen. 5:24) or the prophet Elias (2 Kings 2:1) is for Catholics open for belief because Pius XII declared "by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." (MD #44; Emphasis mine) Regardless of what state she was in, all Catholics are bound to believe is that Mary was assumed into Heaven or as Pius XII said, "if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith...  It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." (MD #45,47)

A Meditation To Consider

The fourth glorious mystery (Assumption of Mary) of the rosary can be the most delightful, but sometimes hardest to think about, when in prayer. There is not much from the early Church written about it, so we are only left with the imagination and beautiful art passed down through the centuries. However, there is a book to help this problem called The Mystical City of God which has the most carefully detailed events recorded. This book is based on private revelation and so a Catholic is not bound to believe it, nor even agree with it, but the Church through its popes have highly recommended it to be read among the faithful. Here is an example of what a few of them said:

Pope Pius XI

On April 29, 1939 Pius XI granted an audience to the publisher of The Mystical City of God. He told him: “You have done a great work in honor of the Mother of God; she will never permit herself to be outdone in generosity, and will know how to reward a thousandfold. We grant the Apostolic Benediction to all readers and promoters of The Mystical City of God.”

Pope Leo XIII

In 1900 a devout Canadian lay woman undertook the project of printing in one book the instructions of Our Lady found at the end of the chapters in The Mystical City of God. She traveled to Rome, obtained an audience with Pope Leo XIII, and informed him of her project. The great Pontiff not only gave her the Apostolic Blessing, but to the amazement of many, he ordered her book to be printed on the presses of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda in Rome. The book is still extant and is titled Sublime Doctrine de la Mère de Dieu sur les vertus Chretiennes (extrait de la ‘Cite Mystique de Dieu’ par le Ven. Marie d’Agreda) (Rome: 1900).

A few months later it was observed by a Canadian diocesan journal: “The reserve which is ordinarily maintained on the subject of private revelations has no longer any real reason to exist in relation to The Mystical City of God, since His Holiness Leo XIII has been so good as gladly to encourage the project of spreading among the faithful the science of the saints which is contained in that heavenly Life of the Mother of God.”

Pope Pius IX

He stated “The Mystical City of God is a most excellent book, very appropriate for propagating the veneration of the Virgin Mary, and an antidote against the evil doctrines of our days.”

Pope Benedict XIII

The Mystical City of God, having been minutely scrutinized periodically for decades by Rome, was finally given entire and unequivocal approval by Benedict XIII, who signed the following decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which was examining the cause for the beatification of Ven. Mary:

“It is ordered that the cause of the above-mentioned Servant of God shall be continued before the holy Congregation of Rites without further examination of The Mystical City of God, and these books can be retained and read. March 14, 1729.”

For more info, go to neemcog.com/OfficialPapalApproval.htm

In her book The Mystical City of God, Ven. Mary of Agreda gives this account of the Assumption of Mary:

The Glorious Transition of Mary

The great Lady came to the entrance of her oratory in order to receive the vicar of Christ our Savior. Kneeling at his feet She asked his blessing and said: "I give thanks and praise to the Almighty, that He has brought to me the holy Father for assisting me in the hour of my death." Then came saint Paul, to whom the Queen showed the same reverence with similar tokens of her pleasure at seeing him. The Apostles saluted Her as the Mother of God, as their Queen and as Mistress of all creation; but with a sorrow equal to their reverence, because they knew that they had come to witness her passing away. After these Apostles came the others and the disciples still living. Three days after, they were all assembled in the Cenacle. The heavenly Mother received them all with profound humility, reverence and love, asking each one to bless Her. All of them complied, and saluted Her with admirable reverence. By orders of the Lady given to Saint John, and with the assistance of Saint James the Less, they were all hospitably entertained and accommodated...

The apostle Saint Peter, as the Head of the Church, called them all together in order to tell them of the cause of their coming, and spoke to the assembly: My dearest children and brethren, the Lord has called and brought us to Jerusalem from remote regions not without a cause most urgent and sorrowful to us. The Most High wishes now to raise up to the throne of eternal glory his most blessed Mother, our Mistress, our consolation and protection. His divine decree is that we all be present at her most happy and glorious transition. When our Master and Redeemer ascended to the right hand of his Father, although He left us orphaned of his most delightful presence, we still retained his most blessed Mother. As our light now leaves us, what shall we do? What help or hope have we to encourage us on our pilgrimage? I find none except the hope that we all shall follow Her in due time.

Saint Peter could speak no farther, because uncontrollable tears and sighs interrupted him. Neither could the rest of the Apostles answer for a long time, during which, amid copious and tenderest tears, they gave vent to the groans of their inmost heart. After some time the Vicar of Christ recovered himself and added: My children, let us seek the presence of our Mother and Lady. Let us spend the time left of her life in her company and ask Her to bless us. They all betook themselves to the oratory of the great Queen and found Her kneeling upon a couch, on which She was wont to recline for a short rest. They saw Her full of beauty and celestial light, surrounded by the thousand angels of her guard.

The natural condition and appearance of her sacred and virginal body were the same as at her thirty-third year; for, as I have already stated, from that age onward it experienced no change. It was not affected by the passing years, showing no signs of age, no wrinkles in her face or body, nor giving signs of weakening or fading, as in other children of Adam, who gradually fall away and drop from the natural perfection of early man or womanhood. This unchangeableness was the privilege of the most blessed Mary alone, as well because it consorted with the stability of her purest soul, as because it was the natural consequence of her immunity from the sin of Adam, the effects of which in this regard touched neither her sacred body nor her purest soul. 

The Apostles and disciples, and some of the other faithful, occupied her chamber, all of them preserving the utmost order in her presence. Saint Peter and Saint John placed themselves at the head of the couch. The great Lady looked upon them all with her accustomed modesty and reverence and spoke to them as follows: "My dearest children, give permission to your servant to speak in your presence and to disclose my humble desires." Saint Peter answered that all listened with attention and would obey Her in all things; and he begged Her to seat Herself upon the couch, while speaking to them. It seemed to saint Peter that She was exhausted from kneeling so long and that She had taken that position in order to pray to the Lord, and that in speaking to them, it was proper She should be seated as their Queen...

After some time She spoke to them again, and asked them to pray with Her and for Her in silence, which they did. During this quietness the incarnate Word descended from heaven on a throne of ineffable glory, accompanied by all the saints and innumerable angels, and the house of the Cenacle was filled with glory. The most blessed Mary adored the Lord and kissed his feet. Prostrate before Him She made the last and most profound act of faith and humility in her mortal life. On this occasion the most pure Creature, the Queen of the heavens, shrank within Herself and lowered Herself to the earth more profoundly than all men together ever have or ever will humiliate themselves for all their sins. Her divine Son gave Her his blessing and in the presence of the courtiers of heaven spoke to Her these words: "My dearest Mother, whom I have chosen for my dwelling-place, the hour is come in which thou art to pass from the life of this death and of the world into the glory of my Father and mine, where thou shalt possess the throne prepared for thee at my right hand and enjoy it through all eternity. And since, by my power and as my Mother, I have caused thee to enter the world free and exempt from sin, therefore also death shall have no right or permission to touch thee at thy exit from this world. If thou wishest not to pass through it, come with Me now to partake of my glory, which thou hast merited."

The most prudent Mother prostrated Herself at the feet of her Son and with a joyous countenance answered: "My Son and my Lord, I beseech Thee let thy mother and thy servant enter into eternal life by the common portal of natural death, like the other children of Adam. Thou, who art my true God, hast suffered death without being obliged to do so; it is proper that, as I have followed Thee in life, so I follow Thee also in death." Christ the Savior approved of the decision and the sacrifice of his most blessed Mother, and consented to its fulfillment. Then all the angels began to sing in celestial harmony some of the verses of the Canticles of Solomon and other new ones. Although only saint John and some of the Apostles were enlightened as to the presence of Christ the Savior, yet the others felt in their interior its divine and powerful effects; but the music was heard as well by the Apostles and disciples, as by many others of the faithful there present. A divine fragrance also spread about, which penetrated even to the street. The house of the Cenacle was filled with a wonderful effulgence, visible to all, and the Lord ordained that multitudes of the people of Jerusalem gathered in the streets as witnesses to this new miracle.

When the angels began their music, the most blessed Mary reclined back upon her couch or bed. Her tunic was folded about her sacred body, her hands were joined and her eyes fixed upon her divine Son, and She was entirely inflamed with the fire of divine love. And as the angels intoned those verses of the second chapter of the Canticles: "Surge, propera, arnica mea," that is to say: "Arise, haste, my beloved, my dove, my beautiful one, and come, the winter has passed," etc., She pronounced those words of her Son on the Cross: "Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit." Then She closed her virginal eyes and expired. The sickness which took away her life was love, without any other weakness or accidental intervention of whatever kind. She died at the moment when the divine power suspended the assistance, which until then had counteracted the sensible ardors of her burning love of God. As soon as this miraculous assistance was withdrawn, the fire of her love consumed the life-humors of her heart and thus caused the cessation of her earthly existence.

Then this most pure Soul passed from her virginal body to be placed in boundless glory, on the throne at the right hand of her divine Son. Immediately the music of the angels seemed to withdraw to the upper air; for that whole procession of angels and saints accompanied the King and Queen to the empyrean heavens. The sacred body of the most blessed Mary, which had been the temple and sanctuary of God in life, continued to shine with an effulgent light and breathed forth such a wonderful and unheard of fragrance, that all the bystanders were filled with interior and exterior sweetness. The thousand angels of her guard remained to watch over the inestimable treasure of her virginal body. The Apostles and disciples, amid the tears and the joy of the wonders they had seen, were absorbed in admiration for some time, and then sang many hymns and psalms in honor of the most blessed Mary now departed. This glorious Transition of the great Queen took place in the hour in which her divine Son had died, at three o clock on a Friday, the thirteenth day of August, she being seventy years of age, less the twenty-six days intervening between the thirteenth of August, on which She died, and the eighth of September, the day of her birth. 

The heavenly Mother had survived the death of Christ the Savior twenty-one years, four months and nineteen days; and his virginal birth, fifty-five years. This reckoning can be easily made in the following manner: when Christ our Savior was born, his virginal Mother was fifteen years, three months and seventeen days of age. The Lord lived thirty-three years and three months; so that at the time of his sacred Passion the most blessed Lady was forty eight years, six months and seventeen days old; adding to these another twenty-one years, four months and nineteen days, we ascertain her age as seventy years, less twenty-five or twenty-six days.*

Great wonders and prodigies happened at the precious death of the Queen; for the sun was eclipsed (as I said above in No. 706) and its light was hidden in sorrow for some hours. Many birds of different kinds gathered around the Cenacle, and by their sorrowful clamors and groans for a while caused the bystanders themselves to weep. All Jerusalem was in commotion, and many of the inhabitants collected in astonished crowds, confessing loudly the power of God and the greatness of his works. Others were astounded and as if beside themselves. The Apostles and disciples with others of the faithful broke forth in tears and sighs. Many sick persons came who all were cured. The souls in purgatory were released. But the greatest miracle was that three persons, a man in Jerusalem and two women living in the immediate neighborhood of the Cenacle, died in sin and impenitent in that same hour, subject to eternal damnation; but when their cause came before the tribunal of Christ, his sweetest Mother interceded for them and they were restored to life. They so mended their conduct, that afterwards they died in grace and were saved. This privilege was not extended to others that died on that day in the world, but was restricted to those three who happened to die in that hour in Jerusalem. What festivities were celebrated on that occasion in heaven I will describe in another chapter, lest heavenly things be mixed up with the sacred things of earth...

Her Burial

In order that the Apostles, the disciples, and many others of the faithful might not be too deeply oppressed by sorrow, and in order that some of them might not die of grief caused by the passing away of the most blessed Mary, it was necessary that the divine power, by an especial providence, furnish them with consolation and dilate their heart for new influences in their incomparable affliction. For the feeling, that their loss was irretrievable in the present life, could not be repressed; the privation of such a Treasure could never find a recompense; and as the most sweet, loving and amiable intercourse and conversation of their great Queen had ravished the heart of each one, the ceasing of her protection and company left them as it were without the breath of life. But the Lord, who well knew how to estimate the just cause of their sorrow, secretly upheld them by his encouragements and so they set about the fitting burial of the sacred body and whatever the occasion demanded.

Accordingly the holy Apostles, on whom this duty specially devolved, held a conference concerning the burial of the most sacred body of their Queen and Lady. They selected for that purpose a new sepulcher, which had been prepared mysteriously by the providence of her divine Son. As they remembered, that, according to the custom of the Jews at burial, the deified body of their Master had been anointed with precious ointments and spices and wrapped in the sacred burial cloths; they thought not of doing otherwise with the virginal body of his most holy Mother. Accordingly they called the two maidens, who had assisted the Queen during her life and who had been designated as the heiresses of her tunics, and instructed them to anoint the body of the Mother of God with highest reverence and modesty and wrap it in the winding-sheets before it should be placed in the casket. 

With great reverence and fear the two maidens entered the room, where the body of the blessed Lady lay upon its couch; but the refulgence issuing from it barred and blinded them in such a manner that they could neither see nor touch the body, nor even ascertain in what particular place it rested. In fear and reverence still greater than on their entrance, the maidens left the room; and in great excitement and wonder they told the Apostles what had happened. They, not without divine inspiration, came to the conclusion, that this sacred Ark of the covenant was not to be touched or handled in the common way...

So great was the care and solicitude for his most blessed Mother, that in this particular He used not so much precaution in regard to his own body, as that of the most pure Virgin. In her Immaculate Conception He made Her like to Himself; likewise at her birth, in as far as it did not take place in the common and natural manner of other men. He preserved Her also from impure temptations and thoughts. But, as He was man and the Redeemer of the world through his Passion and Death, He permitted with his own body, what He would not allow with Hers, as that of a woman, and therefore He kept her virginal body entirely concealed; in fact the most pure Lady during her life had Herself asked that no one should be permitted to look upon it in death which petition He fulfilled...

In order that this and many other miracles wrought by the power of God on this occasion might become better known to the world, the Lord himself inspired all the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be present at the burial of his most blessed Mother, so that there was scarcely any person in Jerusalem, even of the Jews or the gentiles, who were not attracted by the novelty of this spectacle. The Apostles took upon their shoulders the sacred body and the tabernacle of God and, as priests of the evangelical law, bore the Propitiatory of the divine oracles and blessings in orderly procession from the Cenacle in the city to the valley of Josaphat. This was the visible accompaniment of the dwellers of Jerusalem. But besides this there was another invisible multitude, that of the courtiers of heaven. It was composed of the thousand angels of the Queen, continuing their celestial songs, which were heard by the Apostles and disciples and many others, and which sweetly continued for three days.

When the procession came to the holy sepulcher in the valley of Josaphat, the same two Apostles, Saint Peter and Saint John, who had laid the celestial Treasure from the couch onto the bier, with joyful reverence placed it in the sepulcher and covered it with a linen cloth, the hands of the angels performing more of these last rites than the hands of the Apostles. They closed up the sepulcher with a large stone, according to custom at other burials. The celestial courtiers returned to heaven, while the thousand angels of the Queen continued their watch, guarding the sacred body and keeping up the music as at her burial. The concourse of the people lessened and the holy Apostles and disciples, dissolved in tender tears, returned to the Cenacle. During a whole year the exquisite fragrance exhaled by the body of the Queen was noticeable throughout the Cenacle, and in her oratory, for many years...

Having again gathered in the Cenacle, the Apostles came to the conclusion that some of them and of the disciples should watch at the sepulcher of their Queen as long as they should hear the celestial music, for all of them were wondering when the end of that miracle should be. Accordingly some of them attended to the affairs of the Church in catechizing and baptizing the new converts; and others immediately returned to the sepulcher, while all of them paid frequent visits to it during the next three days. Saint Peter and saint John, however, were more zealous in their attendance, coming only

a few times to the Cenacle and immediately returning to where was laid the treasure of their heart.

Her Assumption into Heaven

On the third day after the most pure soul of Mary had taken possession of this glory never to leave it, the Lord manifested to the saints his divine will, that She should return to the world, resuscitate her sacred body and unite Herself with it, so that She might in body and soul be again raised to the right hand of her divine Son without waiting for the general resurrection of the dead. The appropriateness of this favor, its accordance with the others received by the most blessed Queen and with her super eminent dignity, the saints could not but see; since even to mortals it is so credible, that even if the Church had not certified it, we would judge those impious and foolish, who would dare deny it. But the blessed saw it with greater clearness, together with the determined time and hour as manifested to them in God himself. When the time for this wonder had arrived, Christ our Savior himself descended from heaven bringing with Him at his right hand the soul of his most blessed Mother and accompanied by many legions of the Angels, the Patriarchs and ancient Prophets. They came to the sepulcher in the valley of Josaphat, and all being gathered in sight of the virginal temple, the Lord spoke the following words to the saints.

"My Mother was conceived without stain of sin, in order that from Her virginal substance I might stain lessly clothe Myself in the humanity in which I came to the world and redeemed it from sin. My flesh is her flesh; She co-operated with Me in the works of the Redemption; hence I must raise Her, just as I rose from the dead, and this shall be at the same time and hour. For I wish to make Her like Me in all things. All the ancient saints of the human race then gave thanks for this new favor in songs of praise and glory to the Lord. Those that especially distinguished themselves in their thanks giving were our first parents Adam and Eve, saint Anne, saint Joachim and saint Joseph, as being the more close partakers in this miracle of his Omnipotence. Then the purest soul of the Queen, at the command of the Lord, entered the virginal body, reanimated it and raised it up, giving it a new life of immortality and glory and communicating to it the four gifts of clearness, impassibility, agility and subtlety, corresponding to those of the soul and overflowing from it into the body.

Endowed with these gifts the most blessed Mary issued from the tomb in body and soul, without raising the stone cover and without disturbing the position of the tunic and the mantle that had enveloped her sacred body. Since it is impossible to describe her beauty and refulgent glory, I will not make the attempt. It is sufficient to say, that just as the heavenly Mother had given to her divine Son in her womb the form of man, pure, unstained and sinless, for the Redemption of the world, so in return the Lord, in this resurrection and new regeneration, gave to Her a glory and beauty similar to his own. In this mysterious and divine interchange each One did what was possible: most holy Mary engendered Christ, assimilating Him as much as possible to Herself, and Christ resuscitated Her, communicating to Her of his glory as far as She was capable as a creature.

Then from the sepulcher was started a most solemn procession, moving with celestial music through the regions of the air and toward the empyrean heaven. This happened in the hour immediately after midnight, in which also the Lord had risen from the grave ; and therefore not all of the Apostles were witness of this prodigy, but only some of them, who were present and watching at the sepulchre. The saints and angels entered heaven in the order in which they had started; and in the last place came Christ our Savior and at his right hand the Queen, clothed in the gold of variety (as David says Ps. 44, 10), and so beautiful that She was the admiration of the heavenly court. All of them turned toward Her to look upon Her and bless Her with new jubilee and songs of praise. Thus were heard those mysterious eulogies recorded by Solomon: Come, daughters of Sion, to see your Queen, who is praised by the morning stars and celebrated by the sons of the Most High. Who is She that comes from the desert, like a column of all the aromatic perfumes? Who is She, that rises like the aurora, more beautiful than the moon, elect as the sun, terrible as many serried armies? Who is She that comes up from the desert resting upon her Beloved and spreading forth abundant delights? (Cant. 3, 6-9; 8, 5). Who is She in whom the Deity itself finds so much pleasure and delight above all other creatures and whom He exalts above them all in the heavens! O novelty worthy of the infinite Wisdom! O prodigy of his Omnipotence, which so magnifies and exalts Her!

Amid this glory the most blessed Mary arrived body and soul at the throne of the most blessed Trinity. And the three divine Persons received Her on it with an embrace eternally indissoluble. The eternal Father said to Her: "Ascend higher, my Daughter and my Dove." The incarnate Word spoke; "My Mother, of whom I have received human being and full return of my work in thy perfect imitation, receive now from my hand the reward thou hast merited;" The Holy Ghost said: "My most beloved Spouse, enter into the eternal joy, which corresponds to the most faithful love; do Thou now enjoy thy love without solicitude; for past is the winter of suffering for Thou hast arrived at our eternal embraces." There the most blessed Mary was absorbed in the contemplation of the three divine Persons and as it were overwhelmed in the boundless ocean and abyss of the Divinity, while the saints were filled with wonder and new accidental delight.

​Conclusion:

I personally believe in the account given by The Mystical City of God and agree with the popes who give their approval and blessing for the faithful who read it. The beautiful thing about the Catholic Church is that it has treasures, such as these writings, to increase in the faithful lively sentiments of faith, hope, and charity. From Eucharistic miracles, to the stigmata, to incorruptibles, relics, Marian apparitions (approved), wonders of the saints, exorcism stories, and so many other things, what other Church can contend with the Catholic Church as being the One True Church? Absolutely none.  

Hear My Talk About Fr. DePauw

 

To My Readers: Mr. Kevin Davis of Catholic Family Podcast interviewed me last week on the topic of my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD. Mr. Davis is a true Traditionalist Catholic gentleman. He allowed me to keep my screen black and my voice was mechanically distorted so I would continue to remain completely anonymous. The podcast may be listened to here: 

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

Please feel free to leave any/all comments below. Patronize Mr. Davis's "Catholic Family Podcast." It has great information for Traditionalists. I highly recommend his work.

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

Contending For The Faith---Part 6

 

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.

The Attack on Religious Belief

Catholic countries are no more. We live in an increasingly secular world. Due to the Modernism of Vatican II (and the sect it spawned), "faith" is seen as more or less "fuzzy feelings" of God's love. (I was literally taught that by one teacher at the V2 sect high school I attended in the early 1980s). It will not be uncommon for you to meet someone who discovers your faith and will ask you such questions as "How can you believe in such nonsense you can't prove?" or "What evidence do you have for those silly beliefs?" When you have a sect that teaches all religions are more or less good and lead to Heaven, nothing is seen as true or false, good or bad. It's just "true for me" or "true for you." Relativism reigns supreme and apologetics and reasons for the faith were jettisoned, because it really doesn't matter anyway.

In this post, I hope to demonstrate that there is good evidence to know that God exists and no equally good reasons to think that atheism is true. As a result, the rational person has nothing to fear in embracing the God of the universe, Who came down from Heaven and died for us. He established One True Church to which all must belong in order to be saved.

 Attack #1: Faith is "pretending to know something" or "having no evidence."

In a YouTube video, Neil De Grasse Tyson makes the following statement:

I have no problems if as we prove the origins of things we bump up into the bearded man. If that shows up, we’re good to go. Okay. Not a problem. There’s just no evidence of it. And this is why religions are called faiths, collectively: Because you believe something in the absence of evidence. That’s what it is. That’s why it’s called faith. Otherwise we would call all religions evidence! But we don’t for exactly that reason. (See youtube.com/watch?v=I0nXG02tpDw).

The first thing I would do is ask Dr. Tyson, “What do you mean by faith and how did you come to that definition?” Those pushing this idea about faith frequently characterize it in one of the following ways:

• Belief without sufficient evidence 

• Belief in spite of contrary evidence

• Pretending to know what you don’t really know

• Just believing something without questioning it

I would ask Tyson to consider an alternate definition. According to St. Paul, "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not." (See Hebrews 11:1; Emphasis mine).From the Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith from the Vatican Council of 1870:

Canon 1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

Therefore, faith in Traditional Catholicism does not require ignoring evidence, but rather it is normative for faith to be accompanied by evidence, that is, motives of credibility. The Vatican Council's Constitution states further:

But the Catholic Church professes that this faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God, believe that the things revealed by him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

So God helps us and provides grace at the level of our wills to make our faith firm and lasting. We have the Five Proofs of Aquinas on the existence of God. We have the miracles and prophesies fulfilled in the Bible concerning Jesus Christ, especially His physical Resurrection from the dead. The Catholic Church is the One True Church He founded. Of course, the person attacking faith will deny all of this because he does not believe. However, that is not the point. Tyson and his ilk put up a defective definition of faith and knock down a strawman of their own making. 

Clearly, Tyson, as an atheist scientist, thinks that physical evidence is the only kind of evidence that counts. This is incorrect. At the beginning of the video clip, Tyson talks about evil in the world. How can empirical science prove something to be good or evil? Moreover, in a world without God, there can be no objective moral values. To have an objective moral value means, e.g., even if the Nazis won WWII and brainwashed everyone into believing that the systematic killing of people they considered "undesirable" was good--it would still be wrong independently of what anyone thinks. Yet, Tyson can only say that the systematic killing of people is wrong in his opinion. The Nazis hold a different opinion. The Traditionalist can point to the Ten Commandments, an expression of the attributes of God's external and eternal Nature, against which things are known to be right or wrong. 

Ironically, science cannot prove the existence of the external world, upon which its very endeavor depends. How does Tyson know he's not in a computer simulation like the movie The Matrix? Science presupposes and cannot prove the external world. Faith is having plenty of evidence. When you have a misconception about what faith is, only then do you think there is no evidence.

Attack #2: Faith as a "crutch" for the weak, and "wishful thinking" in the face of death.

The "professional wrestler" Jesse Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota in 1998. He served for one term (1999-2003). During an interview with the pornographic rag, Playboy magazine, Ventura had this to say about faith:

Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live.

(See goodreads.com/quotes/116680-organized-religion-is-a-sham-and-a-crutch-for-weak-minded; Emphasis mine). 

Although aimed at "organized religion," people like Ventura will make similar claims such as stating, “Religious faith is a crutch for weak people that don’t know how to deal with the difficulties of life.” If God exists, then he is the crutch we need to lean on in troubled times. Also, Christianity holds that human beings are a fallen race and wounded badly by Original Sin. In such a condition, they need "spiritual medical attention," which makes the metaphor of a crutch appropriate not disparaging. I would ask Ventura, “Isn’t it appropriate for us to have a crutch if we’re part of an injured human race?”

What about the charge that faith is "wishful thinking" in the face of death? If God exists, then it’s true that He could conquer death by providing us with everlasting life. It seems fitting that He would make us aware of His intention to do so.

Theistic philosopher Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932), in his book Knowledge and Christian Belief (2015), distinguishes what he calls de jure objections to theistic belief from de facto objections. De jure objections purport to show that belief in God is in some way defective without necessarily aiming to show the belief is false. De facto objections target the truth of a belief and attempt to show that belief in God is false, and, conversely, that atheism is true. As you can see, unless someone targets the truth of belief in God or a specific Christian belief, the de jure objections do not hold up.

Therefore, labelling Traditionalists as people who have faith because "they are wishful thinkers, afraid of death, and who need a crutch" does nothing to show the object of faith is false or that having this faith is somehow deficient.

Attack #3: "The absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

There are two famous versions of this attack known as "Russell's Teapot," and "Hitchens's razor."

Russell's Teapot is so named after the infamous atheist Bertrand Russell. Russell claims that faith in God is just like faith in a floating teapot in outer space for which we have no evidence. This absence of evidence for God should be taken as evidence of his absence; i.e., He does not exist and faith is futile.

In his paper “Is There a God?”[pgs. 542-548 in The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, vol. 11, ed. John G. Slater and Peter Kollner (1997)], he has this to say:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Russell’s point is twofold. First, just because an assertion cannot be disproved, that is no good reason to think it is true. Second, that comprehensive inculturation could lead to belief in an interplanetary teapot just as it leads to belief in God. As to his claim that "because an assertion cannot be disproved, that is no good reason to think it is true," there is evidence of God's existence--proof actually, as has been explained already. As far as inculturation is concerned, I once wrote that Russell and his like-minded individuals should be asked, "Do you believe that women should have equal rights with men?" Of course, he will respond "Yes." (If they start with the "What about trans-women" nonsense, change the question to "Do you believe in equal rights for LGTBQIA+ people?") Then say, "Well you only believe in that because you live in America. If you were living in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Moslem and would be against equal rights for women and homosexuals, right?" They will protest that they believe in equal rights  not only because of where they live and how they were raised, but because they studied the issue and came to this conclusion. Then flip it on them: "Well that could also be equally true in matters of religion."

This anti-religious statement claiming that circumstances determine religion is based on what is called the genetic fallacy in logic. The fallacy says that a proposition is wrong (or correct) based on where the idea originated. A claim is ignored in favor of attacking or exalting its source. 2+2=4 is true and doesn't become false because Stalin said it. 2+2=5 is wrong, even if St. Francis of Assisi said it. 

Hitchens's Razor is named after one of the so-called "Four Horsemen of the New Atheism," the late Christopher Hitchens (d. 2011). His stated "razor" is a principle in which he claims "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Once more, there are proofs of God's existence, so his vaunted "razor" does not apply. Hitchens's Razor is basically another way of saying that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence." This rule will only apply if two conditions are met:

1. The person has thoroughly searched for evidence in all the appropriate areas. 

2. Reasonable persons would expect to have more evidence than they actually do, in a given case.

If someone asked me, "Is there an elephant in your backyard?" I would first look to see if there were an elephant here in my NYC yard. If I don't see one, I look for the big footprints it would leave. I would check the news for reports of a missing elephant from the Bronx Zoo. I would ask my neighbors if they heard or saw any such creature. I would check with my local police precinct and fire department to see if any such sighting was reported. If nothing came back affirming an elephant, the absence of evidence would be evidence of absence. Both conditions were met: evidence was searched for in the appropriate areas and what more evidence could you reasonably expect? 

Now, suppose someone asked me, "Is there a flea in your backyard?" Looking in my yard, searching for footprints, asking my neighbors, checking the news, and asking the police/fire departments wouldn't prove anything. Here, the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. It does not meet the two criteria. 

In the case of the existence of God, absence of evidence is evidence of absence if and only if:

1. The skeptic has fully canvassed the appropriate areas in philosophy and history. He has carefully inspected the arguments for God and shown why they fail. 

2. We would expect to have more evidence than we do if, in fact, God exists.

Don't expect them to be able to get past #1! 

Conclusion

The attack on religious belief has never been greater. We must always be prepared to give a defense for our faith. As the great St. Joan of Arc said, “One life is all we have and we live it as we believe in living it. But to sacrifice what you are and to live without belief, that is a fate more terrible than dying.”