War is always unfortunate, but is it always a defeat?

 As explained at EWTN, 

"To say that Christendom was in dire straights would be an understatement.

In the late 16th century, Christian Europe was weak and splintered. Politically, Europe was just a collection of small, warring kingdoms.

Their fragile unity in the Catholic faith had just been broken by the Protestant Reformation, which was now in full swing across the continent.

The Ottoman Empire, on the other hand, was strong and growing, having not lost a significant naval battle in a hundred years. Its forces had already conquered the remains of the eastern half of the Roman Empire, including “New Rome” Constantinople.

Now, their seemingly unstoppable forces set their sights on conquering Rome, and from there, the rest of Europe and the New World.

Desperate for survival, Pope Pius V convinced as many Catholic rulers of the Mediterranean as possible to band together to stop the Ottomans, forming what they called the Holy League.

It was originally formed to save a Venetian colony on Cyprus that was under Ottoman attack, but the colony fell before they arrived.

The Ottoman commander captured the Venetian leader, had him flayed alive, and hung up his corpse along with the corpses of other Venetian leaders. So the Holy League sailed to meet the Ottoman navy at their naval station Lepanto in Greece instead.

The odds were against the Holy League: Despite the fact that many nations banded together in the Holy League, the Ottoman forces still had more boats and were practiced in fighting together, rather than being cobbled together just for the occasion.

The stakes were high: if the Holy League failed, the Ottomans would appear to have a clear way to the heart of Europe in Rome.

Knowing the desperate circumstances, Pope Pius V did the only thing those back at home could do: pray.

On the day of the battle, he organized a public procession in Rome to pray the Rosary.

Then a miracle happened: they received word that against all odds, the Holy League won!

Overjoyed and convinced that their prayers were decisive, the Pope created the new Feast of Our Lady of Victory.

A few years later, it was changed to the Feast of the Holy Rosary, and finally to the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary in the 20th century, which it remains today. The Church celebrates this feast on Oct. 7.

Historians say that the battle truly was decisive in world history: it once and for all stopped the advancement of Ottoman forces deeper into Europe, preserving the independence of the western half of Christendom."

As explained here:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2310), explains that, "Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace." 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2302, teaches us that, "By recalling the commandment, 'You shall not kill,' our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral."

And this is true. The Lord God has commanded us, "You shall not kill." But there are nine words in Hebrew for taking a life. The word used in Exodus 20: 13 for "Thou shalt not kill" is ratsach, a strong verb used to indicate an intentional and unjustified act of murder, such as the murder of innocent unborn. It does not refer to killing in war ( unless such killing is directed against civilian non-combatants or prisoners of war).

Sometimes war is necessary.  Yes, war is always most unfortunate.  But is it always a defeat as asserted here? Was it a defeat at Lepanto? Was is it a defeat when the Nazis were stopped from their evil designs of world domination?

Of course not.

There are some who understand that Iran cannot possess a nuclear weapon. And there are some who, like Neville Chamberlain,  prefer appeasement. 

History shows us who was right. And who was wrong.

Meditation: Exodus 17: 8-16

The LORD has a war against Amalek through the ages! Indeed!

Francis: Unity is always superior to conflict

 Matthew 10:34.

Francis just asserted that unity is always superior to conflict.  See here.

The idea that unity is the most important thing, something which trumps even the demands of truth, is an asinine notion which Francis has advanced for years.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand (whom Pope Pius XII referred to as the "20th century Doctor of the Church," refutes this distorted idea of unity.  He writes, "St. Paul says there always will be heresies and he adds that God permits them to test the faithful. The disunity that is based on the incompatibility of truth and falsehood cannot and should not be avoided...To deplore disunity as such, instead of deploring heresies, instead of condemning these and calling them by their name, implies first of all that one would keep unity even at the cost of truth. But, of course, true unity presupposes unity in truth. Error, falsehood, can never be the basis for true unity. That holy, supernatural unity of which our Lord speaks in the priestly prayer ut unum sint - that all may be one - can come to pass only in the profession of divine truth, in the membership of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is a unity which includes some but, by the same token, excludes others. As Father Werenfried van Straaten [the Bacon priest, my note] reminds us, 'Jesus' prayer that all may be one'...may not be separated from His other words: 'I say unto you that whoever does not enter by the door of the sheepfold is a thief and a robber...I am the door!' The same principle is expressed in the first encyclical of Pope Pius XI: Pax Christi in regno Christi, the peace of Christ in the reign of Christ. Even on the natural level, unity that is not grounded in truth is either a very silly or a very dangerous thing. That shallow comradeship so typical of modern society, for example, in which we approach everyone regardless of his relation to God in a spirit of 'tolerance' - the spirit incarnated in the words of Frederick II of Prussia: 'Let everyone attain beatitude in his own fashion' - that is a foolish pseudo-unity lacking any common principle to truly unite men. Such 'togetherness,' however, can be worse than foolish; it can be a sinister force when it is based not on a lack of principle, but on a common error - on an idol. The togetherness found in Nazism or in Communism is an amazing thing. Devotion to the common idol goes so far that the devotees are ready to die for it. So many young Germans gave their lives in the war while screaming, 'Heil Hitler!' They had given themselves in unity, to the devil." (The Charitable Anathema, pp. 3-4).

This false irenicism will play a significant role in this pontificate as the push for a one-world religion intensifies.

"..each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue..."

Unlike Bishop Rozanski, here's a Bishop who understands that Catholics have a right at all times to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.  See here.

Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 92:


"Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

Holy Communion on the tongue is the norm.  Communion in the hand is only allowed by indult, which is a sort of grudging permission.

I challenge Bishop Rozanski, or any Bishop or priest who believes Communion on the tongue may be prohibited, to cite a Church document that justifies this belief.

I await a response.

In the meantime.  See here.

Francis: God cannot be God without us?

And now Francis, the brilliant theologian, is asserting that God cannot be God without us.  See here.

Wrong.  God has no need for human beings. "The God who made the world and everything in it … is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything" (Acts 17:24-25).

God did not make us because he was lonely. Long before we were here, God already had "company" with his Son and the Holy Spirit, referred to in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our own image."

And he didn't make us because he needed to satiate His ego. He did not make us to satisfy some craving to be worshiped. God is totally secure in who he is—without us.

But, despite not needing us, God chose to create us anyway, out of his great love: "I have loved you with an everlasting love" (Jeremiah 31:3).

God loved us before he even created us. He loved us with an "everlasting" love.

God is love (1 John 4:8), and because of that love and his wonderful creativity, he made us so we can enjoy all that he is and all that he's done.  He created us, as the Baltimore Catechism reminds us, to "know, love and serve" Him.

God created us to fulfill his eternal plan.  But, He doesn't need us.  And even if He had never created us, He would still be God.

God has always been.  He has always been God.  Francis is saying that, before we were created, He wasn't God.

Time to depose Francis?

Francis: There is no God of War and hope always comes through defeat

God, Francis assures us, "..does not like to be loved the way a warlord would like, dragging his people to victory, debasing them in the blood of his enemies....Our God is a dim flame that burns on a cold and windy day....Whoever reads the Bible will not find stories of easy heroism, blazing campaigns of conquest. True hope never comes cheap — it always comes through defeat.”

Really?  Revelation 19: 11-21:


Then I saw the heavens opened, and there was a white horse; its rider was [called] “Faithful and True.” He judges and wages war in righteousness. His eyes were [like] a fiery flame, and on his head were many diadems. He had a name inscribed that no one knows except himself. He wore a cloak that had been dipped in blood, and his name was called the Word of God. The armies of heaven followed him, mounted on white horses and wearing clean white linen. Out of his mouth came a sharp sword to strike the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod, and he himself will tread out in the wine press the wine of the fury and wrath of God the almighty. He has a name written on his cloak and on his thigh, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Then I saw an angel standing on the sun. He cried out [in] a loud voice to all the birds flying high overhead, “Come here. Gather for God’s great feast, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of military officers, and the flesh of warriors, the flesh of horses and of their riders, and the flesh of all, free and slave, small and great.” Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered to fight against the one riding the horse and against his army. The beast was caught and with it the false prophet who had performed in its sight the signs by which he led astray those who had accepted the mark of the beast and those who had worshiped its image. The two were thrown alive into the fiery pool burning with sulfur. The rest were killed by the sword that came out of the mouth of the one riding the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh."

This isn't the first time that Francis has advanced a distorted notion of Jesus as some sort of moronic hippy who is a pacifist.

Last Fall, Francis asserted that, "There is no god of war."

Wrong.


Exodus 15: 3-8:

"The Lord is a warrior, Lord is his name! Pharaoh’s chariots and army he hurled into the sea; the elite of his officers were drowned in the Red Sea. The flood waters covered them, they sank into the depths like a stone. Your right hand, O Lord, magnificent in power, your right hand, O Lord, shattered the enemy. In your great majesty you overthrew your adversaries; you loosed your wrath to consume them like stubble. At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up, the flowing waters stood like a mound, the flood waters foamed in the midst of the sea."

Isaiah 42:13:

The Lord goes forth like a warrior,
like a man of war he stirs up his fury;
He shouts out his battle cry,
against his enemies he shows his might."

Deuteronomy 33:27:

The God of old is a refuge;
a support are the arms of the Everlasting. He drove the enemy out of your way and he said, “Destroy!”

In Matthew 10: 34-36, Jesus explains that He will be a cause of division, because not everyone is open to Him Who is Truth:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother,
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’"

"And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming, the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie, and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved. Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned." (2 Thessalonians 2: 6-12).


This scriptural passage is most important. For here Paul emphasizes that the power of the Antichrist is one of seduction. Antichrist is a seducer who seeks to draw people away from the truth. He will work from within religion to seduce people to abandon traditional Christianity and to worship him. How effective will he be? Father Livio Fanzaga, commenting on The Antichrist by Vladimir Soloviev, writes, "So great is the Antichrist's power of seduction over believers - and they never realize it - that he will openly pose as the savior and restorer of religion and universal peace. He will deceive many."


But a tiny remnant will remain faithful. As Pope Paul VI said, "It is enough if only a tiny flock, no matter how small, survives." These words are sobering and should speak loudly to us. Father Fanzaga continues, "In Soloviev, the remnant is defined by recognition of Jesus Christ, 'Himself and all that comes from Him. This is their total horizon and the inexhaustible meaning of life. The tiny flock is not made up of the avant guard intelligentsia - the intellectuals and the theologians have joined the emperor. Neither are they defined in terms of a moral code. Rather they are those who refuse to serve two masters.' I tend to regard them as ordinary people, the humble and those who remain faithful." (The Wrath of God, p. 33).


Pope Benedict XVI, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in an essay entitled, "A Final Reflection: Soloviev's vision of eschatological unity," reminds us that: "..the Antichrist has his followers, and always even among those occupying the highest spiritual offices.....Therefore, we should already, and always, be motivated by concern lest, with big Christian words and wrapped in a cloak of Christianity, we become servants of the Antichrist, who wants to set up his kingdom in this world and to render the future kingdom of Christ redundant."

The Antichrist will tell us that Jesus has failed to put an end to violence but that he alone can promise "universal peace."

Inflated in their rebellion against the God-Man, the Sons of Satan, those committed toward the atheistic program of attacking the Church from without and undermining it from within in preparation for the Man-God, will continue to intensify their persecution of craftiness and subversion until it reaches its culmination in an explosion of hate-filled rage which will bear much blood and death.

Father Livio Fanzaga, writing about the Antichrist, says that, "Catholicism alone will resist him. How then do we destroy this superstition which alone obstructs the world's self-revelation? How do we destroy this superstition which divides mankind and which prevents man from being truly brotherly and free? The true Antichrist is revealed in the replies to these questions. Here is perceived his profound being as the man of iniquity. He will not tolerate the idea of men who adore any god other than himself. His intolerance obliges him to make an exception to his pacifism and his philosophy of non-violence. He is the greatest pacifist in the history of the human race, but because peace and justice really reign on earth he will make an exception to kill and destroy the great superstition of Catholicism, once and for all time..." (Wrath of God: The Days of the Antichrist, p. 124).

The False Prophet is doing his work.  Just as the Baptist paved the way for the God-Man Christ Jesus, so the Masonic False Prophet is paving the way for the man-god (John 5:43).

The Catholic Church has always baptized infants...

The bulletin for Saint Mary's Church in Orange, Massachusetts acknowledges that, "The Bible does not limit baptism to adults.  Several passages point to infant baptism.."  But the same bulletin asserts that, "In the early Church, only adults were baptized."

This is actually not true.

The Catholic Church has always baptized infants because Christ wills it. We know this because He said, "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me." (Matt 19:14).

According to the Apostle Paul, one cannot truly come to Christ except through Baptism. (Rom. 6:3-4).

We read in Sacred Scripture that the Apostles baptized "all the people" (Luke 3:21) and whole households (Acts 16:15, 1 Cor. 1:16). We can deduce that "all the people" and whole "households" included infants.

Christ said that Baptism is a necessary prerequisite for salvation (John 3:5), and He certainly desires the salvation of infants.

The primitive Christian Church, which had fresh firsthand knowledge of Jesus' Will, baptized infants. The ancient catacombs of Rome include inscriptions on the tombs of infants which make mention of their having been baptized. One such inscription reads: "here rest Archillia, a newly-baptized; she was one year and five months old; died February 23rd."

Prayer intentions?  Send them to:

paulanthonymelanson@gmail.com

Pope Francis' example exhorts men to holiness

For far too long, many priests have been offering not the fine wheat of sound doctrine but the chaff of theological dissent from the teaching of the Church's Magisterium. Hence we have experienced not renewal but a spiritual dry rot. Vatican II, in its' Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests (Presbyterorum Ordinis) No. 4, had this to say: "The People of God are joined together primarily by the word of the living God. And rightfully they expect this from their priests. Since no one can be saved who does not first believe, priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have the primary duty of proclaiming the Gospel of God to all. In this way they fulfill the command of the Lord: "Going therefore into the whole world preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mk 16:15), and they establish and build up the People of God. Through the saving word the spark of faith is lit in the hearts of unbelievers, and fed in the hearts of the faithful. This is the way that the congregation of faithful is started and grows, just as the Apostle describes: "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).

To all men, therefore, priests are debtors that the truth of the Gospel which they have may be given to others. And so, whether by entering into profitable dialogue they bring people to the worship of God, whether by openly preaching they proclaim the mystery of Christ, or whether in the light of Christ they treat contemporary problems, they are relying not on their own wisdom for it is the word of Christ they teach, and it is to conversion and holiness that they exhort all men."

According to the Council, the task of priests is "not to teach their own wisdom but God's Word." And this task is of no less importance for the priest than his offering of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Both of these are inseperably linked to each other: "The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ - Head of the Church - before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1552).

For this reason, priests have the very serious obligation to teach the faithful under their care that it is never licit to have sexual relations outside of marriage; that a Catholic cannot (having been validly married in the Church) after divorce, marry another or otherwise pretend that sexual relations with another individual are somehow "marital"; that "formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense" and that '"the Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life" (CCC, 2272); and that "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible, is intrinsically evil.." (CCC, No. 2370, citing Humanae Vitae, No. 14).

The Church proposes these (and other teachings) as true and it does so in the name of Christ. The priest is not to question them. He is not to ignore them or neglect them out of a false sense of "compassion" or "charity." It was Pope Paul VI who said that, "To diminish in no way the saving teaching of Christ constitutes an eminent form of charity for souls." (Humanae Vitae, No. 29). Pope John Paul II reiterated these words in Familiaris Consortio, No. 33.

We are reminded in Lumen Gentium 14 of the Second Vatican Council that: "He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

When a priest ignores or neglects his duty, his task, of serving the Word of God with fidelity, he fails to persevere in that charity described by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II as a charity which diminishes in no way the saving teaching of Christ. And he will be the more severely judged ( See Luke 12:48).

Thanks be to God, we have a Holy Father whose example is calling lapsed Catholics back into the Church.  See here.

But then it was Saint Francis, from whom our Holy Father took his name, who said, "Preach always, use words if necessary."