Francis: We should caress our neuroses

 

You just can't make this up.  Francis, whose mental health has been in question for many years, said that we should "caress our neuroses."  See here.

Pope Francis has admitted that he has "some nerve problems" which require treatment as well as various neuroses. See here. A neuroses is defined as, "A relatively mild mental illness* that is not caused by organic disease, involving symptoms of stress such as depression, anxiety, obsessive behavior and hypochondria."

* Francis has been described as a "sociopath." See here.

Profile of the sociopath here.

"Pope" Francis: All the Saints who invoked Mary as Co-Redemptrix were foolish

Spirit Daily reports:

"...Francis appeared to flatly reject proposals in some theological circles to add 'co-redemptrix' to the list of titles of the Virgin Mary, saying the mother of Jesus never took anything that belonged to her Son, and calling the invention of new titles and dogmas 'foolishness.'"

With attacks against the Catholic Church increasing from both within and without, now more than ever the remnant faithful need to pray and work for the Church to solemnly declare that our Blessed Mother is Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.

It's not surprising that Francis, presiding over a sodomite cabal within the Vatican, would oppose the title of Mary Co-Redemptrix.  For an infallible definition of these three roles of Mary will unleash graces on the world such as one cannot imagine.

It was Saint Maximilian Kolbe, priest and martyr, prophet pointing the way to a new civilization of love, who said (in the early 1940s, before the Nazis put him to death):

"In the Catholic Church they have not yet officially declared in public as certain belief that the Immaculata is the Mediatrix of all Graces. But it is a certain truth. It has been well known from the time of the advent of Christians....But when the faithful voice a desire requesting to admit it as a public belief, the Church must verify this truth and declare it....The source of all graces is God. Everything begins in God. But the graces given to human beings are not given directly from God but through Mary. If you have time to discuss or debate the issue, you should rather pray more. Holy Mary will be pleased if we pray for the early announcement that she is the Mediatrix of all Graces."

There are graces which Our Lady wants to give us but will not be able to until the Church infallibly defines her as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. What better time to do so than the present hour when the Church finds herself under vicious attack and the demonic tyranny of a sodomites cabal?

Perhaps we should all listen to Saint Kolbe and "pray more" for such an announcement?

What the modernistic Francis views as "foolishness" - the worldly always view Holy things as "foolish" - the Saints have not.

In an article entitled, "Mary Co-redemptrix: A Dogmatic Crowning for the Queen?" Dr. Mark Miravalle made this point writing:

"What do St. Padre Pio, St. Francis Xavier Cabrini, St. Gemma Galgani, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Leopold Mandic, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, St. Jose Maria Escrivà, Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, Servant of God, John Paul II, and Sr. Lucia of Fatima all have in common (beyond their eminent sanctity as witnessed by the twentieth century)? They all repeatedly invoked Our Lady as the “Co-redemptrix” and taught the doctrine of Marian coredemption concerning Mary’s unparalleled role with and under Jesus Christ in the Redemption of the human family.

One of the greatest examples of Catholic development of doctrine is visible with the historical unfolding of Marian dogma. Like a small acorn which grows over years into a towering oak tree, the divinely planted seeds of Scripture regarding Mary have grown under the nurturing of the Holy Spirit into solemnly declared dogmas of faith, which constitute the highest form of recognized Catholic truth.

In 431, the Council of Ephesus solemnly declares Mary the Mother of God, or literally the “God-bearer” (Theotokos) in the midst of the Nestorian controversy over the nature and person of Christ.[1] Two centuries later (649), Pope Martin I declares the “Perpetual Virginity” of Our Lady, that she was virginal before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ.[2]

A span of over a thousand years passes before the next Marian dogma is proclaimed with the solemn papal definition of the Immaculate Conception (1854) by Bl. Pope Pius IX, whereby the Holy Father exercises the charism of papal infallibility to pronounce that from the moment of Mary’s conception, she is free from original sin and full of grace.[3] A century later, Venerable Pope Pius XII again exercises papal infallibility by solemnly defining the Assumption of Mary (1950), that at the end of earthly life, the Mother of Jesus was taken body and soul into heavenly glory.[4]

The present four Marian dogmas identify the principal prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin Mary during her earthly life and in relation to her Divine Son. But the sublime tasks assigned by the Holy Trinity to the Virgin Mother do not cease there. Mary received a fifth role with specific relation to the human race, which was declared first by her Crucified Son as his final gift to humanity before his redemptive death: “Woman, behold your Son!…Behold, your Mother!” (Jn. 19:25-27).

Not only is Mary Mother of God made man, the Perpetual Virgin of Virgins, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumed One, she is also the Spiritual Mother of all peoples and all nations. As the Second Vatican Council teaches: “Taken up into heaven, she did not lay aside this saving office, but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation… Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (Lumen Gentium, 62).

As Spiritual Mother of all humanity, Our Lady exercises three maternal functions on behalf of her earthly children. She is a “Mother suffering” or “Co-redemptrix.” The prefix “co” does not mean equal but “with,” as exemplified in St. Paul’s call for all Christians to be “co-workers with God” (1 Cor. 3:9). Mary cooperated “with Jesus” in ways unlike any other human or angelic creature, by her shared suffering with Him in the work of redemption. Vatican II again reminds us that the Blessed Virgin “faithfully persevered in union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consented to the immolation of this victim which was born of her” (LG 58). John Paul II of happy memory called Mary the “Co-redemptrix” on six occasions.[5]

Her second motherly function for humanity is as a “Mother nourishing” or “Mediatrix of all graces.” As the fathers, doctors, saints, and popes teach us, every grace that we receive from the redemption of Jesus Christ comes to us through the intercession of Mary. Cana makes clear the Mother’s ability to release the graces and miracles of her Son for the needs of humanity (Jn. 2:1-10). The late great John Paul called Mary the “Mediatrix of all graces” on seven occasions.[6]

Her third maternal function is as a “Mother pleading” or “Advocate.” There is no greater intercessor to the throne of her Kingly Son than that of the Queen Mother. As King Solomon could deny his mother the Queen nothing, (cf. 1 Kings 2:19) so too, Christ the King denies his Queen Mother nothing.

Since Our Lady’s Spiritual Motherhood under its three aspects of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate is already part of the authoritative doctrinal teachings of the Papal Magisterium, why the need for a papal definition of these three titles? From where did the movement for a papal definition of Our Lady’s universal mediation derive?

Apart from certain misunderstandings that the movement for a fifth Marian dogma has its origins in private revelation, the actual historical beginnings of this international Church drive date back to the first two decades of the twentieth century with the efforts of the renowned Belgian cardinal, Cardinal Mercier and the enthusiastic support of St. Maximilian Kolbe.

By the end of 1915, Pope Benedict had received numerous petitions for the dogmatic definition of Our Lady’s universal mediation from Cardinal Mercier, fellow bishops, religious superiors, and clergy.[7] Cardinal Mercier issued a pastoral letter calling for the dogma of Our Lady’s mediation, which specifically included the concept of Coredemption as an integral part of her mediation, in 1918.[8] With the papal approval by Pope Benedict XV for the mass and office of “Mary, Mediatrix of all graces” at the request of Mercier and others in 1921, the worldwide movement for the solemn papal definition of Mary’s universal mediation of grace was launched in a letter from Cardinal Mercier to all the bishops of the world (April, 1921), wherein he expressed his deepest hope for this dogmatic crowning of Our Lady’s mediation.[9]

The illustrious Belgian cardinal continued his advocacy for the dogma with Pius XI on the very day of his papal election (Feb. 6, 1922).[10] The newly elected pontiff responded immediately to the petition for the dogma by ordering the establishment of three theological commissions to study the question in 1922. The Belgian and Spanish commissions concluded strongly in favor of the papal definition, while the conclusion of the Roman commission was never released.[11]

From that time to the present, great numbers of petitions have continued to flood the Holy See for the papal definition of Our Lady’s universal mediation. Petitions for a new Marian dogma from only the last ten years (approx. 1994-2004) number over six million from over 165 countries, and include over 550 bishops and 45 cardinals.[12] Although these numbers do not include the hundreds of bishop petitions, along with the multitudinous number of clergy and lay petitions submitted to the Holy See by Cardinals Mercier,[13] Gagnon, and others prelates from 1930 to 1994, the recent petition campaign of the last decade for this fifth Marian dogma represents the largest per annum petition drive in the history of the Church.

But the question of “why” must again be addressed. If the Magisterium already teaches the truth of Marian mediation in its three components of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, then where is the need for a solemn papal definition of the same truth in the form of a dogma?

Historic graces and world peace. With every new Marian dogma proclaimed by the successor of Peter, bearer of the keys of the kingdom, a new ocean of graces descends upon the Church and the world. For Our Lady to exercise fully the motherly roles granted her by God, humanity must exercise its free will in accepting her roles that they may be activated on our behalf. God never forces his sanctifying grace upon us, but awaits our free “yes” before bestowing them.

Humanity’s “yes” as spoken by the Holy Father in a papal proclamation of our full acceptance of Our Lady’s Spiritual Motherhood would release extraordinary graces of peace and redemption to a world where internal wars of abortion, child abuse, pornography, divorce, drugs, depression, loneliness, and external conflicts of terrorism, poverty, famine, pestilence and natural disasters are threatening most every family, country, and society throughout the world.

The proclamation of the dogma would allow the Mother to have her chance to intercede for a new peace and grace for our world. The Holy Father would be declaring our acknowledgement, on the highest level of Catholic truth, that She truly is our universal Spiritual Mother, our Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and Advocate, and that we humbly and trustingly beseech our Heavenly Queen and Mother for the interior peace of Christ in the hearts of humanity that is necessary for any authentic and perduring global peace.

The succinct but profound words of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta most eloquently summarize the heart and the imperative of the contemporary call for the fifth Marian Dogma:

Mary is our Coredemptrix with Jesus. She gave Jesus his body and suffered with him at the foot of the cross.

Mary is the Mediatrix of all grace. She gave Jesus to us, and as our Mother she obtains for us all his graces.

Mary is our Advocate who prays to Jesus for us. It is only through the Heart of Mary that we come to the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus.

The papal definition of Mary as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate will bring great graces to the Church.

All for Jesus through Mary.

God bless you"

Intelligent people of good will are able to discern bovine scatology..

Remember when Francis chided President Donald Trump for wanting to build a border wall?  He referred to the President as "Non-Christiano."

Why was he silent about this?


Is Francis really interested in the Gospel of Life and Gospel values or is he merely a liberal partisan looking to prop up a political party which has become a tool of the Devil?

 As Dr. David Carlin has said, "..when clerical leadership is weak or foolish, we can't be surprised when the quality of lay Catholicism sinks." (Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? How the Party I Loved Became the Enemy of My Religion," p. 106).

Pope Benedict XVI once said that while, "everyone has the right to leave home to seek better conditions of life in another country...At the same time, states have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person."

Pope Benedict XVI also said that immigrants have the duty to integrate into their host countries and respect their laws and national identities.

The challenge, as the Holy Father noted, is to "combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life”.  See here.

Why is it that President Trump is demonized as a "bigot" and "non-Christian" for defending the United States frontier when President Obama was given a free pass to do the same?

Clerics such as Francis and Cardinal Dolan (see here) need to provide us with an answer.

In the meantime, intelligent people of good will can see through the bovine scatology.

The False Prophet will be in the service of the Beast

Not long ago, Francis' niece, Cristina Bergoglio, said that  she sees "...the church as outdated," and added, "that's why I believe life has put my uncle to renew this certain system of thought that was getting stagnated."

That "certain system of thought" is Roman Catholicism.

As Randy Engel has said, "Catholicism is a religion of Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium, the fullness of the Faith, handed down to us from the time of the Apostles. It never was, is, or will be a religion of 'evolution' or 'change' related to dogmatic truths and morals. Yet, Francis continues to maintain an inordinate fascination with 'change,' which amounts to a 'divinization' of change.."

Precisely.  What exactly does Francis mean by change?  His is not the change which is so necessary and so beautifully articulated by the Saint for whom I was named. Writing to the Ephesians, St. Paul said, "Put off the old man who is corrupted according to the desire of error, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind: and put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth" (Eph. 4:22-24).

And as Dr. Von Hildebrand explains, "These words of St. Paul are inscribed above the gate through which all must pass who want to reach the goal set us by God. They implicitly contain the quintessence of the process which baptized man must undergo before he attains the unfolding of the new supernatural life received in Baptism." (Transformation in Christ, p.3).

Dr. Von Hildebrand goes on to explain in this work of critical importance that there is a certain type of man, "who, while not lacking a certain elan, refuses to take account of his limitations and is thus driven to magnify his stature artificially." He continues: "Suppose he is present at some discussion of spiritually relevant topics: he will take part in the debate as though he were fully equipped to do so; he will claim impressions as deep as the others; he will not yield to any other man as regards intellectual proficiency or even religious stature. Thus he works himself up, as it were, to a level which he has not reached in reality - and which he may not even be able to reach, so far as it is a matter of natural capacities. He is not without zeal; but that zeal is nourished at heart by pride. He misjudges the limitations of the natural talents which God has lent him, and consequently lapses into pretense. He is fond of speaking of things which far transcend the limits of his understanding; he behaves as though a mere mental or verbal reference to such subjects (however poorly implemented with actual knowledge and penetration) would by itself amount to their intellectual possession. This cramped attitude of sham spirituality is mostly underlain by an inferiority complex, or by a kind of infantile unconsciousness. Stupidity in its really oppressive form is traceable to this pretension to appear something different from what one is in fact, and by no means to a mere deficiency of intellectual gifts." (Transformation in Christ, pp.23-24).

Why am I relating all of this? Because, Dr. Von Hildebrand teaches us that such false self-appraisals actually hinder our readiness to change or to "put on the new man" as St. Paul instructs us to do. And what Dr. Von Hildebrand refers to as a "cramped attitude of sham spirituality" is part and parcel of this papacy.

We are witnessing a pontiff who forgets that we stand on the shoulders of giants.  A man who believes it is the Church which must change and that this is so because he is "wiser" than all previous Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church.

It was Pius XII, in his encyclical letter Mystici Corporis, who taught that:"..The Church, which should be considered a perfect society in its own right, is not made up of merely moral and juridical elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human societies; it surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things immortal are above all those that perish...The juridical principles, on which also the Church rests and is established, derive from the divine constitution given it by Christ.."

Authentic Catholics accept the teaching of Vatican I that, "...the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church which is spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ, Session IV).

Sadly these authentic Catholics are not being fed by an authentic Shepherd in Rome. Instead, they are being assaulted by a man who wants to see the Catholic religion neutralized in preparation for the rise of the Man of Sin.

It was Frere Francois de Marie des Anges, in his important work entitled "Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph," who warned that:

"The Apocalypse teaches us that the "false prophet" will act exteriorly as exercising authority in the name of God and in His service, whereas he will be in reality in the service of the Beast.  Our Father Superior comments:

I'm order to bend souls and not only bodies under his domination and obtain their adoration, the political power instigated a religious power completely to his service, and thus the lamb is going to become the vehicle of error.  The church of heresy, schism and scandal is going to make itself voluntarily the slave of the beast and the dragon which have conquered it, the spiritual animator of the empire of Satan.  He will use fire from Heaven, which is the Word of God, anathema, to disarm its enemies and conquer Christians.  Then the lamb will condemn what is holy and consecrate what is of the evil one.  Here we are at the most extreme point of the triumph of impiety, at the hour of the most complete victory of the mystery of iniquity....'" (Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, p. 285).


Francis: "I do not know if I truly love Jesus.."

Francis just told a group of children, "I do not know if I truly love Jesus. I try to love him..."  See here.

What a shame. Saint Peter Julian Eymard reminds us that, "It was from the height of His Cross that our Lord first drew all the souls to Himself by
redeeming them. But when our Lord uttered these words, He certainly also had in mind His Eucharistic throne, to the foot of which He means to draw all souls so as to bind them there with the chains of His love.

Our Lord wants to instill in us a passionate love for Himself. Any virtue or idea which does not end by becoming a passion will never produce
anything great.

A child's affection is not love. A child loves by instinct and because it feels that it us loved; it loves itself in those who do it good.

A domestic servant may be devoted; his love will be real only if he is devoted out of affection for his master, without any thought of personal advantage.

Love cannot triumph unless it becomes the one passion of our life. Without such a passion we may produce isolated acts of love; but our life is not really won or consecrated to an ideal.

Unless we have a passionate love for our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, we shall accomplish nothing.

 Certainly, our Lord loves us passionately in the Eucharist; He loves us blindly without a thought for Himself, devoting Himself entirely for our good. We should love Him as
He loves us."

In John 21: 15-17, we read, "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' [Jesus] said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'"

The Vicar of Christ is called to show his love for Jesus by feeding the sheep - and this with the food which is sound doctrine.  But he who sits on the throne of Peter is not offering such food.  No doubt because his love for the Lord Jesus is in question.

He even entertains doubts himself!

Pope Francis shows us how to be patient...

When Francis ordained a new Bishop,
"in his homily, the pope asked him to be patient with priests, seminarians, the poor and laypeople who come to him looking for assistance and counsel. 'Many times you will need a lot of patience,' the pope said, 'but the kingdom of God is built that way.'"

http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2015/pope-advises-new-bishop-to-have-mercy-patience-short-homilies.cfm

If the Kingdom of God is built through patience, how fortunate we are to have this example of patience from Francis.

Just a few weeks ago, Francis was overheard screaming at staff.  Kingdom building.  Mercy.  Love.

Mercy not "magic"

Antonio Anup Gonsalves, writing for the Catholic News Agency, reports that:

"The Archdiocese of Bombay issued a clarification last week after WhatsApp users in Maharashtra were circulating a 'misleading' message which promoted a superstitious understanding of the Year of Mercy.

The archdiocese's Jan. 19 statement noted that the text 'gives the impression that merely walking through the Doors of Mercy will result in the forgiveness of sins.'

'These doors are not magical doors and we need to understand that to experience and obtain the indulgence, the faithful are called, as pilgrims, to avail themselves of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, to participate in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist with a reflection on mercy, make a profession of faith, and pray for the Holy Father and for his intentions for the good of the Church and of the entire world.'


The archdiocese's noted added, 'It must be understood that walking through the Door of Mercy indicates the desire for the forgiveness of sins, and walking through it symbolises a leaving behind of the past and entering into a new life through Christ, who is the door.'

'Please note that walking through the Holy Doors is not a substitute for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.'"

Pope Francis himself speaks much about Jesus's mercy but seems to have nothing to say about His justice.  What is this but a distortion of the Gospels?

Our Lord is so rich in mercy that He told Saint Faustina, "Let the greatest sinners place their trust in My mercy. They have the right before others to trust in the abyss of My mercy. My daughter, write about My mercy towards tormented souls. Souls that make an appeal to My mercy delight Me. To such souls I grant even more graces than they ask. I cannot punish even the greatest sinner if he makes an appeal to My compassion, but on the contrary, I justify him in My unfathomable and inscrutable mercy.." (Divine Mercy in My Soul, Notebook III, 1146). This is one of the reasons I began this Blog. To promote the whole idea of reconciliation. The La Salette message is one of reconciliation. This is a message of hope. But also one of warning.

But many Americans - and this includes Catholics - have a tendency to hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. Such people will read passages from Sacred Scripture (or other holy books) which they find comforting while glossing over others which they find troubling. By way of example, I've read many commentaries which cite the passage from Divine Mercy in My Soul which I just cited but which conveniently omit the last portion of the paragraph: "Write: before I come as a just Judge, I first open wide the door of My mercy. He who refuses to pass through the door of My mercy must pass through the door of My justice..."

Some prefer to believe in a Jesus who is a sort of moronic hippy who walked around preaching peace and love. But when the Son of Man began His public ministry, He did so with the word "repent" (Matthew 4:17). And He advised the woman caught in adultery to "sin no more" (John 8:11). Likewise, in the case of the man cured at the Pool of Bethesda, Jesus advised him to "sin no more lest something worse befall thee" (John 5:14). When queried on the subject of how many would be saved, Jesus replied "few" because the "gate" to Heaven is "narrow" (Matthew 7:13-14). And while no one can pinpoint the precise meaning of the word "few," still, it is sobering that Jesus chose the image of a narrow gate.

Jesus is likened in the gospel to a stern master who has lazy servants flogged and murderous ones put to death (Matthew 21:41; Luke 12:47). And while it is true that Jesus is Mercy, He is also Justice. And for every parable illustrative of His mercy, there are three or four threatening divine retribution. Someone just accused me of being "too negative" for reminding others of this fact. But I didn't start a Blog to be popular. I prefer the friendship of Christ to that of the world.

The Judgment Day is always described as a day of wrath and never as a day of rejoicing (Proverbs 11:4; Zephaniah 1:15; Sirach 5:10; Romans 2:5; Revelation 6:17). Why is this? If everyone (or even a large segment of mankind) is headed for Heaven, why does Sacred Scripture refer to the Judgment Day as a day of wrath?

The smug, self-satisfied "we-are-all-saved-already" attitude found in so many Catholic parishes is the result of the sin of presumption. Because there are priests who are betraying Jesus by refusing to preach on the reality of sin and the reality of Hell, a spiritual dry-rot has infected much of the Church. This is why nearly everyone receives Holy Communion at Mass but nearly no one goes to Confession.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about presumption: "There are two kinds of presumption. Either man presumes upon his own capacities, (hoping to be able to save himself without help from on high), or he presumes upon God's almighty power or his mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit)." (CCC, 2092).

The words of Sacred Scripture remind us that such an attitude is very, very wrong: "Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not:' Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive.' For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath." (Sirach 5:5-7).

A chastisement is coming. Why? Father Albert Hebert, S.M., explains: "Sin and evil is the one enemy of mankind. It spearheads the columns of all the other evils it brings with it. It brings destruction and death, and a terrible eternal death for the unrepentant, those who flaunt their pride and their resistance in the face of a Loving and Merciful God, those who are a continuous scandal to others. They forget that God's Justice must be infinite too, and that sooner or later it must be exercised to preserve His honor and integrity, to save the innocent, to confirm the good and to justify the martyrs."

Make no mistake about it: God will not be mocked. Unless we as a people repent from our sins and make atonement, the chastisement we face will be indescribable. How many innocent babies have been murdered every year? Do you suppose that the blood of Abel cried out to God after his murder but that the blood of these babies does not? Sins of homosexuality, contraception, fornication, adultery and so on. Do you suppose God will continue to allow Himself to be mocked?

Behold the pope fashioned by Freemasonry...

Six years ago, and several years before Francis stepped onto the world stage, I wrote a post for this Blog in which I said, "...masonic forces seek to subvert the Church from within and to create a "new church" created in the image and likeness of man.  The new humanitarian religion will result from a quiet revolution within the Church.

This new religion will be anti-supernatural.  And it will embrace the Socialistic New World Order and the Reign of Antichrist.  This is the false church Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich saw in her visions.

Father Emmanuel Barbier, a well-known anti-modernist and anti-masonic author, transcribed a document dated April 3, 1844, in which a high-ranking leader of Italian masonic forces called Nubius explains to another highly-placed mason how the quiet revolution will work.  He writes, "Now then, in order to ensure a pope in the required proportions, we must first of all prepare a generation worthy of the kingdom of which we dream...

Cast aside the old men and men of a mature age; go to the youth, and if possible, even to children...It is to the youth that we must go, it is the youth that we must lead, unperceived by them, under the flag of the secret societies.  In order to advance with prudent steps on this dangerous but sure way, two things are absolutely necessary.  You must have the simplicity of doves and the prudence of the serpent...Never pronounce before them a word of impiety or impurity: Maxima debetur puero reverentia...Once your reputation has been established in colleges, high schools, universities, and seminaries, once you have gained the confidence of professors and students, make sure that especially those who enter the ranks of the clergy be pleased with your meetings...

Such reputation will give your doctrine access to the young clergy and to convents.  In a few years, this clergy will naturally have invaded all functions: they will govern, administer, judge, from the Sovereign's council, be called to choose the Pontiff who must reign; and this Pontiff, like most of his contemporaries, will be more or less imbued with Italian and humanitarian principles that we will start placing in circulation...Let the clergy move forward under your standard always believing they are advancing under the banner of the apostolic Keys.  Cast your net like Simon Bar Jonas; spread it to the bottom of sacristies, seminaries, and convents, rather than casting it to the bottom of the sea; if you do not precipitate anything, we promise you a catch even more miraculous than his...

You will have fished a revolution dressed in the Pope's triple crown and cape, carrying the cross and the flag, a revolution that will need only a small stimulus to set fire to the four corners of the earth." (Nubius, Secret Instructions on the Conquest of the Church, excerpted from Les infiltrations maconiques dans l'Eglise, Paris/Brussels: Desclee de Brouwer, 1901, p. 5).


Meditation: John 5:43.

Father Linus Clovis makes the point that,“Obedience is owed to the pope, but the pope owes obedience to the word and the apostolic tradition. We have to obey the pope, but the pope himself must obey the written word. He must obey the tradition. He must respond to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Obedience is owed to the pope, but it is the duty of the pope to give the character of possibility to this obedience. The pope has to facilitate our obeying him, by himself being obedient to the Word of God. Pope Felix III told us, ‘an error that is not resisted is approved. A truth that is not defended is suppressed.’ So we have an obligation to resist error, and we must do everything that we can to promote the truth.”  Father Clovis made this remark in response to the crisis in the Church and the role of Pope Francis in this crisis.  See here.

"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts very new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible; hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.”- Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, pp. 88-90)

Cardinal Manning delivered a series of lectures in 1861 under the title “The Present Crises of the Holy See Tested by Prophecy” in which Manning he foresaw a future crises in the Roman Catholic Church initiated by a false ecumenism and progressivist theology that many orthodox Catholics have loathed following the Second Vatican Council. Manning believed that this progressivist current would undermine the authority of the Church and ultimately result in a departure from the true faith by the nations together with the displacement of the true pope by a false prophet, thus ushering in the Antichrist and global apostasy. Manning also believed secret societies like the Freemasons were part of this conspiracy. “The secret societies have long ago undermined and honeycombed the Christian society of Europe, and are at this moment struggling onward towards Rome, the center of all Christian order in the world,”he wrote. But when he looked at the prophecy in Revelation 18 concerning the end-time destruction of Mystery Babylon, Manning saw it was the hand of God in judgment of worldwide apostasy emanating from Rome:
"We read in the Book Apocalypse, of the city of Rome, that she said in the pride of her heart, “I sit as a queen, and am no widow, and sorrow I shall not see. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day: death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be burned with fire, because God is strong who shall judge her.” Some of the greatest writers of the Church tell us that…the great City of Seven Hills…the city of Rome will probably become apostate…and that Rome will again be punished, for he will depart from it; and the judgment of God will fall…"

Manning explained how many of Catholicism’s greatest theologians agreed with this point of view:

"The apostasy of the city of Rome…and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians, of greatest repute. First, Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Viegas, Suarez, Bellarmine, and Bosius, that Rome shall apostatize from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ, and return to its ancient paganism. Malvenda’s words are:
'But Rome itself in the last times of the world will return to its ancient idolatry, power, and imperial greatness. It will cast out its Pontiff, altogether apostatize from the Christian faith, terribly persecute the Church, shed the blood of martyrs more cruelly than ever, and will recover its former state of abundant wealth, or even greater than it had under its first rulers.'
Lessius says: 'In the time of Antichrist, Rome shall be destroyed, as we see openly from the thirteenth chapter of the Apocalypse;' and again: 'The woman whom thou sawest is the great city, which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth, in which is signified Rome in its impiety, such as it was in the time of St. John, and shall be again at the end of the world.'
 And Bellarmine: 'In the time of Antichrist, Rome shall be desolated and burnt, as we learn from the sixteenth verse of the seventeenth chapter of the Apocalypse.' On which words the Jesuit Erbermann comments as follows: 'We all confess with Bellarmine that the Roman people, a little before the end of the world, will return to paganism, and drive out the Roman Pontiff.'

 Viegas, on the eighteenth chapter of the Apocalypse says: 'Rome, in the last age of the world, after it has apostatized from the faith, will attain great power and splendor of wealth, and its sway will be widely spread throughout the world, and flourish greatly. Living in luxury and the abundance of all things, it will worship idols, and be steeped in all kinds of superstition, and will pay honor to false gods. And because of the vast effusion of the blood of martyrs which was shed under the emperors, God will most severely and justly avenge them, and it shall be utterly destroyed, and burned by a most terrible and afflicting conflagration.'"


 It was Saint John Bosco who prophesied, "And to you, Rome, what will happen! Ungrateful Rome, effeminate Rome, proud Rome! You have reached such a height that you search no further. You admire nothing else in your Sovereign except luxury, forgetting that you and your glory stands upon Golgotha. Now he is old, defenseless, and despoiled; and yet at his word, the word of one who was in bondage, the whole world trembles.

Rome! To you I will come four times.

The first time, I shall strike your lands and the inhabitants thereof.

The second time, I shall bring the massacre and the slaughter even to your very walls. And will you not yet open your eyes?

I shall come a third time and I shall beat down to the ground your defenses and the defenders, and at the command of the Father, the reign of terror, of dreadful fear, and of desolation shall enter into your city.

But My wise men have now fled and My law is even now trampled underfoot. Therefore I will make a fourth visit. Woe to you if My law shall still be considered as empty words. There will be deceit and falsehood among both the learned and the ignorant. Your blood and that of your children will wash away your stains upon God's law. War, pestilence and famine are the rods to scourge men's pride and wickedness. O wealthy men, where is your glory now, your estates, your palaces? They are the rubble on the highways and byways.

And your priests, why have you not run to 'cry between the vestibule and the Altar,' begging God to end these scourges? Why have you not, with the shield of faith, gone upon the housetops, into the homes, along the highways and byways, into every accessible corner to carry the seed of My word? Know you that this is the terrible two-edged sword that cuts down My enemies and breaks the Anger of God and of men?"
In our own time, the germ ideas of a one-world religion are already being sowed. And this false humanitarian religion will burst into poisonous flower when enough hearts have grown cold and have abandoned the true religion. As Jane Le Royer explained in prophecy: "When the time of the Antichrist is near, a false religion will appear which will be opposed to the unity of God and His Church. This will cause the greatest schism the world has ever known."

Can you not see the emerging signs? How do we find the Church today? The Mystical Body of the Crucified One - the Holy Catholic Church - is climbing Calvary, carrying a heavy cross. She is experiencing the hour of abandonment and betrayal. Her body is being tormented by the scourges of sin which strike at it and by numerous sacrileges which open up deep wounds in it. A Catholic priest in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts openly calls her "evil" just as the Pharisees suggested Our Lord was evil and demon possessed (Matthew 11:18; 12: 24). And his parishioners applaud.

Indeed, Our Lady told Father Gobbi,"The hour of Calvary has arrived for the Church, called to offer herself in holocaust and to be immolated on the cross of her bloody martyrdom. The hour of Calvary has arrived for this poor humanity, which is already beginning to live the painful hours of its chastisement..' (Rome, May 1, 1994).

But too many are proud. Their eyes blinded by sin and egoism. Like the Pharisees before them, they are incapable of reading the signs of the times because their spiritual eyes are closed. They cannot hear the Spirit because their ears are closed. They cannot feel the promptings of the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus because their hearts are closed. Such people cannot endure sound teaching but have itching ears and will continue to accumulate teachers who suit their own likings, teachers who will cater to their lusts by providing them with myths (2 Timothy 4: 3, 4).

And still so many of our shepherds remain silent like mute dogs. They have not begged God to end these scourges. They have not wept between the vestibule and the altar. They have not taken up the shield of faith to protect their flocks. Their judgment will be all the more severe, for God expects more from His ministers (Luke 12: 48).

The divinization of change or chronolatry...

Randy Engel writes:

"According to Vatican Radio, on Monday, January 18, 2016, the day after Pope Francis’ visit to the Great Synagogue of Rome, the pontiff delivered a homily at his daily Mass in which he condemned Christians who are of “closed heart” and resisters to “change,” calling them “obstinate rebels” and “idolaters.”

Stopping short of excommunicating Christians “who obstinately cling to what has always been done and who do not allow others to change,” it was not until the last paragraph of his talk in the pew-less, kneeler-less chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, that Francis attempted to make a distinction between what “should not change because it is fundamental,” and “what should change in order to be able to receive the newness of the Spirit (italics added).”

Now, Catholicism is a religion of Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium, the fullness of the Faith, handed down to us from the time of the Apostles. It never was, is, or will be a religion of “evolution” or “change” related to dogmatic truths and morals. Yet, Francis continues to maintain an inordinate fascination with “change,” which amounts to a “divinization” of change.."

Precisely.  What exactly does Francis mean by change?  His is not the change which is so necessary and so beautifully articulated by the Saint for whom I was named. Writing to the Ephesians, St. Paul said, "Put off the old man who is corrupted according to the desire of error, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind: and put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth" (Eph. 4:22-24).

And as Dr. Von Hildebrand explains, "These words of St. Paul are inscribed above the gate through which all must pass who want to reach the goal set us by God. They implicitly contain the quintessence of the process which baptized man must undergo before he attains the unfolding of the new supernatural life received in Baptism." (Transformation in Christ, p.3).

Dr. Von Hildebrand goes on to explain in this work of critical importance that there is a certain type of man, "who, while not lacking a certain elan, refuses to take account of his limitations and is thus driven to magnify his stature artificially." He continues: "Suppose he is present at some discussion of spiritually relevant topics: he will take part in the debate as though he were fully equipped to do so; he will claim impressions as deep as the others; he will not yield to any other man as regards intellectual proficiency or even religious stature. Thus he works himself up, as it were, to a level which he has not reached in reality - and which he may not even be able to reach, so far as it is a matter of natural capacities. He is not without zeal; but that zeal is nourished at heart by pride. He misjudges the limitations of the natural talents which God has lent him, and consequently lapses into pretense. He is fond of speaking of things which far transcend the limits of his understanding; he behaves as though a mere mental or verbal reference to such subjects (however poorly implemented with actual knowledge and penetration) would by itself amount to their intellectual possession. This cramped attitude of sham spirituality is mostly underlain by an inferiority complex, or by a kind of infantile unconsciousness. Stupidity in its really oppressive form is traceable to this pretension to appear something different from what one is in fact, and by no means to a mere deficiency of intellectual gifts." (Transformation in Christ, pp.23-24).

Why am I relating all of this? Because, Dr. Von Hildebrand teaches us that such false self-appraisals actually hinder our readiness to change or to "put on the new man" as St. Paul instructs us to do. And what Dr. Von Hildebrand refers to as a "cramped attitude of sham spirituality" is part and parcel of this papacy.  We are witnessing a pontiff who forgets that we stand on the shoulders of giants.  A man who believes it is the Church which must change and that this is so because he is "wiser" than all previous Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church.

It was Pius XII, in his encyclical letter Mystici Corporis, who taught that:"..The Church, which should be considered a perfect society in its own right, is not made up of merely moral and juridical elements and principles. It is far superior to all other human societies; it surpasses them as grace surpasses nature, as things immortal are above all those that perish...The juridical principles, on which also the Church rests and is established, derive from the divine constitution given it by Christ.."

Authentic Catholics accept the teaching of Vatican I that, "...the pastors and the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church which is spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation." (Dogmatic Constitution I on the Church of Christ, Session IV).

Sadly these authentic Catholics are not being fed by an authentic Shepherd in Rome. Instead, they are being assaulted by a man who wants to see the Catholic religion neutralized in preparation for the rise of the Man of Sin.

Pope Francis: Is he suggesting that Jesus sinned?

Father Brian Harrison writes:


"In the Traditional Latin Rite the Feast of the Holy Family is celebrated on the Sunday after Epiphany (January 10 this year). In the Novus Ordo calendar it comes two weeks earlier, on the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas; and Pope Francis, following up the two recent Synods on the Family, decided to celebrate this Feast publicly in St. Peter's Basilica on December 27. In both old and new rites, the Gospel for this Feast is St. Luke's account of the finding of the Child Jesus in the temple - the Fifth Joyful Mystery of the Rosary.

Unfortunately, our present Bishop of Rome used the occasion in order to preach a sermon that for countless faithful Catholics, including the present writer, had the effect of pouring a bucket of ice-cold water all over the happy occasion, leaching out the joy and replacing it with shock, uncertainty and consternation. For Pope Francis here continued his seemingly unending series of 'firsts' - radically novel statements and decisions that none of his predecessors would ever have dreamed of making, and which, indeed, they would never have believed could be made by any Successor of Peter.

Now, to give credit where credit is due, the Holy Father said some very fine things in his homily for the Mass of the Holy Family. Indeed, his pronouncements nearly always contain much that is good, true and spiritually helpful. He could surely never have been elected to the highest office on earth if his track record revealed that most of what he said was foolish, mistaken, superficial or heterodox. Nevertheless, it will only take a small drop of venom to make a rich and delicious Christmas cake highly dangerous for your health. Likewise, just one shocking affirmation in a papal homily can make its overall effect deeply unsettling and dangerous for our spiritual health.

In this case, the Pope has said something which makes many of us shudder; for it is something which it is not easy to exculpate, at least at the objective level, from the charge of blasphemy. Intentionally or otherwise, he has spoken words which, taken in their natural, unforced sense, imply that the Son of God himself has committed sin.

Consider these words by which His Holiness, preaching in Italian, commented on the Gospel incident: 'We know what Jesus did on that occasion. Instead of returning home with his family, he stayed in Jerusalem, in the Temple, provoking great suffering (provocando una grande pena) to Mary and Joseph, who were unable to find him. For this little 'escapade' (questa 'scappatella'), Jesus probably had to ask forgiveness (dovette chiedere scusa) of his parents. The Gospel doesn’t say this, but I believe that we can presume it.'"

Only if your insane Pope Francis! Or have lost your faith in the God-Man.

Anyone even remotely familiar with the New Testament knows full well that Jesus was subject to emotions.  We know that He wept when His friend Lazarus died.  We know that He experienced various emotions.  We read for example, "He began to grow sorrowful and be sad" (Mt 26: 37); that He "began to fear and be heavy" (Mk 14: 33); that He "looked round about on them with anger" (Mk 3: 5) and that He said, "I am glad for your sake" (Jn 11: 15).  But Jesus was also free from concupiscence.  As a result, His emotions could not be directed to a sinful object nor could they arise within Him without His consent.  Jesus emotions were always completely under the control of His will and could never obscure or dominate His mind in any way.

Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., notes how, "In this regard there is a significant difference between His emotions and ours.  For, our emotions arise spontaneously, often against our will, and sometimes totally dominate our power of reason.  Thus, they can lead us into sin.  Not so with Jesus.  Jesus was capable of suffering and experienced emotions, but everything was under the control of His will which was totally obedient to His Father." (Fundamentals of Catholicism, Vol. II, p. 269).

This is the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae:

"Since the soul gives form to the body soul and body share the same existence, and when the body is upset by physical suffering the soul existing in the body is also indirectly affected.  So because Christ's body could suffer and die, his soul too was affected by suffering.  The soul is also affected, in a different sense, by activities it exercises by itself, or that belong more to it than the body.  Knowledge and sensation are sometimes called affections of the soul, but the description applies most properly to emotions of the sense-appetite, which Christ possessed along with everything else natural to men.  But whereas in us emotions often bear on unlawful objects, frequently anticipate the judgment of reason, and sometimes draw reason after them, in Christ they were always under reason's control."

Pope Francis...have you lost your mind or your faith?  Perhaps both?

Pope Francis: Homosexual unions should not be dismissed

As noted here: Pope Francis asserts that,

"The Catholic Church should not dismiss out of hand civil unions, but should study them" and that, "the issue of gay marriage should be studied and not dismissed out-of-hand.."

This papacy should be dismissed.

The sin of homosexuality, [and here we are speaking of homosexual acts] is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.  Saint Peter, our first Pope, in his Second Epistle, says:

"And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, God condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should afterwards act wickedly.  And he delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked." (2 Peter 2: 6-7).

The sin of homosexuality has been condemned by Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and by the Popes, for 2,000 years.  And with good reason, Saint Peter Damian [himself a Doctor of the Church] explains that the sin "should not be considered an ordinary vice, for it surpasses all of them in enormity." (The Book of Gomorrah).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'" (2357).  Which is why, in his 1994 Angelus Address, protesting against a special resolution crafted by the European Parliament encouraging the nations of Europe to approve homosexual "marriage," Pope John Paul II said that, "What is not morally acceptable, however, is the legalization of homosexual acts.  To show understanding towards the person who sins, towards the person who is not in the process of freeing himself from this tendency, does not at all mean to diminish the demands of the moral norm (cf. Veritatis Splendor, No. 95)...

But we must say that what was intended with the European Parliament's resolution was the legitimization of a moral disorder.  Parliament improperly conferred an institutional value to a conduct that is deviant and not in accordance with God's plan...Forgetting the words of Christ 'The truth shall set you free' (John 8:32), an attempt was made to show the people of our continent a moral evil, a deviance, a certain slavery, as a form of liberation, falsifying the very essence of the family." (See here).

But Pope Francis is now implying that respect for homosexual persons, which should consist of an authentic charity which shows them the unnatural lie they have embraced and that they should view with horror the sin in which they find themselves, might mean changing the Church's teaching.

Really?  The Church teaches otherwise.  The CDF has taught authoritatively that, "There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.  Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.  Homosexual acts 'close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved." (Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4).

Pray for the Church.  That she may be delivered from such evil.

Liberation theologian Leonardo Boff's praise for the pope on fire to build man's world

As noted here, "The Brazilian liberation theologian Leonardo Boff (76) has a support letter written to Pope Francis. The letter was also published in full on its website. The Brazilian theologian writes there that he was beaten speechless because even in some high-ranking cardinals resistance to reform. "These groups want only a return to the church of the past, which is a closed fortress."

Boff praised the pope for his strong speeches and clear gestures that demonstrate a great warmth and infinite mercy. The liberation theologian writes that he is convinced that morality and good eventually gain the upper hand. "


On fire to build man's world.

Malachi Martin, in his book “The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church,” says that, “Those who..know the history of Liberation Theology..may point out that Gutierrez’s work [Father Gustavo Gutierrez, author of A Theology of Liberation] was inspired by a 1968 Conference of Latin American bishops at Medellin, near Bogota, in Colombia, where the delegates highlighted the plight of the poor, and the needy to remedy their awful conditions…

Essentially, Liberation Theology is the answer to that summons to the Church codified so many years before by Maritain – to identify itself with the revolutionary hopes of the masses. The difference, perhaps, insofar as there is one, is that while Maritain adopted a theology of history built on a misapprehension of Marxist philosophy, Liberation Theologians adopted a theology of politics built on Soviet tactics. In essence, the propagators of Liberation Theology took the current of theological thought developed in Europe and applied it to the very concrete situations in Latin America. Suddenly, theological and philosophical theory became the pragmatic proposals and actual programs for changing the face of all social and political institutions in Latin America….

Liberation Theology turned its back on the entire scope of Scholastic Theology, including what was sound in Maritain. It did not base its reasoning on papal teaching, or on the ancient theological tradition of the Church, or on the Decrees of the Church’s Ecumenical Councils. In fact, Liberation Theology refused to start where Councils and Popes had always started: with God as Supreme Being, as Creator, as Redeemer, as Founder of the Church, as the One Who had placed among men a Vicar who was called the Pope, as Ultimate Rewarder of the Good and Punisher of the Evil. Rather, Liberation Theology’s basic presumption was ‘the people,’ sometimes indeed ‘the people of God.’ ‘The people’ were the source of spiritual revelation and religious authority. What mattered in theology was how ‘the people’ fared here and now, in the social, political, and economic realities of the evolving material world. The ‘experience of the people was the womb of theology,’ was the consecrated phrase.

At one stroke, therefore, Liberation Theology unburdened prepared and restless minds from an entire panoply of ancient concepts, dogmas, and mental processes governed by the fixed rules of Thomistic reasoning, and from the directives of the authoritative voice of Rome…Liberation Theology was no theology in the Roman Catholic sense of the word. It was not primarily about God, about God’s law, about God’s redemption, about God’s promises. Liberation Theology was interested in God as revealed today through the oppressed people. In God for himself, practically speaking, no genuine Liberation Theology was interested.

The second promise of Liberation Theology was even more exciting than freedom from Rome’s theology..” (The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, pp. 308-309).

Under the banner of “liberation,” many in the Church’s hierarchy began to enlist the Church’s resources to advance the Marxist plan of revolution. Having abandoned the Church’s supernatural mission – building the Kingdom of God, these confused clerics began to turn exclusively toward a new goal: that of building a new world centered on man, a City of Man.

Fr. Martin explains how the Jesuits succumbed to this apostasy: “Classical Jesuitism, based on the spiritual teaching of Ignatius, saw the Jesuit mission in very clear outline. There was a perpetual state of war on earth between Christ and Lucifer. Those who fought on Christ’s side, the truly choice fighters, served the Roman Pontiff diligently, were at his complete disposal, were ‘Pope’s Men.’ The ‘Kingdom’ being fought over was the Heaven of God’s glory. The enemy, the archenemy, the only enemy, was Lucifer. The weapons Jesuits used were supernatural: the Sacraments, preaching, writing, suffering. The objective was spiritual, supernatural, and otherworldly. It was simply this: that as many individuals as possible would die in a state of supernatural grace and friendship with their Savior so that they would spend eternity with God, their Creator…

The renewed Jesuit mission debased this Ignatian ideal of the Jesuits. The ‘Kingdom’ being fought over was the ‘Kingdom’ everyone fights over and always has: material well-being. The enemy was now economic, political, and social: the secular system called democratic and economic capitalism. The objective was material: to uproot poverty and injustice, which were caused by capitalism, and the betterment of the millions who suffered want and injustice from that capitalism. The weapons to be used now were those of social agitation, labor relations, sociopolitical movements, government offices…” (The Jesuits, p. 478).

In this light, we can better understand Pope Francis' speech before Congress. The Pope called on Americans to open themselves to the world and not to see things in terms of good and evil, the righteous and unrighteous.  This, of course, is unscriptural. (See 2 Corinthians 6: 14, 15 and Ephesians 5: 11 for example).

As Fr. Vincent Miceli, S.J., explained in his essay on Call to Action entitled “Detroit: A Call to Revolution in the Church”: “The following are some of the demands the Church simply cannot fulfill for such is not her mission: 1. Wipe out poverty, ignorance, prejudice and war. 2. Democratize the whole world. 3. Stop the sale of arms everywhere. 4. Back the E.R.A. as a constitutional amendment. Like her Saviour, the Church will not turn stones into bread, thereby becoming the Mother of Socialism or a millennium of this world..’


"..the 'theologies of liberation', which reserve credit for restoring to a place of honor the great texts of the prophets and of the Gospel in defense of the poor, go on to a disastrous confusion between the 'poor' of the Scripture and the 'proletariat' of Marx. In this way they pervert the Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle. For them the 'Church of the poor' signifies the Church of the class which has become aware of the requirements of the revolutionary struggle as a step toward liberation and which celebrates this liberation in its liturgy." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation,'" No. 10).

The supernatural faith of Catholicism is being watered down for the sake of a new humanitarian religion.  Dialogue is key for this new religion which has abandoned the notion that we must, "Let love be without dissimulation. Hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good." (Romans 12: 29).

Related reading here.

The Synod on the Family and the retreat from truth

Matthew Karmel writes, "Despite the tremendously destructive threat posed by the Synod on the Family, it has accomplished – even before its completion – something of real value: it has given the entire world a front-row seat in the Modernist operating theater as they attempt to empty a well-established Church teaching of its authentic meaning and replace it with what can only be described as a diabolical lie. Day by day, more faithful Catholics are waking up to the fact that the Church’s hierarchy has become infested with an intellectual and moral corruption of truly biblical proportions.."

Philip Johnson, in his book "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law & and Culture, tells a story which is both amusing and frightening at the same time. He writes: "I am convinced that conscious dishonesty is much less important in intellectual matters than self-deception...The German biologist Bruno Muller-Hill tells a memorable story to illustrate his thesis that 'self-deception plays an astonishing role in science in spite of all the scientists' worship of truth':

When I was a student in a German gymnasium and thirteen years old, I learned a lesson that I have not forgotten...One early morning our physics teacher placed a telescope in the school yard to show us a certain planet and its moons. So we stood in a long line, about forty of us. I was standing at the end of the line, since I was one of the smallest students. The teacher asked the first student whether he could see the planet. No, he had difficulties, because he was nearsighted. The teacher showed him how to adjust the focus, and that student could finally see the planet and the moons. Others had no difficulty; they saw them right away. The students saw, after a while, what they were supposed to see. Then the student standing just before me - his name was Harter - announced that he could not see anything. 'You idiot,' shouted the teacher, 'you have to adjust the lenses.' The student did that and said after a while, 'I do not see anything, it is all black.' The teacher then looked through the telescope himself. After some seconds he looked up with a strange expression on his face. And then my comrades and I also saw that the telescope was nonfunctioning; it was closed by a cover over the lens. Indeed, no one could see anything through it.'

Muller-Hill reports that one of the docile students became a professor of philosophy and director of a German TV station. 'This might be expected,' he wickedly comments. But another became a professor of physics, and a third a professor of botany. The honest Harter had to leave school and go to work in a factory. If in later life he was ever tempted to question any of the pronouncements of his more illustrious classmates, I am sure he was firmly told not to meddle in matters beyond his understanding.'" (pp. 156-157).

Do we honestly believe that this herd mentality is not to be found throughout our society and even in the Church? If so, we deceive ourselves. Pope Benedict XVI has warned of a liberal notion of conscience which is nothing less than a retreat from truth. In a keynote address of the Tenth Bishops' Workshop of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, on "Catholic Conscience: Foundation and Formation," he says that liberalism's idea of conscience is that: "Conscience does not open the way to the redemptive road to truth - which either does not exist or, if it does, is too demanding. It is the faculty that dispenses with truth. It thereby becomes the justification for subjectivity, which would not like to have itself called into question. Similarly, it becomes the justification for social conformity. As mediating value between the different subjectivities, social conformity is intended to make living together possible. The obligation to seek the truth terminates, as do any doubts about the general inclination of society and what it has become accustomed to. Being convinced of oneself, as well as conforming to others, is sufficient. Man is reduced to his superficial conviction, and the less depth he has, the better for him."

Is there really any difference between Harter's classmates, who insisted that they could see a planet and its moons when such was impossible, and those who succumb to social conformity and insist that an unborn baby is not really a human being when all the scientific evidence suggests otherwise?

Where will radical subjectivism ultimately lead us? It was Romano Guardini [in his classic The Lord, p. 513] who reminded us that: "One day the Antichrist will come: a human being who introduces an order of things in which rebellion against God will attain its ultimate power. He will be filled with enlightenment and strength. The ultimate aim of all aims will be to prove that existence witout Christ is possible - nay rather, that Christ is the enemy of existence, which can be fully realized only when all Christian values have been destroyed. His arguments will be so impressive, supported by means of such tremendous power - violent and diplomatic, material and intellectual - that to reject them will result in almost insurmountable scandal, and everyone whose eyes are not opened by grace will be lost. Then it will be clear what the Christian essence really is: that which stems not from the world, but from the heart of God; victory of grace over the world; redemption of the world, for her true essence is not to be found in herself, but in God, from whom she has received it. When God becomes all in all, the world will finally burst into flower."

Why no similar statement from the Vatican after Pope Francis' meeting with a sodomite?

Writing for The New York Times, Jim Yardley notes that the Vatican issued a statement indicating that Pope Francis’ Meeting with Kim Davis wasn’t an endorsement of her views.

One has to wonder why no such statement was issued by the Vatican after Francis met with radical homosexual activist Simon Cazal who agitated for the Church to change her teaching relative to the sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance.

Pope Francis: Preparing the world for a one world religion?

Michael Snyder writes:

"Remarks made by Pope Francis at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan have sparked a firestorm of criticism from those that do not believe that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Many have taken the Pope’s remarks as a major step in the direction of a one world religion, and the truth is that the Pope has made other such statements in the past.  In recent years, the theory that Christianity and Islam are just two distinct paths to God among many others has rapidly gained traction all over the planet.  Some religious leaders have even gone so far as to try to merge Islamic and Christian practices, and the term “Chrislam” is now often used to describe this ecumenical movement.  If all this sounds incredibly strange to you, just keep reading, because this is just the tip of the iceberg..."

Back in September of 2014, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick offered Islamic prayers while insisting that Islam shares foundational rules with Christianity.

“In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate,” McCarrick prayed as he introduced himself to the audience at a meeting arranged by the Muslim Public Affairs Council. His praise of the Islamic "deity" is an important formula in Islam and is found more than 100 times in the Koran.

Cardinal McCarrick also made the claim that, “Catholic social teaching is based on the dignity of the human person… [and] as you study the holy Koran, as you study Islam, basically, this is what Muhammad the prophet, peace be upon him, has been teaching.”

The Cardinal made no mention of Islam's long history of torturing and killing millions of Christians.
There is a concerted effort within the Church to promote a false irenicism and some even wish to merge Christianity and Islam, which rejects the divinity of Christ.  It is therefore necessary for those who engage in this false irenicism to pretend that "authentic Islam" is opposed to violence.  But even the most unenlightened can read the Qu'ran (Koran) for themselves:

Violence and the Quran


by Dave Miller, Ph.D.


One would expect an uninspired book to contradict itself or speak ambiguously on various subjects, at times appearing both to endorse and condemn a practice. So it is with physical violence in the Quran. Yet, despite the occasional puzzling remark that may seem to imply the reverse, the Quran is replete with explicit and implicit sanction and promotion of armed conflict, violence, and bloodshed by Muslims. For example, within months of the Hijrah, Muhammad claimed to receive a revelation that clarified the issue:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil) (Surah 2:190-194, emp. added).

Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can (Surah 2:216-217, emp. added).

Muhammad was informed that warfare was prescribed for him! Though he may have hated warfare, it was actually good for him, and what he loved, i.e., non-warfare, was actually bad for him! And though under normal circumstances, fighting is not appropriate during sacred months, killing was warranted against those who sought to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion. Killing is better than being persecuted! A similar injunction states: “Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory” (Surah 22:39, emp. added). In fact, “Allah loveth those who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure” (Surah 61:4, emp. added).

In a surah titled “Repentance” that issues stern measures to be taken against idolaters, the requirement to engage in carnal warfare is apparent:

Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty: Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His guidance). And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve. Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 9:1-5, emp. added).

The ancient Muslim histories elaborate on the occasion of these admonitions: “[T]he idolaters were given four months’ respite to come and go as they pleased in safety, but after that God and His Messenger would be free from any obligation towards them. War was declared upon them, and they were to be slain or taken captive wherever they were found” (Lings, 1983, p. 323).

Later in the same surah, “Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low” (Surah 9:29, emp. added). “Those who have been given the Scripture” is a reference to Jews and Christians. The surah advocates coercion against Jews and Christians in order to physically force them to pay the jizyah—a special religious tax imposed on religious minorities (see Nasr, 2002, p. 166). Muslim translator Mohammed Pickthall explains the historical setting of this quranic utterance: “It signified the end of idolatry in Arabia. The Christian Byzantine Empire had begun to move against the growing Muslim power, and this Surah contains mention of a greater war to come, and instructions with regard to it” (p. 145). Indeed, the final verse of Surah 2 calls upon Allah to give Muslims “victory over the disbelieving folk” (vs. 286), rendered by Rodwell: “give us victory therefore over the infidel nations.” That this stance by the Quran was to be expected is evident from the formulation of the Second Pledge of Aqabah, in which the men pledged their loyalty and their commitment to protecting Muhammad from all opponents. This pledge included duties of war, and was taken only by the males. Consequently, the First Aqabah pact, which contained no mention of war, became known as the “pledge of the women” (Lings, p. 112).

Additional allusions to warfare in the Quran are seen in the surah, “The Spoils,” dated in the second year of the Hijrah (A.D. 623), within a month after the Battle of Badr:

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.... If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them.... And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not.... O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty stedfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred stedfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.... It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Had it not been for an ordinance of Allah which had gone before, an awful doom had come upon you on account of what ye took. Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 8:39,57,59-60,65,67-69, emp. added; cf. 33:26).

Muslim scholar Pickthall readily concedes the context of these verses:

vv. 67-69 were revealed when the Prophet had decided to spare the lives of the prisoners taken at Badr and hold them to ransom, against the wish of Omar, who would have executed them for their past crimes. The Prophet took the verses as a reproof, and they are generally understood to mean that no quarter ought to have been given in that first battle (p. 144, emp. added).

So the Quran indicates that at the Battle of Badr, no captives should have been taken. The enemy should have been completely slaughtered, with no quarter given. This very fate awaited the Jewish Bani Qurayzah, when some 700 men were beheaded by the Muslims with Muhammad’s approval (Lings, p. 232). Likewise, members of a clan of the Bani Nadir were executed in Khaybar for concealing their treasure rather than forfeiting it to the Muslims (Lings, p. 267).

Another surah describes how allowances respecting the daily prayers were to be made for Muhammad’s Muslim warriors when engaged in military action:

And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you. And when thou (O Muhammad) art among them and arrangest (their) worship for them, let only a party of them stand with thee (to worship) and let them take their arms. Then when they have performed their prostrations let them fall to the rear and let another party come that hath not worshipped and let them worship with thee, and let them take their precaution and their arms. Those who disbelieve long for you to neglect your arms and your baggage that they may attack you once for all. It is no sin for you to lay aside your arms, if rain impedeth you or ye are sick. But take your precaution. Lo! Allah prepareth for the disbelievers shameful punishment. When ye have performed the act of worship, remember Allah, standing, sitting and reclining. And when ye are in safety, observe proper worship. Worship at fixed hours hath been enjoined on the believers. Relent not in pursuit of the enemy (Surah 4:101-104, emp. added; cf. 73:20).

These verses show that the Quran implicitly endorses armed conflict and war to advance Islam.

Muslim historical sources themselves report the background details of those armed conflicts that have characterized Islam from its inception—including Muhammad’s own warring tendencies involving personal participation in and endorsement of military campaigns (cf. Lings, pp. 86,111). Muslim scholar Pickthall’s own summary of Muhammad’s war record is an eye-opener: “The number of the campaigns which he led in person during the last ten years of his life is twenty-seven, in nine of which there was hard fighting. The number of the expeditions which he planned and sent out under other leaders is thirty-eight” (n.d., p. xxvi).

What a contrast with Jesus—Who never once took up the sword or encouraged anyone else to do so! The one time that one of His close followers took it upon himself to do so, the disciple was soundly reprimanded and ordered to put the sword away, with the added warning: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Indeed, when Pilate quizzed Jesus regarding His intentions, He responded: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36)—the very opposite of the Aqabah pact. And whereas the Quran boldly declares, “And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you” (Surah 2:194; cf. 22:60), Jesus counters, “But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also” and “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:39,44). The New Testament record presents a far higher, more noble and godly ethic on the matter of violence and armed conflict. In fact, the following verses demonstrate how irrevocably deep the chasm is between the Quran and the New Testament on this point:

[L]ove your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? (Matthew 5:44-46).

But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful (Luke 6:27-36).

What an amazing contrast! The New Testament says to love, bless, do good to, and pray for those who persecute you. The Quran says that “persecution is worse than killing” (Surah 2:217)—i.e., it is better to kill your persecutors than to endure their persecutions!

The standard Muslim attempt to justify the Quran’s endorsement of violence is that such violence was undertaken in self-defense (e.g., Surah 42:41). Consider the following Muslim explanation:

At the time when this surah (Surah 2—DM) was revealed at Al-Madinah, the Prophet’s own tribe, the pagan Qureysh at Mecca, were preparing to attack the Muslims in their place of refuge. Cruel persecution was the lot of Muslims who had stayed in Meccan territory or who journeyed thither, and Muslims were being prevented from performing the pilgrimage. The possible necessity of fighting had been foreseen in the terms of the oath, taken at Al-Aqabah by the Muslims of Yathrib before the Flight, to defend the Prophet as they would their own wives and children, and the first commandment to fight was revealed to the Prophet before his flight from Mecca; but there was no actual fighting by the Muslims until the battle of Badr. Many of them were reluctant, having before been subject to a rule of strict non-violence. It was with difficulty that they could accept the idea of fighting even in self-defence [sic].... (Pickthall, p. 33, emp. added).

Apart from the fact that the claim that Muhammad’s advocacy of fighting was justifiable on the ground of self-defense is contrary to the historical facts (since the wars waged by Muhammad and the territorial expansion of Islam achieved by his subsequent followers cannot all be dismissed as defensive), this explanation fails to come to grips with the propriety of shedding of blood and inflicting violence—regardless of the reason. Muslim scholar Seyyed Nasr seems unconscious of the inherent self-contradiction apparent in his own remark:

The spread of Islam occurred in waves. In less than a century after the establishment of the first Islamic society in Medina by the Prophet, Arab armies had conquered a land stretching from the Indus River to France and brought with them Islam, which, contrary to popular Western conceptions, was not, however, forced on the people by the sword (2003, p. 17, emp. added).

In other words, Muslim armies physically conquered—by military force and bloodshed—various nations, forcing the population to submit to Muslim rule, but did not require them to become Muslims! One suspects that, at the time, the distinction escaped the citizens of those conquered countries, even as it surely does the reader.

The Quran appears to have been somewhat influenced by the Law of Moses in this regard. For example, the Quran states: “If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted” (Surah 16:126). Similarly, “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.... And there is life for you in retaliation, O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)” (Surah 2:178-179). One is reminded of the lex talionis [literally “law as (or of) retaliation”] of the Law of Moses. However, whereas the Quran appears to enjoin retaliation, the lex talionis were not intended to promote retaliation. Enjoining retaliation would be in direct conflict with the nature of God. God is never vindictive. The New Testament law does not differ with the Old Testament in the areas of proper values, ethics, mercy, and justice. The “eye for an eye” injunctions of the Old Testament were designed to be prohibitive in their thrust, i.e., they humanely limited and restricted legal punishment to a degree in keeping with the crime. That is, they prevented dispensers of justice from punishing too harshly or too much. They were intended to inculcate into Israelite society the principle of confining retribution to appropriate parameters.

The fact that the author of the Quran failed to grasp this feature of God’s laws is evident in various quranic injunctions: “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise” (Surah 5:38, emp. added).

The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge ye each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment.... And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony—They indeed are evildoers (Surah 24:2,4, emp. added).

These latter verses conflict with Mosaic injunction on two significant points. First, on the one hand, it doubles the more reasonable and appropriate forty stripes (Deuteronomy 25:3)—a number that the Jews were so concerned not to exceed that they counted thirty-nine and stopped to allow for accidental miscount (2 Corinthians 11:24). On the other hand, this eighty increases to one hundred for adultery. Second, the requirement of four witnesses is an unreasonable number. The two or three witnesses of the Bible (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19) strikes a logical medium between the precariousness of only a single witness on the one hand, and the excessive and unlikely availability of the four witnesses required by the Quran.

It is true that the God of the Bible enjoined violent, armed conflict for the Israelites in the Old Testament. He did so in order to eliminate the morally corrupt Canaanite civilizations that inhabited Palestine prior to the Israelite occupation of the land (Deuteronomy 9:4; 18:9-12; Leviticus 18:24-25,27-28). There simply was no viable solution to their condition except extermination. Their moral depravity was “full” (Genesis 15:16). They had slumped to such an immoral, depraved state, with no hope of recovery, that their existence on this Earth had to be ended—just like in Noah’s day when God waited while Noah preached for years but was unable to turn the world’s population from its wickedness (Genesis 6:3,5-7; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 3:5-9).

Additionally, since the nation of Israel was also a civil entity in its own right, the government was also charged with implementing civil retribution upon lawbreakers. However, with the arrival of New Testament Christianity—an international religion intended for all persons without regard to ethnicity or nationality—God has assigned to civil government (not the church or the individual) the responsibility of regulating secular behavior. God’s people who live posterior to the cross of Christ (i.e., Christians) are not charged by God with the responsibility of inflicting physical punishment on the evildoer. Rather, civil government is charged with the responsibility of maintaining order and punishing lawbreakers (Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-14). Observe Paul’s explanation of this dichotomy:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor (Romans 13:1-7, NKJV, emp. added).

One translation (NIV) renders the boldface type in the above quote “an agent of wrath to bring punishment.” But this assignment of judicial and penal retribution to the government is a contrast in Paul’s discussion with what he wrote in the three verses prior to this quotation:

Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:19-21, NKJV, emp. added).

Notice that the very responsibility that is enjoined on the government, i.e., “an avenger to execute wrath” by use of the sword in 13:4, is strictly forbidden to the individual Christian in 12:19, i.e., “do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath.” To “give place to wrath” means to allow God’s wrath to show itself in His own appointed way that, according to the next few verses, is by means of the civil government.

True Christianity (i.e., that which is based strictly on the New Testament) dictates peace and non-retaliatory promotion of itself. The “absolute imperative” (Rahman, 1979, p. 22) of Islam is the submission/conversion of the whole world. In stark contrast, the absolute imperative of New Testament Christianity is the evangelism of the whole world, i.e., the dissemination of the message of salvation—whether people embrace it or not (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47). Absolutely no coercion is admissible from the Christian (i.e., New Testament) viewpoint. The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and all other violent activities undertaken in the name of Christ and Christianity have been in complete conflict with the teaching of the New Testament. The perpetrators acted without the authority and sanction of Christ.

Islam seeks to bring the entire world into submission to Allah and the Quran—even using jihad, coercion, and force; Christianity seeks to go into all the world and to announce the “good news” that God loves every individual, that Jesus Christ died for the sins of everyone, and that He offers salvation, forgiveness, and reconciliation. But, each person has free choice to accept or reject without any retaliation by Christians against those who choose to reject. Jesus taught His disciples, when faced with opposition and resistance, simply to walk away: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet” (Matthew 10:14). In fact, on one occasion when a Samaritan village was particularly nonreceptive, some of Jesus’ disciples wished to command fire to come down from heaven to consume them! But Jesus rebuked them and said, “ ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.’ And they went to another village” (Luke 9:55). Muhammad and the Quran stand in diametrical opposition to Jesus and the New Testament.

If the majority of Muslims were violent, that would not prove that Islam is a religion of violence. The vast majority of those who claim to be “Christian” are practicing a corrupted form of the Christian faith. So the validity of any religion is determined ultimately not by the imperfect, inaccurate practice of the religion by even a majority of its adherents, but by the official authority or standard upon which it is based, i.e., its Scriptures. The present discussion in the world regarding whether or not jihad includes physical force in the advancement of Islam is ultimately irrelevant (cf. Nasr, 2002, pp. 256-266). The Quran unquestionably endorses violence, war, and armed conflict. No wonder a substantial number of Muslims manifest a maniacal, reckless abandon in their willingness to die by sacrificing their lives in order to kill as many “infidels” (especially Israelis and Americans) as possible. They have read the following:

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks.... And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden [Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).

O ye who believe! Be not as those who disbelieved and said of their brethren who went abroad in the land or were fighting in the field: If they had been (here) with us they would not have died or been killed.... And what though ye be slain in Allah’s way or die therein? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass. What though ye be slain or die, when unto Allah ye are gathered?.... So those who...fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow—a reward from Allah (Surah 3:156-158,195, emp. added).

Even if the vast majority of Muslims in the world reject violence and refrain from terrorist activity (which would appear to be the case), it is still a fact that the Quran (as well as the example of Muhammad himself) endorses the advancement of Islam through physical force. While Muslim apologist Seyyed Hossein Nasr insists that “the traditional norms based on peace and openness to others” characterize true Islam and the majority of Muslims, in contradistinction, he freely admits that at times Islam “has been forced to take recourse to physical action in the form of defense” (Nasr, 2002, pp. 112,110). This concession cannot be successfully denied in view of the Quran’s own declarations. Hence, the Muslim is forced to maintain the self-contradictory position that, yes, there have been times that Islam has been properly violent and, yes, the Quran does endorse violence, but, no, most Muslims are not violent, and then only in self-defense. As reprehensible and cowardly as Islamic terrorists have shown themselves to be in recent years, an honest reading of the Quran leads one to believe that they, at least, are more consistent with, and true to, their own Scriptures—as revolting an idea as that may be.

REFERENCES

Lings, Martin (1983), Muhammad (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2002), The Heart of Islam (New York: HarperCollins).

Nasr, Seyyed Hossein (2003), Islam (New York: HarperCollins).

Pickthall, Mohammed M. (no date), The Meaning of the Glorious Koran (New York: Mentor).

Rahman, Fazlur (1979), Islam (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), second edition.

Rodwell, J.M., trans. (1950 reprint), The Koran (London: J.M. Dent and Sons).

Islam is a manifestation of Antichrist. See here.