In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth), Pope John Paul II reminds us that:
"Only God can answer the question about the good, because he is the Good. But God has already given an answer to this question: he did so by creating man and ordering him with wisdom and love to his final end, through the law which is inscribed in his heart (cf. Rom 2:15), the "natural law". The latter "is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided. God gave this light and this law to man at creation". He also did so in the history of Israel, particularly in the "ten words", the commandments of Sinai, whereby he brought into existence the people of the Covenant (cf. Ex 24) and called them to be his "own possession among all peoples", "a holy nation" (Ex 19:5-6), which would radiate his holiness to all peoples (cf. Wis 18:4; Ez 20:41).
The gift of the Decalogue was a promise and sign of the New Covenant, in which the law would be written in a new and definitive way upon the human heart (cf. Jer 31:31-34), replacing the law of sin which had disfigured that heart (cf. Jer 17:1). In those days, "a new heart" would be given, for in it would dwell "a new spirit", the Spirit of God (cf. Ez 36:24-28).
Consequently, after making the important clarification: "There is only one who is good", Jesus tells the young man: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17). In this way, a close connection is made between eternal life and obedience to God's commandments: God's commandments show man the path of life and they lead to it. From the very lips of Jesus, the new Moses, man is once again given the commandments of the Decalogue. Jesus himself definitively confirms them and proposes them to us as the way and condition of salvation. The commandments are linked to a promise. In the Old Covenant the object of the promise was the possession of a land where the people would be able to live in freedom and in accordance with righteousness (cf. Dt 6:20-25).
In the New Covenant the object of the promise is the "Kingdom of Heaven", as Jesus declares at the beginning of the "Sermon on the Mount" — a sermon which contains the fullest and most complete formulation of the New Law (cf. Mt 5-7), clearly linked to the Decalogue entrusted by God to Moses on Mount Sinai. This same reality of the Kingdom is referred to in the expression "eternal life", which is a participation in the very life of God. It is attained in its perfection only after death, but in faith it is even now a light of truth, a source of meaning for life, an inchoate share in the full following of Christ. Indeed, Jesus says to his disciples after speaking to the rich young man: "Every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life" (Mt 19:29).
Jesus' answer is not enough for the young man, who continues by asking the Teacher about the commandments which must be kept: "He said to him, 'Which ones?' " (Mt 19:18). He asks what he must do in life in order to show that he acknowledges God's holiness. After directing the young man's gaze towards God, Jesus reminds him of the commandments of the Decalogue regarding one's neighbour: "Jesus said: 'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not bear false witness; Honour your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbour as yourself' " (Mt 19:18-19).
From the context of the conversation, and especially from a comparison of Matthew's text with the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, it is clear that Jesus does not intend to list each and every one of the commandments required in order to "enter into life", but rather wishes to draw the young man's attention to the "centrality" of the Decalogue with regard to every other precept, inasmuch as it is the interpretation of what the words "I am the Lord your God" mean for man. Nevertheless we cannot fail to notice which commandments of the Law the Lord recalls to the young man. They are some of the commandments belonging to the so-called "second tablet" of the Decalogue, the summary (cf. Rom 13: 8-10) and foundation of which is the commandment of love of neighbour: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Mt 19:19; cf. Mk 12:31). In this commandment we find a precise expression of the singular dignity of the human person, "the only creature that God has wanted for its own sake".
The different commandments of the Decalogue are really only so many reflections of the one commandment about the good of the person, at the level of the many different goods which characterize his identity as a spiritual and bodily being in relationship with God, with his neighbour and with the material world. As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "the Ten Commandments are part of God's Revelation. At the same time, they teach us man's true humanity. They shed light on the essential duties, and so indirectly on the fundamental rights, inherent in the nature of the human person".
The commandments of which Jesus reminds the young man are meant to safeguard the good of the person, the image of God, by protecting his goods. "You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness" are moral rules formulated in terms of prohibitions. These negative precepts express with particular force the ever urgent need to protect human life, the communion of persons in marriage, private property, truthfulness and people's good name.
The commandments thus represent the basic condition for love of neighbour; at the same time they are the proof of that love. They are the first necessary step on the journey towards freedom, its starting-point. "The beginning of freedom", Saint Augustine writes, "is to be free from crimes... such as murder, adultery, fornication, theft, fraud, sacrilege and so forth. When once one is without these crimes (and every Christian should be without them), one begins to lift up one's head towards freedom. But this is only the beginning of freedom, not perfect freedom...".
This certainly does not mean that Christ wishes to put the love of neighbour higher than, or even to set it apart from, the love of God. This is evident from his conversation with the teacher of the Law, who asked him a question very much like the one asked by the young man. Jesus refers him to the two commandments of love of God and love of neighbour (cf. Lk 10:25-27), and reminds him that only by observing them will he have eternal life: "Do this, and you will live" (Lk 10:28). Nonetheless it is significant that it is precisely the second of these commandments which arouses the curiosity of the teacher of the Law, who asks him: "And who is my neighbour?" (Lk 10:29). The Teacher replies with the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is critical for fully understanding the commandment of love of neighbour (cf. Lk 10:30-37).
These two commandments, on which "depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Mt 22:40), are profoundly connected and mutually related. Their inseparable unity is attested to by Christ in his words and by his very life: his mission culminates in the Cross of our Redemption (cf. Jn 3:14-15), the sign of his indivisible love for the Father and for humanity (cf. Jn 13:1).
Both the Old and the New Testaments explicitly affirm that without love of neighbour, made concrete in keeping the commandments, genuine love for God is not possible. Saint John makes the point with extraordinary forcefulness: "If anyone says, 'I love God', and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (Jn 4:20). The Evangelist echoes the moral preaching of Christ, expressed in a wonderful and unambiguous way in the parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk 10:30-37) and in his words about the final judgment (cf. Mt 25:31-46). (VS, Nos 12-14).
Too many forget that while God loves us even when we sin (He loves even the damned - they would cease to exist if He did not), being loved by God is not enough to be in friendship with Him, because friendship is mutual love. If we all truly understood this, we would exhort others - as Jesus did - to accept God's mercy, repent of their sins, and abide in love. Furthermore, we would all warn others - as Jesus did - that hell awaits those who do not abide in love.
Recall the teaching of Vatican II (specifically Lumen Gentium, No. 14):
"They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart." All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."
"If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and remain in his love." (John 15:10).
This is a conditional statement folks. If we are engaging in adultery or homosexual acts, practicing contraception or having abortions, are we keeping His commandments? Will God be mocked? He who can neither deceive nor be deceived? Do we think to ourselves, "As long as God loves me I can continue to do these things because God is love and mercy? Do we say to others, "God and religion are about love, your opposition to my homosexual acts or my adultery is unloving?"
Do we honestly believe that we can remain in Jesus' love without keeping His commandments? If so, we make Jesus a liar and His word, His Love, His life is not in us. Spiritually, we are dead.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
PROPHECY OF ST. NILUS
Realizing that St. Nilus is scarcely known to a large part of the Church, a brief sketch of his life, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911 copyright edition), is related below:
St. Nilus was one of the many disciples and fervent defenders of St. John Chrysostom. He was an officer at the Court of Constantinople, married, with two sons.
While St. John Chrysostom was patriarch, before his exile (398-403), he directed Nilus in the study of Scripture and in works of piety. St. Nilus left his wife and one son and took the other, Theodulos, with him to Mt. Sinai to be a monk. The Bishop of Eleusa ordained both St. Nilus and his son to the priesthood. The mother and other son also embraced the religious life in Egypt.
From his monastery at Sinai, St. Nilus was a well-known person throughout the Eastern Church; by his writings and correspondence he played an important part in the history of his time. He was known as a theologian, Biblical scholar and ascetic writer, so people of all kinds, from the emperor down wrote to consult him. His numerous works, including a multitude of letters, consist of denunciations of heresy, paganism, abuses of discipline and crimes, of rules and principles of asceticism, especially maxims about the religious life. He warns and threatens people in high places, abbots and bishops, governors and princes, even the emperor himself, without fear. He kept up a correspondence with Gaina, a leader of the Goths, endeavoring to convert him from Arianism. He denounced vigorously the persecution of St. John Chrysostom both to the Emperor Arcadius and to his courtiers.
St. Nilus must be counted as one of the leading ascetic writers of the fifth century. His feast is kept on November 12th in the Byzantine Calendar; he is commemorated also in the Roman Martyrology on the same date. St. Nilus probably died around the year 430 as there is no evidence of his life after that.
Now the prophecy:
After the year 1900, toward the middle of the 20th century, the people of that time will become unrecognizable. When the time for the Advent of the Antichrist approaches, people's minds will grow cloudy from carnal passions, and dishonor and lawlessness will grow stronger. Then the world will become unrecognizable. People's appearances will change, and it will be impossible to distinguish men from women due to their shamelessness in dress and style of hair. These people will be cruel and will be like wild animals because of the temptations of the Antichrist. There will be no respect for parents and elders, love will disappear, and Christian pastors, bishops, and priests will become vain men, completely failing to distinguish the right-hand way from the left. At that time the morals and traditions of Christians and of the Church will change. People will abandon modesty, and dissipation will reign. Falsehood and greed will attain great proportions, and woe to those who pile up treasures. Lust, adultery, homosexuality, secret deeds and murder will rule in society.
At that future time, due to the power of such great crimes and licentiousness, people will be deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which they received in Holy Baptism and equally of remorse.
The Churches of God will be deprived of God-fearing and pious pastors, and woe to the Christians remaining in the world at that time; they will completely lose their faith because they will lack the opportunity of seeing the light of knowledge from anyone at all. Then they will separate themselves out of the world in holy refuges in search of lightening their spiritual sufferings, but everywhere they will meet obstacles and constraints. And all this will result from the fact that the Antichrist wants to be Lord over everything and become the ruler of the whole universe, and he will produce miracles and fantastic signs. He will also give depraved wisdom to an unhappy man so that he will discover a way by which one man can carry on a conversation with another from one end of the earth to the other. At that time men will also fly through the air like birds and descend to the bottom of the sea like fish. And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! – he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases.
Then the All-good God will see the downfall of the human race and will shorten the days for the sake of those few who are being saved, because the enemy wants to lead even the chosen into temptation, if that is possible... then the sword of chastisement will suddenly appear and kill the perverter and his servants.
Realizing that St. Nilus is scarcely known to a large part of the Church, a brief sketch of his life, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911 copyright edition), is related below:
St. Nilus was one of the many disciples and fervent defenders of St. John Chrysostom. He was an officer at the Court of Constantinople, married, with two sons.
While St. John Chrysostom was patriarch, before his exile (398-403), he directed Nilus in the study of Scripture and in works of piety. St. Nilus left his wife and one son and took the other, Theodulos, with him to Mt. Sinai to be a monk. The Bishop of Eleusa ordained both St. Nilus and his son to the priesthood. The mother and other son also embraced the religious life in Egypt.
From his monastery at Sinai, St. Nilus was a well-known person throughout the Eastern Church; by his writings and correspondence he played an important part in the history of his time. He was known as a theologian, Biblical scholar and ascetic writer, so people of all kinds, from the emperor down wrote to consult him. His numerous works, including a multitude of letters, consist of denunciations of heresy, paganism, abuses of discipline and crimes, of rules and principles of asceticism, especially maxims about the religious life. He warns and threatens people in high places, abbots and bishops, governors and princes, even the emperor himself, without fear. He kept up a correspondence with Gaina, a leader of the Goths, endeavoring to convert him from Arianism. He denounced vigorously the persecution of St. John Chrysostom both to the Emperor Arcadius and to his courtiers.
St. Nilus must be counted as one of the leading ascetic writers of the fifth century. His feast is kept on November 12th in the Byzantine Calendar; he is commemorated also in the Roman Martyrology on the same date. St. Nilus probably died around the year 430 as there is no evidence of his life after that.
Now the prophecy:
After the year 1900, toward the middle of the 20th century, the people of that time will become unrecognizable. When the time for the Advent of the Antichrist approaches, people's minds will grow cloudy from carnal passions, and dishonor and lawlessness will grow stronger. Then the world will become unrecognizable. People's appearances will change, and it will be impossible to distinguish men from women due to their shamelessness in dress and style of hair. These people will be cruel and will be like wild animals because of the temptations of the Antichrist. There will be no respect for parents and elders, love will disappear, and Christian pastors, bishops, and priests will become vain men, completely failing to distinguish the right-hand way from the left. At that time the morals and traditions of Christians and of the Church will change. People will abandon modesty, and dissipation will reign. Falsehood and greed will attain great proportions, and woe to those who pile up treasures. Lust, adultery, homosexuality, secret deeds and murder will rule in society.
At that future time, due to the power of such great crimes and licentiousness, people will be deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit, which they received in Holy Baptism and equally of remorse.
The Churches of God will be deprived of God-fearing and pious pastors, and woe to the Christians remaining in the world at that time; they will completely lose their faith because they will lack the opportunity of seeing the light of knowledge from anyone at all. Then they will separate themselves out of the world in holy refuges in search of lightening their spiritual sufferings, but everywhere they will meet obstacles and constraints. And all this will result from the fact that the Antichrist wants to be Lord over everything and become the ruler of the whole universe, and he will produce miracles and fantastic signs. He will also give depraved wisdom to an unhappy man so that he will discover a way by which one man can carry on a conversation with another from one end of the earth to the other. At that time men will also fly through the air like birds and descend to the bottom of the sea like fish. And when they have achieved all this, these unhappy people will spend their lives in comfort without knowing, poor souls, that it is deceit of the Antichrist. And, the impious one! – he will so complete science with vanity that it will go off the right path and lead people to lose faith in the existence of God in three hypostases.
Then the All-good God will see the downfall of the human race and will shorten the days for the sake of those few who are being saved, because the enemy wants to lead even the chosen into temptation, if that is possible... then the sword of chastisement will suddenly appear and kill the perverter and his servants.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Events in the Philippines of prophetic significance?
In an article entitled "Medjugorje Prophecy on RP soon to be fulfilled?", Mr. Bingo P. Dejaresco writes, "A message from Our Lady of Medjugorge spoke of the Philippines to become the "global spiritual center." Will this become a reality soon? The Philippines, the only Catholic nation in Asia, has a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. " (Source: http://www.TheBoholChronicle.com ).
One has to wonder if recent events in the Philippines (such as the building of a statue of Our Lady which will be taller than the Statue of Liberty) have a prophetic significance. After signing the Japanese surrender, General MacArthur (whose involvement in the Philippines fulfilled a prophecy itself) wanted to speak to America and the world about peace, but with a strong warning. He said: “Men since the beginning of time have sought peace…military alliances, balances of powers, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blots out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence, an improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.”
Many prophecies appear to be converging. General MacArthur had served as superintendant of West Point from 1919-1922. In January of 1930, he was promoted to full General, 4 stars and named the U.S. Army's Chief of Staff. MacArthur retired from the Army in 1937 and one year later the President of the Phillipines, Manuel Quezon, appointed him Field Marshall of the Phillipine Army. In 1941 MacArthur was recalled to active duty as the U.S. prepared to enter World War II. By 1942 MacArthur was Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific theater. MacArthur was a great man and a military genius who understood the strategic importance of the Philippines and, more importantly, the moral obligation of the United States to stand with its ally. For a time, this obligation was not recognized by Washington: http://media.pcog.org/en/Literature/WHLC.pdf
Will we heed General MacArthur's warning? More importantly, will w heed the warnings of Our Lord Jesus and His Blessed Mother who has appeared at so many locations throughout the world?
Paul.
One has to wonder if recent events in the Philippines (such as the building of a statue of Our Lady which will be taller than the Statue of Liberty) have a prophetic significance. After signing the Japanese surrender, General MacArthur (whose involvement in the Philippines fulfilled a prophecy itself) wanted to speak to America and the world about peace, but with a strong warning. He said: “Men since the beginning of time have sought peace…military alliances, balances of powers, leagues of nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blots out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and equitable system, our Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence, an improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature and all material and cultural developments of the past two thousand years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.”
Many prophecies appear to be converging. General MacArthur had served as superintendant of West Point from 1919-1922. In January of 1930, he was promoted to full General, 4 stars and named the U.S. Army's Chief of Staff. MacArthur retired from the Army in 1937 and one year later the President of the Phillipines, Manuel Quezon, appointed him Field Marshall of the Phillipine Army. In 1941 MacArthur was recalled to active duty as the U.S. prepared to enter World War II. By 1942 MacArthur was Supreme Allied Commander of the Southwest Pacific theater. MacArthur was a great man and a military genius who understood the strategic importance of the Philippines and, more importantly, the moral obligation of the United States to stand with its ally. For a time, this obligation was not recognized by Washington: http://media.pcog.org/en/Literature/WHLC.pdf
Will we heed General MacArthur's warning? More importantly, will w heed the warnings of Our Lord Jesus and His Blessed Mother who has appeared at so many locations throughout the world?
Paul.
Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand on hypersensitivity
In an excellent article entitled "Christianity and the Mystery of Suffering," Alice Von Hildebrand (a woman of sheer genius who, like her husband Dietrich, is a tremendous gift to the Church) writes:
There are people who are highly sensitive. In dealing with them one must always be on the lookout for fear of offending them. They are likely to interpret negatively every word one says. A big problem can develop out of the most innocuous remark.
One cannot change the temperament with which one is born, but one can either freely choose to become the slave of one's temperament or learn to guide it in such a fashion that this sensitivity-which is a gift-is used for love and not put at the service of self-centeredness.
There are plenty of "feelings" (such as moods) that arise in us spontaneously that should not be taken seriously. There are "right" feelings (such as contrition, love, compassion), and these feelings should be sanctioned by our will; and there are wrong feelings (such as envy, anger, revenge), and these feelings should be "disavowed" and rejected by our will.
There is no doubt that hypersensitivity-a disproportionate response to daily events-is a great source of suffering. There are persons who groan from morning to night under the weight of imaginary offenses. But man has been given reason, and he ought to distinguish between real offenses (which should be forgiven) and imaginary ones, which should be "dashed to pieces on the Rock that is Christ".
Great sensitivity is a precious gift, but the meaning of this gift is to be other-centered; its caricature is to be self-centered. We all prefer sensitive persons to those who seem to have a bovine temperament. Nothing disturbs the latter because they are too thick-skinned to feel anything. But sensitivity is to be purified.
This is beautifu1ly exemplified in the life of St. Therese of Lisieux. From the time that she was four, when she lost her mother, until she was thirteen, Therese was so hypersensitive that she broke into tears for no reason at all. In her autobiography, she calls these nine years "the sorrowful years", even though she was leading a life that, to many of us, would seem ideal, surrounded by a saintly father, to whom she was bound by the most tender affection, by loving sisters, living in security and peace. Yet in her autobiography she refers to those years as being "sorrowful", whereas from the time she entered the Carmel, where she chose a life of suffering and crucifixion, she enjoyed a deep peace despite the constant trials a Carmelite confronts. Her sensitivity had not decreased; it had been purified. By eliminating illegitimate sufferings, she gained the strength for carrying her daily cross in peace and joy.
Therese had prayed for years that God might grant her the grace of putting her sensitivity at his service, and God granted her request after midnight Mass shortly before she turned thirteen.
Hypersensitivity becomes an illegitimate source of suffering when it is self-centered; as we saw, a sensitive heart is given to us to feel for others, and to love them more deeply and more tenderly. But since original sin, it tends to degenerate into a maudlin self-centeredness that not is only disastrous but also causes great pain for the sensitive person.
However, thanks to prayer and grace, the Christian is given the means of purifying his sensitivity, so that his heart will resemble more and more the Heart of the God-Man, the Sacred Heart, "fornax ardens caritatis". "
Amen Alice my friend. Amen.
Paul.
There are people who are highly sensitive. In dealing with them one must always be on the lookout for fear of offending them. They are likely to interpret negatively every word one says. A big problem can develop out of the most innocuous remark.
One cannot change the temperament with which one is born, but one can either freely choose to become the slave of one's temperament or learn to guide it in such a fashion that this sensitivity-which is a gift-is used for love and not put at the service of self-centeredness.
There are plenty of "feelings" (such as moods) that arise in us spontaneously that should not be taken seriously. There are "right" feelings (such as contrition, love, compassion), and these feelings should be sanctioned by our will; and there are wrong feelings (such as envy, anger, revenge), and these feelings should be "disavowed" and rejected by our will.
There is no doubt that hypersensitivity-a disproportionate response to daily events-is a great source of suffering. There are persons who groan from morning to night under the weight of imaginary offenses. But man has been given reason, and he ought to distinguish between real offenses (which should be forgiven) and imaginary ones, which should be "dashed to pieces on the Rock that is Christ".
Great sensitivity is a precious gift, but the meaning of this gift is to be other-centered; its caricature is to be self-centered. We all prefer sensitive persons to those who seem to have a bovine temperament. Nothing disturbs the latter because they are too thick-skinned to feel anything. But sensitivity is to be purified.
This is beautifu1ly exemplified in the life of St. Therese of Lisieux. From the time that she was four, when she lost her mother, until she was thirteen, Therese was so hypersensitive that she broke into tears for no reason at all. In her autobiography, she calls these nine years "the sorrowful years", even though she was leading a life that, to many of us, would seem ideal, surrounded by a saintly father, to whom she was bound by the most tender affection, by loving sisters, living in security and peace. Yet in her autobiography she refers to those years as being "sorrowful", whereas from the time she entered the Carmel, where she chose a life of suffering and crucifixion, she enjoyed a deep peace despite the constant trials a Carmelite confronts. Her sensitivity had not decreased; it had been purified. By eliminating illegitimate sufferings, she gained the strength for carrying her daily cross in peace and joy.
Therese had prayed for years that God might grant her the grace of putting her sensitivity at his service, and God granted her request after midnight Mass shortly before she turned thirteen.
Hypersensitivity becomes an illegitimate source of suffering when it is self-centered; as we saw, a sensitive heart is given to us to feel for others, and to love them more deeply and more tenderly. But since original sin, it tends to degenerate into a maudlin self-centeredness that not is only disastrous but also causes great pain for the sensitive person.
However, thanks to prayer and grace, the Christian is given the means of purifying his sensitivity, so that his heart will resemble more and more the Heart of the God-Man, the Sacred Heart, "fornax ardens caritatis". "
Amen Alice my friend. Amen.
Paul.
Monday, January 29, 2007
In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas est, No. 17, Pope Benedict XVI says:
"A sentiment can be a marvellous first spark, but it is not the fullness of love. Earlier we spoke of the process of purification and maturation by which eros comes fully into its own, becomes love in the full meaning of the word. It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the “yes” of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never “finished” and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28)."
There are too many Catholics who speak continually of "love" but who have a distorted notion of what constitutes love. Jesus told us, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15).
If we love Him, we will keep His commandments. We will do more than simply speak of love. We will show our love for Jesus by remaining obedient to His Will.
Paul.
"A sentiment can be a marvellous first spark, but it is not the fullness of love. Earlier we spoke of the process of purification and maturation by which eros comes fully into its own, becomes love in the full meaning of the word. It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the “yes” of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never “finished” and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28)."
There are too many Catholics who speak continually of "love" but who have a distorted notion of what constitutes love. Jesus told us, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:15).
If we love Him, we will keep His commandments. We will do more than simply speak of love. We will show our love for Jesus by remaining obedient to His Will.
Paul.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
We read in 1 Corinthians 13 that: "Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, love is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." (v. 4-7).
Now there are those within the Church who would interpret this Scripture in such a way as to discourage any and all forceful defense of the Church and her perennial teaching. For such people, anger is always wrong. It is always sinful. But in so doing, these confused souls accuse Christ of sin:
"Since the Passover of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, 'Take these out of here, and stop making my Father's house a market-place.'" (John 2: 13-16).
It is important for us to remember that not only may we sin by being angry when we should not, we may sin by not being angry when we should be. To the Pharisees, Jesus was being "rude" and they demanded a sign to know by what right He drove the merchants and money-changers out of the Temple. And he provided them with one. Not that they would understand His words.
If my reason tells me that it is right in a particular set of circumstances to be angry, then I disobey God when I refuse to give place to wrath. We are reminded in Ephesians 4:26 that it is possible to "be angry and sin not." In fact, for the vast majority of us, the fault is not that we are too angry, but that we are not angry enough. Contemplate for a moment all of the evils which are found in the world and which are known to all and admitted to exist in the media. Would these evils have survived for so long if people of good will had shown the indignant anger of Christ in the Temple?
Is it not our own hypocrisy, our own fear of being misunderstood by others, which motivates us to remain silent? We have got to understand that anger is itself neither evil nor good and it can be either. This is where the Cardinal Virtue of Prudence comes into play. An effeminate "Christianity" (rooted in the cult of softness) which condemns all anger as being in opposition to love as defined by the Holy Spirit through St. Paul, does a tremendous disservice to the Church and society in general.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Now there are those within the Church who would interpret this Scripture in such a way as to discourage any and all forceful defense of the Church and her perennial teaching. For such people, anger is always wrong. It is always sinful. But in so doing, these confused souls accuse Christ of sin:
"Since the Passover of the Jews was near, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, 'Take these out of here, and stop making my Father's house a market-place.'" (John 2: 13-16).
It is important for us to remember that not only may we sin by being angry when we should not, we may sin by not being angry when we should be. To the Pharisees, Jesus was being "rude" and they demanded a sign to know by what right He drove the merchants and money-changers out of the Temple. And he provided them with one. Not that they would understand His words.
If my reason tells me that it is right in a particular set of circumstances to be angry, then I disobey God when I refuse to give place to wrath. We are reminded in Ephesians 4:26 that it is possible to "be angry and sin not." In fact, for the vast majority of us, the fault is not that we are too angry, but that we are not angry enough. Contemplate for a moment all of the evils which are found in the world and which are known to all and admitted to exist in the media. Would these evils have survived for so long if people of good will had shown the indignant anger of Christ in the Temple?
Is it not our own hypocrisy, our own fear of being misunderstood by others, which motivates us to remain silent? We have got to understand that anger is itself neither evil nor good and it can be either. This is where the Cardinal Virtue of Prudence comes into play. An effeminate "Christianity" (rooted in the cult of softness) which condemns all anger as being in opposition to love as defined by the Holy Spirit through St. Paul, does a tremendous disservice to the Church and society in general.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Christ and His Commandments
"My children, I am writing this to you so that you may not commit sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one. He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world. The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. Whoever says, 'I know him,' but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, the love of God is truly perfected in him." (1 John 2:1-5).
"Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother remains in the light, and there is nothing in him to cause a fall. Whoever hates his brother is in darkness and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:9-11).
"Whoever says he is in the light, yet hates his brother, is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother remains in the light, and there is nothing in him to cause a fall. Whoever hates his brother is in darkness and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:9-11).
Medicinal rebuke and the Saints....
In our sacharrin society, medicinal rebuke is often mistaken for a "lack of charity" when in actuality such constructive criticism aids in healing. In his excellent work entitled "Liberalism is a sin," Fr. Felix Sarda Y Salvany writes:
"If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this usage is certainly not against charity. This is a corollary or consequence of the principle we have just demonstrated. We must render evil odious and detestable. We cannot attain this result without pointing out the dangers of evil, without showing how and why it is odious, detestable and contemptible. Christian oratory of all ages has ever employed the most vigorous and emphatic rhetoric in the arsenal of human speech against impiety. In the writings of the great athletes of Christianity the usage of irony, imprecation, execration and of the most crushing epithets is continual. Hence the only law is the opportunity and the truth.
But there is another justification for such an usage. Popular propagation and apologetics cannot preserve elegant and constrained academic forms. In order to convince the people we must speak to their heart and their imagination which can only be touched by ardent, brilliant, and impassioned language. To be impassioned is not to be reprehensible----when our heat is the holy ardor of truth. The supposed violence of modern Ultramontane journalism not only falls short of Liberal journalism, but is amply justified by every page of the works of our great Catholic polemicists of other epochs.
This is easily verified. St. John the Baptist calls the Pharisees "race of vipers," Jesus Christ, our Divine Savior, hurls at them the epithets "hypocrites, whitened sepulchers, a perverse and adulterous generation" without thinking for this reason that He sullies the sanctity of His benevolent speech. St. Paul criticizes the schismatic Cretins as "always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies." The same apostle calls Elymas the magician a "seducer, full of guile and deceit, child of the Devil, enemy of all justice."
If we open the Fathers we find the same vigorous castigation of heresy and heretics. St. Jerome arguing against Vigilantius casts in his face his former occupation of saloonkeeper: "From your infancy," he says to him, "you have learned other things than theology and betaken yourself to other pursuits. To verify at the same time the value of your money accounts and the value of Scriptural texts, to sample wines and grasp the meaning of the prophets and apostles are certainly not occupations which the same man can accomplish with credit." On another occasion attacking the same Vigilantius, who denied the excellence of virginity and of fasting, St. Jerome, with his usual sprightliness, asks him if he spoke thus "in order not to diminish the receipts of his saloon?" Heavens! What an outcry would be raised if one of our Ultramontane controversialists were to write against a Liberal critic or heretic of our own day in this fashion!
What shall we say of St. John Chrysostom? His famous invective against Eutropius is not comparable, in its personal and aggressive character, to the cruel invectives of Cicero against Catiline and against Verres! The gentle St. Bernard did not honey his words when he attacked the enemies of the faith. Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Liberal agitator of his times, he calls him in all his letters "seducer, vase of injuries, scorpion, cruel wolf."
The pacific St. Thomas of Acquinas forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms when he hurls his violent apostrophe against William of St. Amour and his disciples: "Enemies of God," he cries out, "ministers of the Devil, members of antiChrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!" Never did the illustrious Louis Veuillot speak so boldly. The seraphic St. Bonaventure, so full of sweetness, overwhelms his adversary Gerard with such epithets as "impudent, calumniator, spirit of malice, impious, shameless, ignorant, impostor, malefactor, perfidious, ingrate!" Did St. Francis de Sales, so delicately exquisite and tender, ever purr softly over the heretics of his age and country? He pardoned their injuries, heaped benefits on them even to the point of saving the lives of those who sought to take his, but with the enemies of the faith he preserved neither moderation nor consideration.
Asked by a Catholic, who desired to know if it were permissible to speak evil of a heretic who propagated false doctrines, he replied: "Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful according to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard."
In his Introduction to a Devout Life, that precious and popular work, he expresses himself again: "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry 'wolf' when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock, and in every way and place we may meet him."
This is real meat for real Catholics. It was Sir Edmund Burke who said that, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is for good people to do nothing." When we witness another Catholic (and yes, even a priest) promoting homosexuality, abortion, contraception, New Age, witchcraft, or dissent in general, we have an obligation (in charity) to speak the truth and to show others how that individual's words, ideas or actions fail to hold up when placed in the Lumen Christi - when held up to the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
If someone wants to accuse us of "having an axe to grind," simply because we speak the truth, that's their affair. But such people should recall what St. Catherine had to say about medicinal rebuke and should meditate upon these passages from Sacred Scripture:"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." (Galatians 6:7-8).
"Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Whatever you have said in the dark SHALL BE HEARD IN THE LIGHT, and what you have whispered in private rooms SHALL BE PROCLAIMED FROM THE HOUSETOPS." (Luke 12:2-3).
The Word of the Lord.
Amen.
"If the propagation of good and the necessity of combating evil require the employment of terms somewhat harsh against error and its supporters, this usage is certainly not against charity. This is a corollary or consequence of the principle we have just demonstrated. We must render evil odious and detestable. We cannot attain this result without pointing out the dangers of evil, without showing how and why it is odious, detestable and contemptible. Christian oratory of all ages has ever employed the most vigorous and emphatic rhetoric in the arsenal of human speech against impiety. In the writings of the great athletes of Christianity the usage of irony, imprecation, execration and of the most crushing epithets is continual. Hence the only law is the opportunity and the truth.
But there is another justification for such an usage. Popular propagation and apologetics cannot preserve elegant and constrained academic forms. In order to convince the people we must speak to their heart and their imagination which can only be touched by ardent, brilliant, and impassioned language. To be impassioned is not to be reprehensible----when our heat is the holy ardor of truth. The supposed violence of modern Ultramontane journalism not only falls short of Liberal journalism, but is amply justified by every page of the works of our great Catholic polemicists of other epochs.
This is easily verified. St. John the Baptist calls the Pharisees "race of vipers," Jesus Christ, our Divine Savior, hurls at them the epithets "hypocrites, whitened sepulchers, a perverse and adulterous generation" without thinking for this reason that He sullies the sanctity of His benevolent speech. St. Paul criticizes the schismatic Cretins as "always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies." The same apostle calls Elymas the magician a "seducer, full of guile and deceit, child of the Devil, enemy of all justice."
If we open the Fathers we find the same vigorous castigation of heresy and heretics. St. Jerome arguing against Vigilantius casts in his face his former occupation of saloonkeeper: "From your infancy," he says to him, "you have learned other things than theology and betaken yourself to other pursuits. To verify at the same time the value of your money accounts and the value of Scriptural texts, to sample wines and grasp the meaning of the prophets and apostles are certainly not occupations which the same man can accomplish with credit." On another occasion attacking the same Vigilantius, who denied the excellence of virginity and of fasting, St. Jerome, with his usual sprightliness, asks him if he spoke thus "in order not to diminish the receipts of his saloon?" Heavens! What an outcry would be raised if one of our Ultramontane controversialists were to write against a Liberal critic or heretic of our own day in this fashion!
What shall we say of St. John Chrysostom? His famous invective against Eutropius is not comparable, in its personal and aggressive character, to the cruel invectives of Cicero against Catiline and against Verres! The gentle St. Bernard did not honey his words when he attacked the enemies of the faith. Addressing Arnold of Brescia, the great Liberal agitator of his times, he calls him in all his letters "seducer, vase of injuries, scorpion, cruel wolf."
The pacific St. Thomas of Acquinas forgets the calm of his cold syllogisms when he hurls his violent apostrophe against William of St. Amour and his disciples: "Enemies of God," he cries out, "ministers of the Devil, members of antiChrist, ignorami, perverts, reprobates!" Never did the illustrious Louis Veuillot speak so boldly. The seraphic St. Bonaventure, so full of sweetness, overwhelms his adversary Gerard with such epithets as "impudent, calumniator, spirit of malice, impious, shameless, ignorant, impostor, malefactor, perfidious, ingrate!" Did St. Francis de Sales, so delicately exquisite and tender, ever purr softly over the heretics of his age and country? He pardoned their injuries, heaped benefits on them even to the point of saving the lives of those who sought to take his, but with the enemies of the faith he preserved neither moderation nor consideration.
Asked by a Catholic, who desired to know if it were permissible to speak evil of a heretic who propagated false doctrines, he replied: "Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful according to the degree of doubt which you may have in this regard."
In his Introduction to a Devout Life, that precious and popular work, he expresses himself again: "If the declared enemies of God and of the Church ought to be blamed and censured with all possible vigor, charity obliges us to cry 'wolf' when the wolf slips into the midst of the flock, and in every way and place we may meet him."
This is real meat for real Catholics. It was Sir Edmund Burke who said that, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is for good people to do nothing." When we witness another Catholic (and yes, even a priest) promoting homosexuality, abortion, contraception, New Age, witchcraft, or dissent in general, we have an obligation (in charity) to speak the truth and to show others how that individual's words, ideas or actions fail to hold up when placed in the Lumen Christi - when held up to the Magisterial teaching of the Church.
If someone wants to accuse us of "having an axe to grind," simply because we speak the truth, that's their affair. But such people should recall what St. Catherine had to say about medicinal rebuke and should meditate upon these passages from Sacred Scripture:"Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." (Galatians 6:7-8).
"Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Whatever you have said in the dark SHALL BE HEARD IN THE LIGHT, and what you have whispered in private rooms SHALL BE PROCLAIMED FROM THE HOUSETOPS." (Luke 12:2-3).
The Word of the Lord.
Amen.
Iran prepares people for the coming of the "messiah."
Jesus prophesied that another would come in his own name and that the world would accept him as the messiah. He was, of course, referring to the Antichrist.
Paul.
Paul.
Friday, January 26, 2007
On prophets, the dictatorship of relativism, and where it's all leading us...
Deacon Tom McDonnell is a prophet and prophets usually aren't welcome. Why? This article explains very nicely: http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34&idsub=172&id=7614&t=Why+prophets+aren
We are all called to be prophets. We are all called by the Lord Jesus to confront evil and to publically oppose sinful structures. Sin has become institutionalized. This because of a secularism which is rooted in atheistic philosophy. Pope Benedict XVI, in a homily at the Conclave's Opening Mass, said that:
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labelled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tosed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."
In fact, in its June 26, 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the "Supreme Court" effectively denied the existence of God's Eternal Law and Natural Law, and established its own atheistic and anarchic "morality," a "morality" which had been formulated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):
"A person is properly subject to no other laws than those he lays down himself, either alone or in conjunction with others." (Immanual Kant, 'Introduction to the Metaphysics of Morals," source: http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Kant/MetaMorals/NS/Kant_MM_NS.htm
The "Supreme Court," with a 6-3 majority, recognized liberty as the supreme norm of human thought and action:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." (Lawrence, p. 13).
But, as Pope John John Paul II noted:
"The attempt to set freedom in opposition to truth, and indeed to separate them radically, is the consequence, manifestation and consummation of another more serious and destructive dichotomy that separates faith from morality....This separation represents one of the most acute pastoral concerns of the Church amid today's growing secularism, wherein indeed, too many people think and live 'as if God did not exist.'" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 88).
This disturbing trend is now affecting the very life of the Church. Again, Pope John Paul II had warned that:
"Even in the field of the thought and life of the Church certain trends inevitably favor the decline of the sense of sin. For example, some are inclined to replace exaggerated attitudes of the past with other exaggerations: From seeing sin everywhere they pass to not recognizing it anywhere; from too much emphasis on the fear of eternal punishment [here the Holy Father is speaking of Jansenism] they pass to preaching a love of God that excludes any punishment deserved by sin; from severity in trying to correct erroneous consciences they pass to a kind of respect for conscience which excludes the duty of telling the truth." (Reconciliatio et poenitentia, No. 18).
This is why Deacon Tom McDonnell has been publically criticized by his Bishop and the pastor of his parish for publically taking to task a pro-abortion politician. Where will this disturbing trend lead us? What is the end result of the dictatorship of relativism? The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides us with the disturbing answer to that question:
"Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the 'mystery of iniquity' in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh." (No. 675).
Paul Anthony Melanson
We are all called to be prophets. We are all called by the Lord Jesus to confront evil and to publically oppose sinful structures. Sin has become institutionalized. This because of a secularism which is rooted in atheistic philosophy. Pope Benedict XVI, in a homily at the Conclave's Opening Mass, said that:
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labelled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tosed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires."
In fact, in its June 26, 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, the "Supreme Court" effectively denied the existence of God's Eternal Law and Natural Law, and established its own atheistic and anarchic "morality," a "morality" which had been formulated by the philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804):
"A person is properly subject to no other laws than those he lays down himself, either alone or in conjunction with others." (Immanual Kant, 'Introduction to the Metaphysics of Morals," source: http://ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Kant/MetaMorals/NS/Kant_MM_NS.htm
The "Supreme Court," with a 6-3 majority, recognized liberty as the supreme norm of human thought and action:
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." (Lawrence, p. 13).
But, as Pope John John Paul II noted:
"The attempt to set freedom in opposition to truth, and indeed to separate them radically, is the consequence, manifestation and consummation of another more serious and destructive dichotomy that separates faith from morality....This separation represents one of the most acute pastoral concerns of the Church amid today's growing secularism, wherein indeed, too many people think and live 'as if God did not exist.'" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 88).
This disturbing trend is now affecting the very life of the Church. Again, Pope John Paul II had warned that:
"Even in the field of the thought and life of the Church certain trends inevitably favor the decline of the sense of sin. For example, some are inclined to replace exaggerated attitudes of the past with other exaggerations: From seeing sin everywhere they pass to not recognizing it anywhere; from too much emphasis on the fear of eternal punishment [here the Holy Father is speaking of Jansenism] they pass to preaching a love of God that excludes any punishment deserved by sin; from severity in trying to correct erroneous consciences they pass to a kind of respect for conscience which excludes the duty of telling the truth." (Reconciliatio et poenitentia, No. 18).
This is why Deacon Tom McDonnell has been publically criticized by his Bishop and the pastor of his parish for publically taking to task a pro-abortion politician. Where will this disturbing trend lead us? What is the end result of the dictatorship of relativism? The Catechism of the Catholic Church provides us with the disturbing answer to that question:
"Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the 'mystery of iniquity' in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh." (No. 675).
Paul Anthony Melanson
Call for prayer
A beautiful young lady named Tess, a member of the Spiritual Children of Saint Rita, wrote me an email today in which she said:
"Dear Paul,
Thanks a lot for praying about my request. I am happy to hear that you still remember.
Life in my country is so hard because of our poor economic situation.
But our family always pray and trust in the mercy and love of the Lord.
We hope we will soon find a good buyer for our lot through the help of your prayers.
Thank you so much Paul.
God bless you all for your kindness.
Spiritual Child of St. Rita in Asia, Philippines.
Tess."
I would ask readers of this Blog to remember Tess and her family in your prayers. Tess is a remarkable and humble woman who is deeply committed to her Catholic Faith and to her family. I am honored to have her as a friend.
Paul
Deacon is condemned for speaking the truth
It is tragic when a Catholic diocese strives to make a pro-abortion politician comfortable in his sin. The deacon may not be "politically correct," but at least he won't be sentenced to Hell for appeasing the culture of death.
We all have a choice of which master to serve: Christ or the world. Deacon Tom McDonnell has chosen Christ while Rev. Smith and Bishop Kmiec have chosen differently. In an asinine statement released by Bishop Kmiec, Catholics of the Diocese of Buffalo, New York were told that, "The pulpit is not the appropriate place for confronting a member of the congregation. It is my belief that in situations like this, we are more effective when we have substantive, one-on-one conversations with individuals outside the context of the Mass.”
Translation: we should refrain from publically embarassing a politician who is in favor of killing innocent children in the womb. Apparently Bishop Kmiec would have had a problem with Saint Paul as well. For the Apostle to the Gentiles publically rebuked our first Pope (not for teaching error but for actions which were causing scandal):
"And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, 'If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?'" (Galatians 2:11-14).
Paul publically rebuked Peter "in front of all" - or publically - because his attitude was wrong. By what right then does Bishop Kmiec criticize Deacon McDonnell for publically rebuking a politician who supports killing children in the womb?
A "gospel" which doesn't point out sin, a "gospel" which makes sinners comfortable in their sins, is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such is a gospel from Hell.
Paul.
We all have a choice of which master to serve: Christ or the world. Deacon Tom McDonnell has chosen Christ while Rev. Smith and Bishop Kmiec have chosen differently. In an asinine statement released by Bishop Kmiec, Catholics of the Diocese of Buffalo, New York were told that, "The pulpit is not the appropriate place for confronting a member of the congregation. It is my belief that in situations like this, we are more effective when we have substantive, one-on-one conversations with individuals outside the context of the Mass.”
Translation: we should refrain from publically embarassing a politician who is in favor of killing innocent children in the womb. Apparently Bishop Kmiec would have had a problem with Saint Paul as well. For the Apostle to the Gentiles publically rebuked our first Pope (not for teaching error but for actions which were causing scandal):
"And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews [also] acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, 'If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?'" (Galatians 2:11-14).
Paul publically rebuked Peter "in front of all" - or publically - because his attitude was wrong. By what right then does Bishop Kmiec criticize Deacon McDonnell for publically rebuking a politician who supports killing children in the womb?
A "gospel" which doesn't point out sin, a "gospel" which makes sinners comfortable in their sins, is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such is a gospel from Hell.
Paul.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Many thanks to the members of the Spiritual Children of Saint Rita from all over the world who have written words of encouragement to the apostolate. You are all in our prayers. As many of you know, I have served as the spiritual director of the apostolate for two years now. I also write for various Catholic publications and maintain two Blogs. Needless to say, I have been very busy. But your kind notes of encouragement have been very edifying and I am most grateful. Please continue to forward prayer requests to Mr. John Ansley at: frappe19751975@yahoo.com
God love you all,
Paul Anthony Melanson
God love you all,
Paul Anthony Melanson
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Far more abuse in the public schools than ever occurred in the Catholic Church
And yet, most of the Mainstream Media remains silent.
Paul.
Paul.
The prophetic mission of the lay faithful
In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici, Pope John Paul II wrote that, "Through their participation in the prophetic mission of Christ, 'who proclaimed the kingdom of his Father by the testimony of his life and by the power of his word,' the lay faithful are given the ability and responsibility to accept the Gospel in faith and to proclaim it in word and deed, without hesitating to courageously denounce evil." (No. 14).
And yet, how often do the lay faithful encounter opposition from other members of the laity as well as priests and religious when they strive to fulfill their prophetic mission and to "courageously denounce evil." Why is this? Largely because, "To understand properly the lay faithful's position in the Church in a complete, adequate and specific manner it is necessary to come to a deeper theological understanding of their secular character in light of God's plan of salvation and in the context of the mystery of the Church" (Christifideles Laici, No. 15).
Pope John Paul II explains that, "..all the members of the Church are sharers in this secular dimension but in different ways. In particular the sharing of the lay faithful has its own manner or realization and function, which, according to the Council, is 'properly and particularly' theirs. Such manner is designated with the expression 'secular character.' In fact the Council, in describing the lay faithful's situation in the secular world, points to it above all, as the place in which they receive their call from God.." (Christifideles Laici, No. 15).
We read in 1 Corinthians 12 that, "As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit...there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I do not need you.'" (1 Cor 12: 12, 13; 20, 21).
And yet, this is precisely what so many of the lay faithful encounter as they strive to fulfill their prophetic mission and to act as salt and light upon the secular world. Too often, the lay faithful are looked upon by certain priests and religious as "second-class citizens" within the Church. Then again, some parishes - anxious to maintain a status quo - will only permit a select few to participate in the life of the parish.
But such an attitude is not holy. It is devilish. It is demonic: "..have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs" (James 2: 4). And again, "For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice." (James 3: 16).
Let us all strive to remember that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not our "private preserve." Let's leave behind all pride, selfish ambition, envy and jealousy. And when we come across another who has been graced with particular gifts which we may not possess ourselves, let's give thanks to the Holy Spirit who distributes His gifts as He pleases and to whom He wants.
Paul Anthony Melanson
And yet, how often do the lay faithful encounter opposition from other members of the laity as well as priests and religious when they strive to fulfill their prophetic mission and to "courageously denounce evil." Why is this? Largely because, "To understand properly the lay faithful's position in the Church in a complete, adequate and specific manner it is necessary to come to a deeper theological understanding of their secular character in light of God's plan of salvation and in the context of the mystery of the Church" (Christifideles Laici, No. 15).
Pope John Paul II explains that, "..all the members of the Church are sharers in this secular dimension but in different ways. In particular the sharing of the lay faithful has its own manner or realization and function, which, according to the Council, is 'properly and particularly' theirs. Such manner is designated with the expression 'secular character.' In fact the Council, in describing the lay faithful's situation in the secular world, points to it above all, as the place in which they receive their call from God.." (Christifideles Laici, No. 15).
We read in 1 Corinthians 12 that, "As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit...there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, 'I do not need you.'" (1 Cor 12: 12, 13; 20, 21).
And yet, this is precisely what so many of the lay faithful encounter as they strive to fulfill their prophetic mission and to act as salt and light upon the secular world. Too often, the lay faithful are looked upon by certain priests and religious as "second-class citizens" within the Church. Then again, some parishes - anxious to maintain a status quo - will only permit a select few to participate in the life of the parish.
But such an attitude is not holy. It is devilish. It is demonic: "..have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs" (James 2: 4). And again, "For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every foul practice." (James 3: 16).
Let us all strive to remember that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not our "private preserve." Let's leave behind all pride, selfish ambition, envy and jealousy. And when we come across another who has been graced with particular gifts which we may not possess ourselves, let's give thanks to the Holy Spirit who distributes His gifts as He pleases and to whom He wants.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Monday, January 22, 2007
In his Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Question 96, St. Thomas Aquinas writes that: "Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Prov. 8:15: "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." Now laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good--and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver--and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part, in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws.
On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above--either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory--or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him--or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience.."
Now, abortion laws are obviously contrary to the "human good," the "common good." What should be our attitude toward abortion laws? We should always remember that when man-made laws contradict the Divine Law, we have a strict obligation to oppose them. Our attitude should be that of St. Peter and the other Apostles when they were commanded by the chief priests to cease teaching in Jesus' name. We read in the book of Acts (Chapter 5:29), that our first Holy Father and the other Apostles responded thusly to these ministers: "We ought to obey God rather than men."
Make no mistake about it, the abortion movement is a hate movement. It represents hatred of God's Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus Chapter 20: 13); it represents hatred of human life; it represents hatred of Christ's Church which teaches authoritatively that abortion and infanticide are "unspeakable crimes."
Back in 1991, I participated in a March for Life through the streets of Boston with His Eminence Bernard Cardinal Law and thousands of lay people, priests and religious. As we were processing through the streets of Boston, I was enjoying a conversation with His Eminence and several seminarians when various onlookers from different apartment buildings began to shout obscenities and to engage in hateful and angry rhetoric. I can remember one angry person yelling out, "You're mother should have aborted you" and yet another screaming at the top of his voice "You ass..... should stay out of my bedroom."
It was obvious to me why these confused and angry souls were lowering themselves to such an immature level of rhetoric. They instinctively realized that their hate movement had already lost the intellectual debate. They also knew full well (in their hearts) that the culture of death hate movement had already lost the moral or ethical debate.
This was the reason for the unbridled hate speech. Angry rhetoric and shrill-voices almost inevitably follow when those whose passions are unchecked begin to realize that the truth is not on their side and that their arguments lack any real substance.
Time is on our side. As more and more Americans come to reject the culture of death and as Roe v. Wade collapses in on itself (and even Sandra Day O'Connor once spoke of this moment when she alluded to the fact that Roe v. Wade was on a collision course with itself), the shrill-voices and hate-filled rhetoric will first increase and then totally subside.
It was the same when Dr. King led so many people of good will in the fight for civil rights for African-Americans. In time, as Americans witnessed with horror the face of hatred on their television sets, they increasingly came to realize that they wanted no part of the bigotry and learned to embrace these fellow American citizens as equals.
It is love which will overcome the abortion hate movement. Love always triumphs over hatred, even if there is pain as we make the journey toward justice, peace and the common good. The hatred which is part and parcel of the abortion movement will be transformed by love and by patient witness to the Gospel truth which proclaims the inviolable dignity of every human person.
Dr. King spoke of this before his assasination: "We will match your capacity to inflict suffering with our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. We will not hate you, but we cannot obey your unjust laws. Do to us what you will and we will still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children; send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities and drag us out on some wayside road, beating us and leaving us half dead, and we will still love you. But we will soon wear you down by our capacity to suffer. And in winning our freedom, we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process."
Dr. King realized that there is nothing stronger than love or "soul force." And isn't this what Sacred Scripture teaches us? We read in 1 Corinthians 13:13 that, "And now there remain faith, hope and love, these three: but the greatest of these is love." This theologal virtue will triumph over the abortion hate movement just as surely as it triumphed through Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement and through the person and work of Gandhi in India.
Paul Anthony Melanson
On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above--either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory--or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him--or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience.."
Now, abortion laws are obviously contrary to the "human good," the "common good." What should be our attitude toward abortion laws? We should always remember that when man-made laws contradict the Divine Law, we have a strict obligation to oppose them. Our attitude should be that of St. Peter and the other Apostles when they were commanded by the chief priests to cease teaching in Jesus' name. We read in the book of Acts (Chapter 5:29), that our first Holy Father and the other Apostles responded thusly to these ministers: "We ought to obey God rather than men."
Make no mistake about it, the abortion movement is a hate movement. It represents hatred of God's Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus Chapter 20: 13); it represents hatred of human life; it represents hatred of Christ's Church which teaches authoritatively that abortion and infanticide are "unspeakable crimes."
Back in 1991, I participated in a March for Life through the streets of Boston with His Eminence Bernard Cardinal Law and thousands of lay people, priests and religious. As we were processing through the streets of Boston, I was enjoying a conversation with His Eminence and several seminarians when various onlookers from different apartment buildings began to shout obscenities and to engage in hateful and angry rhetoric. I can remember one angry person yelling out, "You're mother should have aborted you" and yet another screaming at the top of his voice "You ass..... should stay out of my bedroom."
It was obvious to me why these confused and angry souls were lowering themselves to such an immature level of rhetoric. They instinctively realized that their hate movement had already lost the intellectual debate. They also knew full well (in their hearts) that the culture of death hate movement had already lost the moral or ethical debate.
This was the reason for the unbridled hate speech. Angry rhetoric and shrill-voices almost inevitably follow when those whose passions are unchecked begin to realize that the truth is not on their side and that their arguments lack any real substance.
Time is on our side. As more and more Americans come to reject the culture of death and as Roe v. Wade collapses in on itself (and even Sandra Day O'Connor once spoke of this moment when she alluded to the fact that Roe v. Wade was on a collision course with itself), the shrill-voices and hate-filled rhetoric will first increase and then totally subside.
It was the same when Dr. King led so many people of good will in the fight for civil rights for African-Americans. In time, as Americans witnessed with horror the face of hatred on their television sets, they increasingly came to realize that they wanted no part of the bigotry and learned to embrace these fellow American citizens as equals.
It is love which will overcome the abortion hate movement. Love always triumphs over hatred, even if there is pain as we make the journey toward justice, peace and the common good. The hatred which is part and parcel of the abortion movement will be transformed by love and by patient witness to the Gospel truth which proclaims the inviolable dignity of every human person.
Dr. King spoke of this before his assasination: "We will match your capacity to inflict suffering with our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. We will not hate you, but we cannot obey your unjust laws. Do to us what you will and we will still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children; send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities and drag us out on some wayside road, beating us and leaving us half dead, and we will still love you. But we will soon wear you down by our capacity to suffer. And in winning our freedom, we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process."
Dr. King realized that there is nothing stronger than love or "soul force." And isn't this what Sacred Scripture teaches us? We read in 1 Corinthians 13:13 that, "And now there remain faith, hope and love, these three: but the greatest of these is love." This theologal virtue will triumph over the abortion hate movement just as surely as it triumphed through Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement and through the person and work of Gandhi in India.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)