Tuesday, May 24, 2005
A brief explanation....
For those who would say that I am being "uncharitable" in referring to those who clamor for women's ordination as being "mental and moral midgets," I would remind you that such people are really asserting that they are wiser than the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Such people are also arguing that Our Lord, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, chose only men as priests because of cultural conditioning or that He committed an injustice for the sake of cultural expediency. This is nothing short of blasphemy.
In the words of the Rev. Dr. E.L. Mascall, "If the supporters of women priests are right, then Our Lord in instituting an exclusively male apostolate, was doing something which has deprived half the members of the Church from their legitimate rights for nearly 2,000 years. And it would be difficult in that case to feel very confident of either his moral or his intellectual integrity. And then it is difficult to see why we should attribute any authority to Him at all."
Again, who do we say Jesus is? Is He the Incarnate Word, the Eternal Logos, the Son of God - Second Person of the Blessed Trinity? Or is He simply a man who promoted erroneous ideas; ideas which have deprived women of their legitimate rights?
Paul
More zeal than knowledge
In his own day, the great philosopher Socrates warned seekers of truth to beware of those who possess "more zeal than knowledge." In our own time, an age which is marked by irrational pride and a tendency to reject anything which has the character of coming from above, there are individuals and groups who simply refuse to embrace episteme (knowledge) and who consequently fall into the idolatry of doxa (opinion).
For example, some years ago, certain women groups gave warning that they would not be argued out of becoming priests: "We reject out of hand any arguments or efforts on theological or historical grounds" (Sexuality, Theology, Priesthood, A Scholarly symposium on the ordination of women to the priesthood. Published by Concerned Fellow Episcopalians. San Gabriel, California, p.3).
This statement was the result of a Task Force chosen to study the status of women in a diocese in Pennsylvania. And one can find this same attitude at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website. There, several individuals have challenged the Church's clear and constant teaching for some 2,000 years that women are not called to the ministerial priesthood.
Now, agitating or screaming for change is not a Christian lifestyle. And the intelligent Catholic will answer the specious "theological" arguments which are founded on propaganda and slogans and which are appealing to those who find it too much of a mental effort to engage in any real thought. It is necessary that the intelligent Catholic should respond to the arguments of the uncritical and intellectually impoverished mind of the confused person who believes himself or herself to be wiser than the Holy Spirit who guides Holy Mother Church. It was St. Peter who exhorted Christians "to be always ready to give a reason for the faith that is in you."
Thankfully, there are serious and intelligent Catholics who are responding to this challenge. These defenders of the Faith understand that St. Peter's challenge imposes a duty, a responsibility, to correct the flawed thinking of mental and moral midgets who believe that polls, vote-taking, and lazy propaganda emanating from the mass-media or various other sources, can change salvation facts already decided by Almighty God. Polls may be interesting to look at, but such statistics have absolutely no theological decisional value whatsoever. The only real benefit such polls have for Catholics is to demonstrate the extent of the profound disorder in faith among Catholics (or other Christians) in a certain geographical area.
To date, not one of the agitators for women's ordination at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website has accepted my challenge to provide a sound theological argument from sacramental theology as to why women should be ordained to the ministerial priesthood. Again, as Socrates reminded us so long ago, beware of those who have "more zeal than knowledge."
Amen.
Until next time,
God love you
Paul Anthony Melanson
For example, some years ago, certain women groups gave warning that they would not be argued out of becoming priests: "We reject out of hand any arguments or efforts on theological or historical grounds" (Sexuality, Theology, Priesthood, A Scholarly symposium on the ordination of women to the priesthood. Published by Concerned Fellow Episcopalians. San Gabriel, California, p.3).
This statement was the result of a Task Force chosen to study the status of women in a diocese in Pennsylvania. And one can find this same attitude at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website. There, several individuals have challenged the Church's clear and constant teaching for some 2,000 years that women are not called to the ministerial priesthood.
Now, agitating or screaming for change is not a Christian lifestyle. And the intelligent Catholic will answer the specious "theological" arguments which are founded on propaganda and slogans and which are appealing to those who find it too much of a mental effort to engage in any real thought. It is necessary that the intelligent Catholic should respond to the arguments of the uncritical and intellectually impoverished mind of the confused person who believes himself or herself to be wiser than the Holy Spirit who guides Holy Mother Church. It was St. Peter who exhorted Christians "to be always ready to give a reason for the faith that is in you."
Thankfully, there are serious and intelligent Catholics who are responding to this challenge. These defenders of the Faith understand that St. Peter's challenge imposes a duty, a responsibility, to correct the flawed thinking of mental and moral midgets who believe that polls, vote-taking, and lazy propaganda emanating from the mass-media or various other sources, can change salvation facts already decided by Almighty God. Polls may be interesting to look at, but such statistics have absolutely no theological decisional value whatsoever. The only real benefit such polls have for Catholics is to demonstrate the extent of the profound disorder in faith among Catholics (or other Christians) in a certain geographical area.
To date, not one of the agitators for women's ordination at the Holy Cross Cardinal Newman Society website has accepted my challenge to provide a sound theological argument from sacramental theology as to why women should be ordained to the ministerial priesthood. Again, as Socrates reminded us so long ago, beware of those who have "more zeal than knowledge."
Amen.
Until next time,
God love you
Paul Anthony Melanson
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Pope John Paul II on formation of conscience
In his encyclical letter Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II tells us that, "Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium. As the Council affirms: 'In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. Forthe Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself.' (DH, 14). It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of conscience is never freedom 'from' the truth but always and only freedom 'in' the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith." (No. 64.2).
Paul
Paul
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
The difference between a certain and a correct conscience
There is a difference in meaning between a certain and a correct conscience. The term "correct" describes the objective truth of the person's judgment, that in fact his conscience represents the real state of things. The term "certain" describes the subjective state of the person judging, how firmly he holds to his assent and how thoroughly he has excluded fear of the opposite. The kind of certitude which is meant here is a subjective certitude, which may easily exist along with objective error. It follows then that we have two possibilities here:
1. A certain and correct conscience.
2. A certain but erroneous conscience.
Now, a certain and correct conscience offers no difficulty and our obligation is therefore clear. A certain and correct conscience is merely the moral law promulgated to the individual and applied to to his own individual act. But the moral law must always be obeyed. Consequently, a certain and correct conscience must be obeyed. And what degree of certitude is required? It is sufficient that the individual's conscience be prudentially certain. Prudential certitude is not absolute but relative. As such, it excludes all prudent fear that the opposite may be true, but does not rule out imprudent fears which are based upon bare possibilities. The reasons are convincing enough to satisfy a normally prudent man in an important matter and this results in that individual feeling safe in practice while there is a theoretical chance of his being incorrect. In such a case, the individual has taken every reasonable precaution but he cannot guarantee against rare contingencies and "freaks of nature."
In moral matters, a complete mathematical certitude is not to be expected. This because when there is question of action, of something to be done in the here and now, but which also involves future consequences (some of which are dependent upon the wills of other individuals), the absolute possibility of error cannot be entirely excluded. However, it can be so reduced that no prudent man, one who is free of neurotic whimsies, would be deterred from acting through fear of it. Therefore, prudential certitude, since it excludes all reasonable fear of error, is much more than high probability, which fails to exclude such reasonable fear.
What happens when an individual is in possession of an erroneous conscience? That depends. If the error is vincible, it must be corrected. In such a case, the person knows that he may be wrong, is able to correct the possible error, and is obliged to do so before acting. A vincibly erroneous conscience cannot be a certain conscience. This is easily demonstrated. For example, an individual may have a merely probable opinion which he neglects to verify, (through laziness or fear of discovering that he is in fact in error), although he is able to do so. Or perhaps he may have judged certainly and yet erroneously at one point, but now begins to doubt whether or not his judgment was in fact correct. For as long as this individual did not realize his error, his conscience was invincibly erroneous; the error becomes vincible at the precise moment that the individual is no longer subjectively certain and has begun to doubt. Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn's personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew he had a responsibility to enter that Church. I would also refer readers to Lumen Gentium, No. 14 which deals with this subject.
If an error is invincible, there appears to be a dilemma. On the one hand, it doesn't seem right that a person should be obliged to follow an erroneous judgment; on the other, the individual is not aware of being in error and has no means of correcting it. But this dilemma is solved by recalling that conscience is a subjective guide to conduct, that invincible error and ignorance are unavoidable, that any wrong which occurs is not done voluntarily and therefore may not be charged to the agent. An individual acting with an invincibly erroneous conscience may in fact do something that is objectively wrong. However, since he does not recognize it as such it is not subjectively wrong. Such a person is thereby free of guilt by the invincible ignorance which is bound up in his error.
Conclusion: The will depends on the intellect to present the good to it. The will-act is good so long as it tends to the good presented by the intellect. It is bad or deficient if it tends to what the intellect judges evil. Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. If an individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is right, that person is obeying the moral law to the degree that he or she can. If that same individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is wrong, that person is disobeying the moral law in intention, even though the act may not be objectively wrong.
I would recommend a thorough read of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say with regard to forming a correct conscience.
God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson
1. A certain and correct conscience.
2. A certain but erroneous conscience.
Now, a certain and correct conscience offers no difficulty and our obligation is therefore clear. A certain and correct conscience is merely the moral law promulgated to the individual and applied to to his own individual act. But the moral law must always be obeyed. Consequently, a certain and correct conscience must be obeyed. And what degree of certitude is required? It is sufficient that the individual's conscience be prudentially certain. Prudential certitude is not absolute but relative. As such, it excludes all prudent fear that the opposite may be true, but does not rule out imprudent fears which are based upon bare possibilities. The reasons are convincing enough to satisfy a normally prudent man in an important matter and this results in that individual feeling safe in practice while there is a theoretical chance of his being incorrect. In such a case, the individual has taken every reasonable precaution but he cannot guarantee against rare contingencies and "freaks of nature."
In moral matters, a complete mathematical certitude is not to be expected. This because when there is question of action, of something to be done in the here and now, but which also involves future consequences (some of which are dependent upon the wills of other individuals), the absolute possibility of error cannot be entirely excluded. However, it can be so reduced that no prudent man, one who is free of neurotic whimsies, would be deterred from acting through fear of it. Therefore, prudential certitude, since it excludes all reasonable fear of error, is much more than high probability, which fails to exclude such reasonable fear.
What happens when an individual is in possession of an erroneous conscience? That depends. If the error is vincible, it must be corrected. In such a case, the person knows that he may be wrong, is able to correct the possible error, and is obliged to do so before acting. A vincibly erroneous conscience cannot be a certain conscience. This is easily demonstrated. For example, an individual may have a merely probable opinion which he neglects to verify, (through laziness or fear of discovering that he is in fact in error), although he is able to do so. Or perhaps he may have judged certainly and yet erroneously at one point, but now begins to doubt whether or not his judgment was in fact correct. For as long as this individual did not realize his error, his conscience was invincibly erroneous; the error becomes vincible at the precise moment that the individual is no longer subjectively certain and has begun to doubt. Anyone who has read Dr. Scott Hahn's personal conversion story will recall that, when he realized the truth of Catholic teaching and that the Catholic Church was in fact the Church founded by Christ, he knew he had a responsibility to enter that Church. I would also refer readers to Lumen Gentium, No. 14 which deals with this subject.
If an error is invincible, there appears to be a dilemma. On the one hand, it doesn't seem right that a person should be obliged to follow an erroneous judgment; on the other, the individual is not aware of being in error and has no means of correcting it. But this dilemma is solved by recalling that conscience is a subjective guide to conduct, that invincible error and ignorance are unavoidable, that any wrong which occurs is not done voluntarily and therefore may not be charged to the agent. An individual acting with an invincibly erroneous conscience may in fact do something that is objectively wrong. However, since he does not recognize it as such it is not subjectively wrong. Such a person is thereby free of guilt by the invincible ignorance which is bound up in his error.
Conclusion: The will depends on the intellect to present the good to it. The will-act is good so long as it tends to the good presented by the intellect. It is bad or deficient if it tends to what the intellect judges evil. Invincible error in the intellect does not change the goodness or badness of the will-act, in which morality essentially consists. If an individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is right, that person is obeying the moral law to the degree that he or she can. If that same individual is firmly convinced that his or her action is wrong, that person is disobeying the moral law in intention, even though the act may not be objectively wrong.
I would recommend a thorough read of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say with regard to forming a correct conscience.
God love you all,
Until next time
Paul Anthony Melanson
Friday, May 13, 2005
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
New Website
Dear Friends,
As many of you already know, I haven't been writing articles for this website for over a month now. I have been very busy with several writing projects and will be writing a "Theological Reflections" column for http://www.saintritachildren.com I will be writing pieces for this website as well now that I have finished with the projects in question.
I encourage you to visit this new website and to e-mail me with any thoughts you might have.
Thank you and God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson
cleghornboy@juno.com
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Is God male?
Mary Daly, a radical feminist theologian, asserted in 1974 (in what is a now-famous slogan used by her disciples) that "Since God is male, the male is God." As with most slogans, this one was crafted to elicit an emotional response from women in the Church who believed themselves to be an "oppressed" class simply because Christ has not called them to the priesthood. And, like most slogans, it was long on emotional appeal while being short on substance.
References to God as Father may be traced well back into the Old Testament. For example, in Deuteronomy 32:6, Moses uses a rhetorical question to teach that God is Father to the Children of Israel: "Is not he your Father who created you, who made you and established you?" And in Isaiah 63:16, the prophet directly addresses and professes God in just those terms: "For you are our Father....You, O Lord, are our Father."
But, within the biblical framework, such passages cannot be taken to mean that God is to be considered male, or biologically masculine, or that He is to be identified in any way biologically. We see the proof of this in Sacred Scripture, in numerous passages which must have escaped Mary Daly as she penned her emotional, but theologically unastute slogan. For example, in Numbers 23:19, we read that: "God is not a man" and again in 1 Samuel 15:29, we read that: "the glory of Israel...is not a man." Furthermore, in Hosea 11:9, God speaks directly to the prophet saying that: "I am God, and not man." And one of the most dramatic repudiations of any identification of God as a male (or as a female for that matter) may be found in Moses's "last address" to the Children of Israel, where he reiterates the prohibition of every form of idolatry, including the perverse religious conceptions of God as either male or female: "Since you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire, take care and watch yourselves closely, so that you do not act corruptly by making an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure - the likeness of male or female...." (Deuteronomy 4:15-16).
Radical feminists reject God's revelation in Sacred Scripture as "sexist" and "patriarchal" because their understanding of God's Word has been distorted by their own ideology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Pope John Paul II has referred to as a "sure norm" in his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, teaches quite clearly that: "In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes. But the respective 'perfections' of men and women reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband" (CCC, 370).
However, that being said, God has revealed Himself as "Father" and this too is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Many religions invoke God as 'Father.' The deity is often considered the 'father of gods and of men.' In Israel, God is called 'Father' inasmuch as he is Creator of the world. Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, 'his firstborn son.' God is also called Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is 'the Father of the poor,' of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection."
And again, "By calling God 'Father,' the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children....We ought....to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God." (CCC, 239).
And yet again: "Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father." (CCC, 240).
Many religious sisters, and most especially those agitating for the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood, accuse both the Church and Sacred Scripture of being "sexist" and "patriarchal" without any having any real basis for such ridiculous claims. Such malcontents have already left the Church in heart and mind. But what is the spirit which stirs this radical feminist animus against Holy Mother Church? Hasn't the Holy Spirit already provided us with an answer? We read that, "If you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This wisdom is not such as comes down from above, but is earthy, unspiritual, devilish...But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason." (James 3:14-17).
When radical feminists (and their male cooperators) argue that God is addressed in the Old Testament as "Father" rather than "Mother" because of a merely "patriarchal" projection onto the ultimate reality, they are really asserting that the Old Testament is pagan. Faithful Catholics know better. And they know as well that while God has been revealed as Father, he also has many attributes of a mother.
Is there sexism in our society? Of course. Are there individuals within the Church who are sexist? Of course. Is the Church or Sacred Scripture sexist or patriarchal? I have just demonstrated that such is not the case.
Ironically, many radical feminists are sexist themselves. They fail to see that by attempting to impose a "Mother" deity, they are guilty of the very thing which they accuse the Church and Sacred Scripture of.
God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson
References to God as Father may be traced well back into the Old Testament. For example, in Deuteronomy 32:6, Moses uses a rhetorical question to teach that God is Father to the Children of Israel: "Is not he your Father who created you, who made you and established you?" And in Isaiah 63:16, the prophet directly addresses and professes God in just those terms: "For you are our Father....You, O Lord, are our Father."
But, within the biblical framework, such passages cannot be taken to mean that God is to be considered male, or biologically masculine, or that He is to be identified in any way biologically. We see the proof of this in Sacred Scripture, in numerous passages which must have escaped Mary Daly as she penned her emotional, but theologically unastute slogan. For example, in Numbers 23:19, we read that: "God is not a man" and again in 1 Samuel 15:29, we read that: "the glory of Israel...is not a man." Furthermore, in Hosea 11:9, God speaks directly to the prophet saying that: "I am God, and not man." And one of the most dramatic repudiations of any identification of God as a male (or as a female for that matter) may be found in Moses's "last address" to the Children of Israel, where he reiterates the prohibition of every form of idolatry, including the perverse religious conceptions of God as either male or female: "Since you saw no form when the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire, take care and watch yourselves closely, so that you do not act corruptly by making an idol for yourselves, in the form of any figure - the likeness of male or female...." (Deuteronomy 4:15-16).
Radical feminists reject God's revelation in Sacred Scripture as "sexist" and "patriarchal" because their understanding of God's Word has been distorted by their own ideology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Pope John Paul II has referred to as a "sure norm" in his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, teaches quite clearly that: "In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes. But the respective 'perfections' of men and women reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband" (CCC, 370).
However, that being said, God has revealed Himself as "Father" and this too is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Many religions invoke God as 'Father.' The deity is often considered the 'father of gods and of men.' In Israel, God is called 'Father' inasmuch as he is Creator of the world. Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, 'his firstborn son.' God is also called Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is 'the Father of the poor,' of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection."
And again, "By calling God 'Father,' the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children....We ought....to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God." (CCC, 239).
And yet again: "Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father." (CCC, 240).
Many religious sisters, and most especially those agitating for the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood, accuse both the Church and Sacred Scripture of being "sexist" and "patriarchal" without any having any real basis for such ridiculous claims. Such malcontents have already left the Church in heart and mind. But what is the spirit which stirs this radical feminist animus against Holy Mother Church? Hasn't the Holy Spirit already provided us with an answer? We read that, "If you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This wisdom is not such as comes down from above, but is earthy, unspiritual, devilish...But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason." (James 3:14-17).
When radical feminists (and their male cooperators) argue that God is addressed in the Old Testament as "Father" rather than "Mother" because of a merely "patriarchal" projection onto the ultimate reality, they are really asserting that the Old Testament is pagan. Faithful Catholics know better. And they know as well that while God has been revealed as Father, he also has many attributes of a mother.
Is there sexism in our society? Of course. Are there individuals within the Church who are sexist? Of course. Is the Church or Sacred Scripture sexist or patriarchal? I have just demonstrated that such is not the case.
Ironically, many radical feminists are sexist themselves. They fail to see that by attempting to impose a "Mother" deity, they are guilty of the very thing which they accuse the Church and Sacred Scripture of.
God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson
Why women cannot symbolically represent Christ the Bridegroom
An individual who posts at the Holy Cross College Cardinal Newman Society website has asked me a series of questions and I shall endeavour to answer these four questions here in the order in which they were asked.
The first question is: "Why is it that a woman cannot symbolically represent Christ the Bridegroom?"
The reason is that "God became man" and took on human nature in the masculine mode. The Word reveals itself in the flesh of Christ Jesus as the "only Son of the Father" (John 1:14, 18, 41, 49), who by virtue of giving His flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51) is the Bridegroom of the Bride (John 3:29), namely, the Church.
In John's Gospel, the line of communication is clearly set up as follows: Jesus Christ (1:18), being the incarnate Word (1:1, 14) is the only-begotten Son of the Father (1:14) and the Bridegroom of the Church (3:29; Rev. 19:7; 21:2; - see also: Mt. 9:15; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:21-32).
The masculinity of Jesus is part of the Logos' self-expression in the flesh and forms the basis for the original relation of Christ to the Church and for His sacramental union with her as His Body and His Bride.
Through the natural symbolism of the sexes, God communicates the reality of His free, historical, and corporeal presence in the world. By assuming humanity in the mode of masculinity, the Logos communicates Himself in His dealings with the new People of God in that fundamental personal relationship that has its foundation in masculinity. Thus, the Dogmatic Constitution the Church of Vatican II can say: "Christ loves the Church as his bride, having been established as the model of a man loving his wife as his own body (Eph. 5:25-28); the Church, in her turn, is subject to her head (Eph. 5: 23-24), 'Because in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 3:29)." (Lumen Gentium, No. 7).
Now, the priest takes the part of Christ, lending Him his voice and gestures. St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, expresses this concept with precision: "The priest enacts the image of Christ, in whose person and by whose power he pronounces the words of consecration" (Summa Theologica, III, q. 83, a.1, ad 3-um).
Therefore, the priest is truly a "sign" in the sacramental sense of the word. This is why St. Bonaventure says: "The person ordained is a sign of Christ the mediator" - "persona quae ordinatur significat Christum mediatorem." It is a principle of sacramental theology that "sacramental signs represent what they signify by a natural resemblance" (In IV Sent., Dist. 25, q. 2, a.2, q.1, ad 4-um: signa sacramentalia ex naturali similitudine repraesentent.).
In other words, there is a need for that "natural resemblance" between Christ and the person who is His sign. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, "Since a sacrament is a sign, what is done in the sacrament requires not only the reality but also a sign of the reality" (Ibid. In corp. quaestiunculae: Quia cum sacramentum sit signum, in eis quae in sacramento aguntur requiritur non solum res, sed significatio rei.).
And as the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states quite clearly in its document "On the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood": "It would not accord with 'natural resemblance,' with that obvious 'meaningfulness,' if the memorial of the Supper were to be carried out by a woman; for it is not just the recitation involving the gestures and words of Christ, but an action, and the sign is efficacious because Christ is present in the minister who consecrates the Eucharist, as is taught by the Second Vatican Council, following the Encyclical Mediator Dei."
Because of a secularized understanding of reality, not to mention a reductive and functionalist view of man, there are some who still think that it is their job to demand the application of societal standards and values within the Church such as democratic procedures, equal opportunities for advancement in all capacities and offices etc. For such people, the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which has been instituted by Christ Jesus Himself - Who is incapable of error or of deceiving or being deceived - is little more than a Baroque, or antiquarian form of appointment to a position of leadership, like that of a bank president, party chief or television station manager. These people view the priesthood in terms of self-fulfillment and "power" rather than from the sacramental point of view.
The second question posed: "Wouldn't you regard a class of people with no access to authority as second-class citizens?"
Archbishop Oscar Romero answered this line of thinking before he was killed by an assasins bullet: "Authority in the Church is not command, but service." This is the Church's authentic understanding of authority within the Church. Jesus Himself tells us that He came not to e served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many. Besides, many women exercise prominent positions within the Church and have been entrusted with much authority. And they are doing a remarkable job. But Christ has not called them to the priesthood just as He has not called most men to the priesthood. The priesthood, for reasons stated above, may never be viewed as a "right." Strictly speaking, we possess only contingent rights (those afforded us by God) and not intrinsic rights. Only God possesses intrinsic rights. Therefore, we are bound to avoid anything which opposes His Holy Will.
The third question posed: "How would you differentiate between a dissenter and someone who is not convinced of the inerrancy of a particular Church teaching?"
My opinion in this matter (and anything else touching on faith or morals) is not really relevant. However, the Church teaches, in its 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, that the nature of "religious submission of soul" or of "will and mind" that the Fathers of Vatican II said is to be given by the faithful, including theologians, to authoritative but noninfallibly proposed magisterial teachings (see Lumen Gentium, No. 25) is clear.
This Instruction clearly distinguishes between questions that theologians may raise about such teachings (nn. 24-31) and dissent from such teachings (nn. 32-41). It judges that questioning can be compatible with the "religious submission" required, but it firmly and unequivocally repudiates dissent from these teachings as incompatible with this "religious submission" and irreconcilable with the vocation of the theologian. Dissent from infallibly proposed magisterial teachings is a fortiori excluded.
The fourth and last question: "..do you see a problem with putting one's faith blindly in an institution ? And if so, how would one avoid doing this?"
I will answer this question with a question of my own: Is the Church merely an "institution" for you dear friend or is it something more? For those of us who are Catholic, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ (see Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Mystici Corporis). We believe that Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and that, being the very essence of truth and integrity (in fact, Jesus IS Truth: John 14:6), that He is incapable of error and "can neither deceive nor be deceived."
We also believe, as told in Sacred Scripture, that after His Ascension into Heaven, He solemnly promised that He would send His Church "another Paraclete...the spirit of truth," to dwell with it forever (John 14: 16-17). And that He inspired the Apostle Paul (for whom I was named) to describe His Church as "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
My dear friend, now that I have patiently answered all your questions I have a few of my own. Firstly, what is your argument - from the standpoint of sacramental theology - for believing that women should be ordained to the ministerial priesthood or that they are unjustly discriminated against because Christ has not called them to the same? Secondly, How is it possible for the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity to be guilty of error?
God love you, I wait with much anticipation for your response.
Paul Anthony Melanson
The first question is: "Why is it that a woman cannot symbolically represent Christ the Bridegroom?"
The reason is that "God became man" and took on human nature in the masculine mode. The Word reveals itself in the flesh of Christ Jesus as the "only Son of the Father" (John 1:14, 18, 41, 49), who by virtue of giving His flesh for the life of the world (John 6:51) is the Bridegroom of the Bride (John 3:29), namely, the Church.
In John's Gospel, the line of communication is clearly set up as follows: Jesus Christ (1:18), being the incarnate Word (1:1, 14) is the only-begotten Son of the Father (1:14) and the Bridegroom of the Church (3:29; Rev. 19:7; 21:2; - see also: Mt. 9:15; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:21-32).
The masculinity of Jesus is part of the Logos' self-expression in the flesh and forms the basis for the original relation of Christ to the Church and for His sacramental union with her as His Body and His Bride.
Through the natural symbolism of the sexes, God communicates the reality of His free, historical, and corporeal presence in the world. By assuming humanity in the mode of masculinity, the Logos communicates Himself in His dealings with the new People of God in that fundamental personal relationship that has its foundation in masculinity. Thus, the Dogmatic Constitution the Church of Vatican II can say: "Christ loves the Church as his bride, having been established as the model of a man loving his wife as his own body (Eph. 5:25-28); the Church, in her turn, is subject to her head (Eph. 5: 23-24), 'Because in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 3:29)." (Lumen Gentium, No. 7).
Now, the priest takes the part of Christ, lending Him his voice and gestures. St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, expresses this concept with precision: "The priest enacts the image of Christ, in whose person and by whose power he pronounces the words of consecration" (Summa Theologica, III, q. 83, a.1, ad 3-um).
Therefore, the priest is truly a "sign" in the sacramental sense of the word. This is why St. Bonaventure says: "The person ordained is a sign of Christ the mediator" - "persona quae ordinatur significat Christum mediatorem." It is a principle of sacramental theology that "sacramental signs represent what they signify by a natural resemblance" (In IV Sent., Dist. 25, q. 2, a.2, q.1, ad 4-um: signa sacramentalia ex naturali similitudine repraesentent.).
In other words, there is a need for that "natural resemblance" between Christ and the person who is His sign. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, "Since a sacrament is a sign, what is done in the sacrament requires not only the reality but also a sign of the reality" (Ibid. In corp. quaestiunculae: Quia cum sacramentum sit signum, in eis quae in sacramento aguntur requiritur non solum res, sed significatio rei.).
And as the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states quite clearly in its document "On the Question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood": "It would not accord with 'natural resemblance,' with that obvious 'meaningfulness,' if the memorial of the Supper were to be carried out by a woman; for it is not just the recitation involving the gestures and words of Christ, but an action, and the sign is efficacious because Christ is present in the minister who consecrates the Eucharist, as is taught by the Second Vatican Council, following the Encyclical Mediator Dei."
Because of a secularized understanding of reality, not to mention a reductive and functionalist view of man, there are some who still think that it is their job to demand the application of societal standards and values within the Church such as democratic procedures, equal opportunities for advancement in all capacities and offices etc. For such people, the Sacrament of Holy Orders, which has been instituted by Christ Jesus Himself - Who is incapable of error or of deceiving or being deceived - is little more than a Baroque, or antiquarian form of appointment to a position of leadership, like that of a bank president, party chief or television station manager. These people view the priesthood in terms of self-fulfillment and "power" rather than from the sacramental point of view.
The second question posed: "Wouldn't you regard a class of people with no access to authority as second-class citizens?"
Archbishop Oscar Romero answered this line of thinking before he was killed by an assasins bullet: "Authority in the Church is not command, but service." This is the Church's authentic understanding of authority within the Church. Jesus Himself tells us that He came not to e served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many. Besides, many women exercise prominent positions within the Church and have been entrusted with much authority. And they are doing a remarkable job. But Christ has not called them to the priesthood just as He has not called most men to the priesthood. The priesthood, for reasons stated above, may never be viewed as a "right." Strictly speaking, we possess only contingent rights (those afforded us by God) and not intrinsic rights. Only God possesses intrinsic rights. Therefore, we are bound to avoid anything which opposes His Holy Will.
The third question posed: "How would you differentiate between a dissenter and someone who is not convinced of the inerrancy of a particular Church teaching?"
My opinion in this matter (and anything else touching on faith or morals) is not really relevant. However, the Church teaches, in its 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, that the nature of "religious submission of soul" or of "will and mind" that the Fathers of Vatican II said is to be given by the faithful, including theologians, to authoritative but noninfallibly proposed magisterial teachings (see Lumen Gentium, No. 25) is clear.
This Instruction clearly distinguishes between questions that theologians may raise about such teachings (nn. 24-31) and dissent from such teachings (nn. 32-41). It judges that questioning can be compatible with the "religious submission" required, but it firmly and unequivocally repudiates dissent from these teachings as incompatible with this "religious submission" and irreconcilable with the vocation of the theologian. Dissent from infallibly proposed magisterial teachings is a fortiori excluded.
The fourth and last question: "..do you see a problem with putting one's faith blindly in an institution ? And if so, how would one avoid doing this?"
I will answer this question with a question of my own: Is the Church merely an "institution" for you dear friend or is it something more? For those of us who are Catholic, the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ (see Pope Pius XII's Encyclical Mystici Corporis). We believe that Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and that, being the very essence of truth and integrity (in fact, Jesus IS Truth: John 14:6), that He is incapable of error and "can neither deceive nor be deceived."
We also believe, as told in Sacred Scripture, that after His Ascension into Heaven, He solemnly promised that He would send His Church "another Paraclete...the spirit of truth," to dwell with it forever (John 14: 16-17). And that He inspired the Apostle Paul (for whom I was named) to describe His Church as "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).
My dear friend, now that I have patiently answered all your questions I have a few of my own. Firstly, what is your argument - from the standpoint of sacramental theology - for believing that women should be ordained to the ministerial priesthood or that they are unjustly discriminated against because Christ has not called them to the same? Secondly, How is it possible for the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity to be guilty of error?
God love you, I wait with much anticipation for your response.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Friday, March 04, 2005
Gossip and slander
Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the most respected moral theologians in the United States, explains that: "It is a normal and valuable exercise of community for members of a group to exchange information about the personal doings and concerns of other members just insofar as doing so arises from love and contributes to cooperation and help for those in need. When it does not arise from love and merely serves curiosity, however, it is gossip: idle talk which treats those discussed as objects of astonishment, amusement, and so forth. Gossip is sinful, for it is idle talk, not directed toward building up community."
And with regards to slander, or calumny, he has this to say: "Detraction (also called 'defamation') is any act of communication that wrongfully sullies an individual's or group's reputation. It takes two forms: lying and communicating truths which should not be communicated. The former is called 'calumny'; the latter is simply called 'detraction.' Because of the good at stake and the violation of justice and love involved, all detraction, even that involving no lie, is of itself grave matter, although it admits of parvity of matter."
Do we engage in calumny or detraction? Do we listen to it willingly? If so, we should have recourse to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson
And with regards to slander, or calumny, he has this to say: "Detraction (also called 'defamation') is any act of communication that wrongfully sullies an individual's or group's reputation. It takes two forms: lying and communicating truths which should not be communicated. The former is called 'calumny'; the latter is simply called 'detraction.' Because of the good at stake and the violation of justice and love involved, all detraction, even that involving no lie, is of itself grave matter, although it admits of parvity of matter."
Do we engage in calumny or detraction? Do we listen to it willingly? If so, we should have recourse to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Homosexuality and Catholic doctrine
While it is certainly true that homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity" and that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" (CCC, 2358), still, the premise that homosexuality is a God-given orientation which must be accepted and affirmed by society is erroneous.
Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a Philadelphia area psychiatrist whose specialty is reparative therapy for those who suffer from same-sex attractions, has said that "..homosexuality is an attraction and not an orientation. In some ways homosexuality represents a false identity - a failure to develop that proper masculinity or femininity which God desires. Homosexuality is therefore considered to be an objective disorder."
And this is precisely the teaching of the Catholic Church: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial." (CCC, 2358).
Homosexuality and lesbianism are both on the increase. This fact is highly significant. Dr. Abram Kardiner, distinguished physician, psychoanalyst and anthropologist, states that homosexuality reaches pestilential and plague proportions in morally rotting societies during the final stages of total collapse.
According to Catholic doctrine, any disorderly tendency, above all to a vice contrary to nature, cannot have a right to citizenship in a person's thoughts. If someone in his mind makes a concession to this tendency, he sins. This is why in the Confiteor one asks forgiveness for thoughts, words and deeds.
As for the act of sodomy, it constitutes a sin that cries out to Heaven and clamors to God for vengeance (See Gn 18:20; Gn 19:12-13; Lv 18:22; Lv 18"24-28; Lv 20:13; 1 Cor 6: 9-10; Rm 1: 24-27; 2 Pt 2:4-9; Jd 7:8).
It is an ominous fact that the "gay" movement is having its way of life (more accurately its way of death) redefined as a simple variant of normal sexuality and woven into the fabric of society. The movement to legitimize homosexuality runs contrary to the constant teaching of the Church. In fact, Saint Thomas Aquinas, writing about sins against nature, explains: "..they are called passions of ignominy because they are not worthy of being named, according to that passage in Ephesians (5:12): 'For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.' For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistulas Sancti Pauli Ad Romanum, I, 26, pp. 27f).
Saint Catherine of Sienna, a religious mystic of the 14th century, relays words of Our Lord Jesus Christ about the vice against nature, which contaminated part of the clergy in her time. Referring to sacre ministers, He says: "They not only fail from resisting this frailty (of fallen human nature)...but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My divine justice, which could no longer bear them...It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves." (St. Catherine of Sienna, El dialogo, in Obras de Santa Catarina de Siena, Madrid: BAC, 1991, p. 292).
Tertullian, the great apologist of the Church in the second century, writes: 'We condemn all those who give themselves over to the excesses of luxury contrary to natural law...and expel them from the bosom of the Church, for such acts are greater monstrosities than sins." (Tertullian, De pudicitia, IV, in J. McNeill, La Iglesia ante la homosexualidad, p. 134).
Saint Augustine is just as frank in his condemnation of sodomy and similar vices: "Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed...for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust." (St. Augustine, Confessions, New York: Penguin, 1967; Book III. Chap 8, p.65).
If the events of September 11th are a warning, and I believe that they are, then the clergy sex scandal is a judgment. For years, members of the Church's hierarchy have been ignoring the warnings of Our Lady that toleration (and even promotion of) false teaching would lead to a time of crisis.
Many so-called "scripture scholars" and "moral theologians" have destroyed the faith and morality of millions. Many priests and religious "educators" in turn, influenced by these "scholars" and "theologians" have sown doubt about the scriptures and morality, thereby destroying the faith and morality of countless lay persons.
Their Destroyer is awake and waiting for them.
Until next time,
God love you
Paul
Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a Philadelphia area psychiatrist whose specialty is reparative therapy for those who suffer from same-sex attractions, has said that "..homosexuality is an attraction and not an orientation. In some ways homosexuality represents a false identity - a failure to develop that proper masculinity or femininity which God desires. Homosexuality is therefore considered to be an objective disorder."
And this is precisely the teaching of the Catholic Church: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial." (CCC, 2358).
Homosexuality and lesbianism are both on the increase. This fact is highly significant. Dr. Abram Kardiner, distinguished physician, psychoanalyst and anthropologist, states that homosexuality reaches pestilential and plague proportions in morally rotting societies during the final stages of total collapse.
According to Catholic doctrine, any disorderly tendency, above all to a vice contrary to nature, cannot have a right to citizenship in a person's thoughts. If someone in his mind makes a concession to this tendency, he sins. This is why in the Confiteor one asks forgiveness for thoughts, words and deeds.
As for the act of sodomy, it constitutes a sin that cries out to Heaven and clamors to God for vengeance (See Gn 18:20; Gn 19:12-13; Lv 18:22; Lv 18"24-28; Lv 20:13; 1 Cor 6: 9-10; Rm 1: 24-27; 2 Pt 2:4-9; Jd 7:8).
It is an ominous fact that the "gay" movement is having its way of life (more accurately its way of death) redefined as a simple variant of normal sexuality and woven into the fabric of society. The movement to legitimize homosexuality runs contrary to the constant teaching of the Church. In fact, Saint Thomas Aquinas, writing about sins against nature, explains: "..they are called passions of ignominy because they are not worthy of being named, according to that passage in Ephesians (5:12): 'For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.' For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistulas Sancti Pauli Ad Romanum, I, 26, pp. 27f).
Saint Catherine of Sienna, a religious mystic of the 14th century, relays words of Our Lord Jesus Christ about the vice against nature, which contaminated part of the clergy in her time. Referring to sacre ministers, He says: "They not only fail from resisting this frailty (of fallen human nature)...but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My divine justice, which could no longer bear them...It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves." (St. Catherine of Sienna, El dialogo, in Obras de Santa Catarina de Siena, Madrid: BAC, 1991, p. 292).
Tertullian, the great apologist of the Church in the second century, writes: 'We condemn all those who give themselves over to the excesses of luxury contrary to natural law...and expel them from the bosom of the Church, for such acts are greater monstrosities than sins." (Tertullian, De pudicitia, IV, in J. McNeill, La Iglesia ante la homosexualidad, p. 134).
Saint Augustine is just as frank in his condemnation of sodomy and similar vices: "Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed...for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust." (St. Augustine, Confessions, New York: Penguin, 1967; Book III. Chap 8, p.65).
If the events of September 11th are a warning, and I believe that they are, then the clergy sex scandal is a judgment. For years, members of the Church's hierarchy have been ignoring the warnings of Our Lady that toleration (and even promotion of) false teaching would lead to a time of crisis.
Many so-called "scripture scholars" and "moral theologians" have destroyed the faith and morality of millions. Many priests and religious "educators" in turn, influenced by these "scholars" and "theologians" have sown doubt about the scriptures and morality, thereby destroying the faith and morality of countless lay persons.
Their Destroyer is awake and waiting for them.
Until next time,
God love you
Paul
Monday, February 14, 2005
Sister Lucy dies
Sister Lucy of Fatima has died. We ask her to pray for us and intercede for all of our needs.
Paul
Paul
Monday, February 07, 2005
Pope John Paul II and salvation for non-Catholics
In his eigth encyclical entitled Redemptoris Missio signed on December 7, 1990, Pope John Paul II reminded the Church that salvation in Christ is offered to all. He wrote, "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accomodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation." (Redemptoris Missio, No. 10).
Paul
Paul
Saturday, February 05, 2005
Catechism of the Catholic Church on salvation
Outside the Church there is no salvation
"How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: 'Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." (CCC, 846).
"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." (CCC, 847).
This is the authentic teaching of the Church as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and at Vatican II. When examining the Athanasian Creed, we should remember this teaching so that our understanding of that Creed won't be flawed.
God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson
"How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: 'Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." (CCC, 846).
"This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation." (CCC, 847).
This is the authentic teaching of the Church as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and at Vatican II. When examining the Athanasian Creed, we should remember this teaching so that our understanding of that Creed won't be flawed.
God love you,
Paul Anthony Melanson
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
A Prayer for Love of Neighbor
Lord Jesus,
you teach me that the greatest of all virtues is love.
I earnestly ask for an increase
of true love for my neighbor.
Give me a love that is long-suffering,
kind not envious,
not self-seeking, and not irritable.
Let my love take no note of injury,
and refuse to rejoice when injustice triumphs
but rather be joyful when truth prevails.
Make it a love that is ready to make allowance,
that always trusts and hopes,
and is ever patient.
May my love be kind, merciful, and forgiving
in imitation of your Father's love for me.
Amen.
you teach me that the greatest of all virtues is love.
I earnestly ask for an increase
of true love for my neighbor.
Give me a love that is long-suffering,
kind not envious,
not self-seeking, and not irritable.
Let my love take no note of injury,
and refuse to rejoice when injustice triumphs
but rather be joyful when truth prevails.
Make it a love that is ready to make allowance,
that always trusts and hopes,
and is ever patient.
May my love be kind, merciful, and forgiving
in imitation of your Father's love for me.
Amen.
Pope Pius XII
"He who makes a distinction between Jews and other men is unfaithful to God and is in conflict with God's commands." - Pope Pius XII, Broadcast of Vatican Radio to the people of France, June 1943.
Dominus Iesus
I would invite readers to visit: http://www.faithfulvoice.com for an excellent treatment of the declaration "Dominus Iesus: On The Unicity And Salvific Universality Of Jesus Christ And The Church" issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
This instruction is very important since it warns that, "The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability - while recognizing the distinction - of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church." (No. 4).
Christ founded a Church and made it necessary for salvation. And we must avoid any form of religious indifferentism or "pluralistic" theories which suggest that there are many "paths" to salvation, all of which are equally valid. At the same time, as the Church also teaches, "..those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the People of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given (the Jews) and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom 9:4-5). On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues (cf. Rom 11:28-29). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator." (Lumen Gentium, No. 16).
As Catholics, we should not only avoid religious indifferentism and false "pluralistic" theories, but we should also refrain from judging anyone's internal guilt. As Gaudium et Spes, No. 28 teaches, "God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of ANYONE."
This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture: " There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:12).
So here's an idea. Let's all admit that there is one God and that we are not Him. And leave the judging to God. When we adopt any other attitude, we are engaging in pride and fostering an "us verses them" attitude. And we've seen the tragic results of such an attitude. My father, a devoted Catholic and career soldier, witnessed firsthand the ovens at Auschwitz and several other concentration camps where innocent men, women and children were burned into ashes simply because they were born Jewish. That was their only "crime."
This is why I have been exposing the radical anti-semitism which may be found at the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond. Standing with my Jewish friends I say along with them: Never again!
Never again.
Paul Anthony Melanson
This instruction is very important since it warns that, "The Church's constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but de iure (or in principle). As a consequence, it is held that certain truths have been superseded; for example, the definitive and complete character of the revelation of Jesus Christ, the nature of Christian faith as compared with that of belief in other religions, the inspired nature of the books of Sacred Scripture, the personal unity between the Eternal Word and Jesus of Nazareth, the unity of the economy of the Incarnate Word and the Holy Spirit, the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ, the universal salvific mediation of the Church, the inseparability - while recognizing the distinction - of the kingdom of God, the kingdom of Christ, and the Church, and the subsistence of the one Church of Christ in the Catholic Church." (No. 4).
Christ founded a Church and made it necessary for salvation. And we must avoid any form of religious indifferentism or "pluralistic" theories which suggest that there are many "paths" to salvation, all of which are equally valid. At the same time, as the Church also teaches, "..those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the People of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given (the Jews) and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom 9:4-5). On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts he makes nor of the calls he issues (cf. Rom 11:28-29). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator." (Lumen Gentium, No. 16).
As Catholics, we should not only avoid religious indifferentism and false "pluralistic" theories, but we should also refrain from judging anyone's internal guilt. As Gaudium et Spes, No. 28 teaches, "God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of ANYONE."
This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture: " There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?" (James 4:12).
So here's an idea. Let's all admit that there is one God and that we are not Him. And leave the judging to God. When we adopt any other attitude, we are engaging in pride and fostering an "us verses them" attitude. And we've seen the tragic results of such an attitude. My father, a devoted Catholic and career soldier, witnessed firsthand the ovens at Auschwitz and several other concentration camps where innocent men, women and children were burned into ashes simply because they were born Jewish. That was their only "crime."
This is why I have been exposing the radical anti-semitism which may be found at the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond. Standing with my Jewish friends I say along with them: Never again!
Never again.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Romans 11
In the eleventh chapter of his letter to the Romans, St. Paul writes that: "But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. You will say, 'Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.' That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; OTHERWISE YOU TOO WILL BE CUT OFF. And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you have been cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, HOW MUCH MORE WILL THESE NATURAL BRANCHES BE GRAFTED BACK INTO THEIR OWN OLIVE TREE. Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this MYSTERY, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, AND SO ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED; as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob'; 'and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.' As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, FOR YOUR SAKE; but as regards election THEY ARE BELOVED for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God ARE IRREVOCABLE." (Rom. 11:17-29).
This is, as the Holy Spirit tells us through St. Paul, a "mystery." Almighty God has His plan. As Catholics, we should avoid any semblance of boasting over the fact that we have been grafted onto the olive tree. We are reminded that if the natural branches have been cut off, that this could all the more easily happen with those of us who are mere grafts.
Paul
This is, as the Holy Spirit tells us through St. Paul, a "mystery." Almighty God has His plan. As Catholics, we should avoid any semblance of boasting over the fact that we have been grafted onto the olive tree. We are reminded that if the natural branches have been cut off, that this could all the more easily happen with those of us who are mere grafts.
Paul
Excellent definition of what constitutes a "cult."
An excellent definition of what constitutes a cult may be found at: http://www.spiritdaily.com/cults.htm
Also, for an in-depth analysis on where Father Leonard Feeney went wrong, please read the following article which is located at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.txt
Paul
Also, for an in-depth analysis on where Father Leonard Feeney went wrong, please read the following article which is located at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/FEENEY.txt
Paul
Veiled threat?
A layman who is a member of the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, recently wrote me an e-mail in which he says that if I am the Saint Benedict Center's "enemy" I am also his "enemy."
I wonder if this is a veiled threat? This is the same layman who informed me that he had "many guns" and that, "I'd like to see them take my guns." Whoever "they" are. Perhaps this was a reference to the government?
At any rate, this man also informed me that he and others study Tae Kwon Do at the Center. Guns and martial arts. Not what one expects to find at a "monastery."
Paul Anthony Melanson
Is there a Feeneyite-Neo-Nazi/White-Supremacist Connection?
In his e-letter of January 13, 2004, Mr. Karl Keating (the founder of Catholic Answers, a Catholic apologetics apostolate), expressed his concern over the fact that the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire has not renounced the hard-core anti-semitism which may be found at www.fatherfeeney.org. He wrote, "Have the folks at the Saint Benedict Center - including old-timers who used to join Feeney in Boston Common - renounced the anti-semitism that used to come from the mouths of Feeneyite speakers? Have they renounced the anti-semitism that was the chief note of 'The Point' and therefore of the Saint Benedict Center in the 1950's? Have they renounced the anti-semitism that appears at the website of the other Feeneyite offshoot? Not that I can determine. They have sidestepped such questions. They still run articles from 'The Point,' and that suggests they are not overly embarassed about what appeared in that publication..."
It is indeed very strange that the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond has not renounced the website of the Feeneyite offshoot which maintains a website which is very antagonistic toward the Jewish People. And all the more disturbing since this website has a link to a website which serves as a sort of hub or clearinghouse for various anti-semitic hate-groups such as Aryan Nation and the KKK. If one visits this link: http://www.fatherfeeney.org/point/56-mar.htm one cannot help but notice a banner ad which reads "heretical." This banner ad is actually a link to the website which serves as a hub for hate-groups.
At the top of this website's opening page, there is a quote from Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf (My Story) which reads, "If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of every individual citizen." This website also has a little statement which asserts that the website has to move often, sometimes every week, to avoid government authorities who would seek to "censor" their "point of view." As well as this little poem: "If we're to survive, let alone thrive, We've got to get rid of the yid."
One may find many articles at the "Heretical Press" website which demean Jewish People, African-Americans, women, and various other groups which are deemed "subhuman." Also, there are a multitude of links to websites owned and operated by various other hate-groups. For example, the following websites (and many more) are listed:
"Ohrdruff," a website dedicated to anti-semitism which includes a picture of two hanged men and the caption: "These hebe criminals were caught dealing in the black market and were turned into windchimes as a result."
"Stormfront," which is billed as the "..most popular Nationalist website worldwide."
"NSDAP/AO," which is billed as "not a neo-nazi organization but the real thing."
"Knights of the KKK," which needs no introduction.
"Historical Review Press," which claims to be operated by a "long established British publisher" responsible for a work entitled "Did six million really die."
"Focal Point Publications," which discusses "the concerted antics of Jews in suppressing free speech."
"Final Conflict," a website which is supposedly "British-Internationalist" and which is clearly Neo-Nazi.
"Comedy Porn," billed as "Wacky and perverse: the mother of all porn sites."
And various other websites, such as Aryan Nation and one called "Air Photo Evidence" which purports to have "aerial photographs of German WWII concentration camps" which prove that "there is no evidence of the extermination of millions of people."
Why would the website which serves as a clearinghouse for anti-semitic and other hate groups be advertised at a Feeneyite website? Is the community in Richmond supportive of www.fatherfeeney.org? If not, why haven't they renounced the anti-semitism which may be found there as Mr. Karl Keating has noted in his e-letter? And why has the founder of the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, Mr. Douglas Bersaw, denied the Holocaust?
These are disturbing questions. And, as Mr. Keating has said, they have been side-stepped by the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond.
Until next time,
God love you
Paul Anthony Melanson
It is indeed very strange that the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond has not renounced the website of the Feeneyite offshoot which maintains a website which is very antagonistic toward the Jewish People. And all the more disturbing since this website has a link to a website which serves as a sort of hub or clearinghouse for various anti-semitic hate-groups such as Aryan Nation and the KKK. If one visits this link: http://www.fatherfeeney.org/point/56-mar.htm one cannot help but notice a banner ad which reads "heretical." This banner ad is actually a link to the website which serves as a hub for hate-groups.
At the top of this website's opening page, there is a quote from Adolf Hitler's book Mein Kampf (My Story) which reads, "If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of every individual citizen." This website also has a little statement which asserts that the website has to move often, sometimes every week, to avoid government authorities who would seek to "censor" their "point of view." As well as this little poem: "If we're to survive, let alone thrive, We've got to get rid of the yid."
One may find many articles at the "Heretical Press" website which demean Jewish People, African-Americans, women, and various other groups which are deemed "subhuman." Also, there are a multitude of links to websites owned and operated by various other hate-groups. For example, the following websites (and many more) are listed:
"Ohrdruff," a website dedicated to anti-semitism which includes a picture of two hanged men and the caption: "These hebe criminals were caught dealing in the black market and were turned into windchimes as a result."
"Stormfront," which is billed as the "..most popular Nationalist website worldwide."
"NSDAP/AO," which is billed as "not a neo-nazi organization but the real thing."
"Knights of the KKK," which needs no introduction.
"Historical Review Press," which claims to be operated by a "long established British publisher" responsible for a work entitled "Did six million really die."
"Focal Point Publications," which discusses "the concerted antics of Jews in suppressing free speech."
"Final Conflict," a website which is supposedly "British-Internationalist" and which is clearly Neo-Nazi.
"Comedy Porn," billed as "Wacky and perverse: the mother of all porn sites."
And various other websites, such as Aryan Nation and one called "Air Photo Evidence" which purports to have "aerial photographs of German WWII concentration camps" which prove that "there is no evidence of the extermination of millions of people."
Why would the website which serves as a clearinghouse for anti-semitic and other hate groups be advertised at a Feeneyite website? Is the community in Richmond supportive of www.fatherfeeney.org? If not, why haven't they renounced the anti-semitism which may be found there as Mr. Karl Keating has noted in his e-letter? And why has the founder of the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond, Mr. Douglas Bersaw, denied the Holocaust?
These are disturbing questions. And, as Mr. Keating has said, they have been side-stepped by the Saint Benedict Center in Richmond.
Until next time,
God love you
Paul Anthony Melanson
The horror of Ohrdruf Concentration Camp
Burned corpses next to a pit with a mound of dirt in the background. This photograph was taken by Paul Wentink, an American soldier, following the liberation of Ohrdruf Concentration Camp. Ohrdruf was a sub-camp of Buchenwald Concentration Camp. A forced labor camp, Ohrdruf prisoners worked building huge underground mountain tunnels that housed V-weapons factories.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Quotation with brief comment
"Christ, the Master of humility, manifests His Truth only to the humble and hides Himself from the proud." - St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419).
In other words, when a small band of cultists in the backwoods of Richmond, New Hampshire (or dissidents found anywhere else for that matter) believe themselves to be wiser than the Holy Father and all the Bishops throughout the world, you know humility isn't exactly their strong suit.
Paul
In other words, when a small band of cultists in the backwoods of Richmond, New Hampshire (or dissidents found anywhere else for that matter) believe themselves to be wiser than the Holy Father and all the Bishops throughout the world, you know humility isn't exactly their strong suit.
Paul
Saint Benedict Center rejects the Catechism and Vatican II
Please visit this link to read an article which is to be found at the Saint Benedict Center's website: http://www.catholicism.org/pages/crusdr19.htm
Seems that members of this cult reject Vatican II (insisting that the Holy Spirit was not at work during this Council and that therefore its not infallible) and that the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which Pope John Paul II has referred to as "a sure norm") is flawed.
Paul
Seems that members of this cult reject Vatican II (insisting that the Holy Spirit was not at work during this Council and that therefore its not infallible) and that the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which Pope John Paul II has referred to as "a sure norm") is flawed.
Paul
Friday, January 28, 2005
Interesting e-letter from Karl Keating, well-known apologist
Dear friends,
Kindly take the time to visit this link: http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp
This very interesting e-letter from Karl Keating is definitely worth reading.
Paul
Kindly take the time to visit this link: http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040113.asp
This very interesting e-letter from Karl Keating is definitely worth reading.
Paul
For dissidents of all stripes: both "traditional" and "liberal."
Ad Tuendam Fidem, Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio of Pope John Paul II, inserted a second paragraph into Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law. The second paragraph reads, "..each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church."
Pretty clear isn't it folks. Unless you are one of those who has succumbed to pride and are currently rejecting teachings which must be definitively held.
Paul
Pretty clear isn't it folks. Unless you are one of those who has succumbed to pride and are currently rejecting teachings which must be definitively held.
Paul
Brother Andre Marie: A Man in Denial
Brother Andre Marie of the Saint Benedict Center cult has posted a comment to this website in which he accuses me of avoiding his comments and then goes on to suggest that such an attitude is "neither manly nor Christian."
How ironic. For it is Brother Andre Marie who is living in denial and who fails to acknowledge those authentic teachings of the Church which he deems "unacceptable." Brother Andre Marie is blind to the fact that it is intrinsic to the Catholic religion, that before one can become a member, he must satisfy himself that the answers to all questions of faith or morals are contained in a Deposit of Faith which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian established by God Himself and endowed with infallible protection against any change or error.
Since the only reason for believing any of it is God's promise that it is all infallibly true, it is all or none. Brother Andre Marie and his Saint Benedict Center cult have rejected the Church's authentic interpretation of the dogma which states that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This is why this dishonest man fails to acknowledge the letter from the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston dated August 8, 1949, in which the Holy Office explains that this dogma "is to be understood as the Church itself understands it" and that "Our Savior did not leave it to private judgment to explain what is contained in the deposit of faith, but to the doctrinal authority of the Church."
Like their Protestant counterparts, the cultists at the Saint Benedict Center have, as the reason for their belief, not that of the infallible Teaching Authority established by God, but their own private judgment. At the same time, they condemn Protestants for taking the same approach to faith.
Brother Andre Marie then quotes from several official Church documents pertaining to the dogma. For example, the Fourth Lateran Council's teaching that, "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." And that's absolutely true. But who exactly is "ouside the Church"? Certainly not all of those who have not been physically baptized in the Catholic Church. As I have already reminded readers, this is not the teaching of Trent. And it most certainly was not the teaching of Pope Pius IX, when he taught that those who remain "outside" the Church because of their "invincible ignorance" are therefore not guilty in the eyes of the Lord.
The dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation" must be reconciled with another revealed truth. One which Brother Andre Marie apparently rejects. Namely, that God desires the salvation of all men (see 1 Timothy 2:4). The fact that one can be saved "outside" the Church by reason of his subjective disposition and good faith, not to mention his unconscious desire and connection with the Church, is clearly reflected in the teaching of Popes Pius IX, Pius XII (In his Encyclical Letter Mysici Corporis), and by the Holy Office in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
And what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church have to say in this regard? We read that, "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ." (CCC, 1258). And again, "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." (CCC, 1260).
So much for Brother Andre Marie's flawed understanding of the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation." What else does this intellectual giant have to say in his inane comments on this website? He writes, "The testimony about Father Feeney you cite from Joseph Devers agrees with what the enemies of our faith have said about him. Your friends in the ADL could not have said it better. However, I've known many people who knew Father Feeney - priests, religious, and laymen; friends, enemies, and those who are indifferent. By and large, the portrait they paint is of a very charitable man who wanted people to go to heaven."
Really? I know many people myself who remember a bitter, angry priest named Father Feeney who would routinely embarass himself as he told various onlookers: many of them Protestants and Jews, that they were all damned to Hell. My mother, who is in her seventies, remembers the priest as one who seemed to be psychologically troubled and very eccentric. Evidently Brother Andre Marie has no problem with a priest rendering judgment on the souls of individual persons as if he were God Himself. And that says much about Brother Andre Marie himself. In fact, in concluding his imbecilic comments, he writes, "may Our Lord have mercy on your soul." As if I am endangering my immortal soul by reminding readers of the Church's authentic teaching on the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation" as well as Father Leonard Feeney's profoundly hateful rhetoric aimed at those he judged were going to Hell.
Seems like charity isn't exactly a strong suit in either Father Feeney's (or Brother Andre Marie's) brand of Catholicism. And what of his claim that he knows of those who would paint a more "charitable" portrait of Father Feeney? By "charitable" he obviously means "more sympathetic toward Father Feeney's distorted ideas and personality". This would come as no surprise to me. After all, even Hitler had a circle of friends who would speak of him in more "charitable" terms. But then, they hadn't lost family and friends in the death camps.
One last thought regarding Brother Andre Marie's adolescent commentary. His assertion that I am somehow less than "manly" because I won't engage in an argumentative and hate-filled "dialogue" with him is laughable. I have answered his comments, not because they are of any merit, they assuredly are not. But for the sake of my readers. As for my manliness, I was serving with Air Force Intelligence and training soldiers in the martial arts while defending this great nation at the same time that Brother Andre Marie was wearing short pants and crying on his mother's lap.
Enough said!
Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson
How ironic. For it is Brother Andre Marie who is living in denial and who fails to acknowledge those authentic teachings of the Church which he deems "unacceptable." Brother Andre Marie is blind to the fact that it is intrinsic to the Catholic religion, that before one can become a member, he must satisfy himself that the answers to all questions of faith or morals are contained in a Deposit of Faith which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian established by God Himself and endowed with infallible protection against any change or error.
Since the only reason for believing any of it is God's promise that it is all infallibly true, it is all or none. Brother Andre Marie and his Saint Benedict Center cult have rejected the Church's authentic interpretation of the dogma which states that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." This is why this dishonest man fails to acknowledge the letter from the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston dated August 8, 1949, in which the Holy Office explains that this dogma "is to be understood as the Church itself understands it" and that "Our Savior did not leave it to private judgment to explain what is contained in the deposit of faith, but to the doctrinal authority of the Church."
Like their Protestant counterparts, the cultists at the Saint Benedict Center have, as the reason for their belief, not that of the infallible Teaching Authority established by God, but their own private judgment. At the same time, they condemn Protestants for taking the same approach to faith.
Brother Andre Marie then quotes from several official Church documents pertaining to the dogma. For example, the Fourth Lateran Council's teaching that, "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved." And that's absolutely true. But who exactly is "ouside the Church"? Certainly not all of those who have not been physically baptized in the Catholic Church. As I have already reminded readers, this is not the teaching of Trent. And it most certainly was not the teaching of Pope Pius IX, when he taught that those who remain "outside" the Church because of their "invincible ignorance" are therefore not guilty in the eyes of the Lord.
The dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation" must be reconciled with another revealed truth. One which Brother Andre Marie apparently rejects. Namely, that God desires the salvation of all men (see 1 Timothy 2:4). The fact that one can be saved "outside" the Church by reason of his subjective disposition and good faith, not to mention his unconscious desire and connection with the Church, is clearly reflected in the teaching of Popes Pius IX, Pius XII (In his Encyclical Letter Mysici Corporis), and by the Holy Office in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
And what does the Catechism of the Catholic Church have to say in this regard? We read that, "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ." (CCC, 1258). And again, "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." (CCC, 1260).
So much for Brother Andre Marie's flawed understanding of the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation." What else does this intellectual giant have to say in his inane comments on this website? He writes, "The testimony about Father Feeney you cite from Joseph Devers agrees with what the enemies of our faith have said about him. Your friends in the ADL could not have said it better. However, I've known many people who knew Father Feeney - priests, religious, and laymen; friends, enemies, and those who are indifferent. By and large, the portrait they paint is of a very charitable man who wanted people to go to heaven."
Really? I know many people myself who remember a bitter, angry priest named Father Feeney who would routinely embarass himself as he told various onlookers: many of them Protestants and Jews, that they were all damned to Hell. My mother, who is in her seventies, remembers the priest as one who seemed to be psychologically troubled and very eccentric. Evidently Brother Andre Marie has no problem with a priest rendering judgment on the souls of individual persons as if he were God Himself. And that says much about Brother Andre Marie himself. In fact, in concluding his imbecilic comments, he writes, "may Our Lord have mercy on your soul." As if I am endangering my immortal soul by reminding readers of the Church's authentic teaching on the dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation" as well as Father Leonard Feeney's profoundly hateful rhetoric aimed at those he judged were going to Hell.
Seems like charity isn't exactly a strong suit in either Father Feeney's (or Brother Andre Marie's) brand of Catholicism. And what of his claim that he knows of those who would paint a more "charitable" portrait of Father Feeney? By "charitable" he obviously means "more sympathetic toward Father Feeney's distorted ideas and personality". This would come as no surprise to me. After all, even Hitler had a circle of friends who would speak of him in more "charitable" terms. But then, they hadn't lost family and friends in the death camps.
One last thought regarding Brother Andre Marie's adolescent commentary. His assertion that I am somehow less than "manly" because I won't engage in an argumentative and hate-filled "dialogue" with him is laughable. I have answered his comments, not because they are of any merit, they assuredly are not. But for the sake of my readers. As for my manliness, I was serving with Air Force Intelligence and training soldiers in the martial arts while defending this great nation at the same time that Brother Andre Marie was wearing short pants and crying on his mother's lap.
Enough said!
Until next time,
God love you all
Paul Anthony Melanson
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
The Saint Benedict Center: A Cult 's theology of hate
As I have already shown, the Saint Benedict Center cult carries anti-semitic articles at its website. Articles which attempt to hold the Jewish People collectively responsible for Jesus' death. In the same fashion as many Neo-Nazi and other White Supremacist groups, the Saint Benedict Center cult promotes a "theology" which is extremely antagonistic toward the Jewish People.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official teaching of Holy Mother Church which members of the Saint Benedict Center cult clearly reject, states quite clearly that: " The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles' calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept 'the ignorance' of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: 'His blood be on us and on our children!' a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:
...Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion....The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture." (CCC, 597, quoting from Nostra Aetate, No. 4).
A member of the Saint Benedict Center cult e-mailed me today, referring to my posts as "garbage." This says much regarding this man's disturbed personality. For my posts reflect the Church's authentic teaching on the dogma which states that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" as well as the Church's authentic teaching on the Jewish People with regards to Jesus' death.
What this poor soul was really suggesting is that the Church's teaching, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is "garbage." In other words, for him, the teaching of Jesus Himself through His Magisterium is "garbage."
Pray for this confused man and the anti-semitic cult which he belongs to.
God love you all,
Paul
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official teaching of Holy Mother Church which members of the Saint Benedict Center cult clearly reject, states quite clearly that: " The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles' calls to conversion after Pentecost. Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept 'the ignorance' of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: 'His blood be on us and on our children!' a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence. As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council:
...Neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion....The Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture." (CCC, 597, quoting from Nostra Aetate, No. 4).
A member of the Saint Benedict Center cult e-mailed me today, referring to my posts as "garbage." This says much regarding this man's disturbed personality. For my posts reflect the Church's authentic teaching on the dogma which states that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" as well as the Church's authentic teaching on the Jewish People with regards to Jesus' death.
What this poor soul was really suggesting is that the Church's teaching, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is "garbage." In other words, for him, the teaching of Jesus Himself through His Magisterium is "garbage."
Pray for this confused man and the anti-semitic cult which he belongs to.
God love you all,
Paul
Monday, January 24, 2005
Our Lady still weeps
On February 2, 1995, on the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple, a small statue of the Madonna portraying the Queen of Peace and coming from Medjugorje, began weeping tears of blood in the garden of a family living in the parish of S. Agostino at Civitavecchia. To see what the Vatican has to say about this phenomenon, please visit: www.spiritdaily.com
Still more on the Saint Benedict Center Cult
In his acclaimed book on the life of Richard Cardinal Cushing entitled "Cushing of Boston: A Candid Portrait," noted author Joseph Dever - who was both a well known novelist and feature writer for the Boston Sunday Herald as well as a former editor of the Bruce Publishing Company, devotes a chapter to the Leonard Feeney affair.
He writes, "Many Boston Catholics - this writer included - were friends of Feeney and his brother, the whimsical, lovable fellow Jesuit, Thomas Butler Feeney, during World War II and through the late Forties. The relationship was laudable and normal in those days. Eventually, Father Feeney began saying and doing strange things; perhaps he was under exceptional mental strain. His rigid, fanatical emphasis on 'No salvation outside the Church' was bad enough at first...But Father Feeney's rigid fanaticism deteriorated steadily into bitter invective. He reduced the doctrine to the absurd.." (p. 144).
He continues: "Anyone who has ever been to St. Benedict Center during the first days of deterioration, or to the Sunday 'seances' at the Boston Common during the final days, can recall some of Father Feeney's sick, horrifying rhetoric. Even in the early days, no difference of opinion, no matter how gentle or reasonable, would be tolerated." (pp. 145-146).
Of course not. When spiritual pride sets in, it is easy for a person's Catholicism to become perverted. And even angry and possibly violent.
God love you,
Paul
He writes, "Many Boston Catholics - this writer included - were friends of Feeney and his brother, the whimsical, lovable fellow Jesuit, Thomas Butler Feeney, during World War II and through the late Forties. The relationship was laudable and normal in those days. Eventually, Father Feeney began saying and doing strange things; perhaps he was under exceptional mental strain. His rigid, fanatical emphasis on 'No salvation outside the Church' was bad enough at first...But Father Feeney's rigid fanaticism deteriorated steadily into bitter invective. He reduced the doctrine to the absurd.." (p. 144).
He continues: "Anyone who has ever been to St. Benedict Center during the first days of deterioration, or to the Sunday 'seances' at the Boston Common during the final days, can recall some of Father Feeney's sick, horrifying rhetoric. Even in the early days, no difference of opinion, no matter how gentle or reasonable, would be tolerated." (pp. 145-146).
Of course not. When spiritual pride sets in, it is easy for a person's Catholicism to become perverted. And even angry and possibly violent.
God love you,
Paul
Saturday, January 22, 2005
A brilliant rebuttal from Mr. Douglas Bersaw
In a hateful and argumentative e-mail sent to me today, Mr. Douglas Bersaw once again denies the reality of the Holocaust and ignores all of the disturbing facts revealed about his cult in Richmond, New Hampshire. No mention is made of how the Diocese of Manchester has stated clearly that this "community" is not in "union with the Church." No mention is made of the hateful and anti-semitic articles which may be found at the website belonging to his cult. There is no mention in his e-mail of his cults hateful and arrogant attitude toward the Church's authentic teaching as well as its authority.
To his credit, Mr. Bersaw does make one legitimate point. He faults me for suggesting that his cult is located on 200 acres when in reality it rests on 15. This faux pas is not mine however. I was merely quoting from The Boston Globe.
What a tremendous rebuttal.
Having read this man's hateful e-mail, I understand more than ever why so many residents in Richmond worry about his cult. Could the Saint Benedict Center be another Waco in the making?
Paul
To his credit, Mr. Bersaw does make one legitimate point. He faults me for suggesting that his cult is located on 200 acres when in reality it rests on 15. This faux pas is not mine however. I was merely quoting from The Boston Globe.
What a tremendous rebuttal.
Having read this man's hateful e-mail, I understand more than ever why so many residents in Richmond worry about his cult. Could the Saint Benedict Center be another Waco in the making?
Paul
The Jewish People
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel. It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek." (Romans 1: 16).
In an article which may be found at the Saint Benedict Center website, and whose author is unknown, the Jewish people are described as being the "backbone of the anti-Christian army." But the Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about them: "And when one considers the future, God's people of the Old Covenant and the New People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus." (CCC, 840).
And again: "The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, 'the first to hear the Word of God.' The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ'; for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (CCC, 839).
There you have it: The authentic teaching of the Church regarding our Jewish friends and the teaching of anti-semitic bigots.
I'll stay with the Magisterial teaching. And I'll continue to cherish my Jewish friends, even while disagreeing with them on the Person of Jesus Christ.
God love you all,
Paul
In an article which may be found at the Saint Benedict Center website, and whose author is unknown, the Jewish people are described as being the "backbone of the anti-Christian army." But the Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about them: "And when one considers the future, God's people of the Old Covenant and the New People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus." (CCC, 840).
And again: "The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, 'the first to hear the Word of God.' The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews 'belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ'; for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (CCC, 839).
There you have it: The authentic teaching of the Church regarding our Jewish friends and the teaching of anti-semitic bigots.
I'll stay with the Magisterial teaching. And I'll continue to cherish my Jewish friends, even while disagreeing with them on the Person of Jesus Christ.
God love you all,
Paul
More on the Saint Benedict Center
A friend of mine was visiting the website of the Saint Benedict Center out of curiosity the other day. He informed me how he typed the word "Jew" into the search engine at this site just out of curiosity - since Mr. Douglas Bersaw, the Center's founder, would appear to deny the reality of the Holocaust.
The results? The very first article listed in the series was an article entitled "The Secret of the Masons and the Jews." an article which first appeared in a periodical called "The Point." In this article, readers are told that, "From the time the Apostles first began to evangelize the nations, the Catholic Church has had one great, fierce, and enduring enemy. That enemy is the Jews - the people who rejected their King and their God, who crucified Him, and who prophesied the stain that should forever mark them, in their defiant shout, 'His Blood be upon us and upon our children.'....For twenty centuries the Jews have never ceased to reiterate their rejection of Jesus. With concentrated Hebrew intensity they have bent themselves to the task of assaulting the Church which He founded and in which He lives. It is that purpose that has bound the Jews together - a stubborn, alien knot that refuses to be dissolved into any society. Throughout history the Jews have been the soul of every anti-Christian movement. There has not been a single important program or organization aimed at the overthrow of the Catholic Church in which they cannot be found lurking." (http://www.catholicism.org/pages/masonjews.htm ).
And so, according to this article - found through the search engine at the Saint Benedict Center website, the Jewish people are:
1. The Catholic Church's "one great, fierce, and enduring enemy."
2. A people who crucified Christ
3. A people who are stained with the Blood of Jesus
4. A people bent on assaulting the Catholic Church
5. A people whose mutual hatred of the Church is what has bound them together, this is their purpose.
6. A people whose stubborness constitutes an "alien knot" which prevents them from being assimilated into a society.
7. A people who are the "soul" of every anti-Christian movement.
8. A people who are "found lurking" behind every single important program or organization "aimed at the overthrow of the Catholic Church."
The friend who sent me this article actually visited the Saint Benedict Center recently and told me that the community appears to be fascinated with the Jewish community and that there are talks given at the Center which are usually very unflattering toward the Jewish community. Could it be that residents of the town of Richmond, New Hampshire, who indicated in a recent article published in The Keene Sentinel that they have serious concerns regarding the Center, have reason to be concerned after all?
Paul Anthony Melanson
The results? The very first article listed in the series was an article entitled "The Secret of the Masons and the Jews." an article which first appeared in a periodical called "The Point." In this article, readers are told that, "From the time the Apostles first began to evangelize the nations, the Catholic Church has had one great, fierce, and enduring enemy. That enemy is the Jews - the people who rejected their King and their God, who crucified Him, and who prophesied the stain that should forever mark them, in their defiant shout, 'His Blood be upon us and upon our children.'....For twenty centuries the Jews have never ceased to reiterate their rejection of Jesus. With concentrated Hebrew intensity they have bent themselves to the task of assaulting the Church which He founded and in which He lives. It is that purpose that has bound the Jews together - a stubborn, alien knot that refuses to be dissolved into any society. Throughout history the Jews have been the soul of every anti-Christian movement. There has not been a single important program or organization aimed at the overthrow of the Catholic Church in which they cannot be found lurking." (http://www.catholicism.org/pages/masonjews.htm ).
And so, according to this article - found through the search engine at the Saint Benedict Center website, the Jewish people are:
1. The Catholic Church's "one great, fierce, and enduring enemy."
2. A people who crucified Christ
3. A people who are stained with the Blood of Jesus
4. A people bent on assaulting the Catholic Church
5. A people whose mutual hatred of the Church is what has bound them together, this is their purpose.
6. A people whose stubborness constitutes an "alien knot" which prevents them from being assimilated into a society.
7. A people who are the "soul" of every anti-Christian movement.
8. A people who are "found lurking" behind every single important program or organization "aimed at the overthrow of the Catholic Church."
The friend who sent me this article actually visited the Saint Benedict Center recently and told me that the community appears to be fascinated with the Jewish community and that there are talks given at the Center which are usually very unflattering toward the Jewish community. Could it be that residents of the town of Richmond, New Hampshire, who indicated in a recent article published in The Keene Sentinel that they have serious concerns regarding the Center, have reason to be concerned after all?
Paul Anthony Melanson
Friday, January 21, 2005
Pope John Paul II waves to visitors at the Vatican
Questions or comments regarding articles at this website? Please contact: cleghornboy@juno.com
Thnak you.
Some relevant canons
Can. 1041: "The following are irregular as regards the reception of orders:
1. "A person who labors under some form of insanity or other psychic defect due to which, after consultation with experts, he is judged incapable of rightly carrying out the ministry"
2. "A person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy or schism"
Can. 1045: "Ignorance of the irregularities and impediments does not exempt from them"
Can. 1016: "As regards the diaconal ordination of those who intend to become members of the secular clergy, the proper bishop is the bishop of the diocese in which the candidate has a domicile or the diocese to which he intends to devote himself; as regards the presbyteral ordination of secular clerics, the proper bishop is the bishop of the diocese into which the candidate has been incardinated through the diaconate"
Can. 1017: "A bishop can confer orders outside his own jurisdiction only with the permission of the diocesan bishop."
Can. 1018: "The following can grant dimissorial letters for the secular clergy:
1. the proper bishop mentioned in can. 1016;
2. an apostolic administrator and, with the consent of the college of consultors, the diocesan administrator; and with the consent of the council mentioned in can. 495, 2, an apostolic pro-vicar and pro-prefect."
Paul
1. "A person who labors under some form of insanity or other psychic defect due to which, after consultation with experts, he is judged incapable of rightly carrying out the ministry"
2. "A person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy or schism"
Can. 1045: "Ignorance of the irregularities and impediments does not exempt from them"
Can. 1016: "As regards the diaconal ordination of those who intend to become members of the secular clergy, the proper bishop is the bishop of the diocese in which the candidate has a domicile or the diocese to which he intends to devote himself; as regards the presbyteral ordination of secular clerics, the proper bishop is the bishop of the diocese into which the candidate has been incardinated through the diaconate"
Can. 1017: "A bishop can confer orders outside his own jurisdiction only with the permission of the diocesan bishop."
Can. 1018: "The following can grant dimissorial letters for the secular clergy:
1. the proper bishop mentioned in can. 1016;
2. an apostolic administrator and, with the consent of the college of consultors, the diocesan administrator; and with the consent of the council mentioned in can. 495, 2, an apostolic pro-vicar and pro-prefect."
Paul
Saint Benedict Center in Richmond: No Stranger to Controversy
The Saint Benedict Center, a 200 acre complex located in Richmond, New Hampshire, serves as home to a community calling itself the "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary." This community is no stranger to controversy. The Center's founder, Mr. Douglas Bersaw, has been quoted as having said that Pope John Paul II is "The worst Pope we ever had." He was also quoted as having said that, "There's a lot of controversy among people who study the so-called Holocause. There's a misperception that Hitler had a position to kill all the Jews. It's all a fraud. Six million people - it didn't occur." (Source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/22/cherishing_an_older_catholicism/
Not surprisingly, Diane Murphy Quinlan, the diocese's vice chancellor, was quoted in the same article as having said that, "The St. Benedict Center has no relationship with the Diocese of Manchester and Bishop McCormack has not given them permission to do ministry in New Hampshire...They are not in union with the Church."
To say the least. And what are members of the Saint Benedict Center doing when they're not denying the Holocaust or ridiculing Pope John Paul II? Well, right now they are distributing a mailing entitled "Two Major Announcements - Epiphany 2005," in which they once again thumb their collective noses at the Church while engaging in more hateful rhetoric aimed at the Church's hierarchy. In this letter, Brother Francis, M.I.C.M., writes: "I have appointed Brother Andre Marie to succeed me as superior upon my death....As I wrote and lectured under the direct supervision of Father Feeney for many years, so Brother Andre Marie has written and lectured for several years under my guidance, taking my corrections and showing himself loyal to our school of thought."
And what is this "school of thought"? That the Church's interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus - is incorrect and that Father Leonard Feeney's interpretation of this dogma is the correct one. In fact, in his letter, Brother Francis refers to "modernists in authority in the Church" who have an "ecumenical agenda" which includes a "denial of 'no salvation outside the Church.'"
This is, of course, plain nonsense. In a letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston dated August 8, 1949, the Holy Office explained that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation because of the command of Christ and also because the Church is a necessary means for salvation. However, it was explained that since the Church is such a means only by divine institution and not by intrinsic necessity, that formal membership in the Church is not required of all men under all circumstances: "The infallible dictum which teaches us that outside the Church there is no salvation, is among the truths that the Church has always taught and will always teach. But this dogma is to be understood as the Church itself understands it. For Our Savior did not leave it to private judgment to explain what is contained in the deposit of faith, but to the doctrinal authority of the Church....Of those helps to salvation that are ordered to the last end only by divine decree, not by intrinsic necessity, God, in his infinite mercy, willed that such effects of those helps as are necessary to salvation can, in certain circumstances, be obtained when the helps are used only in desire or longing. We see this clearly stated in the Council of Trent about the sacrament of regeneration and about the sacrament of penance."
This is also the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which tells us that: "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." (CCC, 1257).
And what is Brother Francis' second "major announcement"? He writes, "Since the death of Father Feeney, we have never had a cleric as a religious member of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, circumstances in the Church [read their own disobedience to Church teaching and authority] making it virtually impossible to attain that goal. Regardless of this, it was the intention of our Founder to have priests in our First Order, and we have never abandoned that desire...Years of searching for priests to assist us have turned up no long-term solution.... The demands of serving our community call for a priest convinced of our position and goals. Otherwise, longevity is not likely. The most obvious question is how will it be done? We have long prayed for this goal, and sought to achieve it through proper canonical channels. Knowing how saturated the hierarchy is with modernism - from Rome on down - we have concluded that passage through these channels is impossible without compromising our Crusade. We are forced to take extraordinary measures to procure ordination. To be precise, we would be seeking ordination without dimissorial letters, the canonical permission granted by a diocesan bishop or other prelate for a man to be ordained. Is this action justified? In a word: Yes....Readers can rest assured that we would never present ourselves to a heretic or schismatic for Holy Orders. Such an action would violate the very principles we are vowed to defend."
And so these troubled people, more slaves to disobedience and pride than to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, intend to seek ordination for one of their "brothers" - specifically Andre Marie - their new "superior," without canonical permission. This comes as no real surprise. The history of the Saint Benedict Center is a sad one filled with many pages of rejection of authentic Church teaching and an angry and hateful attitude directed at the Church's hierarchy.
Unable to conform to Church teaching and to demonstrate any respect for the Church's hierarchy, this community's prayers to God for priests to serve them have gone unanswered. No surprise here either. God doesn't bless infidelity. And since God hasn't answered their prayers, these poor souls are now willing to seek ordination for one of their own without the permission of Holy Mother Church.
Since Holy Orders is a sacrament of the Church, and since members of the Saint Benedict Center intend to seek ordination of one of their "brothers" without canonical permission simply because they have never "abandoned that desire," I wonder if they consider this justified as a "Holy Orders of Desire"? The same people who deny that God is not bound by His sacraments and that "God, in his infinite mercy, willed that such effects of those helps as are necessary to salvation can, in certain circumstances, be obtained when the helps are used only in desire or longing," are now attempting to ordain a member of their community outside of canonical channels.
Small wonder that no priests have been attracted to their community.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Not surprisingly, Diane Murphy Quinlan, the diocese's vice chancellor, was quoted in the same article as having said that, "The St. Benedict Center has no relationship with the Diocese of Manchester and Bishop McCormack has not given them permission to do ministry in New Hampshire...They are not in union with the Church."
To say the least. And what are members of the Saint Benedict Center doing when they're not denying the Holocaust or ridiculing Pope John Paul II? Well, right now they are distributing a mailing entitled "Two Major Announcements - Epiphany 2005," in which they once again thumb their collective noses at the Church while engaging in more hateful rhetoric aimed at the Church's hierarchy. In this letter, Brother Francis, M.I.C.M., writes: "I have appointed Brother Andre Marie to succeed me as superior upon my death....As I wrote and lectured under the direct supervision of Father Feeney for many years, so Brother Andre Marie has written and lectured for several years under my guidance, taking my corrections and showing himself loyal to our school of thought."
And what is this "school of thought"? That the Church's interpretation of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" - Extra ecclesiam nulla salus - is incorrect and that Father Leonard Feeney's interpretation of this dogma is the correct one. In fact, in his letter, Brother Francis refers to "modernists in authority in the Church" who have an "ecumenical agenda" which includes a "denial of 'no salvation outside the Church.'"
This is, of course, plain nonsense. In a letter of the Holy Office to Archbishop Cushing of Boston dated August 8, 1949, the Holy Office explained that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation because of the command of Christ and also because the Church is a necessary means for salvation. However, it was explained that since the Church is such a means only by divine institution and not by intrinsic necessity, that formal membership in the Church is not required of all men under all circumstances: "The infallible dictum which teaches us that outside the Church there is no salvation, is among the truths that the Church has always taught and will always teach. But this dogma is to be understood as the Church itself understands it. For Our Savior did not leave it to private judgment to explain what is contained in the deposit of faith, but to the doctrinal authority of the Church....Of those helps to salvation that are ordered to the last end only by divine decree, not by intrinsic necessity, God, in his infinite mercy, willed that such effects of those helps as are necessary to salvation can, in certain circumstances, be obtained when the helps are used only in desire or longing. We see this clearly stated in the Council of Trent about the sacrament of regeneration and about the sacrament of penance."
This is also the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which tells us that: "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments." (CCC, 1257).
And what is Brother Francis' second "major announcement"? He writes, "Since the death of Father Feeney, we have never had a cleric as a religious member of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, circumstances in the Church [read their own disobedience to Church teaching and authority] making it virtually impossible to attain that goal. Regardless of this, it was the intention of our Founder to have priests in our First Order, and we have never abandoned that desire...Years of searching for priests to assist us have turned up no long-term solution.... The demands of serving our community call for a priest convinced of our position and goals. Otherwise, longevity is not likely. The most obvious question is how will it be done? We have long prayed for this goal, and sought to achieve it through proper canonical channels. Knowing how saturated the hierarchy is with modernism - from Rome on down - we have concluded that passage through these channels is impossible without compromising our Crusade. We are forced to take extraordinary measures to procure ordination. To be precise, we would be seeking ordination without dimissorial letters, the canonical permission granted by a diocesan bishop or other prelate for a man to be ordained. Is this action justified? In a word: Yes....Readers can rest assured that we would never present ourselves to a heretic or schismatic for Holy Orders. Such an action would violate the very principles we are vowed to defend."
And so these troubled people, more slaves to disobedience and pride than to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, intend to seek ordination for one of their "brothers" - specifically Andre Marie - their new "superior," without canonical permission. This comes as no real surprise. The history of the Saint Benedict Center is a sad one filled with many pages of rejection of authentic Church teaching and an angry and hateful attitude directed at the Church's hierarchy.
Unable to conform to Church teaching and to demonstrate any respect for the Church's hierarchy, this community's prayers to God for priests to serve them have gone unanswered. No surprise here either. God doesn't bless infidelity. And since God hasn't answered their prayers, these poor souls are now willing to seek ordination for one of their own without the permission of Holy Mother Church.
Since Holy Orders is a sacrament of the Church, and since members of the Saint Benedict Center intend to seek ordination of one of their "brothers" without canonical permission simply because they have never "abandoned that desire," I wonder if they consider this justified as a "Holy Orders of Desire"? The same people who deny that God is not bound by His sacraments and that "God, in his infinite mercy, willed that such effects of those helps as are necessary to salvation can, in certain circumstances, be obtained when the helps are used only in desire or longing," are now attempting to ordain a member of their community outside of canonical channels.
Small wonder that no priests have been attracted to their community.
Paul Anthony Melanson
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Saturday, January 15, 2005
Pope Pius XII slandered again
Pope Pius XII, one of our greatest Popes of recent times, is again being slandered by The New York Times in an article which can aptly be described as demonic and which accuses the great Pontiff of instructing Catholics not to return Jewish children who had been hid from the Nazis during their reign of unspeakable terror. This truly saddens me since Pope Pius XII was such a loving man and so concerned with the welfare of the Jewish people. My father had an audience with Pius XII and was deeply inspired by the incredible holiness of this Vicar of Christ. I have a rosary which was blessed by His Holiness and a special blessing from him for our family which he gave to my father in April of 1958, some six months before he went to be with the Lord.
Link to the article covering this whole hateful affair: http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050115-062032-8416r.htm
Paul
Friday, January 14, 2005
Wherever two or more are gathered
This precious child at prayer with her dolls is heartwarming is it not?
Thursday, January 13, 2005
A Bishop's manner of life
In his latest book entitled, "Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way," Pope John Paul II writes that: "By his manner of life, a bishop demonstrates that the Christ as "Model" lives on and still speaks to us today. One could say that a diocese reflects the manner of life of its bishop. His virtues - chastity, a spirit of poverty and prayer, simplicity, sensitivity of conscience - will, as it were, be written into the hearts of his priests. They, in their turn, will convey these values to the faithful entrusted to their care, and in this way young people can be led to make a generous response to Christ's call." (p. 129).
And on page 66 of the same book, the Holy Father explains that, "It is very important for a bishop to have a rapport with his people and to know how to relate to them well...Interest in others begins with the bishop's prayer life: his conversations with Christ, who entrusts 'His own' to him. Prayer prepares him for encounter with others."
And so, a Bishop should be a man of deep prayer. And that prayer should motivate him to be a good "paterfamilias" to the faithful who have been entrusted to him by the Lord Jesus. As the Holy Father explains, every individual diocese is a reflection of its Bishop's manner of life. If a diocese is in near constant turmoil, what would this indicate about the Bishop's "manner of life"? If children are sexually abused while a Bishop merely shuffles the abuser from one assignment to another, would this not indicate that something about the Bishop's "manner of life" is gravely wrong? If a diocese is plagued with dissidents and other malcontents who lay siege to various parishes while insisting that the Church's teaching must change or that the very structure of the Church must change, what would this indicate about its Bishop's "manner of life"?
To be sure, not everything negative which transpires in a diocese may be laid at its Bishop's doorstep. However, as the Holy Father makes abundantly clear, "The responsibilities that weigh on a bishop's shoulders are many." (p. 93). He cites St. Augustine's long sermon "On the Shepherds" writing that, "With reference to the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, the bishop of Hippo strongly rebukes evil shepherds, who are concerned not for the sheep but only for themselves. 'Let us see how the word of God, that flatters no one, addresses the shepherds who are feeding themselves, not the sheep. You take the milk, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed my sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought; any strong one you have killed; and My sheep are scattered because there is no shepherd.'" (pp. 63,64).
Indeed, the responsibility of a Bishop is a grave one. This is why the great Saint Augustine (Bishop and Doctor of the Church) said that his vocation as a Christian instilled him with "great hope" but that his vocation as Bishop instilled him with "great fear." It was Jesus, after all, who said that: "Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more" (Luke 12: 48).
Could this be why the normally gentle Saint John Chrysostom has been quoted as having said that the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops?
Troubling words coming from a gentle saint who was known not only for his great eloquence (his last name translated as "golden-mouthed") but for his pacific spirit. Troubling words indeed!
Until next time,
God love you
Paul
And on page 66 of the same book, the Holy Father explains that, "It is very important for a bishop to have a rapport with his people and to know how to relate to them well...Interest in others begins with the bishop's prayer life: his conversations with Christ, who entrusts 'His own' to him. Prayer prepares him for encounter with others."
And so, a Bishop should be a man of deep prayer. And that prayer should motivate him to be a good "paterfamilias" to the faithful who have been entrusted to him by the Lord Jesus. As the Holy Father explains, every individual diocese is a reflection of its Bishop's manner of life. If a diocese is in near constant turmoil, what would this indicate about the Bishop's "manner of life"? If children are sexually abused while a Bishop merely shuffles the abuser from one assignment to another, would this not indicate that something about the Bishop's "manner of life" is gravely wrong? If a diocese is plagued with dissidents and other malcontents who lay siege to various parishes while insisting that the Church's teaching must change or that the very structure of the Church must change, what would this indicate about its Bishop's "manner of life"?
To be sure, not everything negative which transpires in a diocese may be laid at its Bishop's doorstep. However, as the Holy Father makes abundantly clear, "The responsibilities that weigh on a bishop's shoulders are many." (p. 93). He cites St. Augustine's long sermon "On the Shepherds" writing that, "With reference to the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, the bishop of Hippo strongly rebukes evil shepherds, who are concerned not for the sheep but only for themselves. 'Let us see how the word of God, that flatters no one, addresses the shepherds who are feeding themselves, not the sheep. You take the milk, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fatlings; but you do not feed my sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the crippled you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought; any strong one you have killed; and My sheep are scattered because there is no shepherd.'" (pp. 63,64).
Indeed, the responsibility of a Bishop is a grave one. This is why the great Saint Augustine (Bishop and Doctor of the Church) said that his vocation as a Christian instilled him with "great hope" but that his vocation as Bishop instilled him with "great fear." It was Jesus, after all, who said that: "Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more" (Luke 12: 48).
Could this be why the normally gentle Saint John Chrysostom has been quoted as having said that the road to Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops?
Troubling words coming from a gentle saint who was known not only for his great eloquence (his last name translated as "golden-mouthed") but for his pacific spirit. Troubling words indeed!
Until next time,
God love you
Paul
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
The empire of Christ
In his encyclical letter Annum Sacrum, His Holiness Pope Leo XIII reminded us that, "The empire of Christ the King includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ."
All men are subject to the rule of Jesus Christ the King. And this for two reasons: first, because He is our Creator and we are His created subjects. Without God, we would not exist. Therefore, we owe Him everything while He owes us nothing. And it follows that no one has a right to withhold his obedience to God. Secondly, as Pope Pius XI explains to us in his encyclical letter Quas Primas, we must subject ourselves to Christ the King because He is our King by acquired right as well as by natural right, because He is our Redeemer: "Would that those who forget what they have cost our Saviour might recall the words: 'You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the Precious Blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.' We are no longer our own, For Christ has purchased us 'with a great price'; our very bodies are the 'members of Christ.'"
That we are Christ's subjects both by natural and acquired right, the Holy Spirit explains to us through St. John in Revelation, Chapter 17. We read there that Christ is "the ruler of the kings of the earth" (v. 18). Since the kings of the earth (nations and those who govern them) are subject to the Kingship of Jesus Christ, Christ has a right to over entire societies as well as individual persons.
Jesus is our brother and also our friend. But let us not forget that He is also our King and our Judge. And that we are His creatures who owe Him our total obedience.
Paul
All men are subject to the rule of Jesus Christ the King. And this for two reasons: first, because He is our Creator and we are His created subjects. Without God, we would not exist. Therefore, we owe Him everything while He owes us nothing. And it follows that no one has a right to withhold his obedience to God. Secondly, as Pope Pius XI explains to us in his encyclical letter Quas Primas, we must subject ourselves to Christ the King because He is our King by acquired right as well as by natural right, because He is our Redeemer: "Would that those who forget what they have cost our Saviour might recall the words: 'You were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the Precious Blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.' We are no longer our own, For Christ has purchased us 'with a great price'; our very bodies are the 'members of Christ.'"
That we are Christ's subjects both by natural and acquired right, the Holy Spirit explains to us through St. John in Revelation, Chapter 17. We read there that Christ is "the ruler of the kings of the earth" (v. 18). Since the kings of the earth (nations and those who govern them) are subject to the Kingship of Jesus Christ, Christ has a right to over entire societies as well as individual persons.
Jesus is our brother and also our friend. But let us not forget that He is also our King and our Judge. And that we are His creatures who owe Him our total obedience.
Paul
Christ the King
Let all the earth fear the Lord: and let all the inhabitants of the world be in awe of him. For he spoke and they were made: he commanded and they were created. (Psalm 32).
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
EWTN
EWTN is a great Catholic resource. I encourage readers to watch Mother Angelica Live, Life on the Rock, Web of Faith and all their other great programming.
Paul
Let's stand with the Holy Father
Let's take a stand as faithful Catholics and support Pope John Paul II as he makes opposition to same-sex "marriage" a priority for 2005. Please visit this link and share it with friends: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050110/D87HDLOGO.html
Thank you,
Paul
Thank you,
Paul
A quotation without comment
"..true unity presupposes unity in truth. Error, falsehood, can never be the basis for true unity. That holy, supernatural unity of which our Lord speaks in the priestly prayer ut unum sint - that all may be one - can come to pass only in the profession of divine truth, in the membership of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is a unity which includes some but, by the same token, excludes others. As Father Werenfried van Straaten reminds us, 'Jesus' prayer that all may be one may not be separated from His other words: I say unto you that whoever does not enter by the door of the sheepfold is a thief and a robber....I am the door.'"
- Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand
- Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand
The Tridentine Mass
The Roman Rite, as codified by Pope St. Pius V, (often referred to as the "Latin Mass") is again available thanks to Pope John Paul II's 1984 indult and the promulgation of Ecclesia Dei in 1988.
Pope John Paul II has called for "a wide and generous application" of this Roman Rite.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Dissent
If one is to be faithful to Christ and His Church, one cannot assert that what the Magisterium teaches is false and that the faithful may reject Magisterial teaching and replace it with their own opinions or those of theologians. In his encyclical letter Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II explains that, "Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God." (No. 113).
When a person dissents from Church teaching, he is not in living communion with the mind of Christ, which is made known to us through His Church's Magisterium. Such a person is not, therefore, in a proper condition to receive the sacraments. Pope John Paul II has stated this clearly: "It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is compatible with being a 'good Catholic' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error." (Address to the U.S. Bishops, Los Angeles, September 16, 1987). See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395).
Many who call themselves Catholic are no longer living in communion with Christ. And this fact explains why they are often so bitter and angry. For happiness is the result of living in communion with others in the Lord Jesus. As Vatican II has reminded us, "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." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).
The choice is ours: accept the teaching of the Magisterium which is the mind of Christ or separate ourselves from a living communion with the Lord Jesus. Let us remember where self-will ultimately leads.....HELL.
Until next time,
Peace
Paul
When a person dissents from Church teaching, he is not in living communion with the mind of Christ, which is made known to us through His Church's Magisterium. Such a person is not, therefore, in a proper condition to receive the sacraments. Pope John Paul II has stated this clearly: "It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is compatible with being a 'good Catholic' and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error." (Address to the U.S. Bishops, Los Angeles, September 16, 1987). See also Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395).
Many who call themselves Catholic are no longer living in communion with Christ. And this fact explains why they are often so bitter and angry. For happiness is the result of living in communion with others in the Lord Jesus. As Vatican II has reminded us, "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." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).
The choice is ours: accept the teaching of the Magisterium which is the mind of Christ or separate ourselves from a living communion with the Lord Jesus. Let us remember where self-will ultimately leads.....HELL.
Until next time,
Peace
Paul
Pope John Paul II: Vicar of Christ
The responsibility of a Pope to teach and guard truth, and of the faithful to acknowledge and obey, has been clearly defined in many documents. In his encyclical letter entitled Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII (one of our greatest Popes and one whom my father had an audience with back in 1958) stated clearly that: "...If the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that the matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians...God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church."
Obedience and loyalty to the Holy Father are, therefore, hallmarks of true Catholics. In an upcoming article, I will be explaining in detail why dissent from Church teaching is unacceptable and why, in certain cases, dissidents are not in a proper condition to receive the sacraments.
God love you,
Paul
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Our Lady of La Salette: Pray for us
In these troubled times we live in, let us all approach Our Lady of La Salette with confidence. She intercedes for us in all our needs.
P.M.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
What attitude should a Bishop have toward laity?
The Call of Jesus, "You go into my vineyard too," (Matthew 20:4), is not a call reserved only for ministerial priests. As Pope John Paul II has reminded us in his encyclical letter Christifideles Laici: "The call is a concern not only of Pastors, clergy, and men and women religious. The call is addressed to everyone: lay people as well are personally called by the Lord, from whom they receive a mission on behalf of the Church and the world."
Sometimes a Bishop can forget this. At times, Bishops have been known to treat the laity almost as if they were "second-class" citizens within the Mystical Body of Christ. What does Canon Law have to say with regard to the pastoral responsibilities of a Bishop in dealing with the faithful? Canon 383 states quite clearly that, "In the exercise of his pastoral office a diocesan bishop is to show that he is concerned with all the Christian faithful who are committed to his care regardless of age, condition or nationality, both those who live within his territory and those who are staying in it temporarily; he is to extend his apostolic spirit to those who cannot sufficiently make use of ordinary pastoral care due to their condition in life and to those who no longer practice their religion."
And what should be the attitude of a Bishop with regard to lay involvement in ministries? Again, Canon Law is quite clear: "As much as is possible the diocesan bishop is to foster vocations to the different ministries and to the consecrated life, with special care shown for priestly and missionary vocations." (Can. 385).
If a lay person is engaged in an apostolate which is faithful to Church teaching and which has been approved by legitimate Church authority in accord with the norm of law, and the local Bishop refuses to meet with or even acknowledge that person's presence even though his predecessor had already officially sanctioned the apostolate and gave it his blessing, is such an attitude very pastoral?
A Bishop should love those under his care. As a successor to the Apostles, his charity must be extended freely toward all. Any other attitude would seem to suggest that a Bishop is not exercising his ministry in a responsible way.
Until next time,
God love you!
Paul Anthony Melanson
Sometimes a Bishop can forget this. At times, Bishops have been known to treat the laity almost as if they were "second-class" citizens within the Mystical Body of Christ. What does Canon Law have to say with regard to the pastoral responsibilities of a Bishop in dealing with the faithful? Canon 383 states quite clearly that, "In the exercise of his pastoral office a diocesan bishop is to show that he is concerned with all the Christian faithful who are committed to his care regardless of age, condition or nationality, both those who live within his territory and those who are staying in it temporarily; he is to extend his apostolic spirit to those who cannot sufficiently make use of ordinary pastoral care due to their condition in life and to those who no longer practice their religion."
And what should be the attitude of a Bishop with regard to lay involvement in ministries? Again, Canon Law is quite clear: "As much as is possible the diocesan bishop is to foster vocations to the different ministries and to the consecrated life, with special care shown for priestly and missionary vocations." (Can. 385).
If a lay person is engaged in an apostolate which is faithful to Church teaching and which has been approved by legitimate Church authority in accord with the norm of law, and the local Bishop refuses to meet with or even acknowledge that person's presence even though his predecessor had already officially sanctioned the apostolate and gave it his blessing, is such an attitude very pastoral?
A Bishop should love those under his care. As a successor to the Apostles, his charity must be extended freely toward all. Any other attitude would seem to suggest that a Bishop is not exercising his ministry in a responsible way.
Until next time,
God love you!
Paul Anthony Melanson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
