Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The female judge put a gag order on Texas dad so he can’t talk about the case with the media and ruled that he doesn’t have to pay his attorney fees. The full story and video of dad telling his side can be seen here.

The David Knight Show posted Will Texas Gov. Save James?

 

 

Court Allows Chemical Castration of 7-Year-Old Boy, Forces Father to Take Classes on Transgenderism

The story concerns:

  1. Transgenderism, which is a reversal of creation and God’s Will. It’s widely accepted by the free world.
  2. In-vitro fertilization, which is contrary to divine law. It, too, is widely accepted by the free world.
  3. Chemical castration of a child which is child abuse.
  4. The state deciding against the divine law and enforcing child abuse.
  5. Feminism, because the judge is female.
  6. Acceptance by the public that a woman can be judge, state deciding against God, and enforcement of child abuse.
  7. Parent forced to accept and be educated in evil by the state.
  8. Law enforcement that enforces this evil would be substantially no different than Nazi officers carrying out the evil orders of Hitler.

St. Margaret Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus have always been a part of my life.

I remember as a child gazing at a picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in my grandparent’s bedroom. The eyes of Our Lord followed me wherever I went. I was aware that it was St. Margaret Mary Alacoque to whom Jesus appeared to spread this greatest of devotions because my other grandmother was named after the French saint and she told us the story.

When I got married, the first picture I bought for our home was that same picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. My daughter’s first word was “Jesus” as she pointed to Him in the picture. It just so happens that my wife is also named Margaret.

Rev. Alban Butler records the remarkable life of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in his Lives of the Saints. She was a 17th century French nun and her entire life was filled with prayer and mortification. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia records a particular striking aspect of the saint’s life that should give us pause.

When Margaret was seventeen, the family property was recovered, and her mother besought her to establish herself in the world. Her filial tenderness made her believe that the vow of childhood was not binding, and that she could serve God at home by penance and charity to the poor. Then, still bleeding from her self-imposed austerities, she began to take part in the pleasures of the world. One night upon her return from a ball, she had a vision of Christ as He was during the scourging, reproaching her for infidelity after He had given her so many proofs of His love. During her entire life Margaret mourned over two faults committed at this time–the wearing of some superfluous ornaments and a mask at the carnival to please her brothers. [1]

Do we mourn over our faults that are far greater? Do we even think about them and how every sin, even venial sin, is great in the eyes of God?

In 1690, when the priest administered the Extreme Unction while at the fourth anointing of the lips, St Margaret Mary died.  She was canonized in 1920.

It took the Catholic Church 230 years to canonize this holy nun. Compare that with the counterfeit religion of Rome taking only 9 years to canonized the Koran-kissing, Wailing Wall weeping, Zoroastrian participating, crucifix covering, animist praying, schismatic con-celebrating, Martin Luther praising, anti-Catholic apologizing, and multiple pagan blessed “Pope” John Paul II.

St. Margaret Mary mourned her whole life for having worn a mask at a carnival to please her brothers when she was 17 years old. Compare that with the old Vatican 2 popes wearing clown noses and pagan headdresses along with all their other ghastly errors to please men.

The world is completely upside down.

Saint Margaret Mary pray for us.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

 

 

Footnote:

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09653a.htm

 

The subject of whether Protestants and Orthodox are Christians and their religions are part of the Church of Christ comes up frequently on “Catholic” Relevant Radio, youtube, etc.

According to the religion of Vatican 2, which falls in line with  some Protestants, membership in the Church includes all who are baptized and profess Christ while rejecting dogmas of the Catholic Church.

The Vatican 2 religion has gone out of its way to say that the Eastern Orthodox religion is part of the one Church of Christ in the Balamand statement. [1] It also implied that the Lutheran churches are part of the Church of Christ. [2]

Vatican 2 apologists such as Msgr. Stuart W. Swetland, S.T.D., and Patrick Madrid don’t hesitate for a second to say that the Church has never changed a doctrine while in the same breath saying Protestants and Orthodox are Christians but without the fullness of truth.

To the contrary, the great Pope Leo XIII reiterated in Satis Cognitum what the Church has always taught and practiced. Below are the relevant parts.

“4 Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.’ ‘The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts… And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. ‘There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts’….

5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a hereticthe life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.

9 The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos)….

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium….

St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88)…

And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that – “He gave some Apostles – and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12). …

In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…

Pope Pius XI continued with the subject and declared in Mortalium animos:

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.

Since the Second Vatican Council, Rome now calls heretics and schismatics Christians or separated brethren, and even denies that they are heretics and schismatics.

For instance, Vatican II states:

The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection…. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” (Second Vatican Council, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, Chapter 1, para. 3)

Children born and raised in false churches would be accused of the sin of separation if they come to know or should know better and remain separated. We don’t presume that everybody remains invincibly ignorant. Regardless, only God can read hearts. We don’t presume to know if one is truly guilty or innocent. To say they all “are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian” is a reversal in Church teaching.

We demonstrated that Pope Leo XIII taught exactly the opposite in Satis Cognitum.

Pope Pius XII declared:To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957).

The terms heretics and schismatics are canonical and doctrinal Catholic terminology referring to the baptized some of whom were justified by faith at one time. Non-baptized persons aren’t called heretics and schismatics, but rather infidels, heathens, pagans, etc. We have long standing and official Catholic terminology which the Vatican 2 religion deems inappropriate, inaccurate, and counterfactual.

We might call heretics “Christians” in conventional language, but to claim they have a “right” to the Christian name would make calling them heretics and schismatics wrong and hateful. Yet, Popes have called Protestants and Orthodox heretics in official documents. Just a few examples include Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo (On the Euchologion – 1756), Pope Pius VI in Charitas (In the Civil Oath in France – 1791), Pope Gregory XVI in Summo Iugiter Studio (On Mixed Marriages – 1832) and Probe Nostis (On the Propogation of the Faith – 1840), and Pope Pius IX in Omnem Sollicitudinem (On the Greek-Ruthenian Rite – 1874). Pope Leo XIII used it the most in several documents.

Pope Leo XIII also declared in Satis Cognitum: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”

 

Footnotes:

[1] The 1993 Balamand Statement approved by John Paul II on May 25, 1995, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59, declared:

  1. In fact, especially since the panorthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the re- discovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches.
  2. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).

[2]  JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church Nov. 1, 1999

  1. We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.

John Paul II approved and blessed the Joint Declaration as seen below.

PRESENTATION OF THE JOINT STATEMENT

Edward Cardinal Cassidy

President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

  1. On the Catholic side, the Official Common Statement and the Annex have been approved by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. His Holiness Pope John Paul II has been informed accordingly and has given his blessing for the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, together with the Official Common Statement with its attached Annex on the date and in the place to be decided by the two partners.

 

 

The Truth or a Lie

The Temptation of Christ by my favorite artist Gustave Doré

The Father of Lies tempts Truth Himself.

 

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me (John 14:6).

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof (John 8:44).

The end for everyone is either Heaven where the Truth is or Hell where the Truth is not.

Everything boils down to the truth or a lie.

Every sin involves a lie, whether to God, ourselves, or to others. That makes every sinner a liar to one degree or another.

But God is true; and every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged (Rom. 3:4).

However, not all sinners are of the same degree because not all sins are of the same degree. St. John tells us, “He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death (I John 16-17).

Therefore, not all liars are mortal sinners.

The word liar is found 19 times in Holy Scripture and St. John uses the word “liar” 9 times, far more than anyone else. He points to one particular lie which is blasphemy, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (I John 1:10).”

If we say we have not sinned, we are saying God is a liar because He told us that we all are sinners in the Lord’s Prayer. He also tells us in Psalm 142:2 and Proverbs 24:16.

St. John declares, “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son (I John 2:22)”

Cornelius a Lapide’s commentary on this verse reads:

Ver. 22.—Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He here explains what kind of lie he means, the heresy of denying that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, as Simon Magus, Ebion, Cerinthus, and other Judaisers, against whom S. John wrote, both ancient and modern. For, as Bede says, “Compared with this all other lies are little or nothing.” Indeed, what more pernicious lie could be uttered or invented than this, cutting off as it does all faith and hope of salvation? He then that maintains it, is pre-eminently a liar, because he is heretical, sacrilegious, an atheist, an antichrist. The word is commonly used of those who mean one thing and say another. And this is the case with these very persons, for they knew or ought to know that Jesus was the Christ. So writes Tertullian (de Præscript. Heret. cap. xxxiii.): “John in his Epistle specially calls those persons antichrist, who said that Jesus had not come in the flesh, as Marcion and Ebion maintained.” And as Œcurnenius tells us, “Simon stated that Jesus and Christ were different persons. Jesus who was born of Mary, Christ who had come down from heaven.” S. Cyril (Catech. vi.) says that Simon Magus was the author of all these heresies, and then enlarges on them and his impostures.

Cornelius here says much of the heresies and follies of the Anabaptists, for which he quotes their history by Arnold Meshovius.

All heresy is blasphemous lies because they are lies about God and the Church.

Most Reverend Eric MacKenzie wrote on page 19 in his – “The Delict of Heresy”:

“The heinousness of apostasy and heresy is found in the fact that misbelieve or unbelief is a blasphemous imputation of error deceit to God Himself. A further blasphemy is at least implicit, in that the apostate or heretic thinks, or seems to think, that he has some means of distinguishing truth from error, which operates more certainly and more infallibly than does God’s own Infinite Intelligence. Hence, sins against faith are basically blasphemies against God Himself. As such they are considered, next to odium Dei, the most heinous that man can commit. Nor is there any essential distinction between the guilt of heresy and of apostasy, since the same blasphemy is implicit in both.”

The last time we see “liar” in Holy Writ:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death (Apoc. 21:8).

The “liars” to whom St. John is referring in Apoc. 21 are the ones who die in the mortal sin of lying or else everyone would go to Hell.

One of the worst sins is blasphemy. Again, St. John points to the specific lying blasphemy that Jesus is not the Christ. There are different types of blasphemy but all are odious to God.

Blasphemy, Blasphemed, Blasphemeth, etc. are mentioned in Holy Scripture 91 times.

God destroys the blasphemers (Daniel 3:96).

Blasphemers are punished severely, sometimes by death (Lev. 24:16).

One form of blasphemy is unforgiven (Matt. 12:31).

Jesus was mocked, beaten, spit upon, and ultimately put to death because He was falsely accused of it (Matt. 26:65-68).

All heresy is lying blasphemy, therefore all heretics are liars and blasphemers.

The degree of culpability varies and those who are guilty in the eyes of God have eternal hell as their destination. All lies are deceptions that ultimately takes us away from Heaven, which is our true destination.

Recently, my children have been watching the old TV series titled “The Tall Man” which is about Billy the Kid played by Clu Gulager. The TV series has reminded me of the true story of Sister Blandina Segale who once confronted Billy the Kid. I first learned about Sister Blandina 15 years ago from homeschooling my children. The nun’s story is told in “Christ and the Americas” by Anne W. Carroll. In looking up more about the good nun, I found the following 1967 TV episode titled “Lost Sheep in Trinidad” from the TV series “Death Valley Days.” It’s about Sister Blandina’s meeting with Billy the Kid.

 

 

Sister Blandina had another run-in with Billy the Kid not shown in the episode. Apparently, Billy the Kid was about to rob the stagecoach that Sister Blandina was riding. When they pulled out their guns, the nun commanded them to put them away. As Billy rode up to the stagecoach, he tipped his hat and bowed at Sister Blandina, then rode away. Only she knew who it was.

I’ve included another episode of Sister Blandina from “Dark Valley Days.” The episode is titled “The Fastest Nun in the West.”

 

 

Can the Faithful recognize and resist the pope? I dealt with this question in a 2015 article. However, I recently stumbled upon some teachings from Pope Pius XI that castigates the recognize and resist theology. I highlighted the relevant parts within the context that’s contra R&R-ism.

In Mortalium animos Jan. 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI declared, “#5 Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians…

#7…There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it.”

#11…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

The words “recognize and obey” are exactly opposite to “recognize and resist.”  The R&R crowd doesn’t obey those they call the legitimate successors of Peter. They ignore him, resist him, and reject his teachings. They are most certainly trying to stand in the way of the Vatican 2 popes and implementing Vatican 2 and the novus ordo. Of course, the R&R crowd is correct in rejecting the modernism of the Vatican 2 popes, but their reasoning for doing so is heretical, blasphemous, and just plain stupid.

The underlying principle of Mortalium animos is rejected by the R&R crowd. But then again, every papal document is the Roman Pontiff putting forth his papal authority for the faithful to obey, not to resist.

On Dec. 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI declared in Divini Illius Magistri – On Christian Education: “18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.'[10] …20.The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. …25. The extent of the Church’s mission in the field of education is such as to embrace every nation, without exception, according to the command of Christ: “Teach ye all nations;”[17] and there is no power on earth that may lawfully oppose her or stand in her way. In the first place, it extends over all the Faithful, of whom she has anxious care as a tender mother.”

The whole document is about the importance of getting a good, holy, and true Christian education, which can only come about by following and obeying the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and following his rules for this education. What’s the point if the Catholic Church is propagating error like every other religion as the R&R claim?

The proposition of the R&R crowd makes the Catholic Church out to be the biggest hypocritical organization in the world. It would mean that only the Catholic Church can lead people astray with error while all other religions are condemned by the Catholic Church for doing so. It would mean only the Catholic Church can be heretical while Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are condemned by the Catholic Church as false religions when they do so.

That’s why the R&R position is blasphemous.

On Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI promulgated Casti Connubii – On Christian Marriage.

Once again, the pope is implementing his supreme authority over the faithful. He declares in #104:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

The approach of the R&R crowd is to be able to resist, dismiss, and disdain every papal teaching that they think comes short of proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility. In principle, the R&R crowd is really no different than the liberals who also reject the teaching of Casti Connubii against contraception. [1]

The pick and choose mentality of the R&R crowd is what makes them the worst of hypocrites. They profess to be obedient and faithful Catholics but are neither.

Jesus told us where the hypocrites go in Matt. 24:51 and it’s not paradise.

 

Footnote:

[1] 54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. (Casti Connubii)

 

The Eastern Orthodox and Protestant religions reject papal primacy. In an attempt to discredit the historicity of papal primacy, they misrepresent the Fathers and Saints on the issues leaving out the context, full meaning, and full teaching of each authority. This study will answer, explain, and expound on certain quotes used against papal primacy, plus add quotes to prove papal primacy. The point of this study is to demonstrate how to answer cherry-picked quotes taken out of context and to prove that papal primacy was indeed recognized by the early Church.

One ex-Catholic, now Eastern Orthodox, posted the following quotes with the conclusion reading, “The Patristic witness on this point is so clear we need add nothing more to it –the point is settled – St. Peter did not receive any greater dignity or authority than the other Apostles. Already, the fundamental premise of Roman Catholicism is shaken and the edifice totters –if Peter did not have superior authority, Rome cannot have received it from him either.”

The quotes are in red and I will follow with the Catholic answer, which, by the way, has already been answered many times by many other Catholics.

St. Ambrose of Milan: “He (St. Peter), then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men….” (Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34.)

Every Catholic agrees with St. Ambrose because Peter was not yet pope when he made his confession. Peter wasn’t acting pope until Pentecost.

St. Ambrose fully believed that Peter became the head and foundation of the whole Church. He wrote: “[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith, 379 A.D.)

“They [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven (by the sacrament of confession) even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter:  ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven.'”  (On Penance, 388 A.D.)

“It is to Peter that He says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church’ (Matthew 16:18). Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David, 389 A.D.)

St. Cyprian of Carthage: “To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power…the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power…”(On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4.)

​The above quote is incomplete. St. Cyprian says, “It is on one man that He builds the Church; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection…nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by his own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is ground in unity, so that it may be made clear there is but one Church of Christ. …If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church…? Most especially must we bishops, who exercise authority in the Church, hold firmly and insist upon this unity, whereby we may demonstrate also that the episcopate itself is one and undivided. Let no one mislead the brotherhood with a lie, let no one corrupt the faith by a faithless perversion of the truth. The episcopate is one, of which each bishop holds his part within the undivided structure.”

In no way does St. Cyprian deny the papacy. Each and every Apostle had apostolic authority over the whole Church. They had jurisdiction over the Church as Peter, which is the equal portion of dignity and power that’s being referred to. The difference with Peter is that he had supreme authority, the final say so to speak, as was demonstrated at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter’s successors maintained full apostolic authority and jurisdiction, hence, the “Apostolic See.” The other sees do not possess jurisdiction over the whole Church.

Another distinction is the power of Orders and the power of Office. A bishop can have one without the other. A layman can possess the jurisdiction of the office of bishop as a bishop-elect but he would not have the power of orders and a consecrated bishop can have the power of orders but not the jurisdiction of an office.

As far as the power of Orders is concerned, all bishops have the same power. The power of the office concerns jurisdiction. The pope has full and supreme jurisdiction. All bishops are subject to the pope.

If we take a look at St. Cyprian’s original letter, we see that Peter’s office carries a certain type of dignity and power unlike any other office in the Church:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’… On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church, first edition 251 AD.)

St. Cyprian never rejected his original letter.

St. Isidore of Seville: “The other Apostles were made equal with Peter in a fellowship of dignity and power.”(De Ecclesiasticus, II.5, M.P.L., Vol. 83, Col. 781-782.)

Again, each Apostle had the same jurisdiction over the Church as Peter, which is the equal portion of dignity and power that’s being referred to. However, the context of St. Isidore’s writing was about the episcopacy or the power of orders. The other Apostles were made equal in fellowship of dignity and power as Peter as far as being a bishop is concerned. The papal office is another and distinct office in the Church and it can be occupied by a mere layman such as Pope Hadrian V who was never even a priest. St. Isidore wasn’t referring to Peter’s Chair as Pope but rather his rank as bishop.

We can easily prove that St. Isidore recognized papal primacy. His older brother St. Leander was first made Bishop of Seville. He was a close friend of Pope St. Gregory the Great, who sent him the pallium.

The Catholic encyclopedia explains what the pallium is and what it symbolizes http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11427a.htm

Pope St. Gregory used his authority over other bishops and councils. It was clear that he was the head of the Church. His letters also indicate his authority as head of the Church.

It’s true that Pope St. Gregory rejected the title “universal bishop” in the sense that it necessarily meant there are no other bishops. He explained this point in Book 9, Letter 68.

In this very letter, Pope St. Gregory was using his supreme authority as pope to condemn the Bishop of Constantinople.

In Book 3, Letter 30, Pope St. Gregory declares, “Inasmuch as it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches, there is, among our manifold cares, special demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop.  . . . you are to cause him to be consecrated by his own bishops, as ancient usage requires, with the assent of our authority, and the help of the Lord; to the end that through the observance of such custom both the Apostolic See may retain the power belonging to it, and at the same time may not diminish the rights which it has conceded to others.”

In Book 9, Letter 12, Pope St. Gregory declared, “For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?”

If any bishop denied papal primacy, Pope St. Gregory would have set him straight.

When St. Leander died, his brother St. Isidore became Bishop of Seville. Again, St. Gregory the Great showed his apostolic authority by sending him the pallium, which St. Isidore accepted.

St. Isidore never denied papal primacy. In fact, he recognized it by his actions. Not only that, but all of St. Isidore’s writings are promoted by the popes themselves.

St. Bede: “Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other Apostles, as Christ Himself testified when, after the triumph of His Passion and Resurrection, He appeared to them and breathed upon them, and said to them all, ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if ye forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven to them; if ye retain the sins of any, they are retained [Jn. 20:22, 23].

​St. Bede’s interpretation of Matt. 16:19 is a different perspective from his contemporaries, but it doesn’t deny Peter’s primacy in authority. Bede is interpreting the binding and loosing in Matt. 16 with the same binding and loosing in Jn. 20, which is about binding and loosing of sins. All priests have the same power as bishops in binding and loosing of sins. However, Bede didn’t hold that priests and bishops have the same authority. He writes, “In my nineteenth year I was admitted to the diaconate, in my thirtieth to the priest, both by the hands of the most reverend Bishop John (St. John of Beverley), and at the bidding of Abbot Ceolfrid.” Bishops ordain priests and consecrate bishops but priests don’t have the power to do either. Thus they have different powers. St. Bede is not denying the authority of Peter as the head of the Church.

St. Cyril of Alexandria: “One therefore is Christ both Son and Lord, not as if a man had attained only such a conjunction with God as consists in a unity of dignity alone or of authority. For it is not equality of dignity which unites natures; for then Peter and John, who were of equal dignity with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples would have been one, and yet the two are not one….”(St. Cyril, 2nd Epistle to Nestorius.)

St. Cyril is making a point. He’s not denying Peter’s authority as pope. In fact, he made this statement at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, after he appealed to Pope St. Celestine I to settle the matter against Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. The result was the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 AD, which condemned Nestorius. In the Acts of the Council, session 3, it’s declared:

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod.’”

The great council of the East witnesses to the Catholic dogma that Peter and his successors are head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church.”

St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (d. 386) is another Eastern Father who tells us that only Peter has the keys and is the chief of the apostles:

[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . They launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven. …In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis; and at Joppa he raised the beneficent Tabitha from the dead.” (Catechetical Lectures [350 AD] 6:14 and 17:27).

St. John Chrysostom, according the Eastern Orthodox, “has not recognized in the Church any dignity superior to the apostolate in general.”

“Of all spiritual magistratures,” he says, “the greatest is the apostolate. How do we know this? Because the apostle precedes all others. As the consul is the first of civil magistrates, so is the apostle the first of spiritual magistrates. St. Paul himself, when he enumerates these dignities, places at their head the prerogatives of the apostolate. What does he say? ‘And God has set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers.’ Do you observe the summit of these dignities? Do you mark that the apostle is at the apex of the hierarchy–no one before, none above him. For he says: ‘First, apostles.’ And not only is the apostolate the first of all dignities, but also the root and foundation thereof.” (Homily upon the Utility of Reading Holy Scripture; cited in Abbe Guettee, The Papacy.)

[NOTE: Since being an Apostle is the highest rulership in the church, the root and foundation, then there is no office for St. Peter to have higher than the other Apostles –and note that St. Paul says, God set some, that is, a plural number, in the church, first apostles –again a plural number, yet a Papal Petrine primacy demands that the highest rank be singular.]

The argument fails to make proper distinctions. St. John Chrysostom is commenting on I Cor. 12:28-30, which reads,

“And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. 29. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? 30. Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing?”

The Bible is giving a general outline of authority and other positions in the Church. St. John Chrysostom is pointing to the fact that the Apostles are higher than all the other parts of the Church. The Apostles are also bishops but the other bishops don’t have the jurisdiction of the Apostles. Again, some bishops have more authority than other bishops because of the power of an office. St. John Chyrsostom is not dealing with the papal office which is about a specific office among the Apostles. He explains Peter’s Office in other writings. For instance,

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father….this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300], taken from Dom John Chapman)

This is one of many teachings from St. John Chrysostom on papal primacy. To argue that this great saint didn’t recognize papal primacy is absurd.

Whenever we see a quote from a Father or saint about Peter’s relationship with others, pay attention to the context and in what sense he’s referring to.

The following additional quotes support papal primacy.

St. Jerome:

“Not long afterwards the illustrious Anastasius succeeded to the Pontificate. Rome did not merit to possess him long, lest the world’s head should be severed under such a bishop [when Alaric took Rome, AD 410]. Nay, he was taken away, lest he should essay by his prayers to bend the sentence once decided, as the Lord said to Jeremias: ‘Pray not for this people.’ … You say, what has this to do with the illustrious Marcella? She was the cause of the heretic’s condemnation, by producing witnesses’…” (Ep 127, c. x, 958[1093] taken from Dom John Chapman’s Studies on the Early Papacy and originally from the “Dublin Review” (January 1898). Dom John Chapman OSB (25 April 1865 – 7 November 1933)

St. Theodore the Studite to Pope St. Leo III:

“To the most holy and great father of fathers, to our lord Leo, apostolic pope, Theodore, the most humble priest and abbot of the Studion….

Since it is to the great Peter that Christ our God gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven and entrusted the dignity of chief of the flock , it is to Peter, that is to say, his successor, that one ought to submit every innovation which is made in the Catholic Church by those who turn aside from the truth. That is what we humble and lowly monks have learnt from the ancient fathers. Therefore, a new teaching having arisen recently in the midst of our Church here, we believed we ought, first through the medium of one of our fathers, the most holy archimandrite Ephiphanius, and then by this simple letter, to submit it to the angel of your supreme beatitude. There has been held, o Ruler divine of all rulers, a synod of prevaricators, as says the prophet Jeremiah, a council of adulterers. These men have not been content to conspire in favor of the priest who blessed the adulterous marriage and to receive him into communion, but, to merit the name of perfect heretic, have excommunicated in a second synod all those who do not cleave to their error, or rather the Church catholic herself…I borrow now the cry of the coryphaeus of the Apostles, calling Christ to his succor when the waves of the sea were risen up, and I say to your blessedness who are the Representative of Christ, ‘O first shepherd of the Church which is under heaven’, save us now, we perish. Imitate the Christ your master, stretch out your hand to your Church as he stretched out his hand to Peter. Peter began to sink in the waves, while our Church is still once more submerged in the depths of heresy. Emulate, we beg you, the great Pope whose name you bear, and just as he on the appearance of the Eutychian heresy, stood erect spiritually as a lion with his dogmatic letters, so in your turn (I dare to say it because of your name) roar divinely, or rather send forth your thunders against the present heresy. For if they, usurping an authority which does not belong to them, have dared to convene a heretical council, while those who, following ancient custom, have not even the right of convoking an orthodox one without your knowledge, it seems absolutely necessary, we dare to say it to you, that your divine primacy should call together a lawful council, so that the Catholic dogma may drive away heresy and that neither your primacy may be anathematized with all the orthodox by these new voices without authority, nor that wills evilly disposed may find in this adulterous council an excuse for being involved in sin. It is in order to obey your divine authority as chief pastor that we have set forth these things as it befitted our nothingness, we the least members of the Church. For the rest we beg your holiness to count us among your sheep and to enlighten and to strengthen us by your holy prayers… It is of myself, a humble fishermen held in prison, that I write to you this letter, because my father and companion the monk, as well as my brother the Archbishop of Thessaloniki, are imprisoned in other islands. But they say the same things as I, and with me prostrate themselves at the sacred feet of your blessedness” (Patrologia Graeca 99, 1017 – Epistle 1)

The list of quotes could go on and on proving that papal primacy was recognized by the whole Church. Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism doesn’t have a leg to stand on. They are man-made traditions that nullify the Word of God (Mark 7:13).

I recently received an email from an ex-Catholic who has converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. It was a kind letter explaining why he thinks I’m wrong about his religion and my own religion. He wrote, “But before you can delve into the complexities of Orthodoxy it is best to figure out why Roman Catholicism is false. I am attaching a great book by Guettee for you.  Read it and refute it if you think you can. You would be the first.”

It’s clear from the letter that the gentleman who sent me the Guettée book holds to the same position and understanding of the Catholic Church and papacy as Guettée.

Father Vladimir Guettée (born Réné-Francois Guettée, 1816 – 1892), was a renowned French historian and Catholic priest who converted to the Eastern Orthodox. He is portrayed by the Eastern Orthodox as a Catholic priest who accidentally stumbled upon the truth and became convinced of it, thus, converting to Orthodoxy.

After reading the 170 plus pages from Guettée’s work, [1] it was easy to see where the Protestants got many of their arguments against Catholicism. I was excited to publish a refutation. However, I would not be the first to read and refute Guettée . That honor goes to Orestes Augustus Brownson (September 16, 1803 – April 17, 1876) who thoroughly demolishes Guettée’s arguments.  Thanks to a good friend who sent me Brownson’s work, I realized that I could never do what Brownson did so eloquently. I was totally captivated by his refutation of Guettée. It is 53 pages of pure brilliance, pure logic, and pure genius. Comparing Guettée with Brownson, would be like comparing a quack with Aquinas and that’s no exaggeration. I was blown away!

 

Orestes Augustus Brownson (1803 – 1876) was a renowned Catholic convert and a prolific writer. He is one of the greatest intellectual thinkers of the 19th century.

Here’s what Wikipedia says about him:

Peter J. Stanlis has pointed out that “In the generation following the founding fathers of the American republic, Orestes Brownson (1803–1876), together with John C. Calhoun, was probably the most original and profound political thinker of the nineteenth century. Woodrow Wilson considered his most important book, The American Republic (1865), the best study of the American constitution.”[37]

Additionally, Brownson was held in high regard by many European intellectuals and theologians, including Auguste Joseph Alphonse Gratry, who called Brownson “the keenest critic of the 19th century, an indomitable logician, a disinterested lover of truth, a sage, as sharp as Aristotle, as lofty as Plato.”[38] Great Britain’s Lord Acton visited with Brownson and later wrote that “Intellectually, no American I have met comes near him.” [39]

I’m glad the Eastern Orthodox gentleman who sent me Guettée’s work made it so clear that he holds to the same position and understanding of the Catholic Church and papacy as Guettée because Brownson makes it so clear that Guettée did not understand the Catholic Church and the papacy at all!

Not only does Brownson prove Guettée wrong, he proves the Catholic Church true and the Eastern Orthodox false.

Brownson’s work is an absolute must read for all who desire the truth of the Christian Faith.

In case the above link to Brownson’s work fails, try https://books.google.com/books?id=0qQ-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA474

It ends on page 527. This work should be spread far and wide.

 

Footnote

[1] To read Guettée’s book, click and repeat  guettee_thepapacy(3)

 

 

One of my pet peeves in the world today is feminism. I have a particular hatred for it as one can deduce from an article I posted as First Timothy 2:12: The Bible Verse that Nobody Believes In.

Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. But what is meant by the equality of the sexes and how is it defined?

The only true equality between the two sexes exists in the fact that when Baptized in Christ, we make up one Body (Gal. 3:26-29). We are equal in human dignity. Within the realm of human dignity, women should have a right to work and have a higher education. However, we are not equal in authority (II Tim. 2:12-14).

The “women’s rights” which are advocated in society by the feminist movement necessarily place women in an equal or higher authority. These so-called rights attack the dignity of the human person. The unborn are murdered, motherhood is downgraded, and masculinity is frowned upon and rejected. Feminism of the feminist movement is a rejection of truth. It is in this understanding of feminism which I’m referring to in this study.

My daughter recently asked, “When did feminism first begin?” I immediately thought of Eve. The story found in Genesis is one of the most fascinating and mysterious found in the Bible. I’ve thought about it intensely over the years. When I began to explain the account in Genesis in relation to feminism, I came up with an idea that seems to make sense to me. The following is only my opinion which I’ll gladly renounce if found to be at a variance with the decision of the Church.

Take another look at Genesis 3:

3 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

Notice that Satan went to Eve first, why?

I suspect that it’s because Satan was inferior to God and he understood that his own fall could best be applied to one who like himself was an inferior. God through St. Paul made it clear that Adam was Eve’s superior by natural law in creation (I Tim. 2:12-14). Keep in mind that Adam and Eve were made perfect and enjoyed preternatural gifts and wisdom that surpasses our own today. Also, noteworthy is the fact that Satan (whose intelligence was given to him by God) knows that the best way to get to Adam is through Eve. Don’t we know that the best way to go to Jesus, the Second Adam, is through Mary, the New Eve?

The devil first attempted to make God out to be unreasonable when he asked Eve, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” because what else were Adam and Eve going to eat but fruit from the trees in the garden? However, Eve knew her faith well. She countered the devil with God’s reasonable command that it was only from one tree in the garden they couldn’t eat from. Eve added, “nor even touch it,” because she knows to stay away from it completely.

Now Satan presents the lie and deception that eating the fruit from that tree of knowledge would bring wisdom that would make one like God. It was Satan’s desire to be like God, too. Eve knows that if she eats of the tree before Adam believing the devil’s lie is true, she will possess wisdom and power over and above that of Adam. She will be like God, but Adam will not. She will no longer be his inferior but rather his superior. Hence, the fruit looked appealing.

Eve should have consulted Adam before making such a big decision but she didn’t. This was her big chance to get ahead and become like God and Adam’s boss.

Once she ate, she immediately knew it was a mistake. Whenever a soul loses sanctifying grace, he is aware of it and feels the pain of loss. In Eve’s case, it would be even greater because of the preternatural gifts and the state of grace she was conceived in. Her loss would have been devastating to her. Not only did she lose God and sanctifying grace, but she became even lesser to Adam than before. If Adam never sinned, I wonder what the relation between men and women would be like today.

Instead of preventing Adam from making the same mistake, she had to bring him down to her level. The profound humiliation for Eve was too much. She can’t be the only fool. Eve became like Satan and seduced Adam, who listened to a woman over God. It’s bad when a woman thinks she ought to be boss, but it is worse when a man lets her. Adam should have consulted God first but he didn’t. He let Eve make a decision for him as one who had authority over him and God. Perhaps, Adam was more concerned about what Eve thought of him rather than what God thought of him. He was a woman-pleasing coward at that moment and became less than what he was created for.

Feminism is a form of pride whereby man thinks he knows better than God. Feminism is an affront to God’s order of creation. Therefore, the First Sin is pride which is the root of feminism. Other vices stem from feminism, such as abortion, homosexuality, and so-called transgender-ism.

What I find most interesting about the story of Adam and Eve and feminism is that we don’t see feminism on a grand scale throughout history as we do in today’s world. It’s as if Satan was saving this one vice for the end of time, which first brought mankind down in the first-place. I firmly believe that the problem doesn’t lie in the woman as much as with the man. Feminism only reigns when men become feminists or compromisers.

The consequences of the fall are greater with the sin of Adam because Original Sin is contracted because Adam fell, not Eve. If men today give in to feminism the consequences are feminism reigns in the world. If men don’t give in, feminism exists only in the minds, hopes, and dreams of evil women. Alas, feminism reigns in our world because men are feminists and/or cowards. So while feminism concerns the First Sin, it is the compromise of Adam that sealed our fate. Today, men compromising with women either through acceptance of feminism or the fear of feminists, keep the abomination going.

Pope St. Pius X declared in E Supremi on the “the distinguishing mark of Antichrist” “man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God’ (II. Thess. Ii., 2).”

Pride is the key vice of Antichrist. Mankind rejects God’s order of creation in accepting feminism. In other words, mankind is telling God that His Way and Will is not how it shall be, and this is how mankind puts himself in the place of God. The distinguishing fruits of Antichrist are feminism along with the other vices that stem from pride. Thus, the first sin becomes the last.