Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Holy Scripture’ Category

The Gospel reading is taken from John:

“Jesus therefore, six days before the pasch, came to Bethania, where Lazarus had been dead, whom Jesus raised to life. And they made him a supper there: and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that were at table with him. Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, he that was about to betray him, said: Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein. Jesus therefore said: Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of my burial. For the poor you have always with you; but me you have not always. A great multitude therefore of the Jews knew that he was there; and they came, not for Jesus’ sake only, but that they might see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead” (John 12:1-9).

Cornelius À Lapide writes in his biblical commentary:

Ver. 1.—Then Jesus six days before the Passover, &c. He came from Ephraim, as the Passover was drawing on when He was to die. And He came to Bethany to prepare Himself for it; nay more, to offer Himself for death, and furnish an opportunity for it through the covetousness of Judas. This explains why He first went to Bethany. For the chief priests had ordered that He should be seized. And He, knowing this by divine inspiration, came to Bethany, where He had many well-wishers, among whom He could remain in security, and might thence shortly afterwards enter Jerusalem in solemn pomp on Palm Sunday, as the Paschal Lamb who was to be offered for the sins of the world.

Bethany, which is close to Mount Olivet, signifies in Hebrew the house of obedience. From this place He wished to go to His Cross. For as the Gloss says, By being obedient even as far as to the death of the Cross, He taught His Church obedience, on the Mount of Oil, i.e., the Mount of Mercy, which cannot be hid, and by which He raises up those who are buried in grievous sins. A supper is there made by the faith and devotion of the righteous. Martha ministers, when each of the faithful offers to the Lord works of devotion, and Lazarus, i.e., those who have been raised up (from sin), with those who have remained stedfast in their righteousness, joyfully feast on the Lord’s presence.

Six days before the Passover. It was on the Friday evening that He came from Ephraim. On the following Sabbath they made Him a feast, and on the next day (Palm Sunday) He in solemn manner entered Jerusalem. For the Passover that year fell on the Thursday of that week. He came to Bethany on the Friday, because it was not lawful to journey on the Sabbath.

Symbolically, The Gloss says, “God made all things in six days. On the sixth He made man; in the sixth age of the world He willed to redeem him. He suffered on the sixth day of the week, and died at the sixth hour.”

Whom Jesus raised from the dead. That by His presence He might revive the memory of this miracle, and arouse the people to attend Him on His solemn entry into Jerusalem, and shout Hosanna.

Ver. 2.—There they made Him a supper, &c. To show that He had really risen; as S. Augustine says (in loc.). “He lived, He talked, He partook of the meal: the truth was set forth, the unbelief of the Jews was confounded.”

Ver. 3.—Mary (Magdalene) therefore (that she might not be wanting on her part, and in order specially to honour Christ, and to surpass all others in her services, as she surpassed them in love) look a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly. Ointment of nard was composed of several sweet scents (see Pliny H. N. xiii. 2), and was thick. But this was liquid, as S. Matt. (xxvi. 7) says that it was poured on His head. Liquids are very often weighed in vessels, or anyhow the nard itself from which the ointment was made. Or this pound was rather a measure of quantity, not of weight.

Mystically. S. Augustine says, “The ointment was righteousness. Therefore it was of due weight” (libra). The Gloss says, “Mary before anointed His feet as a penitent; but now, when the righteousness of the perfect, and not the mere rudiments of penitence, are designated, she anoints His head and His feet. The pound of ointment is the perfection of righteousness. He anoints the head, who preaches high doctrines respecting Christ; He anoints the feet who respects the least commandments.”

But what is “pistic nard”? (1.) The Commentary on S. Matthew (in S. Jerome) says “mystic,” which is absurd. (2.) S. Augustine says it is so called from the place whence it was brought. But the place itself is uncertain. (3.) Maldonatus derives it α̉πὸ του̃ πίνειν, meaning that it was liquid, and so could be drunk, other ointments being thick and clotted. (4.) Others derive it from πιέξω, squeezed or pressed out. (5.) As if from πίστις, pure, unadulterated, as nard frequently was. (See Pliny H. N. xii. 13.) So Euthymius, Theophylact, on Mark xii., Baronius, Ribera, Jansenius, Toletus and others. (6.) Pistici is the same as spicati by a change of letters. This was the best kind of ointment. (This point treated at very great length.)

Morally. Here learn that the good works, with which we anoint Christ, ought to be quite free from fault, and of the very best kind. Compare the offerings of Cain and Abel. (See Ps. lxvi., xx. 4, and Dan. iii. 40 (Vulg.), Lev. iii. 16, Num. xviii. 17, 29, and Lev. xxiii. 19.)

And anointed the feet of Jesus. S. Matt. adds “and the head.” Alcuin explains mystically, “The Head is the loftiness of the Godhead, the feet the humility of the Incarnation. Or the Head is Christ, the feet the poor who are His members. We anoint them when we give them alms.”

And wiped His feet with her hair. A hysteron proteron. For first she wiped, and then anointed His feet. For had she anointed His feet first, and then wiped them with her hair, she would have anointed her own hair, (which she did not wish to do,) and which indeed she counted unworthy of such anointing, and not His feet. Moreover, this sweet-scented and precious ointment was not to be wiped off, but left on His feet, to give them ease.

Her hair. To soil those hairs, of which she used to be vain, with the dust of His feet, and also that she might with the deepest reverence and humility place her whole head beneath His feet. For S. Chrysostom says, she placed the noblest part of her body beneath His feet, and she approached Him not as man but as God.

And the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.  S. Augustine says, mystically, the whole world was filled with the good fame of her piety and virtue. As S. Paul says, “We are a sweet savour of Christ” (2 Cor. ii. 14)—to the good, of life unto life; to the wicked, of death unto death—as was here the case. Whence it follows:

Ver. 4.—Then said one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, (5.) why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? SS. Matt. and Mark add, “Why was this waste of the ointment made?” Bede replies, “It was no waste, but for the rite of burial; nor is it wonderful that she offered Me the sweet savour of Faith, when I am about to shed my blood for her.”

Ver. 6.—This he said, &c. Nay worse, sacrilegious, “for he seized for his own use, that which was given for a sacred purpose,” says Theophylact. “He carried the money by his office, he carried it off by theft,” says S. Augustine. He wished the ointment to be sold, and the price of it given to him; and since he knew that Christ did not wish so large a sum to be kept in his purse, but rather to be distributed amongst the poor, he would have distributed some of it to the poor, and have purloined the rest for himself. See here how opportunity makes the thief, and how dangerous it is for holy men in “religion” to handle moneys, those especially which belong to the whole community. For if covetousness suggests it, a portion is easily diverted to the use of themselves or their families.

But why did Jesus entrust to him the bag, knowing him to be a thief? I answer, Because Judas was more qualified than the other Apostles to make purchases. And He allowed the theft, because an opportunity was furnished thereby for the betrayal and death which He courted. Again S. Augustine, “Because the Church would afterwards have its coffers, He admitted thieves, in order that His Church might tolerate powerful thieves, even when suffering from them, to teach us that the wicked must be tolerated, for fear of dividing the body of Christ. Do thou, the good, bear with the evil, that thou mayest attain to the reward of the good.” S. Chrysostom adds, “The Lord committed the bags to a thief, in order to cut off any excuse for betraying Him, and that it might not seem as if he betrayed Him from want of money.” But Theophylact says, “Some maintain that as the least of the Apostles he undertook the management of the money.”

Lastly, S. Bernard (de Consid. iv. 6) teaches us “that Christ wished in ‘this’ way to teach Prelates readily to entrust the management of temporal affairs to any one, but to reserve the ordering of spiritual matters to themselves: though many do exactly the contrary.” Again, Christ acted thus, to keep us from being surprised, if in the assemblies, monasteries, and congregations of holy men, there be occasionally found some vicious and scandalous persons; and accordingly S. Augustine (Epist. 137, nunc 75), when one of his monks had caused scandal, at which the people cried out against him, prudently replied, “However vigilant may be the discipline of my house, I am but a man, I am living among men: nor do I dare to claim for myself, that my house should be better than Noah’s ark, where among eight men one was found reprobate, or better than the house of Abraham, when it was said, Cast out the bond-woman and her son; or better than the house of Isaac, to whom it was said respecting the twin children, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated: or better than the house of Jacob, when his son defiled his father’s bed; or better than the house of David, whose son lay with his sister, and where another son rebelled against his holy and gentle father; or better than they who were associated with the Lord Christ Himself, where eleven righteous men tolerated Judas, that perfidious thief; or, lastly, better than heaven from which the angels fell.”

Doubtless God permits it in His wise providence, in order that by the wickedness of one or two the goodness and sanctity of others may shine out the more by way of contrast, as light amid darkness, gold amongst lead, the sun between the clouds, a wise man among fools, shines forth only the more resplendently. For contraries opposed to each other are the more marked. (See. Ecclus. xxxiii. 15, and notes in loc.)

And had the bag, &c. From this Jansen and others rightly gather that it is lawful for the Church to have coffers and wealth, and that it does not derogate from perfection to have a common purse, for reasonable and moderate expenses. For Jesus did nothing which implied imperfection, being the teacher of all perfection.

In order to understand this thoroughly, observe that though Christ, by reason of His Hypostatic Union with the Word, had a pre-eminent and (as it were) Divine dominion over all creatures, yet professed poverty, that is, an abandonment of ownership, special ownership, in order to be the teacher and example of a more perfect life. See Matt. viii. 20, xix. 21, 27.

Observe, secondly, that Christ had absolute control of the offerings made to Him by the faithful, for the common good, and not for His special use. They belonged to the whole College of the Apostles. He held them not as though He were their sole owner. See John iv. 8, vi. 5.

It follows therefore that it does not in any way detract from their perfection for Religious orders to have goods in common. (See John xxii. Extravag. Ad Conditorem.) In some cases this is the most perfect way, in others not. But Christ at one time seemed to have lost all claim even to a share of the common property. (See Luke viii. 3.) This seems to be all that Nicholas IV. means. (Can. Exiit qui seminat. De Verb. Signif. in vi., though he apparently contradicts John xxii.)

S. Thomas (see Secund. Quæst. clxxxviii.Art. 7) proves àpriori that the possession of goods in common does not hinder perfection. Poverty, he says, is only an instrument of perfection, as taking away anxiety in acquiring and preserving riches, the love of them, and our priding ourselves in them. But to have goods in common does not give rise to any of these evils; and so far from hindering charity, it even promotes it. “For it is manifest,” says S. Thomas, “that to store up things which are necessary to man, and purchased at a fitting time, causes the least possible anxiety.”

All founders of Religious Orders have sanctioned this. And hence resulted the Constitution of Justinian, that the goods of those who became monks should belong as a matter of course to their monasteries. For the whole meaning of poverty turns on not having anything belonging especially to one’s own self, though there may be some common fund, from which, according to the Apostolic Rule, distribution should be made to each, as need may require. (See Acts ii. 44-45; iv. 35, and the Notes thereon.) This is just what S. Jerome says to the “Religious” of his own day (Epist. xxii.) “No one has any right so say, I have not a tunic, or a coat, or a bed of plaited bulrushes. For the head of the Community so divides the common stock, that every one has what he asks for. And if any begins to fall ill, he is transferred to a larger cell, and is so carefully attended by the older monks, that he longs not for the delights of cities, or the tenderness of a mother.”

The fathers and schoolmen teach everywhere the same thing. (See Suarez par. iii. Quæst. xl. disp. xxviii. § 2, Bellarm. de Summo Pont. iv. 14, Soto de Just. iv. Quæst. i. art. 1.)

Nicolas IV. (ut supr.) says that to have common purses is to detract from perfection, for Christ in this matter adapted Himself to the weaker brethren, that He might be an example to all. Suarez replies, that Nicolas only asserted that in the matter of poverty that was the least rigid rule which allowed them to have common purses, but that it must not be concluded from this that the other rule was absolutely the most perfect. For though less perfect, as common poverty, it may be more perfect in charity, or some other virtue. For Nicolas is speaking of the Franciscans (of whom he was one), whose Order had for its scope and end the extremest poverty, in order to be conformed to S. Francis. But other orders have other pious and holy ends, for which it is more convenient to have goods in common. And therefore this is more fitting and perfect in their case. Carthusians observe silence and solitude. Others practise great austerity. But those who are employed in preaching and missions to unbelievers, need great strength to endure the great labours of their order, and make up for austerity of living by charity towards their neighbours. Both act in a manner suited to their order, and the end they propose to themselves. Different ends require different means. The Council of Trent allows all “Religious,” except the Franciscans, to own Real Property (bona immobilia).

Ver. 7.—Then said Jesus, Suffer her to keep this for the day of my burial. In the Greek it is “for the day of my burial hath she kept this,” and also in the Syriac (see notes on Matt. xxvi. 12, &c.) Hear S. Augustine, “He saith not to him, It is on account of thy thefts that thou speakest thus. He knew he was a thief, but was unwilling to expose him. He chose rather to bear with him, and to set us an example of patience in tolerating evil men in the Church.”

Ver. 9.—Much people of the Jews, &c. “Curiosity led them,” says S. Augustine, “not charity,” to see and hear Lazarus, and to ask him where he had been after death, what he had seen, what he had done? So Cyril, Theophylact, Leontius.

 

Read Full Post »

We read in the Gospel of Matthew how Christ went after the Pharisees for being hypocrites, “Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24).”

The Pharisees worried about trifling things that others do or don’t do, while they commit huge injustices.

The proverbial phrase of Our Lord applies especially to the pseudo-traditionalists today. In fact, it’s foundational to their movement. They attack sedevacantism and help and support the Vatican 2 religion as the “true” religion of Our Lord.

One such person, who teaches at a university in Kentucky, told me recently that Pope Pius XII opened the door to evolution in his document Humani Generis. I explained the difference between dogmas and doctrines of opinions, but he would hear none of it. He would rather strain out a gnat found in sedevacantism and swallow the entire heretical Vatican 2 camel that has the same gnat.

Nishant Xavier who comments on my website is another example. He points to a priest back in the 1980’s who attempted to assassinate John Paul 2. According Xavier, this is the bad fruit of sedevacantism, which proves its schismatic and evil. He strains out a gnat; a mentally ill sedevacantist priest who tried to kill John Paul 2, but swallows the camel; a religion that has mostly homosexual and pro-homosexual bishops, priests, and a pope helping ruin the souls of millions while sacrilegiously defaming our churches they stole. Xavier is oblivious to the fact that we’ve had true popes who murdered other popes. His argument necessarily accuses the Catholic Church for putting out bad fruit on two fronts.

Nishant Xavier claims to be an indult traditionalist. Like my anything-but-sedevacantist brother, the SSPX, Tradition in Action, John Salza, etc. will stay unified to their pope and accept his religion where they acknowledge has evil teachings and practices. They attack sedevacantistm as being heretical based on theological opinions, while defending a religion they acknowledge is heretical. They strain a gnat and swallow the camel; defending a religion devoid of true unity and complete holiness, with its dozens of contradictions, errors, evil practices, bad lituriges, and outright heresies leading a billion Catholics to hell. 

Read Full Post »

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins (II Maccabees 12:46).

This verse tells us that sins can be forgiven after death by the intercession of prayers of those who still live.

St. Paul through the Holy Ghost tells us in the Apocalypse the defiled will not enter Heaven. [1] Yet, all good men are defiled in someway. There may be an attachment to sin even through ignorance and the punishment due to forgiven mortal sin. Men don’t always repair and make restitutions for their sins, which is a type of defilement. Therefore, a place of purgation and purification must exist in order that God’s justice and mercy apply perfectly and completely. How this works is explained in St. Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians.

9 For we are God’s coadjutors: you are God’s husbandry; you are God’s building.

10 According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: 13 Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. 16 Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

17 But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are (I Cor. 3:9-17).

The “day of the Lord” is Judgment Day. The temple is man. Gold, silver, and precious stones represents good works deserving of a reward (Heaven). Wood, hay, and stubble represents venial sins, which gets burned up (Purgatory). Violating the temple is mortal sin and those that do so will be destroyed (Hell).

Mortal sins are sins unto death, and venial sins are sins not unto death (First John 5:16-17). For instance, in Matthew 5:19, Jesus states that men can commit certain sins and even teach others to commit that sin but would be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. Other sins however, Jesus says would cause men liable to hell fire. Therefore, different types of sins have different types of punishment and this is what St. Paul describes.

Lastly, Jesus implicitely tells that Purgatory exists:

“And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come (Matt. 12:32).”

Fr. Leo Haydock writes in his Bible commentary that St. Augustine (De Civ. 1.xxi. c. 13) and Pope St. Gregory the Great (Dial. Iv, c. 39) understood the passage to refer to Purgatory. St. Augustine said this passage would not be true, if some sins were not forgiven in the world to come; and St. Gregory says, we are to believe from these words in the existence of the fire of purgatory, to expiate our smaller offenses, before the day of judgment. St. Isidore and Ven. Bede say the same. St. Bernard, speaking of heretics, says they do not believe in purgatory; let them then inquire of our Savior, what he meant by these words.” [2]

Fr. Cornelius à Lapide S.J. writes in his commentary, “S. Aug. (21 Civit. 24), S. Greg. (4 dialog. 39), Isidore, Bede, S. Bern., and others, quoted by Bellarmine (Lib. 2. de Purgat. sec. 4), prove from this passage, that there is a Purgatory after this life. For it would be unmeaning to say, shall not be forgiven nor in the world to come, if there were no remission of sins in the world to come. Thus a person would speak vainly who said, I will never marry a wife, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, since no wife can be married in the world to come. Mark adds, and gives greater force to the saying: but shall be guilty of eternal damnation. Moreover mortal sins are expiated in Purgatory, so far only as pertains to their punishment, but venial sins as regards both fault and punishment.” [3]

In the past, I’ve answered certain objections to Purgatory, [4] but the bottom line is that the Church is the pillar and ground for the truth (I Tim. 3:15) and the Church from its beginning has believed in Purgatory. We clearly see it in the Holy Bible. According to Apostolic traditions, liturgies were offered for the poor souls in Purgatory. We also see prayers offered for the dead in the catacombs.

The 3rd century heretics known as the Apostolici (a sect of Encratites) denied Purgatory, but could not have done so if the universal belief didn’t already exist.

Later heretics such as the Cathars (Waldenses) of the 12th century denied the existence of Purgatory. Some of the Eastern Orthodox (Greek and Russian) denied it after the “Orthodox Confession of Petrus Mogilas” was drawn up around 1640 AD. The Protestants denied it in the 16th century. The fact that they all denied Purgatory demonstrates that it existed before they existed.

The 2nd Council of Lyons (1274), Pope Benedict XII, in the dogmatic constitution “Benedietus Deus” (1336), Council of Florence (1439), and the Council of Trent (1563) defined Purgatory from a universal belief to a dogma of the Catholic Faith. [5]

God has spoken and His Church, the Pillar and Ground for the truth has spoken. Purgatory is real!

 

Footnotes:

[1] There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb (Apoc. 21:27).

[2] The Haydock Bible

[3] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (newadvent.org)

[4] OBJECTIONS TO PURGATORY ANSWERED IN A NUTSHELL

[5] Benedictus Deus (On the Beatific Vision of God) | EWTN

~The Council of Trent – Session 25~

 

Read Full Post »

Paul VI presiding over the introductory ingress of the Council, flanked by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (left), Cardinal Camerlengo Benedetto Aloisi Masella and Monsignor Enrico Dante (future Cardinal), Papal Master of Ceremonies (right), and two Papal gentlemen.

 

The Second Vatican Council declared in Lumen Gentium ch2, “15. For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”

The council continued in Unitatis Redintegratio: 3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, (19) which the Apostle strongly condemned. (20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. 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. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. 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, (21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (22)”

This last sentence is false on several levels and sounds much like the fundamental heresy of the Protestant Revolt of the 16th century, once saved, always saved.

Being justified in baptism does not mean one automatically remains justified, nor does it mean one will always remain a member of Christ’s body. Even Scripture tells us so.

“If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth  (John 15: 6).”

To be cast off as a branch, one must first be a member of the tree. This verse implies that a member of Christ can be cut off from Christ. 

“See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again (Rom 11: 22).”

The context is in believing. Has every baptized individual remained believing in our day?  None has fallen away and been cut off? That’s the implication of Vatican 2.

The next problem with Vatican 2’s declaration that “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian” is the fact that if it were true, then no one, not even the Church, would have a right to call such persons heretics, schismatics, or apostates. They could only be called Christians in error or separated brethren.

The Vatican 2 religion is quite aware of this, because you might find the word heresy, schism, or apostasy in their language, but you’ll be hard-pressed to find them officially calling someone a heretic, schismatic, or apostate. If you did, it would only show their hypocrisy and/or ignorance of their own teaching.

Even the Vatican 2 saint Faustina claimed that Jesus identified Protestants as heretics and Eastern Orthodox as Schismatics. In St. Faustina’s Diary, she records Our Lord’s words in 1937, long before Vatican II, for the fifth day of the Divine Mercy Novena: “Today, bring to Me the souls of heretics and schismatics and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy.”

However, the Vatican 2 religion’s Official Novena for Congregational use declared:

It was decided to adopt the designation “separated brethren” in place of heretics and schismatics because of Vatican II’s unambiguous designation concerning the relationship of Christians not in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome in the Body of Christ. The continuous and consistent use of that designation by every Pope since the Council reaffirms that decision.

However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation, those who at present are born into these communities, and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.,span>

Apparently, the Vatican 2 religion didn’t think Our Lord knew how improper it was to call baptized non-Catholics heretics and schismatics, since they have a right to be called Christian.

True popes have been abundantly clear that only Catholics are Christians.

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).

Pope Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum, “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.”

The implication of the Vatican 2 teaching is that the Church was guilty of prohibiting a God-given right of certain individuals to be called Christian, which necessarily means the Church was evil. It also means the Church has been wrong for years.

Vatican 2 is good at accusing the Catholic Church of being evil for prohibiting God-given rights to individuals. It also taught in Dignitatis Humanae that men have a God-given civil right to give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance. [1]

Again, the implication is that the Church was guilty of prohibiting this right to Muslims at the Council of Vienne in 1312. [2] It also means that Martin Luther was right “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit” which was condemned by in Bull Exsurge Domine, June 15, 1520 by Pope Leo X. Not only would it be against the will of the Spirit to burn them, but to call them heretics to begin with. All have a right to be called Christian.

To follow Vatican 2 is to reject the Catholic Faith as it was believed before the council. In other words, Vatican 2 is taking its queues from the Protestant Revolt with its own revolution. The Church was wrong and we’re going to set it right.

So the next time a pseudo-Catholic calls you a heretic, tell them their magisterium tells you we have a right to be called Christian. Get with your program or get out of your religion.

Footnotes

[1] Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”

[2] Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy nameand a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.      These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine maje sty.  We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands.  We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

 

Read Full Post »

Holy Scripture

“Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (II Cor. 6:14-18)

Haydock’s Commentary

Ver. 14. Bear not the yoke together with unbelievers. He does not mean, that they must wholly avoid their company, which could not be done, but not to have too intimate a friendship with them, not to marry with them, to avoid their vices. Be ye separate….touch not the unclean thing. He does not speak of meats, clean and unclean, according to the law of Moses, nor of legal uncleannesses, but what is sinful under the new law of Christ, and would defile the soul, as idolatry, fornication, &c. (Witham)

Ver. 15. Such as have cast off the yoke of God are called children of Belial. (John viii. 44.) Belial, in its radical signification, means without yoke. (Bible de Vence)

Ver. 16. The apostle here blames the too great affection the Corinthians had for the Gentiles, who sometimes invited them to their religious feasts, at which were eaten meats which had been offered to idols, and which gave scandal both to the Christians and Gentiles. To draw them from these feasts he tells them, that they are the temples of the Holy Ghost, and that consequently they ought not to make themselves the temples of devils, by eating of the sacrifices of devils. (Calmet) — St. Paul, in this and the foregoing verses, clearly shews that the faithful ought not to frequent, on any account, the tabernacles of those who have left the Church. In the old law, Moses was ordered to command the ancients of Israel, on the part of God, to depart from the tents of those wicked men, lest they be involved in their sins. (Numbers xvi. 27.)

The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius À Lapide

Ver. 14.—Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. Do not have so close fellowship with them in matters of religion as to be gradually led away to share in their unbelief, as, e.g., in marriage. Separate yourselves from the unbelievers’ assemblies, temples, sacrifices, feasts; do not intermarry with them, for all commerce with them is either wicked and unrighteous in itself, or is dangerous to those who hold it, and a cause of offence to others. Do not imitate the Jews, whose laxity is recorded in PS. cvi. 35 (Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theophylact).  S. Jerome (contra Jovin. lib. i.) understands S. Paul to warn against intermarriage with unbelievers. There seems to be an allusion to Ps. cvi. 28, “They joined themselves unto Baal-peor,” which refers to the fornication committed by the Israelites in honour of Baal-peor. So, whoever marries with an unbeliever may be said to join himself to Baal-peor, i.e., the devil, the ruler of unbelievers. Anselm again supposes that by “unbelievers” is meant the Judaising false apostles, who were attempting to eviscerate the faith of Christ by making the ceremonies of the law of Moses binding on Christians. Such men are more dangerous to Christians, and more to be shunned than unbelieving Gentiles, and therefore S. Paul warns his readers against them. This sense is good but defective, for the Apostle wishes the fellowship of all unbelievers whatsoever to be avoided

The Apostle is here passing on, as is usual in letters, to discuss another point of importance just then to the Corinthians, viz., the duty of avoiding unbelievers. It is in vain, therefore, for any one to seek for connecting links with what has gone before.

Erasmus observes that the Latin version is happy in its translation here; it renders the passage: “Do not be joined in the same yoke with unbelievers.” For if a Christian marry a heathen wife, or a Christian magistrate have a Gentile as colleague, he is called έτεροζυγω̃ν. Marriages of this kind S. Jerome calls unequal.

Observe upon this that έτερος signifies sometimes one of two, sometimes an object that is diverse, whether from some one other or from several others. Thus the word occurs in a compound word, to denote one who lacks an eye, and again to denote one who is of a different opinion (έτεροφθάλμος and έτερόδοξος). And hence it is uncertain whether S. Paul here means one who bears one-half of a yoke, or one who bears a yoke in company with one of a different condition.

Budæus takes the former of these two, and understands S. Paul to exhort the Corinthians not to bear one part of a yoke with unbelievers, just as in Campania two oxen bear the same yoke, one on each side.

Others more properly take the latter meaning, and understand the warning to be against such an alliance as that of an ox and an ass would be in the same yoke (Deut. xxii. 10). This interpretation is rendered more probable from the words that follow—“what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?”

Theophylact again thinks that the warning is against accommodating one’s principles to those of our partner in wedlock. He says that the allusion here is not to a yoke but to the beam of a balance, and one especially that is unequally weighted, so that one side is lower than the other. We are not to be like such a balance, and lean towards an unrighteous or unbelieving partner.

For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteous? The just with the unjust, believers with unbelievers.

It was hard for the Corinthians, while Christians were so few, to be forbidden to have commerce and intermarriage with unbelievers. Many amongst them would find a difficulty in obtaining partners of equal rank, or wealth, or position; and hence they would either be obliged to abstain from marriage, or else marry an inferior. Moreover, by natural and Divine law there was nothing simply and absolutely to prohibit them from allying themselves with unbelievers; still such alliance would be unbecoming and full of danger, and hence it is forbidden by the Apostle. But to reconcile them to so severe a precept he puts before them five contrasts drawn from the inherent opposition between Christianity and heathenism.

(1.) Unequal wedlock is a heavy yoke, burdensome to both parties, even as it would be if a horse and an ox were yoked together. (2.) Light and darkness cannot cohere in the same subject or be in the same place at once; therefore one of the faithful, who has the light of faith, cannot well enter into the same yoke with one who is full of the darkness of unbelief. (3.) There is no concord between Christ and Belial: believers belong to Christ, unbelievers to Belial; therefore they cannot agree. (4.) The believer has no part or communion with the unbeliever, but differs from him as widely as belief from unbelief, heaven from hell; therefore they cannot be joined together. (5.) The temple of God cannot be associated with the idols and temples of devils; neither, therefore, can a believer with an unbeliever. For each of the faithful is a temple of God, and the unbeliever is a temple and image of the devil.

Ver. 15.—What concord hath Christ with Belial? What harmony can there be between Him who is the Author of all knowledge, obedience, and righteousness and the devil with his followers?

The Hebrew Belial denotes (1.) disobedience, rebellion, ungodliness; (2.) those who have these qualities; and (3.) the devil, as the first apostate, the first to shake of the yoke of obedience to God and His law. Hence apostates are called “sons of Belial,” i.e., children of the devil, or children of disobedience, rebellion ungodliness

What part hath he that believeth with an infidel? What is there common to both, to be shared by both? So, in 1 Kings xii. 16, we find: “What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse.” This antithesis explains the three preceding ones. It is not right for a believer to be joined with an unbeliever, even as it is not possible for righteousness to be joined to unrighteousness, light to darkness, Christ to Belial, the temple of God with idols.

Ver. 16.—Ye are the temple of the living God. By faith, grace, and holiness.  S. Cyprian (de Orat. Domin.) says beautifully: “Let us show ourselves in our lives as the temples of God, that all may see that God indwells within us, so that we who have begun to be heavenly and spiritual, may think and do nothing but what is spiritual and heavenly.” The Hebrew word for “temple” connotes power and majesty. Hence Chrysostom (Hom. 17 in Ep. ad Heb.) says that God ordered Solomon’s Temple to be made exceeding magnifical, that the Jews, who were naturally attracted by outward things, might be led to know something of the majesty of God. Why, then, should not Christians ornament their temples, as the houses of God, and show honour to God, and especially to the body of Christ present with them, and so excite others to reverence and love God? Such a temple, such a royal, nay, such a Divine palace, is the Church allegorically, and each faithful soul tropologically, as the Apostle here declares. In this temple God shows His great glory and majesty, by His exceeding great grace, by magnificent and glorious works of virtue, and by the power of His sacraments.

Villalpando (in Ezek. vol. ii. p. 256) sees a further reference in the Hebrew word for temple to motion or walking. The tabernacle was a movable temple in which God dwelt and walked with the Hebrews through the wilderness into their promised land. It is to this that S. Paul alludes in the words that follow.

I will walk in them. I will be their guardian, and will spiritually walk in them through the powers and virtues of the soul. Anselm points out that S. Paul quotes Ezek. xxxvii. 27 literally, and Lev. xxvi. 12 tropologically. What is said in the latter passage of the literal tabernacle of witness is to be understood of God’s protecting presence in each one of the faithful.

Allegorically this tabernacle signified the Church of Christ, as is explained in Ezek. xxvii. 27, and tropologically each holy soul, which is a temple of God moving through the wilderness of this world to its resting-place in heaven.

(i.) God walks in the soul as in His tabernacle when, through acts of faith, hope, and charity, He passes from the memory to the understanding, and thence to the will. For the faithful soul is as the temple of heaven: its sun is the understanding, or zeal for righteousness, its moon is faith and continence; its stars the other virtues, as S. Bernard says (Serm. 27 in Cantic.). (2.) God walks in the soul, inasmuch as He makes it by His grace go from virtue to virtue (Anselm and Theophylact). In the same way that in the tabernacle the way to the Holy of Holies through the Holy Place was by the altar of incense, the table of shew-bread, and the candle-stick, does God enable us to pass into heaven through holiness of life by prayer, almsgiving, chastity, and purity of soul. The altar of incense was a symbol of prayer, the table of almsgiving, the candle-stick of purity and brightness of life. (3.) God walks in the soul by way of contemplation. He causes us to follow in our minds His temples, as He passed from the temple of heaven to that of the Virgin’s womb, thence to that of Calvary, thence to hell, and finally back again to heaven. (4.) God walks in us corporally, says S. Ambrose, for the Word was made flesh and dwelt and walked amongst us, and daily by Holy Communion He dwells in us and walks with us.

Ver. 17.—Come out from among them. Isa. lii. 11, which is here quoted, taken literally ordered the Apostles and the faithful generally to come out, not from the unbelieving and unclean city of Babylon, but from Jerusalem, to be laid waste by Titus. But the Apostle, either tropologically or by parity of reasoning, applies it as an injunction to the faithful to avoid too great intimacy with unbelievers, and not to touch the unclean thing, that is unclean unbelievers; not to live with them, lest they stain themselves with their uncleannesses, such as drunkenness, lust, pride, ungodliness, and unrighteousness (Jerome, Cyril in Isa. lii., Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm).

Holy Scripture

“If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you.” (II John 1:10)

Haydock’s Commentary

Ver. 10. Nor say to him, Hail; or peace be to you, God speed you, all hail; or use any form of saluting him, as you would a friend, much less receive or entertain him in your house: this admonition is in general to forewarn persons of the dangers which may arise from a familiarity with heretics, and such as teach evil doctrine. But by this is not forbidden civility, kindness, and a sincere charity for all men, by which we ought to wish and pray for the eternal salvation of every one. I translate Ave by peace be to you, because this was the usual salutation among the Jews, and in those times, as we see in Luke xxiv. and John xx.

The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius À Lapide

Ver. 10.—lf any one come to you, and bring not this doctrine, &c. S. John in this place not only advises, as some think, but also commands Electa and all the rest of the faithful not to receive to hospitality, nor say Hail, to any one who brings another doctrine, i.e. one which is contrary to the orthodox faith of Christ. For he who saith hail to such is partaker of their evil deeds. That is, he seems to favour and applaud the heretical teacher.

Observe, not only by human and canon laws, as since the time of S. John they have been enacted by Pontiffs and Councils, heretics are to be avoided in three cases. The first is, when there is danger lest you or yours should be perverted by them, which is a thing which ordinarily happens. For, as S. Paul saith, “Their word doth creep as doth a cancer.” (2 Tim. ii. 17.)

2d. When, by receiving, you would seem to favour his heresy, and tacitly profess or encourage it. As, for example, if you were to receive to your house and table a recognised Calvinistic minister, who came for the purpose of propagating his heresy. In the same way it would be wrong to be present at his preaching, or eucharists, or to communicate with him in sacris.

3d. When you give scandal to others, so that they, thinking you to be a host and patron of heretics, should be by your example emboldened to do the same.

These cases being excepted, intercourse with heretics is not forbidden by the Divine and natural law, especially if necessity, or mercy, or grave benefit counsels it.

What S, John here teaches by way of precept he enforced by his example. For having entered into a bath, as soon as he saw Cerinthus there, he sprang out, crying, “Let us flee quickly lest the bath in which is Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, should fall upon us!”

S. John’s disciple, S. Polycarp, followed his master, saying in his Epistle to the Philippians, in allusion to these words of S. John, “Abstain,” he says, “from scandals, and from false brethren, who bear the name of the Lord in vain, who cause foolish men to go astray. For every one who confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he is antichrist: and he who confesses not the mystery of the Cross is a devil.” Thus wrote holy Polycarp, and he acted accordingly. For meeting the heretic Marcion, and being asked by him if he knew him, he answered, “I know thee to be the devil’s first-born.”

Thus S. Hermenegild was slain by command of his father, Levvigild, king of the Goths, because he would not receive the Eucharist at Easter from an Arian bishop. This is related by S. Gregory (3 Dial. 31), who calls him a martyr of the Church.

Eusebius of Vercelli, being taken by the Arians, preferred to die of hunger rather than take food from those heretics.

S. Paphnutius took Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem by the hand when he was through simplicity associating with heretics, and led him away from them, saying, “I cannot suffer so venerable a bishop to sit in the seat of pestilence, and to communicate with unclean heretics even by a word.”

When S. Martin communicated with the Bishops of the Ithacian sect, in the hope of saving them, he was warned by an angel not to do so. And although he repeated, he experienced a diminution of grace, so that he did not work so many miracles as he had previously wrought. (Sulp. Sever. lib. 3 Dial)

Still more are heretical books to be avoided. For these pestilent productions conceal their heresy like a plague under an appearance of elegance and wisdom, and instil it into the minds of the readers. In this present age the heresy of Luther and Calvin has been dispersed through so many kingdoms by means of their books. If you wish to take away their heresy, take away their books and their ministers. In truth you will have taken it away as soon as you have substituted pious and learned priests and preachers.

Neither say godspeed (ave) to him. The Syriac has, ye shall not say either hail to him or farewell. The ancient Romans said ave, or salve at coming in, vale at going out. Ave then here means the same as the Greek χαὶζειν, rejoice.

For he who saith to him Ave (Syriac rejoice) is a partaker in his evil deeds. For he who salutes a heretical teacher seems to approve his heresy. Some Latin copies add here, Lo, I have told you beforehand, that ye may not be confounded in the day of the Lord.

 

 

Read Full Post »