First Timothy 2
12: Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in [through the] child-bearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
After teaching how a woman should dress in appearance, St. Paul proceeds to explain how a woman is to behave in respect to men. Verse 12 is a continuation of I Cor. 14:34-35. And women are to be silent in the churches; utterance is not permitted to them; let them keep their rank, as the law tells them: 35: if they have any question to raise, let them ask their husbands at home. That a woman should make her voice heard in the church is not seemly. Knox commentary: ‘Such is the teaching I give in all the churches’; according to most Greek manuscripts, the sense is rather ‘all the churches of the saints give proof of it’. The Haydock Bible footnotes verse 12: St. Paul only means in public
The Natural and Divine law has made women subject to men. In verse 13 of I Tim., St. Paul uses a natural law argument that this teaching of God is built into creation which transcends time and culture. The natural order of creation is woman comes after man. This natural law is written on our hearts, too. Every society and culture has known and practiced this understanding. “To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen. 3:16)
St. Paul continues in I Cor. 11:7-10: A man has no need to veil his head; he is God’s image, the pride of his creation, whereas the wife is the pride of her husband. 8 (The woman takes her origin from the man, not the man from the woman; 9 and indeed, it was not man that was created for woman’s sake, but woman for man’s.) 10 And for that reason the woman ought to have authority over her head, for the angels’ sake.
The Catholic Encyclopedia: Women in canon law: “Ulpian (Dig., I, 16, 195) gives a celebrated rule of law which most canonists have embodied in their works: “Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators.” Public offices are those in which public authority is exercised; civil offices, those connected otherwise with municipal affairs. The reason given by canonists for this prohibition is not the levity, weakness, or fragility of the female sex, but the preservation of the modesty and dignity peculiar to woman.”
For Verse 14 there’s another detail for the silence of women. Notice who it was that was deceived: The woman, said Adam, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, she it was who offered me fruit from the tree, and so I came to eat it. 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, What made thee do this? The serpent, she said, beguiled me, and so I came to eat. (Gen. 3:12:13.)
Adam ate of the tree out of persuasion of his wife, whereas Eve ate out of deception of a serpent, a creature lower in creation.
And with that the woman, who saw that the fruit was good to eat, saw, too, how it was pleasant to look at and charmed the eye, took some fruit from the tree and ate it; and she gave some to her husband, and he ate with her. (Gen. 3:6.)
Eve ate to satisfy her appetite for pleasure, whereas Adam ate to please his wife. Since Eve represents all women, St. John Chrysostom rightly states, “The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he says, let her not teach.”
Verse 15 indicates that women will be saved through proper behavior becoming of a woman.
St. Paul provides more information about the relationship between men and women. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. (Eph. 5:22-24.)
It is abundantly clear that women’s subordinate relationship to men within Church and family life is intrinsic to the order of creation.
The modern world rejects I Tim. 2 by explaining away the clear meaning and making common laws that contradict the natural law. Churches, households, companies, businesses, governments, militaries, and countries reject by law the Word of God written on our hearts. Those same laws that give women equal and higher authority to men is defended by most who call themselves Christian!
Interesting, homosexuality is now a hot topic in today’s society, and those who reject the natural and divine law on man’s authority over woman’s are in the same boat as those who reject the condemnation of homosexuality. “For male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27) but “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” (I Tim. 2:13) The same argument is used for both topics.
Arguments have been made on the exceptions to the rule, such as Old Testament Judge Deborah, European queens Isabella or Mary, or Our Lady Queen of Heaven and Earth over angels and men. While there are exceptions to many laws, the exceptions aren’t the norm and that’s the problem. As soon as one cries what about this or that, so that the law or teaching doesn’t apply here and there, it soon becomes meaningless and applies nowhere.
Even up till the early 20th century, women weren’t allowed to vote. It was understood that giving women the right to vote gives women the same authority as men.
Modernists refuse to accept that truth is immutable. Therefore, modernists reject the immutable laws of God and decide against God’s laws in the spirit of the New Age, which is really the spirit of antichrist.
Rejection of natural and divine laws is antichrist since the rejection of God’s laws is a rejection of Christ, and those that do so place themselves in the place of Christ as one who decides what shall be Law.
The rejection of First Timothy 2:12 is part of the Great Apostasy foretold in Scripture. The abominable practices of women voting, running for office, holding positions of authority not only in government but also in the courts, military, police, etc. are heralded as the great advancement of women. Anyone who opposes the modernists will be called haters, sexists, and will be terminated from work, arrested, and jailed.
Remember that the distinguishing character mark of the beast on the hand and forehead of people (Apoc. 13:16) represents what man does in action through work and what man believes and thinks. They will be one with the beast. Those who refuse to accept the mark will not be able buy, sell, or interact normally with society because society is part and parcel with the beast.
Hopefully, this article will make a few men and women aware that they are actually participating as antichrist and cease in their damnable beliefs and activities.
During that glorious reign of Pope St. Pius X, Jesuit priest George Tyrrell (1861 – 1909) was exposed for being a Modernist theologian and scholar.
St. Pius had disciplined Tyrrell and ultimately saw to it that he be expelled from the Jesuit order in 1906 and denied the sacraments until his death in 1909.
However, he did receive Extreme Unction on his deathbed but denied a Catholic Burial. When his friend Fr. Henri Bremond made a sign of the cross over his grave, he was punished by the Church.
When the greatest popes reign, you find greatness within.
Heresy was not tolerated during the time of Pope St. Pius X calling modernism the “Synthesis of all Heresies.”
The legacy of Pope St. Pius X was his condemnations against Modernism.
Later, Ratzinger, aka Benedict XVI, would call those teachings obsolete in his “Instruction of the Ecclesial Vocation” published in the L”Ossrvatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6.
Not surprising that the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church failed to include any of Pope St. Pius X’s teachings against modernism.
How ironic that the greatest pope in 500 years along with his legacy would be excluded from the definitive catechism.
But of course it is not ironic at all. Both, the founder of the the new religion of Rome, Roncalli (John XXIII) and Benedict XVI, were on record for years for suspicion of modernism. Their Vatican 2 religion is the result of their modernist philosophy which makes all those condemnations of Pope St. Pius X to be considered null and void.
After Tyrrell, another Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, picked up where Tyrrell left off.
He was a priest, paleontologist, and geologist.
His works promoted macro evolution while pointing to a cosmic Christ. His writings were condemned and denied any imprimaturs.
Pope Pius XII condemned many of his ideas in the encyclical Humani Generis.
Chardin died in 1955 but his legacy of modernism lives on in the hearts of such men as Benedict XVI who praises him in several works.
When I was still united to Rome, I remember reading Ratzinger’s book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy,” because everybody was talking about how great this book was.
In it, Ratzinger references de Chardin as one theologian with the right ideas.
Even then, I was shocked. I remember throwing away the book immediately for in my mind, de Chardin was satanic.
I didn’t know just how right I was until I read “Hostage to the Devil” by the late Fr. Malachi Martin.
In his book, Fr. Malachi tells 5 true stories of demonic possession in America.
In the second chapter called “Father Bones and Mr. Natch,” Fr. Malachi tells how a Catholic priest becomes possessed by a devil from reading the works of de Chardin. The philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin is so satanic that reading his works can open doors to another dimension. In other words, it is like playing with the Ouija Board.
Yet on July 24, 2009, Benedict XVI, who is the leader of the largest religion in the world, once again praised the vision of de Chardin.
The late Fr. Malachi Martin spoke about two types of demonic possession, partial and perfect. In his book, all 5 of the possessed were partially possessed which allowed them to be exorcised.
However, there is no exorcism for the perfectly possessed.
According to Fr. Malachi, the perfectly possessed have perfectly given their wills over to Satan, and therefore, act like normal people who go to work, play with their kids, and go to mass on Sundays. They include doctors, lawyers, congressman, and even priests. Two perfectly possessed individuals who have never met will instinctively know one another as belonging to Satan.
With all that has been said of the last five claimants to the papacy, it is hard for me not to believe that all of them have been perfectly possessed.
Especially, now, when a man such as Teilhard de Chardin is praised by the latest antipope Benedict XVI.
The following arguments will be given in no particular order.
First there is absolutely no evidence against the existence of God. While this is a negative argument, nevertheless, evidence for the existence of God can be found in logic and reason with the use of historical events.
Documented miracles attest to the existence of God. A miracle is an event that was caused outside the laws of nature such as a raising of the dead and not a mere oddity or an extremely unusual happening. Near death experience or a starting of one’s heart through scientific means would not qualify as a raising of the dead, but one who has been dead for days or years already deteriorating or completely deteriorated and raised by the power of Christ’s name would definitely qualify and such cases are in existence.
The miracle of Lanciano is on-going miracle that is completely against the laws of nature. Living tissue and blood with all the properties of living blood in an uncontrolled environment that is over 1300 years old cannot be explained by any natural or scientific method. The miracle involves a sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church corresponds to the one God of Christians is strong evidence for the existence of God.
Many more examples of miracles can be given but this suffices.
The argument of causality is another example of evidence proving the existence of God.
All things are caused but the initial cause must itself be uncaused. This Uncaused Cause is God.
Nothing cannot cause something into being. Life itself comes from life. Life doesn’t come out of non-life. Therefore, all life must ultimately be caused by that, which is Life itself. This Life being we call God must have existed eternally which is outside of time.
It is illogical to say that all causes come from an endless series of causes and no uncaused caused is necessary. It would mean that the present time of all things are simultaneously the cause and effect of each other. This is absurd. The present now is dependent upon a cause now, which must be outside of time.
From the argument of cause and effect we get the argument of change as evidence for God. If God exists outside of space and time then God must cause space and time.
Matter in space and time changes but it cannot change without a cause. The material universe is the sum of all matter, space, and time. If nothing exists outside of the material universe, then the matter, space, and time cannot change since all of these elements are dependent upon each other. Something must exist outside of the material universe to cause matter, space, and time to change or else it would never change, nor could it even have a potential to change.
The argument of perfection is also good evidence for the existence of God.
We all recognize that some things are better than others, and the degrees of being have levels of goodness. Therefore we recognize the superiority of all the different ways of being. The level or degree of perfection is the standard by which all degrees and levels are measured. If degrees of perfection pertain to being then the ultimate level and perfect being would be God.
Other arguments used to give evidence for the existence of God are the order of the universe and consciousness. However, the most controversial and the most philosophical argument for the existence of God is the Ontological Argument. Devised by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) as the simplest explanation for God’s existence. It is far from simple. It is so profound that non-thinkers dismiss it as a riddle.
In brief it goes like this: It is greater for something to exist in thought and in reality rather in thought only. Since God is that which a greater cannot be thought then in reality He must exist because it would be impossible to have the thought of a greater than God.
Lastly, men can look at any object and can tell that nature or man either made it. How can one look at the universe as a whole including life and dismiss its cause as not existing? Is this not the ultimate absurdity?