Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The following video is a short, well done documentary on the Battle of Lepanto. Unfortunately, the video ended with a reference to “Pope St.” John XXIII, but despite this one flaw, it’s well worth watching.

“Paul VI gave back to the Muslims the Standard of Lepanto. The history of the flag was venerable. It was taken from a Turkish admiral during a great naval battle in 1571. While Pope St. Pius V fasted and prayed the Rosary, an out-numbered Christian fleet defeated a much larger Moslem navy, thus saving Christendom from the infidel. In honor of the miraculous victory, Pius V instituted the Feast of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary to commemorate her intercession. In one dramatic act, Paul VI renounced not only a remarkable Christian victory, but the prayers and sacrifices of a great pope and saint.” (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, Niagara Falls, NY: Marmion Publications, 2003, p. 193)

,

Read Full Post »

Racism is completely incompatible with Catholicism. Yet, it’s existence can be found all throughout the history of the Catholic Church. Within the last couple of years, white supremacists within the Church have been causing some problems. I was telling my friend over at the website https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/ about how I was going to write an article on the subject. He informed me that he was already working on one and he graciously granted me permission to publish it.

 Below is Introibo’s excellent article…

It was the First Saturday Mass in January at the Ave Maria Chapel, twenty-four years ago. Father DePauw, my spiritual father who led me to the One True Church, would always have the first pews reserved for the children so he could quiz them on their monthly catechism lessons. It was also the Feast of the Epiphany. There was a beautiful and large manger outside the Chapel. Inside all could see an equally beautiful (yet decidedly smaller) one, on the Epistle side of the altar, just outside the Sanctuary. After his quiz, Father would deliver an approximately 10 minute sermon aimed at teaching the kids.

From the pulpit Father pointed to the indoor manger. “Do you see the Three Wise Men? They were blessed to be among the very first to see the Infant Savior. I want you to notice that one of the three has decidedly black skin, and the others have white skin. In life, you will meet some people with white skin who will tell you to hate people with black skin. You will also meet people with black skin who will tell you to hate people with white skin. These people who hate other people with different skin color would like everyone to live apart according to their color, and they also want you to believe that one skin color is better than others. This is stupid and not Catholic. Jesus Christ did not die on Good Friday for the black race, the white race, or the yellow race. He only died for one race–the human race to which all skin colors belong.” (Written from my memory as best I remember. Father used that same sermon for the children virtually every First Saturday in January).

There is a disturbing trend among Millennials to take extreme positions. As a Generation Xer, I believe it is the effect of growing up in a world where all remaining vestiges of Catholicism were eliminated in the Great Apostasy by the Vatican II sect. If you look at the supporters of Communist Senator Bernie Sanders, there are overwhelming numbers of 23-38 year olds. There is a tendency among this generation to take extreme right-wing positions as well, such as Fascism/Neo-Nazism. Add to the mix the fact that four in ten millennials now say they are religiously unaffiliated, according to the Pew Research Center; therefore large numbers of young people are left without any thought of God and remain feeling empty. The extreme positions give the definitive answers regarding right and wrong/good and bad that the Church used to give before Vatican II created a new sect falsely claiming the title “Roman Catholic Church.” (See https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/).

As a result of these sad circumstances, a new racism is being touted among some young people calling themselves “Traditionalist.” Many of them are attracted to the fact that sedevacantism “sounds extreme” and are not really searching for the Truth. Their knowledge of the Faith is very superficial. Adding fuel to the fire, the media and political climate cause distrust among races. The liberals are making non-whites “victims” and want job quotas (think Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ), while conservatives are claiming racial superiority in the form of “White Nationalism.” Both are causing a new and real hatred based on skin color. Some of these racists also think they can be Traditionalists simultaneously without contradiction in their beliefs. This post will explore Church teaching on racism, and the correct type of nationalism we need today.

Essential Unity of Humanity

In his first encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (1914), Pope Benedict XV declares that the relations between people should be one of brothers and sisters, i.e., of those who are one in nature because they are of the same family created by God. Discussing the ravages of the First World War (1914-1918), His Holiness writes, “Who would imagine as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock, all of the same nature, all members of the same human family?” (para. #3; Emphasis mine).

In Mortalium Animos (1928), Pope Pius XI teaches, “… it is easily understood, and the more so because none now dispute the unity of the human race, why many desire that the various nations, inspired by this universal kinship, should daily be more closely united one to another.” (para. #1; Emphasis mine). The same holy pontiff ordered the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities to compose a letter refuting and condemning racism and Nazi “Aryan race” ideology in order to prevent it from infecting Catholic educational institutions. The result was a privately circulated document entitled Instruction Concerning Racism, Its Doctrinal Errors and the Measures to be Employed Against Their Spread (hereinafter “Instruction”). The Instruction was dated April 13, 1938 and a complete English translation was made by canonist Bouscaren in the Canon Law Digest-Supplement 1941 (pgs. 165-167). The Congregation’s Instruction condemns no less than eight (8) propositions as being both “pernicious” and “absurd:”

I. The human races, by their natural and immutable characters, are so different from each other that, the humblest of them is further from the highest race than of the highest animal species.

II. We must by all means, preserve and cultivate strong race and purity of blood, so that all which leads to this result is therefore honest and permitted.

III. It is blood, seat of the characteristics of the race, that all the intellectual and moral qualities of man derive as their main source.

IV. The basic purpose of education is to develop the characters of the race and inflame the minds of a burning love of their own race as the supreme good.

V. Religion is subject to the law of race and must be adapted to it.

VI. The first source and the supreme rule of law and order is racial instinct.

VII. There exists only the Cosmos or living universe; all things, including humans, are only various forms growing over the ages of universal life.

VIII. Each man exists only by the State and for the State. All that he rightly possesses derives exclusively from a concession to the State.

It shouldn’t be too hard to understand that racism is inexorably linked to the damnable doctrine of Social Darwinism. It is taken from the false teaching of Charles Darwin (d. 1882) regarding evolution. The term “evolution” is used to refer to the general theory that all life on earth has evolved from non-living matter and progressed to more complex forms with time; humans are not special in any way–both body and soul (or “consciousness”)– comes from brute matter. This stands condemned by the Church.

As the late leading evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson observed:

“In the world of Darwin, man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively, but literally, to every living thing, be it an amoeba, a tapeworm, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworm than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys….” (See George Gaylord Simpson, “The World into Which Darwin Led Us,” Science, Vol. 131 (1960), p. 970).

As a consequence of this error, when Darwinism is applied to society (“Social” aspect), you will get one of two malevolent results:

(a)  All higher forms of life are to be considered equal. Hence, there was a case here in New York, where a lawyer argued to give legal rights (and constitutional protections) to chimpanzees.
(See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/do-apes-deserve-personhood-rights-lawyer-heads-n-y-supreme-n731431).

While we must be good stewards of all God has given us, and not abuse the animals God gave to Earth, it is insanity to assert (as some “animal rights activists” have done) that eating meat is “murder.” According to the “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” (PETA), “We are taught the Golden Rule as young children, and all major religions teach principles of nonviolence and kindness. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Ethical treatment—the Golden Rule—must be extended to all living beings: reptiles, mammals, fish, insects, birds, amphibians, and crustaceans.” To include animals in the Golden Rule, which was given to humans by Christ, is blasphemous.(See https://www.peta.org/features/what-peta-really-stands-for/).

(b) As a consequence of the Darwinian principle of the “survival of the fittest,” the superior have the right to dominate the inferior. Humans are animals and each race is different, insofar as it is alleged that certain races are inherently superior to others (Hitler’s “Master Race”). According to the National Socialist Movement’s (Neo-Nazi) website:

National Socialism is a worldview that is based upon the application of Natural Law to the individual, the family, the economy, and the nation. Natural Law is the organic expression of Truth found within all of nature. The nation within National Socialism is made up of a people who share the same language, heritage, culture, customs, and blood. (This is a perverted definition of “Natural Law” and there is no mention of God or religion; Emphasis mine) We seek to preserve and advance our culture, traditions, and our genetic inheritance based upon the principles of love and duty for our Faith, Family, and Folk. This can be summed up in the famous Fourteen Words “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”( See https://www.nsm88.org/; Emphasis mine)

You also can’t get more blunt than “King Shamir Shabazz” the leader of the New Black Panther Party’s Philadelphia chapter, who said in a National Geographic documentary (January 2009), “I hate white people. All of them.” The Panthers believe that the “superior race” is “Afro-centric.”

True Nationalism and National Unity Can Only Be Built Upon The One True Church

As Pope Pius XI taught in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, “Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.” (para. #8).

The Teachings of the Popes

1. In the absence of a restraining principle by which individual passions are controlled, moral unity of a nation becomes impossible.

Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, para. # 21: Nor can it be said that these atrocities are a transitory phenomenon, the usual accompaniment of all great revolutions, the isolated excesses common to every war. No, they are the natural fruit of a system which lacks all inner restraint. Some restraint is necessary for man considered either as an individual or in society. Even the barbaric peoples had this inner check in the natural law written by God in the heart of every man. And where this natural law was held in higher esteem, ancient nations rose to a grandeur that still fascinates – more than it should – certain superficial students of human history. But tear the very idea of God from the hearts of men, and they are necessarily urged by their passions to the most atrocious barbarity. (Emphasis mine)

2. People can choose the form of government they want, as long as it is not opposed to the Church and Her teachings.

Pope St. Pius X: Notre Charge Apostolique,  In the Encyclical on political government which We have already quoted, they could have read this: ‘Justice being preserved, it is not forbidden to the people to choose for themselves the form of government which best corresponds with their character or with the institutions and customs handed down by their forefathers.’ (Emphasis mine)

3. The State has an obligation to be a Catholic State, and the Church will bring blessings upon the people.

Pope Leo XIII: Immortale Dei: As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion…Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfillment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate…the abundant benefits with which the Christian religion, of its very nature, endows even the mortal life of man are acquired for the community and civil society. And this to such an extent that it may be said in sober truth: “The condition of the commonwealth depends on the religion with which God is worshiped; and between one and the other there exists an intimate and abiding connection.” (para. #6, 7, 19; Emphasis mine).

4. Errors Concerning The One True Church and the State

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, CONDEMNED PROPOSITIONS:

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs.
40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society.
42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.
48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.
Conclusion

Father DePauw’s Chapel is approximately 30% non-white, and always was that way. It showed me the true “universal” (i.e., “Catholic”) Nature of the Church. I remember one Sunday sitting between an Hispanic man and a Haitian woman. Neither spoke English other than a few simple phrases. Yet here we were at the same Mass. I looked over and saw one hand Missal was in French and English and the other in Spanish and English. Christ came to all three of us in Holy Communion that day regardless of race, language, or other worldly consideration.

God created one race, the human race. While we are composed of different skin colors, it should neither unite us like the Nazis or divide us like so-called “separatists.” Let the One True Church unite us all in He Who is Truth Itself. “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

Read Full Post »

For years I followed the NFL. I loved the sport. Growing up, I played, breathed, and lived football. Luckily, I blew out my knee and the two reconstructive surgeries kept me from playing football again. God, in His Mercy, protected me for falling into a world of fame, fortune, and an egotistical mindset. It probably would have been my ruin.

Several years ago, I gave up following the NFL altogether but for the wrong reasons. I was tired of the foolish coaching and sorry refereeing. In the last couple of years, many patriotic Americans became offended and stopped watching the NFL when players began kneeling for the national anthem. However, all of these reasons are small potatoes compared to the real evils found in the NFL.

What about the immodesty of the cheerleaders? Any Christians offended?

What about the constant swearing and blasphemy mouthed by the players and fans? Any Christians offended?

What about all the gambling, money exchanging, and drunken fans on the Lord’s Day? Any Christians offended?

I made excuses for years to justify following the sport.

Now women are found coaching the men (or should I say boys), which is part and parcel with the modern world where feminism rules in the hearts of almost everybody.

Today, the NFL has taken it to a whole new level on Super Bowl Sunday.

The half-time show is filled with lewd, immodest, and sacrilegious performances by the most satanic singers in the music industry.

This year, there will be a commercial with drag queens promoting the product Sabra hummus. The NFL refused to air an anti-abortion ad but has no problem airing a couple of totally depraved human beings to sell food.

The Super Bowl has grown into a spectacle of horror for those united to Christ.

In a world so filled with debauchery, may I suggest we pray an extra Rosary rather than being tempted into watching the game?

 

Read Full Post »

The Wise Men Guided by a Star by Gustave Doré, 1865

There are Catholic sedevacantists that have been so upset with the fact that there is no pope that they decided to join heretical sects and become their own pope. Their private interpretations, decisions, and explanations have become for them law, dogma, and the infallible truth.

Failure to make proper distinctions always appears to be the cause for people to misunderstand Catholicism. However, I find often that people are only looking for an excuse to reject the Catholic religion because of the difficulty of maintaining true Christianity.

Understanding the difference between the pope and papacy:

  1. The Roman Pontiff or pope is the person that holds the office of the papacy. The papacy concerns the system in which the pope governs the Church. Christ didn’t intend to create a papacy without ever having a pope. Indeed, there would be no papacy without ever having a pope. Christ established the papacy by making St. Peter the first pope and giving him the keys. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Therefore, he who separates from the pope separates from unity of the Church, Christianity, and from Christ Himself. When there’s no pope, he who separates from the papacy separates from the same unity of the Church and ultimately Christ.

  2. The papacy is essential. Without the papacy, there is no Catholic Church. However, the Church can exist without a pope as it does each time a pope dies. Sometimes, it has taken years for the Church to attain a pope. For example, the interregnum between St. Marcellinus and St. Marcellus I lasted from 304 to 308 AD. [1] The 13th and 14th centuries also saw long interregnums. During the time of the Great Schism of the West, the Church was unsure who the true pope was. Professor and Reverend Francis X Doyle, S.J. (1927) wrote that Suarez suggested that none of the popes during that time were true popes, which means it’s possible that the Church experienced an interregnum lasting around 50 years. [2] Opinions differ on the subject, but it proves that the opinion that the Church can exist and did exist without a pope during the Great Schism is permitted to be held by the Catholic Church. It also proves that the Church can exist without a pope with an unforeseen resolution for a very, very long time.

  3. If a pope defects, he ceases to be pope, but the papacy doesn’t defect. The papacy always remains intact. If it were possible, [but is not possible] there are only two ways for the papacy to defect: (a.) If a pope taught error from the Chair of Peter as part of the papacy. (b.) The ability to have a pope ceases, which means the Church defects. For instance, no more Catholics existed. Opinions differ on what’s the minimum requirement for the Church to exist, but even a layman can be pope since Pope Hadrian V was a layman. Another argument against the papacy is the extinction of the College of Cardinals, which elects the new pope. That argument is answered here The Catholic Bottom Line – Part IV. In scenario (a.), Christ protects the papacy by preventing the pope from teaching error for the world to adhere to. A pope can teach error outside of his office, but his error can’t be against the Catholic faith as defined by the Church. His error would have to be in the realm or doctrine of opinions where the Church or previous popes have not yet made a judgment on the issue. An example of doctrine of opinions would include things like whether the Blessed Virgin Mary died or not.  In the past, the Immaculate Conception and the validity of Holy Orders of simoniacs were in the realm or doctrine of opinions. Now they are dogmas because the Church defined them. In scenario (b.), Christ established a built-in protection for the papacy. When Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, it was not so much a promise as an established fact. Whatever opinion that would contradict the papacy would be proven false by that fact alone. For instance, the opinion that there are no more Catholics left either in Rome, the Diocese of Rome, or in the World. Since the papacy demands that Catholics exist then Catholics exist somewhere. If they must exist in Rome or the Diocese of Rome, then they exist. We would presume that whatever is needed for the papacy or Church is present regardless of appearances because our faith in Christ’s Word demands it. Proof of its existence exists in Christ’s Declaration, the teaching of the Church, divine law, and logic. When Christ said that He is truly present in the Eucharist, we believe it, but we can’t prove it scientifically. The proof of His Real Presence exists in His Word and the teaching of the Church. We don’t have to prove that Catholics exist and it can’t be proven they don’t exist either in Rome or in the world. That being said, we can easily point to Catholics in Rome and the world. Other arguments against the papacy can be found by those who insist that Vatican 2 and our present day crisis prove the papacy defected. The problem with that argument is that it couldn’t be used prior to 1958. It only proves that those who make such an argument fail to understand either the papacy or the facts that surround Church teaching. Using a Church-permitted theological opinion against the papacy is also futile. The best that anyone could do is present how the theological opinion is false, not the papacy. If a theological opinion by a saint or theologian is found that denied the possibility of our present crisis, it would only mean that opinion by the saint or theologian is erroneous and would be scrapped. I’ve not yet seen such an opinion. All the so-called death knells to Catholicism/sedevacantism are actually proofs or evidence for the truth of Catholicism/sedevacantism. It’s just the failure to make proper distinctions on the part of the heretics.

  4. It’s dogma that Peter has perpetual successors in the papacy. [3] Perpetual succession is not lost unless the principle of perpetuity is lost (the ability to have another pope). We know that as long as there is a bishop and a few Catholics left, the principle of perpetuity remains. It may not even require that much. The Church can have a papacy vacant of a pope as long as the ability to have another pope is present. Since Christ guarantees that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, the papacy will not defect. As seen from the Great Schism of the West, it’s possible for the Church to not know how it will resolve a papal crisis. In our current situation, there are several possibilities in resolving the crisis. One way is for Francis or his successor to renounce his errors, be universally accepted, and assume the papacy. Another way is for all Catholics to agree that a certain bishop will be pope. Perhaps, it will take a miracle for either case. I’m of the opinion that we’re not going to get another pope not because it’s impossible but rather it seems to best fit the scenario of the final battle with Antichrist as Scripture and the Fathers foretold.

  5. The pope is the center of visible unity. When the pope dies and the Church continues without a pope even during long interregnums, the visible unity of faith doesn’t cease. It remains unified in Catholic doctrine. When a Catholic rejects Catholic doctrine publicly, he ceases to be a Catholic and member of the Body of the Church. The oneness of faith is the first article of faith. When the Church is in an interregnum state, it is in an imperfect and provisional state. Keep in mind that the Church is always perfect in law, doctrine, etc. but it can be imperfect in the sense that Catholics sin or when it’s absent of a pope. The person that represents the visible center of unity is absent but the papacy remains as the foundation for that unity.

If anything I’ve written is used against the papacy, it would only prove that I’m mistaken or the interpreter has misrepresented me, the papacy, or the facts of the matter.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

[2] Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.)

[3] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/sedevacantism-contradicts-the-first-vatican-council/

Read Full Post »

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?

 

 

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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

 

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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).

Read Full Post »

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)

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »