All Conversations in My Heart
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
  Just another ignoring of history and gnostic opinions.
A Fact or Two about Genesis.

When Adam was lonely and asked for a companion God sent him who??? God's gift for Adams loneliness was Eve. It was certainly not another man. The first marriage and a definite direction or ordinand by God. 
The first three humankind creations by God were the laity. It would seem that the laity were the first and most important creation was not a priest sorry to stamp on your hubris priests. The Community of God cannot exist without the Laity. The priest Abel was an after thought and his vocation was to offer the sacrifice in whatever or for whatever God instructed. Priests serve us by forgiving us and instructing us on loving God and forgiving our sins thru' in those days the sacrifice and since Christ by the sacraments of baptism and confession. Not by the way to spending our money. Giving out our funds to nefarious sinful acts.
The book of genesis at least the opening acts were obviously dreams on a daily basis until the dreamer saw what God considered enough and then he dreamt no more and rested on the seventh day. I would think if we thought about it that Christ rose on the seventh day to rest from the sinful life of the world. He sure needed a rest, for as David wrote it was us who bruised and numbered all His Bones. That is also why we rest from sinfull practices on Sundays and read and recharge our batteries on Sundays. We should be contemplaing God's greatness that is prayer and or meditating on His works.
 
Saturday, January 07, 2017
  ON THE MEANING AND IDENTITY OF THE “BROTHERS OF JESUS” Part 3

Who were the “brethren of the Lord” (Matthew 12:46-47), and if He had brothers, why do we call the Blessed Mary, “ever virgin”? The “brethren” of Jesus are mentioned several times in the New Testament. Four are mentioned by name. To explain who they were is not difficult, because the Scripture itself names four of them and identifies their parentage. We find in Matthew (13:55) and Mark (6:3) list, as brethren of Jesus – James, Judas Thaddeus, Simon and Jude.

We know for certain that James and Judas Thaddeus were not sons of Mary or Joseph, for the Scripture identifies them, as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus (Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as “the son of Alphaeus”, in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). Mary of Alphaeus upon the death of her husband obviously following the levirite law returned to her birth family of Clopas or married his older brother. Since there is no mention in any of the Jewish documents of that time, nor in any revelations such as St Catherine Emmereich's, he, Clopas as a brother to Alphaeus it is reasonable to claim must have been a close relative of this other Mary by blood..

These sectarians completely miss the words of Jesus, Himself and confound themselves when He, Christ, expresses His feelings towards the family or Church He was forming. Matthew 12:50: “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother”.

The relationship between these "brethren" (including "sisters") must be seen in the light of Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, according to which even cousins were brothers and sisters. This is the case also in Greek and Slavic languages and cultures to this day, so we do not have to speculate about it. This is a fact we know very well from our own families and lives. We have a perfect example of this in the Old Testament Scripture. Using the Greek Interlinear Bible of the Old Testament we can understand the word used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham at Genesis 14:16 is "adelphi", which can only be translated as "brother." Nevertheless, we know that Lot was Abraham's nephew. Of course, since Abraham's father was Lot's grandfather, older cultures in general would consider them brothers. The Greek word, "Asphodels" and "Philadelphia" are only attempts to translate an unknown Aramaic word; and no one has any idea what the actual word was which is rendered in Greek and English as "brothers" or "brethren". Indeed, if we left even the names of these four in their original, most people would not recognize them. Their real names are Jakob, Yoseph, Yehudah and Symeon.

Certainly, James and Judas were the sons of Miriam (Mary) and Alphaeus. Symeon is also called "Simon Kan'an" - The Zealot'.

There could have been no “first blood” brothers of Christ, otherwise He would not have given care of His mother to John the Beloved Apostle (John 19:26). When Alphaeus died Mary of Alphaeus became known later in scriptures as Mary of Clopas, obviously she went back to her birth family or married Alphaeus' older brother.This is speculation based on Jewish law. remember the scribe's question of a woman marrying all those brothers, concerning are our marriages  part of our afterlife in heaven?

The Old Testament prophecies explain the virginal marriage and ever-virginity of Christ's mother, and we also have the testimony of the Holy Spirit speaking through the Church that Mary was “ever-virgin.”

1. Simon (or Symeon) the Zealot was a member of the "zealoti" in Judea. There are a number of purely mythological explanations for the meaning of his title. Evidently, some commentators have been unjustly "embarrassed" by the fact that he was a "zealotis." From a Jewish point of view, this was not a dishonorable title. To be a zealot, to have zeal today is unfashionable and a term of derision.



ON THE MEANING OF THE WORDS “MARY'S SISTER WAS STANDING NEAR THE CROSS”

Our Catholic and Orthodox histories teach us that the Holy Virgin Mary was the only child of Saints Joachim and Ann, but at John 19:25, we read, “Standing near the Cross of Jesus was His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary of Alphaeus, and Mary of Magdala.” If our Church history is correct, how could Mary have had a sister?

The first clue to your answer is that both women are named Mary. No family has two daughters and gives them both the same name. Therefore, it is evident that the relationship between the two women has to be something different than our modern English concept of “sister.”

The second clue to your answer is that the Bible clearly identifies this Mary of Alphaeus as the mother of Jesus' "brothers." The name Alphaeus is the same as Alphaeus in the Aramaic language, which Jesus spoke. The brothers of Jesus mentioned at Mark 6:3 are elsewhere clearly identified as sons of Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Alphaeus the "sister" of the Virgin Mary. Read, for example, Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15 and Acts 1:13. Then read Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1; Luke 24:10 and especially Matthew 13: 55. There is still a further confusion. Mary of Alphaeus the wife of Joseph's brother later became in the scriptures Mary of Clopas. This Mary obviously became a widow and went back to her birth family. Now two things are clear to us from what we have read:

First, Mary of Alphaeus is related to the Virgin Mary in a close way, but if she was a blood “sister”, she could not have the same first name. Mary of Alphaeus was married to Joseph's brother Alphaeus and was the mother of James and Judas

Second, The “brothers” of Jesus do not have the same mother as He had. These “brothers” are children of a woman called the Virgin Mary's sister, they are not children of the Virgin Mary herself but of Mary of Alphaeus was Mary's sister-in-law. Who we pointed out was Joseph's brothers wife.

For a good example of the use of the terms "brother" and "sister" For near relations in Hebrew culture, read Genesis 14:16. Here, Lot is referred to as Abraham's "brother," although we know very well that Lot was the son of Abraham's immediate brother. In other words, even nephews were referred to as "brothers" in many cases. In the Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, the word used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham at Genesis 14:16 is "adelphi-", which can only be translated as "brother." A similar word is used at John 19:25 to describe the relationship between the two Marys.

It is interesting that the reference to Mary of Alphaeus as the Virgin Mary's sister proves the Apostolic Catholic Christian teaching about the ever-virginity of Mary the Blessed Mary. Clearly, the Virgin Mary had a very near relative of the same name who was the mother of Jesus' “brothers”, and therefore, the Virgin Mary bore no other children than Jesus Christ. There is a sentence in St Catherine Emmerich's description of the Crucifixion that claims Blessed Mary's older sister was at the place of the Skull on Calvary. It was not any older sister and could not have been. Bl. Mary was a late baby of older Jewish parents who had no other children. These women were signposts through bearing children at such an old age of what was to come. Bl Mary was a product of the same late prophetic births as were the children of Anna, mother of Samuel, Sarah, mother of Isaac, Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist and Ann, mother of Mary. The older woman described by St Catherine in her vision of the Passion of Christ was Mary of Alphaeus, nee Clopas and not related by blood to Bl. Mary in any way.



ON THE MEANING OF OUR VENERATION OF THE BLESSED MARY AND OF OUR REQUEST FOR HER PRAYERS

There is only one Lord and Savior of mankind, Jesus Christ, as the Scripture says, “There is salvation in no-one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Nevertheless, we are called upon to be "co-workers with Christ in salvation" (2 Corinthians 6:1), and we can "save" others by leading them to the Source of Salvation, and rescuing them from falling away from salvation, as Apostle Paul says: "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means and in any way, save them" (1 Corinthians 9:22). And, he wrote to Bishop Timothy, "Look well to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, hold to them; for by so doing you will save both yourself and those who hear you" (I Timothy 4:16). Moreover, in the same context, we often use the expression, "Most Holy Theotokos, save us." Latin Riters pray, “Holy Mother pray for us, now and at the hour of our death”. No one would suggest that we are our own saviors, or that Apostle Paul, the holy Bishop Timothy or the Blessed Mary are saviors in place of Christ, even though the Divine Scripture clearly says that they can “save” others.

Nevertheless, all Catholic and Apostolic Christians of the West and the East are called upon to serve in the process of the salvation of each other and of the world, both through their prayer, the active witness of a life of Christ like love. We struggle to keep in grace, and through the very act of working out our own salvation. The saints, who have become filled with Grace and actively merit the greater gifts of the Holy Spirit, are foremost in this process of mutual salvation. Sectarians who are angered at our Apostolic veneration of the Most Holy and Blessed Mary (and of the saints) and all who spew spiteful malice, so often ignorantly on our pleas for their intercessions are truly lacking knowledge of the ignorant of the true nature of redemption. In reality, however, salvation consists in the union of the faithful with the life of God, through Grace, in the Body of Christ (the Holy Church), where the evil-one and his power are being progressively and really destroyed in the life of charitable love by us for Him and for others. It is a mutual struggle of true believers to keep us and our neighbors free from all sin. Since our redemption from the bondage of death, by the sacraments of Baptism, Reparation or in the end of life by anointing of the sick into a renewed grace filled life of the Church. These acts of Atonement and Reparation are the restoration of the grace into which we were conceived. It is so easy to lose this Grace and such a struggle to reacquire it. Then the help of prayers of for intercessions of the Blessed Mary and all the saints are of obvious value in saving us. They “save” us because theyare our brothers and sisters in a singlefamily of all humanity. It is fallen and enslaved, in bondage to sin, and the liberation and restoration of any unit of this universal nature to perfection, that is a very real union with the perfect nature in Christ through Sanctifying Grace, is part and parcel of the redemption and salvation of the whole. The Holy Virgin Mary, our Blessed Mary, our Mother from the Cross is the very apex of our re-creation and from whence He sprang, is, by us, venerated as such, and as such, serves most greatly in the process of salvation. Thus, we call upon her, the Full of Grace, for her help in our struggle to be saved, and venerate her as the foremost of our race. We cannot deny and woe to him who will, the Most Pure Virgin, as one wholly united with God, as one who has never lost Grace, and has always been in full union with the perfect human nature of Christ. If this logic can be and should be acceptable to these critics who falsely give their interpretation to the Works of Grace, they would not challenge our veneration of the Blessed Mary, the “Mother of God”, but would embrace it also, as being a clear teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

1. We call upon the Blessed Mary for her intercessions for the same reason that we call upon each other and the saints and angels for theirs. The Holy Scripture commands us to intercede for one another (l Timothy 2:1-2) as did Jesus Christ when He proclaimed, “Love God above all things and others as I have loved you”. This applies just as much in Heaven to those who practiced it here on Earth as it does to us for others in the Church temporal.

2. We call upon the Blessed Mary for her help, and prayers for our salvation. "Hail Mary , Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death". We use it in the same context that Apostle Paul and Bishop Timothy are able to save the faithful (1Corinthians 9:22; 1 Timothy 4:16).

3. The Holy Virgin is called “Blessed Mary” (Mother of God) on the basis of Scripture (Luke 1:31-35, and especially verse 43). Moreover, the prophecy of Ezekiel is precise in the matter (Ezekiel 44:2). Few of the Protestant sects would dare to deny that the Child whom Mary bore is truly God and, therefore, they must confess that Mary is the "Blessed Mary" the "Mother of God"), whose womb contained not only Christ but the Most Holy Trinity.

4. Sectarians revile the Blessed Mary and deny her veneration because they have no truly Christian knowledge and understanding of the Holy Scripture, and from sheer, careless mistranslations and in more than a few translations of these translations deliberately changed the scriptures. Works they pridefully persist in. An excellent example is the section concerning the wedding of Susannah at Cana, which so many sectarians twist and seek to turn against the Holy Virgin.

Using the sadly mistranslated passage at John 2:1-11 in the King James Version, Many protestant scriptural translators make the claim that this text demonstrates Christ's own disregard for His mother. In the K.J.V., this passage has Christ responding to His mother's remark about the fact that there was no more wine for the wedding guests with, “Woman, what have I to do with you?” First of all, Christ Himself would have been guilty under the law had he addressed His mother in this fashion, for “to honor the father and mother” was demanded under the Old Law of the Sinai, and it has not changed. He would have lied when He said I came to fulfill the Law not to change it” Most important, however, is the actual text. The correct translation reads:

And when the wine was all gone, the mother of Jesus said to Him,” They have no more wine”. Jesus said to her, “Dear lady, what is that to you and Me? My time is not yet come”.

"His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it.” What it should say is “Woman what is still between you and I”. Gently Jesus was pointing out He must now be about His Father’s business no longer trammeled by obedience to the law but Holy Obedience to His Father. With that we know that he is not now Jesus of Mary of Nazareth but Jesus, the Will of His Father. As we read further on in this chapter, we discover that He does work the miracle. Why? Because of Mary's intercession. And think of it. Because of the intercession of the Blessed Mary, the order of God's plan is set aside. Christ works the miracle before the time has come. How powerful then, are the intercessions of the Blessed Mary shown to be. Moreover, she is shown to be His first apostle, since she instructs the servants, “Whatever He tells you, do it.”
Even at the moment of His death on the Cross, Jesus thought of His mother and gave her special place (John 19:26-27).The Blessed Mary was honored even before the Nativity of our Savior (Luke 1:41-45).If the Holy Scripture proclaims that “all generations” shall call Mary blessed (Luke 1:48), then certainly those who refuse to call her blessed do not belong to the generation of Grace, the generation of the Living. Look at what this prayer is it in the Magnificat and those who pray it “doth magnify the Lord” that is loudly proclaim His Glories.
8. The Virgin is called the "Queen" in prophecy, by David, "At Thy right hand stood the queen, arrayed in vesture of in woven gold, adorned in many colors" (Psalms 44:8), etc. Thus, she is honored occasionally in prayers as the "heavenly queen." Of course, she is the Mother of the King, and the title “heavenly queen” is just another confession of our faith that the Child Jesus born of her is truly God our King. Sectarians will sometimes attempt to apply the words of Jeremiah the prophet (Jeremiah 44:17, 25) to condemn our use of the term “heavenly queen” when referring to Christ's mother. But Jeremy was here condemning the worship of the pagan fertility goddess Easter by the astrology cults, which considered Easter to be an actual deity. Therefore, it is dishonest and immoral of sectarians to use this Scripture in such a false manner to condemn the mother of our Savior. I must point out that for Catholics David's Queen above returned to her Children, dressed in all the Gold of Ophir. We call her Our Lady of Salette

Labels: , , , , , ,

 
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
  Part2 of Defense of the Theotokos.

ON THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION, “HER FIRSTBORN SON”

If Mary thereafter remained a virgin, and bore no more children, why is Jesus called “her firstborn son” (Matthew 1-25)? Certainly, pseudo-christians, those sectarians trying to apply the ignorance and opinions of their own rationalism have made a point of foolishness in this expression, which therefore demands an answer to this question. The expression “firstborn son” is, however, not merely an indication of the first in a sequence of births, but a specific title under the Old Law. It applies and is carried by the son whether he has younger brothers or not, and special provisions appear in the Law making specific requirements of the “firstborn.” The fact that the title "firstborn" bore a special significance and was not intended to reflect simply "the first child of a series," is clear from the fifth chapter of Chronicles. Jacob invested Joseph (a younger son) with the rights of "firstborn," and Reuben, the eldest son, "was not reckoned as firstborn" (1st. Chronicles: 5).
Under the Levirate law, a woman whose husband died, leaving her childless, married the next younger brother of her late husband. If she bore a son by this second marriage, the son was legally the “firstborn son” of the dead former husband, and he obviously was not considered the father of the child or (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). If we look once more at the “Law and Prophets,” we will understand how the Scripture uses the term "firstborn," and we will understand how this special title applies to Mary and her Child.
God does not distinguish the “first-born” child by whether it is the first child born of a series of children, but by the special spiritual position of that child. In His testimony to Israel, “Sanctify (Consecrate) to Me every firstborn which first opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of people and of animals, for it is Mine” (Genesis 13:2). Thus we see that “firstborn son” is not just a random expression, nor does it signify the first of a series of sons. It is a title, which refers to a special child who has a special significance in Israel's relationship with God. Pharaoh had only one child, his son. This son was slain among the "firstborn" of Egypt. As the firstborn of Egypt were destroyed, even so, the firstborn of Israel were sanctified. This law is prophetic, revealing the coming of the Messiah, the Savior.
Christ, as the “firstborn son” was sanctified to God, and this was the fulfillment prophecy, which the Old Testament law contained. There is more to this matter, however, for not just Christ, but every child who was the first to “open the mother's womb” was sanctified. Let us turn again to the prophetic law and see how we must understand this title of "firstborn son" in relation to Christ, particularly to the verse at Matthew 1:25. Notice that, in this verse, Jesus is not called Joseph's firstborn, but only Mary's firstborn. Evidently, we should look again to the Law and see how the position of the "firstborn son" relates to Mary's special betrothal as "bearer of the inheritance."
We find, again, in the Laws of redemption, evidence of our answer. For, property, which has been sold or “alienated”, must be redeemed to the family of its original owner. This was to be done at any time but, in the Year of Jubilee, it was absolutely required. The obligation of redeeming alienated or sold property fell to the legal “firstborn son”, to the one who bore the position, whether he was the first one born of a sequence or not (Leviticus 25:23-24).
Are we not, in fact, the “inheritance” of the Father, in need of redemption? “Save, O Lord, Thy people and bless Thine inheritance,” the Psalmist sings in the spirit of prophecy. Moreover, are we not all “sold under sin” (Romans 7.14) and "who shall redeem me from the body of this death?" (Romans 7:24) Thus, Christ is the "firstborn son", and as such bears both the right and the responsibility of redeeming for the Father that which had been alienated from the Father, to redeem from the bondage of death and the power of "him who had the power of death, namely Satan" that which was "sold under sin."
We see, therefore, both the nature of Mary’s betrothal, its lawful role in the preservation of the “inheritance of Israel,” and the necessity for the Christ to bear the office and title of “firstborn son.”
Can we see in this the buying back of the children of God from bondage of satan by the Firstborn Son?

ON THE TRADITION THAT MARY WAS RAISED AND EDUCATED IN THE TEMPLE
The Jewish tradition was that all the virgins of the House of David were taken into the Temple to be taught. The Jews believed or at least the Temple did, the Mother of the Messiah was to be from the House of David and therefore must be adequately instructed to be the Mother of the Messiah. Again this was Jewish Custom and we have to accept it as Catholics for it was a law we inherited. In the Catholic Apostolic Church, it has always been held, on the basis of Sacred Tradition, that Mary was raised and educated in the Temple, as a consecrated virgin. The story of her entry into the temple was recounted every year on the feast day of commemorating the event. It seems worthwhile noting here, certain circumstances that make the idea of her being educated and serving in the temple not only plausible but likely. In fact I heard growing up how when Mary was of age for marriage that is. The temple chose a suitor for her. Those eligible bachelors of the House of David were assembled and told to bring an almond branch. The season was before the trees of Jerusalem had budded. Joseph turned up and his branch was flowering. The Temple accepted the sign. Some stories claim it was his staff. But that could not be true because all these men would not have had staffs of this wood.
According to the traditional story, Mary was the daughter of the priest Joachim and his wife Anna. In the Gospel of Luke we learn that Elizabeth, Mary's kinswoman was married to Zacharias, a serving Temple Priest, a member of the house of Aaron (Lk. 1: 5-36), and therefore she was of the priestly class, and related by marriage to the priests who served in temple. This means that Mary was not only the daughter of a priest, Joachim, but related to other branches of the priestly families. Her uncle, her father’s brother Zachary was a priest (Lk. 1: 5). Aunt Elizabeth was, therefore, doubly related to the priestly house: both through birth and through marriage. Mary must have been just as closely related, and if her mother was also marriage related to the house of Aaron and the priesthood, then Mary was well connected to the temple and it certainly would not have been unusual for her to have both served in the temple in some capacity and been educated in the temple. We have, established that there is no reason to doubt that she could have been educated and served in some womanly capacity in the temple.

ON THE MEANING OF THE WORDS “HE KNEW HER NOT UNTIL AFTER” HER SON WAS BORN
Understanding all this, we hardly need to entertain the question. Why then does Matthew say of Joseph, `and he knew her not up to her having brought forth her firstborn son' (Matthew 1:25;)." Opinion among those who are followers of a gnostic faith, often translate this verse as “he knew her not until after...” This is not, however, a required connotation, because the Greek original, Eos, indicates the meaning, "he had no sexual relations with her prior to her giving birth."
GRK: ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν
NAS: her a virgin until she gave birth
KJV: her not till she had brought forth her
INT: knew her until that she brought forth

St Matthew the Evangelist makes this statement in order to assure us that Joseph had no part in the conception of Jesus. The term (Eos ou) does not require the understanding that he certainly had relations with her after Christ was born. It merely indicates that, as regards the birth of Jesus, Joseph had not had relations with Mary prior to the birth; thus, he was not the father of Jesus. This is merely a usual turn of phrase, the use of a standard and familiar form of expression. This same term is used elsewhere in the Bible as a standard expression, and it clearly does not indicate what sectarians claim it does. At 2 Samuel 6:23, for instance, we read, "And Milchal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until [eos] her death. Did she, then, have children after her death? No, and neither did Joseph "know" Mary after the birth of Jesus.
The Orthodox Archbishop from whom I have permission to change this into a Latin Catholic Document had written confirming what all Catholics know, nothing is accidental in the Scriptures and we must acclaim Its accuracy when translated by the Early Christian Church. Scriptures for us is inspired, written, by the Holy Spirit, therefore we can consider it God's autobiography and God does not lie. We, as or if, we are truly His People should not translate this, His autobiography, in manner that makes Scriptures lie. A Church having nothing to hide does not need to misappropriate, or change her founder's life to suit the Church's opinions or change the Autobiography of God to meet its needs. I mean does not need to to quantify its own beliefs, as do so many sectarians today. We can also look elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures to see how strong a meaning was put upon the word ‘wife’.
The first mention of wife is where one would expect it, in the beginning, Genesis2:24 “Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh”. Up to this verse Eve was Adam’s companion. All through scriptures the word wife is qualified
1 Kings1:19: And they rose in the morning, and worshiped before the Lord: and they returned, and came into their house at Ramatha. And Elcana knew Anna his wife: And the Lord remembered her.
Tobias 1:20; “Then all my property was confiscated; nothing was left to me, that was not taken into the royal treasury, except my wife Anna and my son Tobias”.
I remind you of Bathesba the wife of Uriah the Hittite, Sarah the wife of Abraham, Lot, take your wife and two daughters. The Apostles would well know the difference between wife and companion
We must admit, Mary and Joseph were married according to Jewish Law. First in Matthew1: 20, we read. “But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary as thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
Matthew 1:24; “And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife”. As in all marriages Mary and Joseph’s souls were united. Catholics should understand this from Genesis as, What God has joined together as the souls of man and wife made in the Image of God becomes one. We also know the Child was not Joseph’s in Matthew1: 18; “Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost”. Also in another place it is written in Matthew 2: 14; “Who arose, and took the child and his mother by night, and retired into Egypt: and he was there until the death of Herod”
Matthew was no fool. He was by our standards an excise man, a tax collector, who would not be easily taken in by strange stories. He was liable for execution if he did not hand over enough revenue to the Romans, and what we know from scriptures of his whole background and training must tell us he was a record keeper. Not only that, he must have had confirmation from both Mary and Christ’s cousins. They could not have allowed it to be a lie for the honor of their family name demanded the truth.
At Genesis 8:7, we read that Noah "sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not return 'till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of the earth." We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never returned to the ark. It says that it did not return "until after," but in fact, it never returned at all. The Scripture says that "Joseph knew her not till after...” but in fact, he never "knew" her at all. The Bible says, "The Lord said to my Lord, `Sit at my right hand until [eos] I make thine enemies Thy footstool" (Mark 12:36). Does this mean that Christ will cease to sit at the right hand of the glory of the Father once His enemies have been overcome? The answer is of course not. Another word could have been used had the Evangelist specifically meant to say that Joseph did not have relations with Mary until after Christ was born. The Bible does not say "Joseph knew her not until after she brought forth her first born, but then he did." The Bible says, "He did not know her before (up until) she had brought forth her firstborn," meaning simply and clearly, "Joseph was not the father. He had not come together to know her so aptly put by scriptures, her before her pregnancy, thus he was not involved in the conception of Jesus." This is a proper understanding of the Greek original of this Scripture, for it is in full accord with the Scriptural prophecy and with the nature of Jesus Christ, in whom "the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily" (Colossians 2:9).
The Sacred Tradition concerning these matters is certainly derived from Mary’s own testimony and, like all things in the Church, it is guided and guarded by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Mary was, in fulfillment of the Law, betrothed to her own family relative (as the Holy Spirit guided Sacred Tradition tells us), a marriage which, according to the Law did not allow for sexual intercourse between them, because she was the bearer of the inheritance, the Messiah. Christ is called the “firstborn son” because it is the title given to the one responsible for the redemption of that which has become alienated or fallen into bondage, namely, mankind which was alienated from the Father, having been of its own deeds “sold under sin.”

Labels: , , , , ,

 
Saturday, November 19, 2016
  I must catch up.
Jesus charges me to write and to write the truth and he has shown me the destiny for liars. Sorry not shown me but early one morning dumped me down in the middle of it.
There was a priest from Kerala who showed up at my door and we lived in a very secluded place north of Mission BC. He claimed Jesus had sent him to be my spiritual guide. I said OK we will try it out. When the gift of compunction hit me at a mass he was offering, he jumped of the altar and ordered me to be quiet well I could not and I thought then, Well! Well! That is not how it works. If he was my guide and confessor I should have been silent. He could never understand why I cried so much in the Confessional. What he wanted from me was something I could not do but I had to, out of charity, help him. So I did but it was not quick enough for him and he did not want to. He knew better. He certainly would not listen to what I told him so he interfered and the deal vanished. He was so angry and frightened at the time for he said the people in his sister’s village would kill his family. I asked that this would not happen.
While all this was happening, his supporter in Federal Way came home and his soon to be son in law came after his about to be father-in-law and was going to attack and kill him with a shotgun. The police were called and took him to St Joseph’s hospital, in Tacoma I think. The priest knowing of some of my history phoned me at about 7 pm in the evening to ask me to pray for this young man. A Swiss I believe.
Let me give you all that went on before. This very good and charitable doctor, a world famous pediatrician, took young men off the streets and ha them live in his basement apartment. He had two living there and he started to be uncomfortable so he took the Keralan priest and went into their apartment. He found they were running girls on the street and selling guns. He called the police, I believe, and threw them out. The priest then blessed the apartment with Holy Water and one of the Church’s blessings to get rid of anything evil and then gave the place over to his erstwhile son-in-law, and went out somewhere. When they came back that is when the young man chased them with a gun and thence carted of to hospital in a strait jacket.
To pray over this boy was a conundrum for me. Bl Mary had already told me to lay hands on people when I prayed. I was in Canada and he was a couple of hundred miles south in Washington State. At that time when Bl Mary, my mother and my love, told me about my hands I answered, “No I can’t. It is too hard, I am English I don’t do touching other people”. Swiftly she said and I paraphrase her answer, “Do as your Mother says”. Hard again, I asked, “how can I? He’s too far away”. “Use your friends one of them can be a proxy”. So one woman offered and I did pray over her as his “proxy”. When I finished praying, I mean when I could think of no more to ask we sat down only to jump up as the proxy woman was in mental anguish the chattering in her head was like a very loud buzz saw. We said the Divine Mercy for a while, nothing changed. So she said take me home, so I did. The next day she said it took a long time and many Divine Mercies to get rid of the voices.
The priest phone a couple of days later to finish of the story. The young man had got out of bed and had no further problems and went home where he told my doctor friend of what he saw while in an ill charged mental state. He was in the house several feet fathoms below water and the water was raging. I have many times since been told of the mouth of the Fraser river rising up by several feet and flooding the Fraser Valley. Although I have asked several times when it was on this evening I heard, “in a little while”. Some of the other events I know of I have been unfaithful to Jesus and not mentioned them. If you read my back blogs you will see one day He asked me, “Just who do you think you are. I lead you follow I died for you, read the scriptures”. This evening he said, Come on you were in such a hurry before, now I have to wait for you”.

Labels: , , , , ,

 
Thursday, November 17, 2016
  Scriptural defense of Bl Mary ever Virgin. Part 1
The reason for this defense.
I will make a statement about the Status of The Holy Ghost, the Divine Eternal Spirit of Supernatural Love and Sanctifying Grace and His Spouse Bl. Mary the Mother of God. The Church, the Catholic Church the original Christian Church which changed her name to Universal (Catholic) in AD 122 due to the Gnostic (pagan) heresies and its denial and unwillingness to see any divinity in Jesus or that any woman could be the Mother of God. The Catholic Church today for all its claim to love both the Spirit and the Spouse goes out of her way to deny These two items of our faith have any right to speak to Their Children or even visit with them. Here goes my firm belief in both first secularly and the spiritually.

The Correctness of Scriptures
Ch.1 The Title Theotokos
Ch.2 Scriptural Proof
Ch.3 Scriptural Law of Inheritance 
Ch.4 The meaning of the expression “Her Firstborn Son”
CH.5 The Tradition that Mary was raised and educated in the Temple.
Ch.6 The meaning of the Words “He knew her not until after her Son was born”
Ch.7 The meaning of the words and the identities of the brothers of Jesus
Ch.8 The Meaning of the words “Mary’s sister was standing near the Cross.
Ch.9 The meaning of our veneration of the Theotokos and our request for her prayers.

The Correctness of Scriptures
One has to be careful in the world of religion today of what Bible one trusts. Catholics, who are truly Apostolic most as an exercise in Faith, Conscience and Free Will must and can only use if they are Latin Rite the Latin Vulgate or the Douai Rheims translation with Bishop Challoner’s footnotes. There are of course other Catholic Versions, one of which I favour Fr Haydock's 1859 version.s The Byzantine Apostolic Church must sincerely believe and trust in the early Slavonic (St Cyril and Methodius translations or the Origen Greek Version called the St. James Version.
Why the St Jerome version of the Latin Vulgate? The Apostolic Church in 380AD chose St Jerome for his linguistic ability to collect the books of the bible together. Why was this needed? Well a book of manuscripts used regularly, wears out. and in reality there were no books just papyrus and wax tablets. The oral teachings become confused by the world and other’s versions. So the Apostolic Church sent Jerome out to correct the Truth. Jerome had the help of all the known church. Hand copying can lead to errors and we can assume that the errors were known but not corrected in hand written illuminated scriptures although footnotes did exist. Jerome collected these together. Jerome was born close to the Adriatic and was Greek by birth and was a well respected linguist.

ON THE TITLE THEOTOKOS OR "MOTHER OF GOD"
Let us come now, with reverence and awe, to the greatest mystery of all - the virgin birth of Him Who pre-existed all existence, of Him Who is Existence itself. We do not propose to explain the mystery, to tell how the womb of a woman born in a manner like us could "contain Him Whom the whole universe cannot contain." Rather, we hope merely to clear up some of the questions arising from the facts.
Mary is the "mother of God." The title "Theotokos" means literally, "the one who gave birth to God."
At first consideration, and without some prayerful and scriptural thought about these titles, they may sound shocking. How can a human, born under the fallen nature, be "the Mother of God?” Surely we should call her only, "the mother of Jesus," or, "the Mother of Christ." When we ask the question, "should we call Mary `mother of God,' or only `mother of Christ', we suddenly realize that this question is not about Mary, but about Jesus Christ Himself. The actual question is this:
"Is Jesus only a special, anointed, Grace­ filled servant of God, or is He, in very truth, God incarnate?"
In other words, "Do we believe in the Holy Trinity or not?" If we believe in the Holy Trinity, and Christ is truly God incarnate, then, of course, Mary is the "mother of God," the "Theotokos. If we reject the dogma of the Trinity and we 'believe that Jesus is only a specially anointed prophet, then we would refuse to call Mary "Theotokos," or "mother of God." We cannot have it both ways without playing blasphemous word games with the nature of our Savior, Jesus Christ, thus forcing our beliefs and personal opinions on history.
We will not pause to discuss this point at length, for it is simply resolved by the question, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your God and Savior, or do you consider Him to be only a extraordinary human prophet?" We will take time only to repeat that this mystery cannot be grasped without prayerful, scriptural contemplation of the matter.
Some sectarians suggest that it would be better to think of Mary as the mother of only the human side of Jesus, the man. Such a suggestion is made from a weak humanity, an emotive reasoning that contains no logic or without thought or any form of scriptural­ consciousness. If we said that the child in Mary's womb was not the complete Person, the incarnate God, then we are faced with several problems. First, it would mean that, for a time, Jesus was not God, and then later He became God. This is what some of the Gnostic heretics taught, and it is really Theosophy to say this. In the case of most sectarians, how­ever, it is said only from ignorance and lack of serious thought about the matter. The other problem is that in Christian arguments against legalized "cosmetic" abortions, we argue that the fetus is a complete person, body and soul at conception. The teaching that only part of Jesus' nature was present in Mary's womb, and that His nature was completed later, after His birth, would seem to help justify random abortion, for it means that the fetus is not the complete person. Moreover, if we accept two "births" of Jesus, one in which He was born only as a human, then Jesus was also under the fallen human nature, and Himself in need of redemption. His second "birth" in which God entered Him and made Him half God and half man, would be a totally occult, "new age" type of concept.
Thus, to be an actual Christian, and not a neo-Gnostic who only borrows the name "Christian," one must accept that Mary is truly the Theotokos, the mother of God.

THE SCRIPTURAL, PROPHETIC REASONS FOR MARY'S EVER VIRGINITY

The history of the Church, guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, has given us a fullness of understanding about the Nativity of Christ and the holy virgin. We know that the virgin birth was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah (7:14), and that Mary was betrothed to the aged Joseph, a close relative of hers. We know how she was raised in the temple itself, in a consecrated manner. Since every aspect of the New Testament, the plan of our redemption is foreshadowed and indicated in the Old Testa­ment, we ought to find some reason for these things, some explanation for them in the Law and the Prophets - as indeed we do. For, the Law itself is only a revelation about man's condition and a revelation of, and preparation for, the redemption of mankind. Apart from those things spoken of directly by the Prophets, as Isaiah says, "A virgin shall bear a child," or as the Greek version of the Septuagint proclaims, “The Virgin shall bear a Child”. The Law itself also contains less clear, but no less profound revelations. There is nothing re­corded in the Scripture "accidentally," every incident has meaning and purpose. The Law reveals the nature of our redemption.
Sacred Tradition has given us certain aspects of the life of Mary and Joseph, which seem to confuse and even anger many sectarians: This includes the familial relationship of Joseph to Mary. In doing so, they in their way condemn virginity by not admitting to the physical relationship between them after marriage. They say that an old relative committed incest with a young woman relative. In fact they Judge the Lord’s Parents by themselves making them as ordinary people, thus denying God chose them specially. Then once again they condemn virginity itself and blas­pheme the Nativity of Christ. They demand, "Show us some precedent for this in Scripture, for we do not accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Church."
Catholics might well stare in shock at the blasphemy of people who, while professing to believe in Christ, assert that the womb which was the palace, the chalice and the resting place of the Most High God, the pre-eternal Source of all being, might later have experienced penetration, yielding to the passions of fallen humanity. And what other babe could have dwelt in that awesome womb which the very God of holiness and purity Himself had inhabited? What else can we ask other than; “Would God put His seed in a dirty, spoiled cup?” Even as we find in the old testament, "a woman's womb contained the whole of creation".

The Scriptural Law of Inheritance
The question which must be considered is, “Was the marriage of Joseph and Mary legal in the eyes of the Jewish faith?” Nothing else concerns us. They were under the Old Law and it is only that rule which can condemn them not us. This marriage which is for us, is a contract not usually made between family members" First for virgin births, there is no precedent, nor was there a precedent for the creation of universes before God did it. The will of God is its own precedent and if God is the eternal being, the ‘I AM’ then how could there be a precedence? Never the less in this world ‘the community of God’s people’ there is not only precedent, but also a law for the preservation of inheritances. No one dare deny surely, Christ, the Messiah was the hope and inheritance of Israel. Let us look at the Law, then, and see what this precedent is and what it reveals to us about the nature of our redemption.
The promise of the Messiah was the hope and inheritance of Israel and, very specifically, of the tribe of Judah, the house of David. This inheritance, clearly, was to come forth from a woman who was yet a maiden, without the involvement of a man, as the Prophet Isaiah so clearly testifies. Now, the law concerning inheritances falling upon a woman is clearly prophetic, the more so since all such laws of the Old Testament make God the ultimate owner and source of authority over all prop­erty. According to the law, if an Israelite had no son then his daughter would receive the inheritance (Numbers 27:8:11). However, it was considered vital that the inheritance not pass out of the family and especially that it not pass out of the tribe. To prevent this from happening, if a woman was the bearer of the inheritance, she was required to marry a man of her father’s house (Numbers 36.6-8). The case of the daughters of Zelophehad makes this clearer, for they were betrothed to their own first cousins in order to preserve the inheri­tance in their own tribe and in their father's "house" (Numbers 36:11). Yet, God specific­ally forbade all marriages with near relatives, and not only with blood relations, but even with relations of affinity, as we read in Leviti­cus and elsewhere (Leviticus 18:6, etc). What was the reason for this great contradiction? A contradiction, that women were instructed to betroth themselves to men too closely related to them for lawful intercourse and childbearing – this is sheer incest. It could only mean the daughters were expected to remain virgins even after their marriage. How hard it is to accept, believe and follow such an ordinance in today’s world, with its lack of discipline.
Quite simply, the sanctity and preservation of inheritance stood above, or rather, as a special provision to, the former law, and the woman was expected, it would seem, to make this sacrifice for the sake of the inheritance. It did not abolish the former law or set it aside, and so the woman was, if the whole law was to be fulfilled, expected to spend her life as a virgin.
In the case of Mary, who bore the ultimate inheritance of the holy nation, the law itself came into its fullest meaning, and she was betrothed to an elderly family member of very close kin. Both were of the house of David, as must certainly have been the case since she had no brothers and was, therefore, also the bearer of her father's inheritance. But she, having been dedicated to God and having a vow of virginity already, remained within the bounds of the other law also.
So the betrothal of Mary to an elderly relative of the same tribe and house, who could be by consideration, even in the paucity of information of his life he lived must be because of Jewish traditional demands that all men must marry, Joseph could be reckoned to be a Nazirite, (Numbers 6:5) There could be two reasons for Mary’s virginity to be acknowledged, one is a marriage to a relative much too close for intercourse to be lawful, and two his vow to be a Nazirite. All this is provided for provided for in the Jewish Law and traditions. This law and tradition is in itself prophetic of Mary’s special mission as bearer of the Messiah, the heritage of Israel.



Labels: , , , , ,

 
Wednesday, October 05, 2016
  Is this Parreshia? Is this what the Pope meant? I think so.
Obeying the Pope and using Parrhesia, in his words, to just mess things up. Remembering his recent prayer for journalists. He said, “I often wonder: How can media be put to the service of a culture of encounter? We need information leading to compromise for the good of humanity and the planet.
Join me in this prayer request. “That journalists, in carrying out their work, may always be motivated by respect for truth and a strong sense of ethics”.
Pope Francis: journalism based on gossip and lies a form of terrorism Pontiff says journalists must go the extra mile to seek the truth and ensure they don’t spread rumors which can ‘kill a person with your tongue’.
In the modern world there are those whom we call investigative journalists. Like the rest of us, they come in all sorts. Honest, having integrity and having worked in the industry most today are just in it for the notoriety and consequently the high salaries their dishonesty brings them. I have worked with them and watched how easily they substitute their views of what you should have said by clever editing. Suffice to say many of those they interview are of the same ilk.
Let Us hope that when push comes to shove, this Pope will remember that so many of those Catholics who are slowly aligning themselves against his new wrong headed pastoral initiative will fight hard and with integrity and honesty for the sake of all our souls.

There are many Catholic Bloggers who are very knowledgeable about the historic and accepted teachings of the Catholic Church. I trust in God they are not in it for ego, fame and fortune nor do they have some specific axe to grind. Some I think of, as practicing simony they rush to print the latest message from Bl Mary, sell Catholic Trinkets etc and are very close to committing acts of simony. Some ask for help in buying non Catholic items such as equipment and goods. The message they give by their actions may be causing scandal to raise its ugly head amongst the faithful. Consider this and ask yourself are they making a living by selling holy pictures and books when they may be capable of earning a living by the use of their hands and skills. If not, are they not literally pimping Bl Mary’s concern for her Children. In many cases some write intelligently about the faith and are writing not for the children but with impressive and erudite definitions of semi obscure catholic ideas and even exhibit Gnostic fallacies. They would certainly be better teaching the catechism in the local parishes or devising some kind of catholic marketing plan for evangelization There are others who set themselves up as experts on Bl Mary and write as though they have a very special knowledge of Mary and what is acceptable to her. It seems so many have a very intimate personal relationship with Her and Her spouse the Divine Eternal Spirit of God. I don’t think so and many had better change. Then there are among these writers those Catholics that are called cradle Catholics are often dismissed as dated, or non progressive and their catholic habits and practices learned from their parents and grandparents are often hinted at, as being antediluvian. Honestly I am one and I will never give up what my father taught me. Why should I his virtues of piety and religion make him a far better catholic than so many who claim their religion is catholic they work at today. So let me, if I can, convince you as my father did me we should obey the Holy Father in practicing our Catholicism.
Pope Francis, that is still his title I believe, says speak boldly and use Parrhesia. Parrhesia is to speak boldly, freely, openly and truthfully, in a lesser meaning it was used to say preach orate or make your views truthful. Some will add that its use is also tied to apologizing for having to say what one must say all be it the truth. What does apologizing in this case mean? I believe for me it means these are my views I am sorry they annoy you but they are mine and please respect them. I ask the Pope what did he mean when he recommends using Parrhesia; being a Jesuit and he would ask, “What do you think it means?” This is or was was always the Jesuit way, steering the questioner with a question to bring you to your own understanding. I would have then answered, “It is speaking without fear, to speak without trying to please and above all other meanings to speak truthfully with out apologizing for my opinions”. And the Jesuit would say that is good but what about your critical view of the behavior of others and their beliefs’ I would say, “I can only say this is what I believe and it is my lifestyle and I cannot deny my beliefs, but I hear what you say”.
Although I do write, over the years I have worked diligently to form my conscience, the choice of expressing it is mine. It will be without a doubt in my mind a cross that, for a little while, I will have to shoulder. That is my and for every catholic the burden of my choice. Yet it is for those who read me to ask as Pilate asked, “What is his truth for me?” I would say from the way I was brought up it is what makes me to try to act with honor, honesty and integrity and stand steadfast in my beliefs. The Jesuit might then say, “You are mad”. What is mad in putting ourselves outside the Pandora’s box the world is? Christ did tell us we are not of this world or am I mistaken? I also believe there is a strong suspicion in my mind that when He said we are to be an example He meant stand out among the crowds.
So I write in an effort to understand and to express confusion even a little disgust about the double talk in the Church today, a fruit from the council of Vatican 2. This council used such bad translations and interpretations giving us what the Church has always called, and still are, novelties. This caused Paul V1th to say, “No more changes the children are confused”. This has led to trusting and depending of what is called the sense of the faith and we never hear reference to that which Tertullian called “sensus regula”, which seems for me a sense of the natural law. How can the faith of the great unwashed and unshriven children of the church today be trusted? How can the faith be trusted when many of the “faithful” are under the jurisdiction of sin. We are taught by the Church this jurisdiction is a weakness that impairs the our intelligence and a spiritual weakness. This fact we must understand from the Catholic Church’s historic teachings?
As a long time catholic, remembering the priests of my childhood I write, if the Priests had the fortitude today to tell the truth and say this truth, “You are not in a state of grace and I ask when did you last confess your sins to me or a fellow priest?” The Church today would be rising like a Phoenix from her ashes. This trust in our fellow Catholic's faith today is not a position I would want to use as my defense before God when I am judged. The Church has always taught that not to inform one’s conscience is a grave sin. One very important occasion for informing our conscience is in the confessional with our parish priest, the spiritual guide appointed for us by the Church for our eternal benefit. This blog is my expression of disgust about the confusion I see, hear and question. It does not need the permission of any priest of whatever rank for me to express. It is licit because of the explicit instruction of this Pope who told us to be candid and to express ourselves. I think also he meant “be sorry” that we have to ask these questions about the double talk of Vatican 2 coming not from the Trinitarian Holy Ghost but from the spirit of the roman god, the idol, Janus who was double headed and faced two ways, with two mouths.
So let me state how I am confused. The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate Heart cannot have as their Latin mass, but the Neocatecumenate can have their own version of the Novus Ordo. Where is the unity of the Church? Can we see unity in the Church, with decisions of this caliber? They seem somewhat spiteful to me. At one time no one who was not one of the Neocatecumenate cult could attend their liturgical ceremonies. I do not know if this has changed recently. I ask is it misplaced? The S.S.P.X. who objected to parts of the Vatican two’s confusing mess cannot be considered as part of our church, as fellow Catholics? Was Lefevbre the only Bishop present who would not be bullied by a hoard of Collegians? We all know of problems with varsity thinkers. Can we not argue this is troublesome when until this year we were not as Catholics able to go to confession with their priests? Has no Bishop ever considered the opening statement of the Pope in his sermon at the opening mass of Vatican 2 about pastoral focus of Vatican 2 and how it was not to change dogma or doctrine. A Pastoral Council he named it. I ask why then have the Bishops think they can now change direction and say the papers on ecumenism and other religions now not be considered dogma or doctrine but merely pastoral and in their own words can be progressively changed with the limits of their circumstances. All along since the culmination of the Council the Bishops have forced us to accept wonky decisions in the Spirit of Vatican 2. They enforce one thing and erase another. I read adultery now can be seen as merely a venial sin and disordered relationships are not sinful if there is love. How very Muslim who believe one can have a same sex relationship as long as there is no reciprocal love. Have I got this wrong? I have lately read the Cardinal Kasper has said and I now quote Lifesitenews, an immensely trustworthy group which should be supported vigorously.


June 11, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – In the face of increasing opposition to his plan to approve giving Holy Communion to people who are in adulterous remarriages, Cardinal Walter Kasper is hinting at a new “Vatican II” strategy for accomplishing his purposes at the upcoming Synod of Bishops in October, in which Catholic bishops from around the world will debate and vote upon his proposal.
In his televised interview with Raymond Arroyo of the Eternal World Television Network on June 4, Kasper acknowledged the opposition to his proposal of large numbers of bishops and even whole episcopal conferences, and recognized that inducing a large majority to support it would be difficult. As a result he proposed a different approach.
I get a lot of agreements, but also a lot of critiques, and there are tensions there,” Kasper acknowledged. “Now I propose to those who prepare the Synod to prepare a text which can get the agreement of the whole, of the great majority. It’s the same method also we had in the Council.” He later repeated, “My suggestion is to find now a formula where the great majority can adhere.”
Let us look into the last Synod and see how we were to treat the disordered, those disordered brothers and sisters of us all. We have a man, a self publicly confessed, repentant and straightened out sinner, with a blog. A man who took the splinters out of his eye and publicly confessed his remorse. We are urged by the bishops we should hold him in high esteem, welcoming him home. If there is a man who can judge the disordered, here is the epitome of what the Pope wants and he is so vilified by not only many of his brothers and sisters but also by those whose prerogatives are to make the rules. They, the bishops, are so confusing. There is nothing more confusing by saying do as I say but not as I do. Did the Bishops or did they not tell us we must take this man back into our midst and love him without rancor and he could receive Holy Communion under the supervision and discernment of His pastor? Does he have a Pastor or was that right unalienable right he has been removed in some way? All of us must have a Priest to forgive our sins. Sometimes the Local Bishop will provide a special confessor to guide us who are in that position.
I ask a question here about the disordered and what has the Church done over the years to hide this problem and what is the result. Is it governed now by an episcopal declaration it is not a sin. I am only doing what the present pope has said using Parrhesia with a great deal of sorrow for having to ask? We know and have seen it confirmed that so many of the disordered priests etc were shuffled around, from parish to parish, diocese to diocese, from country to country. My question is to ask why it has never been made known how many were sent to Rome and stayed moving slowly up through the ranks of the Roman Curia. I ask have they become so powerful they can change the Church’s teaching on the power of the keys to make their aberrations not a sin? I am sorry that I have to make such questions and to ask them publicly. I cannot, I know, question, yet I do as the Pope has expressed his views on the subject of the disordered except again one rule for the priesthood and a different one for the laity. I cannot forget he is infallible on faith and morals. We must obey his instructions to us. Are they we should question, forthrightly and honestly, but with sorrow, this making of a new history is it an error?
This Pope must have been selected and appointed by the Holy Spirit because he sure is separating the sheep from the goats at the Vatican. I ask what are any of the Church Hierarchy or Laity doing to defend the Mystical Body of Christ. Is it, the Vatican, the modern Coliseum at Rome and the beasts are ravishing the faithful.
I ask with a sincere remorse that I, not well educated, have to ask this question why the Pope’s own public instructions at the start of the last synod and in his publication of Amore Laetitia, why are the translations by some prelates so confusing. Why is there no unity in the translations why do or did the prelates and ordinaries translate the words of the Papal instructions to such a confusing degree? Was it under the tutelage of Cardinal Kasper. So different to The Church’s teachings both historical and traditional, Why! Why! Why? Or in the great phrase of the early Church should they not expect terrible triple woe to be upon them or should the Sheep, the Children of the Church pray as Moses did, for the Bishops, priests who claim the spirit tells them they have the right to be priests?” This new aberration that is set to be consider women to be deaconesses might benefit from prayer as Moses prayed:
By this you shall know that the Lord hath sent me to do all things that you see, and that I have not forged them of my own head: If these men die the common death of men, and if they be visited with a plague, wherewith others also are wont to be visited, the Lord did not send me. But if the Lord do a new thing, and the earth opening her mouth swallow them down, and all things that belong to them, and they go down alive into hell, you shall know that they have blasphemed the Lord”.

Although if I pray this way I would certainly change the punishment and leave it to God’s will
Candidly, as the Pope proclaimed, I would also those who are considering the role of those religious and laity who through some kind of Gnostic heresy that say God has given them a vocation and should be priests would deserve this prayer. It would be an extra thing to witness when God reacts especially if we ask Him in the name of his beloved Son and as promised He acts for the sake of His family Name which as I wrote at the start He will act in honor and defend His Family Name. Of course when one asks for such an action one must know the wrath of God might descend upon him. A double “of course” would be know that through a sincere faith in Jesus’ scriptural promises many events can be set on course for the Glory of God to be demonstrated. Moses believed do you? If you have faith be like the Apostles wake Jesus up so the coming storm can be abated. He, our Jesus, was a little disappointed at them and is at us but, but look at the lesson it taught the Apostles. How often He must have said and thought, of them and of us, “Oh Thou of little faith”. His words of remonstrance did not mean he did not act.
Speaking in Parrhesia again, I pass a comment it seems there is a great desire to change many decisions of former councils. In particular, I mean the Council of Trent on the Sacraments and the written directives of former Popes.

Try this prayer of Moses to have the fortitude to ask your parish priest, who is your confessor and spiritual guide this question. “Is there any veracity in this blog? Did the Pope really instruct us as Catholics to practice Parrhesia and how can we put his directive into action. If he did so then if he applies this to our faith and morals we should do as he directs but with the candour, truth and honesty. My prayer is many of you will.


Labels: , , , , , , , ,

 
Memories of the habits and the teachings of the Catholic Church

Archives
11 June 2006 / 18 June 2006 / 25 June 2006 / 02 July 2006 / 09 July 2006 / 16 July 2006 / 17 December 2006 / 31 December 2006 / 07 January 2007 / 14 January 2007 / 21 January 2007 / 04 February 2007 / 18 February 2007 / 04 March 2007 / 18 March 2007 / 25 March 2007 / 01 April 2007 / 08 April 2007 / 15 April 2007 / 22 April 2007 / 29 April 2007 / 13 May 2007 / 03 June 2007 / 08 July 2007 / 29 July 2007 / 05 August 2007 / 12 August 2007 / 19 August 2007 / 26 August 2007 / 16 September 2007 / 07 October 2007 / 13 January 2008 / 27 January 2008 / 03 February 2008 / 10 February 2008 / 24 February 2008 / 02 March 2008 / 09 March 2008 / 16 March 2008 / 23 March 2008 / 30 March 2008 / 06 April 2008 / 13 April 2008 / 27 April 2008 / 04 May 2008 / 11 May 2008 / 18 May 2008 / 25 May 2008 / 01 June 2008 / 08 June 2008 / 15 June 2008 / 29 June 2008 / 06 July 2008 / 13 July 2008 / 27 July 2008 / 03 August 2008 / 10 August 2008 / 17 August 2008 / 24 August 2008 / 31 August 2008 / 07 September 2008 / 14 September 2008 / 28 September 2008 / 05 October 2008 / 12 October 2008 / 19 October 2008 / 26 October 2008 / 02 November 2008 / 23 November 2008 / 30 November 2008 / 07 December 2008 / 14 December 2008 / 28 December 2008 / 04 January 2009 / 11 January 2009 / 25 January 2009 / 01 February 2009 / 08 February 2009 / 15 February 2009 / 22 February 2009 / 01 March 2009 / 08 March 2009 / 22 March 2009 / 29 March 2009 / 05 April 2009 / 12 April 2009 / 19 April 2009 / 26 April 2009 / 10 May 2009 / 17 May 2009 / 24 May 2009 / 31 May 2009 / 07 June 2009 / 14 June 2009 / 21 June 2009 / 28 June 2009 / 05 July 2009 / 12 July 2009 / 19 July 2009 / 26 July 2009 / 02 August 2009 / 09 August 2009 / 16 August 2009 / 30 August 2009 / 06 September 2009 / 13 September 2009 / 20 September 2009 / 04 October 2009 / 11 October 2009 / 15 November 2009 / 29 November 2009 / 06 December 2009 / 13 December 2009 / 20 December 2009 / 27 December 2009 / 10 January 2010 / 24 January 2010 / 31 January 2010 / 07 February 2010 / 28 February 2010 / 07 March 2010 / 21 March 2010 / 28 March 2010 / 02 May 2010 / 09 May 2010 / 30 May 2010 / 13 June 2010 / 27 June 2010 / 11 July 2010 / 18 July 2010 / 25 July 2010 / 01 August 2010 / 08 August 2010 / 15 August 2010 / 22 August 2010 / 29 August 2010 / 05 September 2010 / 12 September 2010 / 19 September 2010 / 26 September 2010 / 10 October 2010 / 24 October 2010 / 31 October 2010 / 07 November 2010 / 14 November 2010 / 21 November 2010 / 28 November 2010 / 05 December 2010 / 12 December 2010 / 19 December 2010 / 26 December 2010 / 09 January 2011 / 16 January 2011 / 23 January 2011 / 30 January 2011 / 06 February 2011 / 13 February 2011 / 06 March 2011 / 24 April 2011 / 08 May 2011 / 15 May 2011 / 22 May 2011 / 03 July 2011 / 17 July 2011 / 24 July 2011 / 31 July 2011 / 07 August 2011 / 14 August 2011 / 21 August 2011 / 25 September 2011 / 09 October 2011 / 16 October 2011 / 04 December 2011 / 25 December 2011 / 08 January 2012 / 15 January 2012 / 22 January 2012 / 29 January 2012 / 17 June 2012 / 08 July 2012 / 05 August 2012 / 21 October 2012 / 28 October 2012 / 04 November 2012 / 11 November 2012 / 18 November 2012 / 02 December 2012 / 30 December 2012 / 06 January 2013 / 13 January 2013 / 20 January 2013 / 03 February 2013 / 10 February 2013 / 17 February 2013 / 10 March 2013 / 17 March 2013 / 24 March 2013 / 31 March 2013 / 05 May 2013 / 26 May 2013 / 02 June 2013 / 09 June 2013 / 16 June 2013 / 23 June 2013 / 30 June 2013 / 07 July 2013 / 14 July 2013 / 28 July 2013 / 11 August 2013 / 18 August 2013 / 25 August 2013 / 29 September 2013 / 08 December 2013 / 15 December 2013 / 22 December 2013 / 29 December 2013 / 19 January 2014 / 26 January 2014 / 02 February 2014 / 09 March 2014 / 18 May 2014 / 25 May 2014 / 29 June 2014 / 06 July 2014 / 10 August 2014 / 24 August 2014 / 21 September 2014 / 12 October 2014 / 26 October 2014 / 23 November 2014 / 01 February 2015 / 08 March 2015 / 22 March 2015 / 12 July 2015 / 19 July 2015 / 26 July 2015 / 09 August 2015 / 16 August 2015 / 20 September 2015 / 27 September 2015 / 01 November 2015 / 06 December 2015 / 06 March 2016 / 20 March 2016 / 24 April 2016 / 01 May 2016 / 04 September 2016 / 25 September 2016 / 02 October 2016 / 13 November 2016 / 20 November 2016 / 01 January 2017 / 22 January 2017 /


Powered by Blogger

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]