Search This Blog

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Trump "walks" and the Democrats in Congress make themselves look idiotic

"Sometimes you have to walk" Trump said, and it is true. The consensus on the Conservative (non-Globalist, non-Chamber of Commerce/GOPe) blogs I'm seeing is that Kim of N. Korea wanted sanctions removed for shutting down one test site and Trump and Pompeo surprised him by revealing they know precisely where his other sites are and wanted them closed too. "Nice try, [beep]" is a classic comment in this regard.

Trump -- despite the endless baying by the Left in the US and Europe -- is not a fool. He'll not hesitate to walk away from something bad whereas the standard US President would, à la Bill Clinton bending over so far backwards for the Palestinians that he ended up standing on his face, go to absurd links for some sort of "agreement". Remember how Obama gave the Iranian thugs pallets full of cash? 

Also, this Trump walkaway sends a no-nonsense message to the ChiComs (Chinese): Trump won't hesitate to hurt 'em financially if they don't behave. (And remember, it is the Chinese who control North Korea: Kim is their puppet.) For example, see this Conservative Treehouse review:


Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Democrats were beclowning and befouling themselves with the Cohen hearings
An excerpt:
After hours of questioning, Democrats were unable to find the smoking gun they were looking for.
As someone who faces jail time for past lies, Cohen is certainly an unreliable narrator. Republican lawmakers questioning him today were sure to make that known, calling him a “pathological liar,” among other names.
Cohen’s testimony was mostly boring and uninformative, but did confirm some details exonerating President Trump. Among other key takeaways, Cohen was unable produce any evidence for any of the following: Collusion with Russia, a directive from Trump to lie under oath, or that Cohen ever went to Prague.

Total fail, it seems. And remember, the Democrat House leadership have every intention of bringing an Impeachment vote against Trump. That's going to be harder now.

Roger L. Simon asserts -- and Simon backed Trump early and consistently predicted Trump would in -- that the Democrats just got Trump re-elected president.

One Commentator here, FloMac, wrote that:
I didn't watch any of the grandstanding or the rat's testimony, I just heard the condensed version afterwards of the big nothing.
Between live birth abortions, open borders, Jew hatred from certain freshman house members, reparations, free college, 90% tax rates, the same old Trump hatred, the New...Green Deal (as McConnell puts it) -.we should win in a landslide.
Another, Menachem Ben Yakov, wrote:
Watching Michael Cohen testify was reminiscent of watching Christine " Not afraid to fly, not afraid to lie " Ford testify in the Kavanaugh hearings.
Cohen is a symptom of how far the rot has traveled and how disengaged from morality the Democrat Part has become.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. This was a recent opinion piece in the Bezos WaPo by Richard Cohen (Richard, not the Michael Cohen testifying).

As ever, I find it so odd. Otherwise intelligent people have to assert that President Trump is, as the Richard Cohen, the WaPo author of this piece asserts, a “rotten president, divisive, unpopular president…”. Actually, Trump’s approval has generally been higher that Obama’s at this two-year-in stage in their respective administrations. But they have to keep hitting on how Trump is “divisive” – as if the Clintons or Obama wasn’t "divisive"! Anyone remember the Trayvon Martin/George  Zimmerman affair? C'mon. And then, along with all that the same writer can make common sense with the following obvious observations:
An excerpt:
WASHINGTON -- I don't quite know what a handbasket is, but the Democratic Party is heading in one to electoral hell with its talk of socialism and reparations. Given a Republican incumbent who has never exceeded 50 percent in Gallup's approval ratings poll and who won the presidency thanks to a dysfunctional electoral college, the party is nevertheless determined to give Donald Trump a fair shot at re-election by sabotaging itself. In fact, it's veering so far to the left it could lose an election in 1950s Bulgaria.
Democratic socialist ideas appear to be making significant headway in the party. The Democratic part is fine, the socialism part is not. It suggests a massive government intrusion in the economy that has not worked elsewhere -- post-war Great Britain or that contemporary mess called Venezuela -- and that, in a cultural sense, is un-American. Time and time again, the American people have shown they want nothing to do with socialism. While socialist movements have at times been politically strong in Europe, such has not been the case in America. This, in fact, is one of the original meanings of the phrase "American exceptionalism."
If Americans are not about to embrace socialism, they certainly are not about to support reparations. This proposal, which seems to have come out of nowhere, has the support of Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Julian Castro and Marianne Williamson. This supposed redress for slavery -- nothing can redress slavery -- polls abysmally. Sixty-eight percent of Americans oppose making payments to descendants of slaves, and 72 percent oppose paying reparations to African-Americans in general. Among whites, 81 percent oppose payments to descendants of slaves.
The problem for the Democrats at the moment is that much attention is being focused on political novelties such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who espouse both socialism and reparations. She is ferociously telegenic, infectiously likable and clearly inexhaustible. She is also political poison, the product of a freak election in a New York City district where the past has taken root -- socialism and a lot of rot about the evils of capitalism. She cheered Amazon's decision to forsake New York for friendlier climes, taking at least 25,000 jobs with it. (Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.) For a mere first termer, this is quite an accomplishment. It usually takes much more seniority to do this much damage.


Ron again: I like that line: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who espouse both socialism and reparations...She is ferociously telegenic, infectiously likable and clearly inexhaustible. She is also political poison."

Yep.

An Préachán


Tuesday, February 26, 2019

"99% of TLM Catholics said they attend Mass weekly vs. 22% of NOM."

Yes, that's 99 percent of US Traditional Latin Mass Catholics attend Mass every Sunday while on 22 percent of the Novus Ordo crowd do. This was reported here at OnePeterFive. The original Liturgy Guy article is here. Both sites are great; I highly recommend them.

More stats here:
The findings on key questions were informative:
  • 2% of TLM-attending Catholics approved of contraception vs. 89% of NOM Catholics.
  • 1% of TLM Catholics approved of abortion compared to 51% of NOM attendees.
  • 99% of TLM Catholics said they attend Mass weekly vs. 22% of NOM.
  • 2% of TLM goers approved of “gay marriage” as opposed to 67% of NOM.
Also of note was the rate of giving among TLM Catholics, which was nearly six times the amount of giving (at 6% of income) as NOM parishioners (at 1.2%). TLM Catholics also had a fertility rate of 3.6 vs 2.3 for NOM — indicating “a nearly 60% larger family size”
Another excerpt:
As the study authors state in their analysis, the differences between the two groups were “dramatic when comparing beliefs, church attendance, monetary generosity, and fertility rates.”
The initial survey, conducted over a number of months in 2018, was brief, but Fr. Kloster intends to engage in the study of additional topics in his next survey — such as propensity toward vocations — which he intends to launch this year.
The findings will likely come as little surprise to Catholics who regularly attend Mass at TLM chapels across the country. They indicate that these chapels are fertile ground for Catholic orthodoxy, large families, and an authentic practice of the faith and will continue to provide growth and nourishment to the Church for the foreseeable future.


Pass this on on, if you would.

An Préachán


Monday, February 25, 2019

What Will Trigger a Formal Schism? Anything?

What would trigger a formal Schism in the Catholic Church? Anything? The ordination of women deacons? Women ordained as priests? Bishops? At least one write urges the ordination of women as a way to counter the Queer Mafia that currently has its fangs in the Church's throat.

As if this utterly corrupt, feminist de-masculinated Disaster-Pervert Church needs any more effeminization! The author is a long-time reporter on the Church's abuse scandal, but his "cure" is insanely wrong, on every level. And also, presumably, since the ordination of women resulted in even the Anglican/Episcopals going into Schism, such would force the Catholics to do so. Maybe. I suspect the damage is too great, now, though; the plan of the bad guys was too long laid, too termite-like ensconced, too deeply embedded in the bone marrow, for anything but a total break-up. In any event, the change into the vernacular must necessarily result in the break up of the One, Holy, Catholic Church into a series of National Language Churches, as the Orthodox are so divided today. And remember the Orthodox split originally because we spoke Latin and they Greek. All the theological issues paled in comparison to their outrage at our sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade, but even that was nothing compared to the basic linguist problem. And long before the Orthodox split, the Syrians broke away from them and the Copts, too, and again, a few theological issues were cited but the real issue was language.

It was because of the retention of Latin through thick and thin, and the ancient, ancient Mass, the true Roman-derived liturgy (it really predates St. Gregory the Great) that kept the Church together.

I assume that if nothing -- or as likely, nothing much -- is done, in another 20 years, we'll see the formal establishment in the West of these language-based Churches (die Deutsche Kirche is almost a free-standing entity as it is!). And thus the Remnant will find ourselves in a Latin-based Church, retaining the Latin and the ancient Liturgy, and it will be our haven by default, without a formal Schism declared. Anyway, our current problem is founded in the fact the Crazies and the Lavender Mafia (but I repeat myself) hold the high ground. They occupy the Vatican and their man is pope (whether he's a "Pretender Pope" or not we laity and lower clergy can't decide in any sense of forcing the issue, but I'm convinced a future pope (if there is one) will declare Bergi to have been an anti-pope, for a number of reasons). So the orthodox Catholics -- and the more orthodox conservative Catholics -- who would oppose women's ordination (or whatever the trigger issue might turn out to be) will be the ones technically in Schism. Absurd. Bizarre. Stupid (in a word), but that's how it will be played. Schism is of course the great "Bugaboo". Nothing is supposedly as bad as causing Schism. But the Church has been in Schism with itself since Humanae Vitae and the vultures are now coming home to roost. We're now in the unenviable position of the Irish when they tried to resist the English occupiers -- the English yelled, "You are traitors!" and gave the Irish the treatment traitors get. But how can we be "traitors" or "Schismatics" when the clear heretics and sexually demented are in control of the Church? Absurd. Bizarre. Stupid (in a word), but that's how it is. An interesting puzzle in logic, and the reason Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider et al haven't begun a rebellion yet against the Pink Vatican Junta. RC

Friday, February 22, 2019

Burke & Co. finally ready to launch a rebellion?


Regarding this article at AKA Catholic:

Burke as the cowardly lion? Maybe. Look how he and the Dubia Brothers have been treated. And remember the German Lion of Munster? Clemens August Graf von Galen? Another somewhat cowardly lion. In fact, the German Church hierarchy and the general European hierarchy were total wastes in the 1930s and '40s, too. Cowardly lions, all. (The Dutch hierarchy did try, on a couple of different occasions, to stand up to the Nazis, but weren't supported from Rome and "stood down".)

I certainly think they should have been much more aggressive against Bergoglio. But if they were aggressive kind of guys, they would be in the military and not the effeminate Vat 2 drag-queen Church.

Things are past desperate, of course, but just now the question on their minds has to be how a Schism is declared, how it is brought about: that's crucial.

I don't look at Burke so negatively as in the AKA article. Clearly, Burke & Co. waited too long to act, but now the "bloom is off the ruse" of Bergoglio and his Ilk, and for everyone everywhere. Defrock that demon McCarrick but then go to the trouble to put McCarrick's butt-boy in charge as Camerlengo? The same butt-boy who drove Marcial Maciel around?

Schism is necessary. We'll see. I think Burke, with his website, and Müller with his long recent dissertation, and for that matter Schneider, are setting up the stage for an open rebellion. "We tried to be nice, brotherly," etc, "but now you leave us no choice but to..." kind of thing.

Obviously, we've passed over the ledge. We're off the cliff, and what's left of the "conservative" or "orthodox" leadership has to act or the Modernists will smash the Church on the rocks below. The only question is how to pull the trigger.

That's where we at.

An Préachán

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Donald Trump's Freedom Speech in Miami, and Black, Red, and Green Socialism


Love him or hate him, Trump’s speech in Miami about Venezuela was very well done. You can find it in full here


Trump was introduced by a woman who grew up in Communism (his wife, Melania) and
he introduced the mother of a Venezuelan murdered by the Maduro regime and also a mayor who's grandfather fled Socialism, and whose father fled it to, and now the mayor has had to flee it. Very well done, indeed. And Trump strongly asserted that the U.S. will never become a Socialist nation, to the cheers of the crowd.

It will never cease to amaze me how so many people can be so enamored of an economic system that just doesn't work. That never has worked. And no, Scandinavia is not Socialist; it is very capitalist economically, and wealthy enough because of its homogeneous dour, hard-working native population to afford extensive welfare states. (And it is having trouble now after importing for many Muslims.) Einstein was supposed to have said the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, yet expect different results. Whether he said it or not, it is a real question of why so many people, especially educated ones such as the products of the American academies, can be so in favor of something that can only be kept in power by the gun.

Yes, the American youth have been educated by Communists on a "Long March" through the U.S. educational institutions. But what motivates the Long Marchers?

Socialism of course has been tried in different forms, like a demonic Vaudeville act that keeps changing costume but otherwise has the same unfunny, murderous skit. We've had Black or National Socialism (one-time Communist Mussolini invented this version, Hitler murdered tens of millions with it), Red or Class Socialism (a.k.a. Communism, which killed over 100 million people in the 20th century) and now Green or Environmental Socialism. Global Warming (Or now "Climate Change") is only the most recent effort to take a supposedly imminent natural catastrophe as the reason, the trigger, for imposing Socialism – we've had over-population and acid rain and also a new ice age-themed version of this, all since the Silly Sixties; but these were only essays in the craft: now has it come close to actually being imposed.

On and on it goes, like a Vaudeville act that won't get off the stage, but keeps machine gunning the audience.

There's a branch of metaphysics called First Philosophy. It details principles, indeed, the First Principles necessary for rational thought. There are Real Principles (pertaining to being itself, the principle from which being proceeds; Real Principles include beginning, foundation, origin, location, condition, cause of any type, and elements of composition), and Logical Principles (a principle of knowledge, a truth from which other truths proceed). As Fr Chad Ripperger writes, "A logical principle is one that governs how we come to know a thing and logical principals are said to be built into the very structure of our intellect. By virtue of the fact they are built into our intellect by nature they are said to be connatural...(belonging) to a nature as it exists". And "It is connatural to the human intellect to perform its operations according to first principles, e.g. it is contrary to the nature of the (human) intellect to violate the principle of non-contradiction."

These First Principles are innate to the human mind, and they are self-evident, such as the principles of non-contradiction (a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time in the same respect or relation". They come "naturally" to us, as human beings, these first principles. Decartes famously said, "I think, therefore I am," but of course René had it backwards: because it is natural to the human mind to think, and because René was a human, therefore he should have written, "I am, therefore I think."

So, one can "mess up" even the most basic thinking, the most basic ways of knowing. Fr Ripperger points out that some humans don't have all this fully developed because they're children and of course still developing, or also the mentally ill or mentally handicapped in some manner. However, there's a third category of human that can't grasp these innate principles. Fr R writes, "Another impediment is the foolishness of the person, i.e. as Aristotle observes, it pertains to the fool to deny what is self-evident; or we may say a person who denies self-evident principles is irrational." An example would be David Hume, Fr R writes "For example, Hume in his critique of causality not only denies the principle of causality which is self-evident, but he must also deny the principle of sufficient reason and non-contradiction as a result of his rejection of the principle of causality."

(My favorite modern philosopher, Edward Feser, a superb Scholastic, has a great time pummeling the "plump Scotsman" David Hume, the doyen of the Enlightenment and a complete idiot.)

I think there can be no doubt that the literal "foolishness" of Hume (and Kant, who basically spent a lifetime arguing against Hume, but within Hume's demented intellectual framework) laid the foundation for the "foolishness" of the Moderns. It is obvious, as a matter of self-evident first principles, that a man cannot marry a man or change his sex via hormones and plastic surgery. And it is certainly self-evident, after all the blood and horror and tragedy of the 20th century, that Socialism, whether Black, Red, or Green, is a disaster.

Yet people of a certain type keep pushing for it. G. K. Chesterton wrote somewhere that a vice is bad enough, but no vice is as dangerous as a virtue gone bad. All Socialism is, on one level, is Christian Charity gone insane: "You will be charitable or you will be shot!" I'm sure that virtue gone rogue figures into it, at least in many confused individuals.

But maybe, in the end, and as we can see in different ways unique to each color of Socialism, it is just really a thanatos, a death wish. The Nazis were going to ultimately not just kill Jews and Gypsies, but the French were to be liquidated, and everyone else, eventually, and finally, no doubt, it was envisioned the Germans would commit national suicide (in actually, in very real way they did; look at how many Germans Hitler killed in general, or through his insanity made them toxic, which got them expelled from so much of Europe where they had live and contributed to for centuries; and finally, left them with such guilt that they seem to be not reproducing). Of course Red Socialism kills everyone in the end too, via starvation. The Ukraine in the Stalin times or Venezuela today. And there's absolutely no doubt that Green Socialism would be happiest if the human race just went out of existence. How often have you heard or read of someone saying the planet would be better off if humans went extinct?

A certain type of human will indeed eventually go extinct. The type that cannot grasp the self-evident.

An Préachán

Saturday, February 16, 2019

The Importance of Understanding the Biblical Covenants


The Importance of Understanding the Biblical Covenants

Foreword
While much of Christianity is a Mysterium Fidei, such as the Most Holy Trinity, all the “mysteries” of it are believed because of the basic point historically attested to, i.e. that Christ rose from the dead. THAT in turn is not something one has to “accept” on “blind faith” but rather judge on the evidence. We have two sources for this evidence.

First, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians details in the 15 chapter the men who saw the Risen Christ, and said so. He names names: Peter, the Apostles, James “Brother of the Lord” and first bishop of Jerusalem, then 500 brethren, “most of who are still alive” when he wrote this epistle, about 55 A.D. (See here for details.) Then he writes that he himself, Paul (as Saul of Tarsus) met Jesus (on the road to Damascus). The 500 is interesting, as that was the size of the jury in Golden Age Athens when a man was on trial for his life (as with Socrates). So the classically educated Paul is asserting he has evidence that would pass muster in Periclean Athens! Also, he swears this is true, using a specific formula “I give you what I have been given”, which was a “I solemnly swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth…” mechanism. He uses it again in the same Epistle in Chapter 11, in verse 25, where he ups it by writing, about the Real Presence in the Most Holy Eucharist, no less: “I give you what I was given by the Lord…”.

Second, the Holy Eucharist itself is a solemn oath1: a blood oath on the Blood of God Himself, i.e. it is a sacrament, the most important of them, and generations of Catholic and Orthodox Christians have sworn, for 2,000 years now, on the Blood of God that Jesus was seen alive after His Crucifixion. Who can imagine a more solemn oath than that! Therefore, the number and nature of the witnesses, and the profoundly powerful oath, give us great confidence indeed that Jesus rose from the dead.

And one must realize that the Most Holy Eucharist is also the Seventh Covenant, the New Covenant, that God established with his people.

Essential Covenant Explanation
The whole of the Bible, and the whole of Christianity and Judaism (Islam rejects the following) is founded on God, the Creator God, the Absolute Being of the great philosophers (pagan, Jewish, Muslim, Christian), and not merely on His revelation to us, but His contractual agreements/treaties He has made with us. God makes Covenants, or treaties, contracts, with people! Islam absolutely rejects this. “Allah’s hand is not chained”(by contract or oath) says Surah 5:64 (it even damns the Jews for saying Allah makes covenants!)

So the whole of the Revelation, Old Testament and New, hangs on these Covenants, seven of them. The first is when God blesses His creation and rests on the Seventh Day, making it holy. If you read Genesis 1 and on into chapter 2, up to verse 4, where it says, “These are the generations of the Heavens and the Earth…”, that info all fits perfectly onto a cuneiform clay tablet, and the verse 4 of Chapter 2 is the signature line – God Himself has signed it, actually. In the first half of Genesis, there are a number of these “These are the generations” of Noah, and so on, whoever the previous chapter or two has been telling the story of. The authors of the tablet are careful to sign each one, so you know who told the story of the “generations” involved! This is called Toledoth (“Generation”), and thus the Toledoth/Generations theory.

After creation, God makes Covenants with Adam and Eve (Genesis 3), then Noah (Genesis 9), then Abraham (three separate but related ones, all considered to be counted as 1 Covenant: see Genesis 15, 17, and 22), then with Moses in Exodus 19. However, the Passover, enshrined in the Passover Seder, is the Old Testament/Covenant’s contract-affirming oath-swearing Covenant-renewal action – i.e. Jews are Jews when born of a Jewish woman, but become part of the Old Covenant proper when circumcised and then participate in the Passover – so the Passover is an essential part of this Mosaic Covenant, the central Covenant of the Old Testament series of six Covenants. This Mosaic Covenant is the Covenant that Christ replaces with the last Covenant, the Seventh, or more precisely fulfills in a final, astounding way via His Body and Blood. As He says, “I have come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.” – Matt 5:17, using Himself as the new Pascal Lamb in the Holy Eucharist. (Luke 22:20)

After Moses, which is the Fifth Covenant counting from the very first one, God makes a Sixth Covenant with David, one of His favorite people in all history. (1 Chronicles, 17) Notes that one needs to read the whole chapter; and 16 too; also in chapter 15 they sacrifice the animals for this Covenant, as there is simply NO worship of Yahweh without blood sacrifice: see Abel of Cain and Able; Noah’s and Abraham’s blood sacrifices, and of course the Pascal Lamb in Moses’ worship – Christ is the final blood-sacrifice of the Bible, the one fulfilling all the others, from Abel to Himself.

Finally, of course, we have Jesus of Nazareth’s sacrifice of Himself on the Cross, an integral element of the Holy Eucharist institution (begun the night before) is the means by which we are saved1. (Read the whole of the 6th Chapter of St. John’s Gospel: Jesus clearly is not speaking metaphorically, as Protestants claim.)

Therefore the whole of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, is hung on these Covenants. They are its intellectual and spiritual framework, the map connecting all the stories and the chart through the millennia of God’s interaction with us.

Neither the Bible itself or Christianity (nor Judaism for that matter), make sense until you understand this Covenantal Salvation History framework. And the important thing to notice, next to God making business contracts with us to begin with, is how God keeps expanding the reach of each covenant: He makes the Second Covenant with a couple, a pair of people; the next one with a family (Noah and his sons, etc.), then the next one with a tribe, Abraham (God changed Abram’s name to “Abraham” meaning Great Father), then with a nation, the People Israel under Moses’ command; and finally in the Old Testament, with King David, that the Kingship of the KINGDOM (the Israelite nation is now a Kingdom) of Israel shall never pass from David’s house – and finally the Seventh Covenant, with which the specific Covenants of the Old Testament are now expanded one final time, this time to ALL peoples EVERYWHERE, i.e. anyone who will accept Joshua, Yehoshu'a, for Who He claimed to be: God Himself. (John 8:48-59)


Notes:
1.
The Holy Eucharist as Blood Oath Sacrament is something most modern-day Catholics are ignorant of. As they are ignorant of how Salvation works. God’s Incarnation is central to our Salvation, and so much so we have to participate in that Incarnation to be saved. We do that through the New Covenant, which is the Blood Oath of the Holy Eucharist.

Basic Points
·    The Incarnation: Absolutely necessary and central to salvation
·    God becomes a human person, Jesus / Yeshu'a (Yehoshu'a: "Yahweh is salvation").
Why the Incarnation? Why did God have to become man? To make Infusion of Grace possible.
·  God’s Incarnation didn’t lower God so much as elevate human nature, in Christ, enabling…
·  "Theosis" (Divinization) which by grace – not by nature – is our incorporation into Christ, raising us up to participate in His Divinity (as St. Peter teaches in 2 Peter 1.4). Usually described in the Western Church as an Infusion of Grace, our natures are changed. Protestantism teaches Imputation of Grace: God assigns grace to us but doesn’t actually divinize or change our nature.
·  St. Athanasius: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." (De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B) and [CCC 460]
·  St. Thomas Aquinas: "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (Opusc. 57, 1-4) [CCC 460]
·  This teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament. Examples:
·  John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation)
·  2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation) 2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best; see also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.
·  Two Old Testament examples: Isaiah 65:17; Ezekiel 36:25-26
·       Note: In general, Jesus seems to demand the impossible of “ordinary” humans. In Matthew 5, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives the Beatitudes, then says we are “salt of the earth” and “light of the world”, discusses how He has come not to do away with the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. He discusses elevated behavior regarding anger, adultery, divorce, making oaths and not retaliating (“turn the other cheek”) and love our enemies. He ends with "You, therefore, must be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect." (5:48) That is something manifestly impossible for “normal” human beings to do.
The Sacraments: Fulfilment of the Covenants
Salvation “works” in us, as individuals through the sacraments, formal covenant oaths, by which we partake of the nature of God, in Christ (God’s grace is infused in us).
·       Baptism removes Original Sin, thus we’re free to…
·  Receive Christ in the Holy Eucharist…
And to keep this “New Creation” and grow in the Divine, we have Confession, a sacrament of vital importance because it restores us to our baptismal state.


Afterword:
What About the Jews, the Original Keepers of the Covenants:
1.    Once God makes a treaty, a contract, a covenant, He never breaks it. God is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. (Hebrews 13:8) Thus these Covenants are never abrogated or cancelled. Yet how to think about the Jews, who reject Christ as Messiah yet adhere to the first six Covenants?
2.    Historically, there were many Jews in Jesus time who fully accepted Him, as His Apostles did, and beyond them many others, such as those Jews converted at Pentecost. Then again, many Jews existed afterward who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but not necessarily that He was co-equal to God; that Trinitarian idea took a while to develop and be formalized, something the Church did over some hundreds of years though it must be understood that the very earliest Christians understood Jesus to be saying He was God (John 10:30), and this is the core idea necessary to the validity of His Sacrifice on the Cross and His institution of the Holy Eucharist, the New Covenant. Thus the Gospels are about two central ideas Jesus had: first, would people recognize Him for Who He was, and second, that people treated one another with agapé, caritas, the highest form of love. After many acts of caritas to Samaritans and Romans, and after many parables such as the Good Samaritan, He Himself gave them the ultimate and fundamental example of how to love.
3.    Concurrently to those Jews seeing Jesus as the Messiah, there were those who were Christians and who wanted the gentiles, the non-Jews, to become Jewish in order to be Christians. These were the Judaizers. They understood clearly that a split, a schism, between Christians and Jews was imminent, and wanted to avoid it; however, they were Saint Paul’s bête noire, and he lost his cool when he had to deal with them or their teaching as it affected his churches. This led to complications 1500 years later: Luther and Protestantism focuses on the idea of Sola Fide, that God saves through faith alone (faith understood as blind faith, an act of will, whether generated in oneself or given by God, as Calvin insisted). But the Pauline passages Protestants take as proof of this idea are all written by St. Paul when he was discussing Judaizers. In Judaism, one HAD to be circumcised to be part of the Covenant (then as now) and keep the kosher dietary laws, temple ritual, and so on. This St. Paul rejected vehemently, and it was in that context he wrote passages such as the famous Romans 3:28, the “verse that launched the Reformation”: i.e. “For you are saved by faith and not works of the law.” At the Council of Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15, the Judaizers’ ideas were formally rejected. From that time on, the Jewish element of Christianity began to die out as the two religions diverged from one another. Any Jewish Christian had to make the decision of decisions, the choice of choices: stay or go: be a believer in Christ and lose one’s Judaism, or keep the Jewish identity by cutting oneself off from the increasingly gentile Church.
4.    Yet in the Near Eastern Semitic lands, strong traces of this early Semitic Christianity survived, especially in the Syrian, Aramaic- (technically, Syriac) language bishoprics. It was, I suspect, some strain of this Semitic Christianity, certainly a fringe one that never accepted Jesus Christ as Son of God or the Holy Trinity, that eventually gave birth to Islam, the central tenet of which is to deny the Incarnation.
5.    Therefore, in the break with the Jews, the Church taught formally of one Covenant, the Mosaic one, that it was actually cancelled. Abrogated. Taken off-line. Scuttled. Of course, one can also see each Covenant as a fulfillment and enlargement of the ones preceding it, as Christ is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Eve that a descendant of hers would crush the dragon’s head, or that he’ll come in glory to end the world, not flood it again (as the Covenant with Noah was). Metaphorically, the Covenants are like a line of bricks in a wall: as each new one is made, the last of the old ones is no longer top of the wall, yet it is still essential in its historical place for supporting the wall’s later additions. For example, no one would think of “cancelling” Adam and Eve’s Covenant, or Noah’s, or the Davidic Covenant, that the kingship of Israel would pass for David’s House, for Joshua of Nazareth is a “Son of David”.
6.    So the Mosaic Covenant is “cancelled” in the sense of being subsumed and then flowering into the New Covenant, the sacrament of which is the Holy Eucharist. The Mosaic Covenant is a typology of the Holy Eucharist, and one of the six Covenantal foundations upon which the New Covenant stands.
7.    Today, Jews consist of many different groups and sects, of course, and they did so back in Jesus’ day; a large portion of Jews are “non-religious” as well. Yet none of them want to hear this idea of Catholicism’s, that their central religious rite is abrogated. But the Church is not being “kind” or “caring” by watering down the truth; and whether one insists on the old “cancelled” language or “subsumed and recreated in the Holy Eucharist,” participation in the Mosaic Covenant is simply no longer efficacious for salvation, except as a pointer to the New Covenant. (Jews would not consider “Messianic Jews” any longer Jewish; however, from a Catholic/Orthodox perspective, Messianic Jews are evangelical Protestants who reject for the Historical Church’s understanding of the Sacraments.)
8.    For Jews today, as of old, the Absolute Being God, the God of the great philosophers and the God of His revelation to them, is what He’s always been, their Tribal Deity. Non-Jew gentiles are not Jews and cannot have God in His fullness because they’re not part of the Abrahamic Covenant or the following two Covenants, though according to long-standing (early Medieval) Jewish teaching, they can be “Righteous Gentiles” if they keep the Noahidic (or Noachian or Noahide) Laws God gave to Noah (Genesis 9:4-6). By following these laws given to Noah, then, those descendants of Noah who are not part of the ensuing Abrahamic Covenant can attain Olam Haba (עולם הבא), the world to come for the reward of the righteous.



Were the Crusades a Shame upon the Church?


A friend wrote me the other day about the Crusades: 

The crusades are a shame upon the church, correct?  

I wrote back:
The Crusades were an effort to save Byzantium from destruction at the hands to the Muslims, and are not a shame upon the Church. Islam attacked, conquered, raped and pillaged its way across the central nations of the Christian world for 700 years before we finally “fought back” (if you don’t count Byzantium’s endless wars against Islam and Charles Martel and the Reconquista of Spain!). We are, have been since Islam’s inception, in a life-and-death struggle with Islam. They will never relent till they’ve destroy Christianity (and Judaism too, for that matter). 

An Préachán

Wny Relativism Is Feminism

A friend wrote me the other day:


All together , God makes it clear in the bible that He does not expressly sanction any religion and facilitates a multitude of religions (that are, de facto, human made).

I can’t agree with this, of course. It is neither Biblical teaching (Old Testament) nor New Testament/Catholic-Orthodox Church (the Historical Church) teaching. 

It’s Relativism, of course, and really essentially Masonic. It is also decidedly feministic, an integral aspect of this “femmed” culture we live in, i.e. in the sense that “feminism” wants to make no judgments, no ruling about who’s right and who’s wrong – such judgement is something essentially masculine – fathers have this burden whereas mothers “mother”. This feminized culture rather would mother us all (to death, really) by telling us we’re all good and everybody is nice, and so on.

An example of this: I was introducing my kids to the old Irish Rovers song The Unicorn, how they played games instead of getting on the Ark, and all drowned, and my wife interjected with how horrible that was to teach to 10-year-olds (and 9 and 7-year-olds) and that somehow the Unicorns were saved. The mother wanted to "mother" her kids and protect them from the harsh realities of life, whereas the father sat in judgment and wanted his children to face reality. 

A perfect example. 

An Préachan

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

Bergoglio Jumps the Shark by Teaching Against the First Commandment

Salvē amici!

Well, after six years now of fish-leaping, it seems Jorge Bergoglio (a.k.a Pope Francis) has finally jumped the shark with his signed statement that God positively wills the plurality of religions.

Reaction of the Righteous has been righteous: First, Bishop Athanasius Schneider's reaction:
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, whom Francis has grounded and won’t let the bishop do public speaking, has responded with this: https://onepeterfive.com/schneider-christian-god-willed/
Cardinal Müller, whom Bergi fried from the CDD (old Holy Office, officially since Vatican 2 the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith") has produced a manifesto: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-mueller-issues-manifesto-a-quasi-correction-of-pope-francis-pontif
Orthodox (as in truly Catholic, rather than St. Gallen Mafia type) bishops respond: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-mueller-issues-manifesto-a-quasi-correction-of-pope-francis-pontif
And good ol’ Cardinal Burke opens his own website. Just so cool! https://cardinalburke.com/ He’s asking us connect to him. I'm certainly going to.

All this has happened rapid fire, like a .50 machine gun firing away. The reaction of Schneider, Müller, and Burke (sounds like a law firms) indicates Jorge Mario Bergoglio has finally "jumped the shark", i.e., gone too far. Breaking the First Commandment (actually, did you know there are 13 Thou Shall Nots in that section of the Bible?:) is just too much. Bergi should have been tossed years ago, but this outrageous statement comes just before a big Vatican meeting about the priest/bishop sex abuse scandal in Rome, where it is widely expected that that devil McCarrick will be laicized. Bergoglio forced a shut down on the U.S. Bishops dealing with this mess and everyone will be looking to see what happens in Rome (sounds like a line from Tacitus, doesn't it?).

Meanwhile, for those with the time, Taylor Marshall and Timothy Gordon cover it in detail:
and go through Spanish and Italian versions of what Bergoglio said, as well as the English.

There can be no question that Bergoglio said God positively willed plurality of religions, and this of course is a direct, unequivocal breaking of the First Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange (any other) gods before Me."

An Préachán




Sunday, February 10, 2019

The Crisis of Masculinity in the church

So much of what is going on is a result of this culture's crisis of masculinity. The Church seems to have few masculine men in leadership positions. Bishop Schneider is one such. American Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, is another. But very few of our shepherds are men in the traditional sense.

What all this blather about "diversity of religions" being "the will of God" is septic tank overflow, sure, but it is feministic septic tank overflow. The true feminine spirit is reconciling, tries to defuse tense situations and comforts everybody; being "motherly" -- but that is native to it. Yet that is not something men should be trying to imitate, and certainly not emulate. A man's man would stand up to Cuomo, for example, or have that utter reprobate McCarrick literally thrown out on his ear, into the gutter where he belongs. (Well, that bum is dangerous and should be locked up with the key thrown away.)

But instead we get prelates, from Our Caudillo on down, who act the role of an emasculated, feminized man imitating what he thinks women would do. Hence we get Francis' endless slop about "Mercy" instead of clear, no-nonsense teaching and discipline regarding every mortal sin and yet, so oddly, Bergoglio is petty and vindictive, like a "bad girl" in a snooty Girls' School ragging on a student who doesn't fit into her clique. A sort of "Lady of the Flies" instead of "Lord of the Flies." And it is in that sense, the Vat2 word "pastoral" is code for doing nothing to a Cuomo or a McCarrick -- or for that matter, to a pope.

It's disgusting, but it is something found across the culture.

An Préachán

An Amazingly Stupid Comment in an Essay of Ignorance and Doltishness

A Leftist acquaintance sent me the following, I presume to cringe at:
From:

"For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace - all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Mr. Obama was generously blessed."

The rest of the essay is just has petty, ignorant, and oh so arrogant. (You know, what are devils going to do with the Stupid? They'd think Hell is Socialism Achieved and happily enjoy eternity roasting.)

I wrote back to the sender:
In 60 years of life, most of it as a writer in journalism, text-book creation, and technical writing, as well as an English-language teacher in a variety of different venues, I've never read anything so smugly asinine as what this fool composed above. Anyone stupid enough to write this is beyond redemption. “Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

N.B. That utter reprobate, Jack Kennedy, the guy who would screw the girlfriends of his closest friends and assistants and lackeys (Dave Powers said, "Yeah, he'd screw 'em, but he always gave 'em back"), a rapist who was almost an utter nothing, not writing either book attributed to him, or his speeches (just like Obama that way, in fact) -- ol' Jack, who did have something of an Irish sarcastic wit (the only Irish thing about him), upon occasion, at least -- his worst comment Jack could lay on a person was the one he said of Dick Nixon, "He has no class." This, mind you, from a classless rapist who might well have been complicit in Norma Jean Baker's death, who in his entire worthless life had only two honest-to-God accomplishments -- his (rather disastrous) WWII naval service and his stout anti-Communism -- the latter of course got him assassinated by a Communist, and the American MSM elite and the Johnson Admin covered that up, so he couldn't die a martyr to the one non-sexual thing he seemed to care something about.

I think it interesting that Jack Kennedy would have agreed with the cement-brained idiot's comment above.

Hmmm....

An Préachán