9 Feb 2017

Francis and his gang of heretics pushing for women ordination

Francis embraces a Lutheran female "clergy".
Yesterday I pointed out to friends that the reason why it is very difficult for people to understand the Bible in today’s world (I mean those who depend on church leaders for correct interpretation) is because the majority of contemporary Scripture scholars and theologians—as well as the church leaders themselves—have actually discarded the Bible. They do this systematically by treating the various books that make up the Bible as separate books, and holding the view that each of these books should be studied according to their writers’ “cultural contexts”! So the idea of an inspiration from God the Holy Spirit is simply discarded. The result is that today everything in theology becomes subjective. The Bible, like other (secular) literature, or other "holy books" of other religions such as the Koran, is understood as a record of human “religious experience” and as such it can hardly claim uniqueness but must be put alongside these other literatures which testify to “similar” experiences of what one may call the religious dimension of human life. Thus what we call Catholic Christianity now becomes one of the many varieties of religious experience and its truth-claims are set aside on the ground that they arise out of particular “cultural contexts”! Hence the reason why ALL Vatican II popes simply scorn the idea of extra ecclesiam nulla sallus—outside the Church there is no salvationteaching unambiguously that there is indeed salvation in non-Catholic religions. (Note: what this shows clearly is that they reject some teachings of the Bible since the Bible makes it clear that no one can be saved outside the Church). Then of course, no time here to talk about the numerous FALSE Bibles used by Novus Ordo priests!

When we turn to the early Church—particularly to a great Scripture scholar like St. Augustine—we see the stark difference. In his work De Consensu Evangelistarum St. Augustine writes (referring to the Bible):
“What are we therefore to understand except that these things were done under the hidden direction of the Providence of God, by which the minds of the evangelists were governed?...The memory of the sacred writer is itself directed by the Holy Spirit...Thus the Lord himself determined that such and such be written...All our holy prophets, therefore, manifest a wonderful assent among each other, because they are spoken by the one and same Spirit. ...And hence without hesitation or doubt everything is to be accepted which the Holy Spirit spoke through them. ...This is therefore especially to be understood concerning the holy prophets, and especially to be taught, that we should receive the books of all of them as one single book, in which no fundamental disunity or disagreement is to be found, and in which a greater consistency of truth is present, than we grant in the books composed even by the most learned of men. Hence whatever argument unbelievers or unlearned men seek from this source of disagreement or inconsistency, as if to show the disharmony of the holy Gospels, ought to be taken by the faithful and learned men as an opportunity to show the unity of the Sacred Scriptures, even including the prophets of the Old Testament”. (De Cons. Ev., III, 7 (30); P.L. 34, 1175-76).

Here St. Augustine—quite contrary to the attitude of many modern theologians and “Scripture Scholars”—tells us that both the Old and New Testaments convey one intelligible message to the mind of man; this unity of the two Testaments provides the fundamental succession in human affairs, the New Testament succeeding the Old, which gives St. Augustine the basis for the understanding of human history. In St. Augustine’s time the Bible was read and understood in the context of the church’s prayers and songs, its teachings and beliefs, and its disciplines and habits. Now it’s quite the opposite! As one anonymous writer, commenting on St. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana, puts it—contrasting St. Augustine with modern “theologians”, “scripture scholars” and church leaders: “Augustine’s view gives much more emphasis to the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit to every word, every ‘jot and title,’ of the Old and New Testaments than most historical critics.”

He continues:

“Augustine viewed the Bible as a single communication from God, not a collection of separate Holy books. If the Bible is the revealed Word of God, then every word of the Bible is part of that revelation. Even his outlandish allegories pointed to his stance that there were no throwaway lines in Scripture. Every single word in every single sentence was put there by the Holy Spirit for a reason, to reveal on at least one level---and possibly many others---the Creator’s will for his people. Therefore, the whole of Scripture should be read thoroughly. Augustine himself only began serious study of the Bible after his thirtieth birthday, yet by the time he became a bishop in his early forties he could quote from memory virtually every book of Scripture. He didn’t memorize the entire canon. But he had no trouble memorizing those things he found significant.”

Again, he writes:

“De Doctrina Christiana (Augustines’s great work) describes Scripture as “a narrative of the past, a prophesy of the future, and a description of the present.” There’s no room to leave any of it out.
St. Augustine

“Of course, this clashes with the current historical critical ways to interpret the Bible. Modern commentators try to reconstruct the train of the writer’s thought---what was he saying to his particular historical reader at that particular historical moment in time?---without much comparison to other biblical texts and maybe even less reflection on related biblical topics. Augustine, though, maintains the thread of every word of every verse he’s studying with that passage’s relationship to a broad view of the Old and New Testaments. The Old points to the New while the New reveals the Old.

“This view of Scripture also makes it difficult to interpret the Bible in light of current cultural or social trends or practices. It seems very easy for us to pick and choose what we believe in the Bible is  imperative for God’s  children today and  what was only figurative speech or a cultural reference to Roman Empire society in the first century. The decisions we make on adultery, fasting, modesty, or women’s roles in the church don’t necessarily come from Scripture. They come first from what our culture deems acceptable and comfortable, and then that viewpoint is read back into our interpretation.”

He then quotes St. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana (Book III, chapter 15), where the Saint states:

‘As men are prone to estimate sins not by reference to their inherent sinfulness, but rather by reference to their own customs, it frequently happens that a man will think blameable nothing except what the men of his own country and time are accustomed to condemn, and nothing worthy of approval except what is sanctioned by the custom of his companions. And thus it comes to pass that if Scripture either enjoins what is opposed to the custom of the hearers, or condemns what is not so opposed, and if at the same time the authority of the Word has a hold upon their minds, they think that expression is figurative.’

“It’s why you never hear sermons against “mixed-bathing” in Florida,” says the writer, “or against cigarettes in North Carolina...”

And I add: It is also the reason why  we observe today that there is no longer any dress code for women in the Catholic Church. Apart from putting on men’s clothes like trousers (condemned by God in Deuteronomy 22: 5: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God") women of this era can, in fact, even come to church naked and receive the priest’s blessing even though St. Paul clearly stated: “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness.” (1 Tim. 2:9-11; see the article: What’s wrong with women wearing trousers?). 

It is the reason why we observe that the Vatican and the majority of Vatican II church leaders (and even some so-called “traditionalists”) are encouraging women to come to church with their hairs uncovered—even though this is clearly condemned in the Bible, as St. Paul states, You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered?” (See 1 Cor. 11: 2-16). (See: WHY WOMEN ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO WEAR HEAD COVERINGS DURING NOVUS ORDO MASSES!). 

And finally, it is the reason why we see “Pope” Francis and many of the clergy today clamouring for women priests even though St. Paul stated clearly in his First Letter to Timothy, “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” (1 Tim. 2:12). And in his First Letter to the Corinthians: “As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?...If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. If anyone does not recognise this, he is not recognised.” (1 Cor. 14:33-37).

In early August 2016 “Pope” Francis named American Feminist scholar Prof. Phyllis Zagano (who has long championed the ordination of women to the priesthood) to a new commission to study the idea of women deacons. The “Special Commission for the Study of the Diaconate of Women”, headed by Spanish Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, included 13 members, some of whom were, like Zagano, advocates of women ordination to the priesthood.  (See: Francis taps pro-women priesthood advocates to new commission).

The article below, from LifeSiteNews, presents the latest development from Satanic Vatican:
Excommunicable under previous popes, women priests now open for discussion
by Jan Bentz
VATICAN, February 9, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Arguments for the ordination of women are being presented in the oldest Jesuit Journal of Italy; a journal which is reviewed by the Vatican prior to publication.
Though in the recent past the “belief in” and “public support for” female ordination, as in the case of Fr. Roy Bourgeois, led to a clear reproach from the Vatican in the form of “canonical warning” and the threat of excommunication, today one of the highest ranking Catholic journals lists “arguments” for it in an article by a priest.
“Civiltà Cattolica,” which takes pride in printing with “beneplacito,” – consent – of the Holy See, has published an article by Fr. Giancarlo Pani SJ suggesting that the admission to the priesthood of women should undergo re-examination. The author lays out arguments in his article in issue 3999, as Vatican specialist  Sandro Magister reports.
Pani maintains that the exclusion of women from holy orders does not take into consideration the “developments in the 21st century, the presence of woman in the family and in society.” For him these “developments” – which he leaves unqualified and unexplained – need to be increasingly reflected by the inclusion of women in clerical undertakings as a matter of “ecclesial dignity, responsibility, and participation.”
LifeSiteNews spoke with Prof. Dr. Thomas Stark, professor of philosophical anthropology at the Benedict XVI Institute of Philosophy and Theology at Heiligenkreuz, in Austria about Fr. Pani's views on February 8. “Sacraments were instituted by Christ in a very exact, concrete way and must therefore be administered in the same exact concrete way in which they were given," said Prof. Stark. "Therefore the bread in the Eucharist cannot be exchanged with meat of a lamb with the argument that this matter better symbolizes that Christ is the Lamb of God.”
“Christ chose twelve apostles. If He had wanted women to be ordained, then He would have instituted a mixed college of apostles.”
Last November statements by Pope Francis seemed to indicate that the possibility of women priests was closed. "On the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, the last word is clear," Pope Francis said at the time. "It was given by St. John Paul II and this remains."
Nevertheless, in 2016 Pope Francis set up a commission to study the role of female deacons in the early church after his exchange with some 900 members of the International Union of Superiors General, a global umbrella group representing about 500,000 women religious in about 80 countries. At least one of the women on the commission was a proponent of ordination of women deacons who has spoken at conferences held by women priest advocates.
Fr. Pani argues that the common faithful do not have “belief” in the restriction as reason for its negation. Fr. Pani entertains the thought that “it remains true that a doctrine proposed by the Church needs to be understood by the believing intelligence.” In the case of woman’s ordination, he says, that is not the case. “Today there is unease among those who fail to understand how the exclusion of women from the Church’s ministry can coexist with the affirmation and appreciation of her equal dignity,” Pani adds.
According to Stark, the argument that a Church doctrine needs to be believed by those who call themselves Catholic in order to be held true does not fit. “The consensus fidelium cannot be identified with the consensus that reigns in society at any given time. The consensus fidelium in the second century was for example in no way identical with the consent of society of the believers surrounding Roman-Hellenistic society and culture.”
“Is it not true today that the reigning opinion is in essential points contrary to the consensus fidelium and threatening to the faith of many Christians? It is the consent of the faithful and not the consent of those who pay church tax or those church tax funded functionaries of the Church,” Stark added.
Stark sees Pani’s argument as rooted in something else: “For a few years now the illuminist and vulgar-Hegelian way of thinking has gained influence in the Church. According to this way of thinking, the development of culture is a constant movement upwards, to ever more illuminated heights of the spirit, along with the conviction that every later development must be correct when compared with an older one. Did anyone in the recent past ever consider that there are also cultural processes of degeneration and spiritual decline?”
“I find it relatively laughable that La Civiltà Cattolica puts the ‘great developments’ of the 21st century – which are barely 16 years old – against the rest of the history of mankind and cultures,” he said.
Related articles: 

8 Feb 2017

An Open Letter to a Merciful Pope (From a Terrible Old Priest)

by  Fr Senectutus

Bless me Father, for you have sinned!

Author’s Introduction: I thought that you, Michael Matt, might be interested in the attachment. It is a satire from a very old traditional priest (84 years old) who is basically ‘fed-up’ with all the nonsense that before Pope Francis appeared, the Catholic Church did not DO MERCY. This is pretty insulting to those of us who have spent more than 40 years toiling away in those (apparently) terrible years – both before Vatican II and since. The piece is totally satirical but none the less completely true for all that. I have written all my life and, so I hope I’m still ‘cognitively intact’ which is a polite way of saying: I’m not crazy! God bless all who work on your very famous paper. It was first given to me by a wonderful parishioner more than 35 years ago. It was your paper and Michael Davies’ great trilogy that helped me to find my way and actually saved my faith. I pray for all the Defenders of the Faith on the Web each morning at Mass. - Fr Senectutus

Thank You, Holy Father Francis.
Francis (The Pope of Mercy)

As the end of this precious Year of Mercy drew to a close, we older priests, many of whom have spent more than forty years working in the vineyard, decided to express our deep sense of gratitude for the insight you have given us in our twilight years.

Even though we worked without any lay help: no Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist, no Readers, no lay people to take Holy Communion to the hospitals and Nursing Homes, no deacons, no parish councils, no liturgy committees – in fact, no one but our poor selves, we worked often until we dropped, but we do see now, it was all meaningless. You, dear Holy Father, have made clear to us now the reason for this: We did not have any mercy. We humbly ask pardon for our lives; thank heavens the priests who come after us won’t make the same mistakes we did.

You see the problem was, Mercy, as such, was unknown in the priesthood, until you enlightened us. We, foolish blind guides, just worked and worked, unheralded, largely unknown, suffered unknown, had no female or male partners to comfort us, and thought we were following Christ and living as He wanted. How stupid can you get? But then, at last, you came to the throne, Holy Father, and showed us how wrong we all were. You set us right! Thank Heavens for that!

We are so grateful to you. It means that when we faced as many as four or five long rows of people waiting for each and every session of Confessions, we obviously did it all wrongly. We counselled against sin as we thought that was a work of mercy. Again, wrong! You have shown us that we must not judge in any way. We thought we were being merciful, not judging, but you have made it clear how wrong we were. Please forgive us for our stupidity; we got all that wrong.

I think all of us always found the constantly interrupted sleep to do emergency calls to Hospitals and Nursing Homes when a person was dying, very difficult. So many of us usually had to be up bright and early for the first Mass of the day which usually had a very large crowd of workers trying to fit in an extra Mass before going off to work. Now, we see – through your enlightening teaching – that we were wrong. You have revealed to us, at last, that all that worrying about the Sacraments was, in reality, the opposite of mercy; it was really being judgemental. We obviously thought that the person was not in a fit state to stand at Judgement. Thank God, you have shown us we should have stayed in bed; we were obviously not motivated by mercy. 

I suppose, in some sort of self-defence, we could say, we thought we were merciful, but it is true we did worry about sin a lot; we thought it was because we didn't want our parishioners whom – I speak for all of us – we actually loved, and we didn't want them to end up in Hell. (I beg your pardon, Holiness for mentioning that word; it offends people today, I do realise that now.) Again, Holiness, you have shown, even in relation to that ‘location’, how misguided we were, for you have made it clear that there is no real sin at all – except, perhaps, not believing in Christ whose words and teaching continue to evolve with time.
We thought – so naïve we were – that such a view was Lutheran and that it was wrong, but you have made it clear that they were right, not us. It makes sense, of course, when you think of it. They were called the Reformers, weren't they? So they must be right.

We, in our dull, cruel, pitiless way, actually were so benighted as to think that anyone who didn't live according to Christ’s words in their daily lives was in danger, but you have indicated that all that is necessary is to be ‘spiritual’ and ‘inclusive’. We, being so old now, find it hard to understand just what these terms actually mean. As there are practically no Christians practising their faith now, we ponder the meaning of these words as we shuffle along in our walking frames. The fact that we are trying to understand must mean, Holy Father, that we are not without some hope, doesn't it? Please say it does!

We did pray a lot, Holy Father; prayed for our people, for all their problems, but that was obviously not a merciful thing to do either. We can only apologize for that; we knew no better. Please, Holiness, intercede for us at the Judgement for we have been badly misled. The fact that most of us have severe knee problems, and re-structured knees, as a result of our foolishness, is a fitting punishment for our wrong-doing. I see now it a judgement of God on us.

We prayed for our glorious Religious, too, but, strangely, they – the few that are left – turned against us, too. We must have been wrong about them as well. We praised those wonderful nuns who spent most of their lives in horrible places, even leper colonies, often contracting many tropical diseases themselves; I thought they were heroes but, judging from what Religious now say about all that previous work, obviously those old nuns and other Religious were wrong as well. We actually thought that the taking of the holy Religious Habit was a glimpses into the glory of Heaven but, through you, we have come to realise that Religious life itself is of no importance at all, unless it is teaching Marxism to the uninformed – in designer-label clothes and expensive coiffures.
All of us are so sorry, Holiness, it is too late for us to start again; you should have arrived earlier to lead us on the right path – we all, obviously, had no mercy at all and had no care for the outcast, the sick, the dying, the poor and the stranger. We were totally wrong in everything. We just want you to know that we have certainly listened to you intently; that is how we have discerned our terrible errors and want to publicise them so that the young ones won’t fall into the same errors as we did.

We also thought that our missionaries – priests, nuns and brothers – were the front-line troops in the war for souls but you have pointed out, very forcibly, that to proselytise is not an act of mercy; it is a SIN! Please, please forgive us, we didn't know that! Francis Xavier should have been excommunicated, not canonised, the wicked man!

You have, rightly, I'm sure, railed against our lack of mercy in regard to the refugees, the migrants. Holiness, at one time, many of us did struggle desperately to learn some words of the language of the Italians, Greeks, Maltese, Germans, and all the rest, who came to our land. We wanted to do this so that we could speak a few phrases to make them feel welcome, but these refugees were mainly Catholic, so I don’t think that would count as mercy, would it? 

It is true that we find Islam frightening, but we’ll try our best to change our attitude to that faith now, since you have assured us that it is a ‘Religion of Peace’, and you show your preference for Muslims even sharing your plane with them. That is so nice of you. I do hope the Middle Eastern Christians, as they flee from their homelands, appreciate your wonderful example – and try to imitate you. 

Holiness, we want to mention money for a moment as we know you are constantly urging us to be like the poor. We, priests were really like the poor then, and received a mere pittance in salary in those, bad, terrible days, and it was very difficult to find the money for all the people who came to the door of the presbytery, but we did try, Holiness, we did try. We actually thought that that was an act of mercy; apparently, we were wrong again. It’s so difficult to know what is right or wrong isn't it?

On a personal note again, I, personally, did try to fix up hundreds of legal papers, including marriages, for the poor Vietnamese who were rescued by Australia when South Vietnam was overrun by the Communists. The poor people came here to this country with no papers at all. I suppose, though, that didn't count: I did not have any mercy towards these people; I was just being legalistic, trying to get them a marriage certificates so they could get employment and welfare! I will know better if the situation ever occurs again, Holiness, I promise you.

We, poor senile idiots, in our time, actually thought that abortion was a most terrible crime, and it was a good way of trying to prevent women from taking this course by pointing out that the Church regarded the crime as so grave, that it required a bishop to absolve the sin as it involved the killing of an innocent child. Thank Heavens, Holiness, you have made it clear that it’s not a serious crime at all and that any priest can now absolve it. 

Similarly, with a priest soliciting sexual partners in the confessional; we thought that, too, was a fearful sin, but you again, have shown us the true path to Righteousness. Thank you again for this great insight, Holiness and forgive us our lack of compassion to these sex-starved priests. It is wonderful that any priest can now absolve from this sin now. I understand that it is only supposed to be one of the 1,000 Missionaries of Mercy who can absolve these special sins, but as no one has ever seen these priests, obviously, then, any priest can absolve the sins. Thank you for that; it is real mercy and a tremendous relief to the paedophiles.

We often, Holiness, I’ll tell you this truthfully, struggled desperately trying not to let slip – by the slightest hint – of what we heard in the Confessional, as we thought that was a most dreadful sin and a lack of mercy to the sinner, but now, you have relieved us of worrying about that. If we do blurt out a juicy bit of scandal, then we can now feel free not to worry about it; any priest can fix that up. That’s mercy to us and no mistake; I'm a little worried, Holiness as to whether it is mercy to the sinner though? You could make that clear to us during your press conference, on your next plane trip; we’d be very grateful.

Most of us are in our eighties now and can’t have much time left. I thought of that when I decided to write to you. You are such a busy man with a positive carousel of meetings with exotic religions. I thought I might fall off the twig before I relieved my conscience and expressed my gratitude to you for your inspired new insight into Christianity and our Catholic Faith itself.
I hope I have not offended you by mentioning the ‘Catholic’ Faith; I meant to be inclusive not divisive – I trust you, in your mercy, will pardon me for the slip. I am a very old man and we get quite silly when we get old, you know. You see, we oldies, once thought that the Catholic Faith was the greatest gift of mercy in the whole world. However, we now know we were completely wrong; you have made that so clear to us, Holy Father. For that, and all the other things you have done, we thank you… Please, Holy Father, have mercy on us.

Fr Senectutus

Father Senectutus was good enough to submit a few more of his articles, which will appear in the Print/E-edition of The Remnant over the next few months.

1 Feb 2017

There is "no absolute morality"...and "metaphysics is nonsense"?

An Inquiry                  

by Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi

Plato and Aristotle
In our yesterday discussion on Facebook, on the topic “Where do our morals come from?”, Jan Pretorius, responding to Jordan Azoth Mamano (and indirectly to my own article on Relativism), wrote:

“You claim that there is some absolute notion of right and wrong, and this is where my position gets tricky. I don't think there is absolute right or wrong, but we can establish objective right and wrong when we define a moral structure that we want to live with.

“The reason I feel this way is that I find a few problems with the idea of absolute morality:

“1. As soon as you say something is metaphysical, I don't know what you are talking about. Can we measure it? Can we at all even know anything about something that is metaphysical? A metaphysical element can, by its very nature, not be proven in conventional physical means. But, if you are not proving anything physically or demonstrably, then you are far way from proving it.

“2. Can we know or tap into such a metaphysical morality if it existed, and how can we discover what the absolute morals are? Furthermore, how did they come to be? You may think the origins of morality to be inconsequential, but it matters if we want to answer the question - WHY obey absolute morals, if they existed? This question is important because of my next point.

“3. How have you determined that the absolute morals, supposing there are any, are actually the best way to live? It is entirely possible that if absolute moral codes existed, they might not always be very efficient. Here is an example:

“Suppose that there was an absolute moral code that says we should never murder. Does that mean we should absolutely never murder? Or are there cases such as self-defence or preventing other deaths, where murder can be permitted? I doubt that an absolute moral code could be nuanced enough to include every single complicated moral dilemma possible. Either we would have to improve upon that morality, or we would have to adjust it in relative terms.
“For this reason I subscribe to an objective sense of morality (not absolute). We can say that it is objective when we determine the goals of morality. This is a morality that requires constant investigation and evaluating situations as they come along. I would say that this is better than absolute morality, and I would even venture as far as to say that this is better than absolute morality even if absolute morality existed (perhaps depending on its origin).”
Here, I wish to respond to these questions as briefly as I can, and without wasting time I start with the first objection raised, namely that As soon as you say something is metaphysical, I don't know what you are talking about. Can we measure it?...”

What is Metaphysics? Metaphysics is that branch of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge. It is the foundation of a worldview. It answers the question “What is?” It encompasses everything that exists, as well as the nature of existence itself. It says whether the world is real, or merely an illusion. It is a fundamental view of the world around us.

The word metaphysics is formed from the Greek τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (ta meta ta phusika), a title which, about the year A.D. 70, was related by Andronicus of Rhodes, a Greek philosopher, to that collection of Aristotelean  treatises which since then goes by the name of the “Metaphysics”. Aristotle himself had referred to that branch of philosophy as “the theological science (theologikê). (Note: theology translates into English from the Greek theologia (θεολογία) which derived from Τheos (Θεός), meaning “God,” and -logia (-λογία), meaning “utterances, sayings, or oracles” (a word related to logos [λόγος], meaning “word, discourse, account, or reasoning”) which had passed into Latin as theologia and into French as théologie). Aristotle referred to that branch of philosophy as the “theological sciencebecause it culminated in the consideration of the nature of God, and as “first philosophy” (prôtê philosophia), both because it considered the first causes of things, and because, in his estimation, it is first in importance. The editor, Andronicus, however, overlooked both these titles, and, because he believed that that part of the Aristotelean corpus came naturally after the physical treatises, he entitled it “after the physics”—Greek τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά. This is the historical origin of the term.

Many modern philosophers—like the positivists—have been advocating a total destruction of metaphysics, the only crime of metaphysics being that it delves into the immaterial world inaccessible to sense perception. But it is impossible to destroy metaphysics—to do so is simply to destroy philosophy itself. Metaphysics is very important because it is, in fact, the foundation of philosophy. Without an explanation or an interpretation of the world around us, we would be helpless to deal with reality—we could not feed ourselves, or act to preserve our lives. The degree to which our metaphysical worldview is correct is the degree to which we are able to comprehend the world, and act accordingly. Without this firm foundation, all knowledge becomes suspect. Any flaw in our view of reality will make it more difficult to live.
In fact philosophy started just this way—the metaphysical way. The very first philosophers started with metaphysical cosmology (from the Greek κόσμος, kosmos “world” and -λογία, -logia “study of”), which is  the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe by thought alone. Thales proposed a first principle (ἀρχή, arche) of the cosmos, namely water—holding that the universe is alive, that it has a soul and is full of gods; Anaximander posited what he called the boundless apeiron (ἄπειρον), and Anaximenes thought that there was something boundless that underlies all other things, and made this boundless thing something definite—air, etc. These philosophers—and their successors—thought of themselves as inquirers into many things, and the range of their inquiry was vast. They had views about the nature of the world, and these views encompass what we today call physics, chemistry, geology, meteorology, astronomy, embryology, and psychology (and other areas of natural inquiry), as well as theology, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. They tried to explain the world and the whole of reality—which is the primary function of metaphysics.
Reality is absolute. It has a specific nature independent of our thoughts or feelings. The world around us is real. It has a specific nature and it must be consistent to that nature. A proper metaphysical worldview must aim to understand reality correctly. The physical world exists, and every entity has a specific nature. It acts according to that nature. When different entities interact, they do so according to the nature of both. Every action has a cause and an effect. Causality is the means by which change occurs, but the change occurs via a specific nature.

Aristotle (in Met., VI, 1026 a, 31) placed metaphysics in the genus of “science”—he called it  “the theological science”. As a science, it has, in common with other sciences, this characteristic that it seeks a knowledge of things in their causes. What is peculiar to metaphysics is the difference “of being as being.” In this phrase are combined at once the material object and the formal object of metaphysics. The material object is being, the whole world of reality, whether subjective or objective, possible or actual, abstract or concrete, immaterial or material, infinite or finite. Everything that exists comes within the scope of metaphysical inquiry. Other sciences are restricted to one or several departments of being: physics has its limited field of inquiry, mathematics is concerned only with those things which have quantity. Metaphysics knows no such restrictions. Its domain is all reality. For instance, the human soul and God, because they have neither colour nor weight, thermic nor electric properties, do not fall within the scope of the physicist’s investigation; because they are devoid of quantity, they do not come within the field of inquiry of the mathematician. But, since they are beings, they do come within the domain of metaphysical investigation. The material object of metaphysics is, therefore, all beings. As Aristotle says (Met., IV, 1004 a, 34): “It is the function of the philosopher to be able to investigate all things.”

Unfortunately this is no longer the “function” of many modern philosophers—whose primary function rather seems to be their obsession with the rejection of the supernatural! 

Jan Pretorius’ assertion that if you are not proving anything physically or demonstrably, then you are far way from proving it” clearly shows that he isn’t even talking about metaphysics—which he perceives to be only about the immaterial—but about something else!

Pretorius is certainly a materialist. Materialism, naturally, objects to the claim of metaphysics to be a science of the immaterial. If nothing exists except matter, a science of the immaterial has no justification. But Pretorius—and indeed all Materialists—forgets that the assertion, “Nothing exists except matter”, is either a summing up of the individual experience of the materialist himself, meaning that he has never experienced anything except matter and manifestations of matter, and then the assertion is merely of biographical interest; or it is an affirmation regarding possible human experience, a declaration of the impossibility of immaterial existence, and in that sense it is a statement which in itself has a metaphysical import! Materialism is in fact a metaphysical theory of reality and hence is a contribution to the science which it professes to reject! 

The second question, “Can we know or tap into such a metaphysical morality if it existed, and how can we discover what the absolute morals are?” sounds somehow meaningless because “metaphysical morality” is inherent in our nature as human beings. How can you ask me how you can discover what is in you?

Man is naturally a moral being, so asking the question “can we discover what the absolute morals are?” is just as funny as asking if we can discover that we are really human beings. For me, it doesn’t sound rational. As we read in the article (during our FB discussion), “Aristotle pointed out that all rational thinking is ultimately ordered towards some perceived good, and its function is to help us discern between good or bad, an essentially moral purpose. Plato and his followers insisted that man's nobility lies in his desire for ultimate truth, goodness, and beauty, and that all these are really facets of the same ultimate reality, making the pursuit of truth (rationality) impossible to divorce from the pursuit of the good (morality)”. (See: Where do our morals come from?).

Again, your assertion (that “People have gotten morality wrong for ages. It is something that we work on consistently. It is not sacred, otherwise we wouldn't be improving on it”) was rightly addressed by Jayson Paul Rucks.  He wrote:

“When you say that we are “improving” on morality, isn't that appealing to an objective standard since you’re saying that there is an objective, ideal standard out there to “aim towards” with improvement? You can’t improve on morality without that sense of “improving” being attached to an “ideal” standard of “ethical goodness”. Therefore, who is the authority to define ---the--- “ideal” standard of ethics? Who is the authority to define what is good from evil?”
On the third question raised, namely that “I subscribe to an objective sense of morality (not absolute). We can say that it is objective when we determine the goals of morality. This is a morality that requires constant investigation and evaluating situations as they come along...”, I respond:

We can’t “determine” the goals of morality because morality exists independently of our thoughts and feelings. Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. Thus, actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the beliefs and goals of the individual, society or culture that engages in the actions. It holds that morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God or some other fundamental source. I subscribe to this.

It is, of course, common nowadays for the non-religious to point out that almost all of them are “moral” in the sense they pay taxes, don't murder, don’t rape people, and so on. So already we see morality basically being understood as “not being evil”!

But morality is and has always been about more than that—it’s about what we mean by goodness, living life according to objective virtues, disciplining one’s passions, and living life for others, not oneself. It’s not impossible to be moral in that sense without a religion, but it’s certainly very hard. As someone puts it, “Without God or other ultimate grounding, a life spent masturbating all day while playing MMOs is just as “good” as a life where one works to raise a family while contributing to charity and volunteering.”

So Pretorius’ “good” as an objective concept is completely meaningless.

This is not to say that without a religion we become lazy blobs—many non-religious people of course live the virtues (though that is because morals, as already stated, are also inherent in the laws of the universe and in the very nature of humanity). It’s rather to make a reference to the objectivity of morality—to say that objective Good exists and is independent of humanity and does not depend on society or change based on culture. For Catholics, God is “The Good” and the goal towards which we must align ourselves in all our thoughts and actions—without Him, in fact, there is nothing like morality.

Atheists can donate to charity, love their families and friends, and do all sorts of other really good things. They do it because it makes them and those whom they help feel good. However, when we ask the question of why they and others should feel good, they usually chalk it up to “common sense” or some other non-answer. If pleasure is just another meaningless cosmic phenomenon, then it doesn't make sense to “construct” a moral system around it. However, if our form of the Good is God, who by His infinite nature continually gives meaning to Himself, then we have a good and solid foundation on which our morality is built.

Related articles: