|
||||
|
|
29 May 2015
THE CASE OF THE DUAL PAPACY -- "DEUX PAPES VERMOULU"
 |
| Jorge Bergoglio (Francis 1) and Benedict XVI: Who is the pope? |
If one wishes to understand the mystery of
the spiritual schizophrenia of the Conciliar popes, one must consider their
personal history in the light of two chapters of Malachy Martin's Hostage to
the Devil. 1. The chapter that relates of the possessed priest and the
possessed exorcist. Both became possessed by having given their minds over to
the heretical doctrines of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. 2. The chapter that
relates how a girl rebelled against the teaching authority of the Church in
school and became possessed because of her rebellion.
Those two chapters sufficiently shed light
on the case of the Conciliar popes. They were/are not cold blooded infiltrators
who entered the priesthood with the premeditated intention to destroy the
Church. They were men of God who fell into the most ancient and original
temptation, to eat the forbidden fruit of error in the vain and illusory
pursuit of illicit knowledge. What they gained by their disordered intellectual
pursuits was not superior knowledge; but the darkening of the intellect that
made them become slaves to error; and allowed the demons to enter and possess
them. This accounts for their duality of spirit which is in one moment
Catholic, and then becomes heretical, gnostic, and even pagan. That is how we have
ended up with the Church reduced to God's "Devastated Vineyard",
presided over by the " Deux papes vermoulu" -- the
"two worm eaten popes" foretold by Our Lady of La Salette.
Bergoglio's Religion: Naturalism,
Rationalism, Deism
"First of all, you ask if the God of
the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.
Given that—and this is fundamental—God's
mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a
sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying
their own conscience."
The key words are: "those who do not
believe and do not seek faith." Does God forgive them? Bergoglio says,
"God's mercy has no limits . . . the issue for those who do not believe in
God is obeying their own conscience" (!!!) and: "The goodness or the
wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision"
Note also the moral relativism:
"listening and obeying it [conscience], means deciding about what is
perceived to be good or evil"
In fact, listening and obeying it, means
deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil." (This is the
basis of Bergoglio's "Who am I to judge?")
Bergoglio states with unmistakable clarity
that one with no faith at all obtains forgiveness from God by obeying his
conscience: "deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil."
For Bergoglio, the conscience is
autonomous: the "Thou shalt not" commandments are nullified -- human
dignity demands that the human person decides for himself what is right or
wrong, without the tyranny of clericalism dictating to man's conscience,
"Thou shalt not!"
Bergoglio's economy of salvation dispenses
entirely with any need for faith -- faith is utterly superfluous. Salvation
depends exclusively on following one's own autonomous conscience; and
absolutely no one may dictate to that conscience by claiming to teach in God's
name with divine authority.
This is Bergoglio's religion. It is as far
removed from Christianity as heaven is from hell. Bergoglio's religion is not
Catholicism -- it is Masonism in its purest form. His creed is essentially
identical to that of the godless Enlightenment freethinker, Lord Shaftesbury
(1671 - 1713): " The articles of Shaftesbury's religious creed were few
and simple, but these he entertained with a conviction amounting to enthusiasm.
They may briefly be summed up as a belief in one God whose most characteristic
attribute is universal benevolence, in the moral government of the universe,
and in a future state of man making up for the imperfections and repairing the
inequalities of the present life." AH! The Fatherhood of God and the
Brotherhood of Man. (Wikipedia). Shaftesbury's moral doctrine is that of the
"Moral Sense", of which the two most basic principles are:
"1 that the distinction between right
and wrong is part of the constitution of human nature; 2. that morality stands
apart from theology, and the moral qualities of actions are determined apart
from the arbitrary will of God."
Fr. Cornelio Fabro cites the verbatim
quotation (Introduzione all"ateismo moderno) in which Shaftesbury
declares that religion does not consist in believing tenets of revelation, but
in morality. His religion was essentially Deism and Rationalism.
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shaftesbury/#8)
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/shaftesbury/#8)
Lest anyone thinks Scalfari fabricated the
quotation, here's a parallel passage in Bergoglio's sermon:
Francesco, il capo della Chiesa Cattolica
Romana ha affermato che anche gli atei vanno in paradiso. Pochi giorni fa
infatti, ha raccontato la storia di un parrocchiano Cattolico che chiese ad un
prete se anche gli atei erano stati salvati da Gesù, ed ha detto:
‘Il Signore ci ha creati a Sua immagine e
somiglianza, e noi siamo l’immagine del Signore, ed Egli fa del bene e tutti
noi abbiamo questo comandamento nel cuore: fai il bene e non fare il male.
Tutti noi. ‘Ma, Padre, questo non è Cattolico! Non può fare il bene’. Sì, può
farlo …. ‘Il Signore ha redento tutti noi, tutti noi, con il Sangue di Cristo:
tutti noi, non solo Cattolici. Tutti! ‘Padre, e gli atei?’ Anche gli atei.
Tutti!’ …. Dobbiamo incontrarci facendo il bene. ‘Ma, Padre, io non credo, sono
un ateo!’ Ma fai il bene: noi ci incontreremo là’ [in paradiso].
Ecco le parole in inglese così come sono
state pubblicate dall’Huffington.’ Post:
“The Lord created us in His image and
likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have
this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father,
this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed
all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics.
Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!”.. We must meet
one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do
good: we will meet one another there.”
Bergoglio On Heaven and Earth:
"As I am a believer, I know that
these riches are a gift from God. I also know that the other person, the
atheist, does not know that. I do not approach the relationship in order to
proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him and I show myself as I am.
Where there is knowledge, there begins to appear esteem, affection, and
friendship. I do not have any type of reluctance, nor would I say that his life
is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a
judgment about the honesty of that person; even less, if he shows me those
human virtues that exalt others and do me good."
Bergoglio does not believe in God in the
proper sense of professing the dogmatically defined nature and attributes of
God. No wonder that he says he doesn't "believe in a Catholic God".
He really does not even believe in the God we profess in the Catholic creeds.
"On Heaven and Earth", Chapter 3
- "On Atheists" :
"We can say what God is not ... but
we cannot say what He is. I would classify as arrogant those theologies that
... had the pretense of saying who He was".
Bergoglio's deistic notion of God
logically precludes the affirmation of a precise body of doctrines
supernaturally revealed by God. In his 9 October 2014 sermon, Bergoglio evokes
a revelation of God that is experienced directly. Supernatural revelation as
has been traditionally professed by the Church has no basis in Bergoglio's
deistic philosophy; and therefore cannot logically fit into the framework of
his Soteriology. One must not be fooled by his usage of traditional
terminology: Deism is the philosophic basis of Modernist theology; and
therefore it is of strict logical necessity that Modernists profess what Hans
Küng calls "a Christology from below" -- and indeed, a Theology from
below which conceives of divine revelation along the lines of the Enlightenment
naturalism of Schleiermacher. Therefore, such terms as 'incarnation',
'revelation', 'Saviour', 'mystery', have a different meaning from that which
the Church infallibly professes. Bergoglio professes the condemned heresy of
Religious Liberty because it is a strict logical corollary of his deistic
Modernism, which easily fits into its framework Paganism, as well as
anthropomorphically modified monotheistic belief systems. What does not fit
into the deistic framework is the notion of supernatural revelation of a
transcendent Godhead. Hence, all religions are welcome in the Civilization of
Love -- except One: the unreformed Catholic religion -- "the actual
original faith, teaching, and tradition of the Catholic Church; which the Lord
bestowed, the apostles proclaimed, and the Fathers safeguarded."
(Athanasius ad Serapion) Outside of that faith there is no salvation
(Profession of Faith, Vatican Council I); and unless one holds that faith integral
and inviolate, he will without doubt perish in eternity (Athanasian Creed).
Bergoglio wants the remaining vestige of
the Catholic Church to break up into a loosley knit denomination like the
Anglican Communion. This breakup was foretold by St. Hildegard von Bingen
nearly 900 years ago. This is the APOSTASY foretold in Scripture and at Fatima.
2 Thess. verse 3 says FIRST must come the "apostasy" (αποστασια);
and then the "man of sin" (ανθρωπος της αμαρτιας): 3 μη τις
υμας εξαπατηση κατα μηδενα τροπον οτι εαν μη ελθη η αποστασια πρωτον και
αποκαλυφθη ο ανθρωπος της αμαρτιας ο υιος της απωλειας. The apostasy (αποστασια)
is what is happening now. Its leader and standard bearer is Jorge Mario
Bergoglio. The spiritual imperium of Rome is dissolved -- the katechon is
removed: 6 και νυν το κατεχον οιδατε εις το αποκαλυφθηναι αυτον εν τω
εαυτου καιρω 7 το γαρ μυστηριον ηδη ενεργειται της ανομιας μονον ο κατεχων αρτι
εως εκ μεσου γενηται.
Thank you Jorge! Jorge has opened the
doors of Rome wide to receive the "lawless one" -- the "man of
sin". Our Lady of La Salette said: "ROME WILL LOSE THE FAITH AND
BECOME THE SEAT OF THE ANTICHRIST". The obtuse knuckleheads of the
Conciliar Reformed Sect deny what is happening on the basis of a logically
misapplied generality -- the dogma of Indefectibility. They misapply the dogma
to deny the explicit prophetic teaching of St. Paul! They think Our Lady was
wrong in La Salette and Fatima -- yet the temporary removal of the spiritual
Imperium of Rome and the pope is taught in Scripture: 6 And now you know what
withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity
already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out
of the way.
The ancient Fathers interpret this
"katechon" to be the Roman Imperium, which since the collapse of the
temporal Imperium has resided in the Roman Papacy, which is now "taken out
of the way" by Jorge Bergoglio.
Ratzinger's Spinozism in his Einführung
in das Christentum
Two years after Paul VI abolished the
Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books) in 1966, the Rev. Prof.
Dr. Joseph Ratzinger of Tübingen infamy published his first major work (of
heresy) -- Einführung in das Christentum. Pius XII would have placed the book
on the Index and would have had him removed from the Catholic faculty of
Theology. Paul VI appointed the dissident Vatican II peritus Archbishop of
Munich and made him a cardinal.
Ratzinger says the doctrine of the duality
of body and soul is "obsolete". He says it is contrary to the unity
of the person, of the "self". That is nonsense, and it is heresy. The
unity of the human substance is preserved in virtue of the soul being the
substantial form of the body.
Council of Vienne:
"Adhering firmly to the foundation of
the catholic faith, other than which, as the Apostle testifies, no one can lay,
we openly profess with holy mother church that the only begotten Son of God,
subsisting eternally together with the Father in everything in which God the
Father exists, assumed in time in the womb of a virgin the parts of our nature
united together, from which he himself true God became true man: namely the
human, passible body and the intellectual or rational soul truly of itself and
essentially informing the body."
"We, therefore, directing our
apostolic attention, to which alone it belongs to define these things, to such
splendid testimony and to the common opinion of the holy fathers and doctors,
declare with the approval of the sacred council that the said apostle and
evangelist, John, observed the right order of events in saying that when Christ
was already dead one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear. Moreover,
with the approval of the said council, we reject as erroneous and contrary to
the truth of the catholic faith every doctrine or proposition rashly asserting
that the substance of the rational or intellectual soul is not of itself and
essentially the form of the human body, or casting doubt on this matter. In
order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may
be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert defend or
hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the
human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic."
The Fourth Lateran Council solemnly
professed that the soul of Christ descended into hell and the body rose from
the dead: "sed descendit in anima et resurrexit in carne". The
Roman Catechism, teaching the infallible doctrine of the universal magisterium,
declares that so long as the body of Christ remained in the sepulchure, his
soul remained in hell.
God the Son remained hypostatically united
to both body and soul while they were in the separated condition; the body in
the sepulchre and the soul in hell. Ratzinger rejects the Catholic dogma of
Christ's descent into hell, dismissing it as "mythological"; and says
the descent into hell is to be understood to mean being in the state of death.
This is heresy!
The term "resurrection",
according to Ratzinger is not to be understood as a reuniting of the soul as
the animating principle of the body; but an "awakening" of the self,
the whole person, who exists eternally in the mind of God! Thus Ratzinger
rejects the idea of the "resurrection of the body" to refer to the
rising to life of the corporeal body, but the awakening of the whole self
existing eternally in the memory of God, and thus eternally united to God.
Ratzinger hides his heresy behind his
Augustinian mask, in the manner of Luther and Jansen -- none of them being
authentically Augustinian in their theology.
The Catholic Church professes the
"resurrection of the body" to mean the rising to life of the
physical-corporeal body, as so pithily expressed by Augustine -- "illa
ista caro".
Ratzinger's doctrine of resurrection conceived as a quasi-afterlife in the mind of God is not the Gospel of the Apostles and Evangelists; but is the "gospel" of Benedict XVI, which is also the "gospel" of Benedict Spinoza.
Ratzinger's doctrine of resurrection conceived as a quasi-afterlife in the mind of God is not the Gospel of the Apostles and Evangelists; but is the "gospel" of Benedict XVI, which is also the "gospel" of Benedict Spinoza.
The human person cannot subsist in the
mind of God any more after death than it did before birth; because the creature
composed of potentiality and act does not subsist in the divine mode of being,
which is actus purus.
Therefore the Ratzinger/Spinoza notion of
the afterlife is logically inconceivable in the framework of Christian
philosophy and theology -- it is intelligible only in the framework of the
Spinozan philosophical system which gratuitously posits Thought and Extension
as the two known eternal attributes of "Substance", which Spinoza
calls "Deus sive Natura" (God or Nature).
Spinozan Pandeism is the philosophical
basis of Ratzinger's reinterpretation of dogma -- yet he still attempts to
adhere to dogma as the basis of faith; and insists on the radical necessity of
faith. Bergoglio, on the other hand, dispenses entirely with the necessity of
faith for salvation -- following one's own conscience suffices -- even if one's
perverse conscience denies the duty to believe in God and obey the divine law.
A belief system, such as Bergoglio's, which professes salvation without faith;
constitutes a religion without faith, and as such, is the faithless and godless
religion of apostasy.
Pope Benedict Did Not Resign The Papal
Office, But Only Renounced The Active Ministry Of The Office
In order to understand the precise scope
and extent of Benedict XVI's "renunciation" (not
"resignation" or "abdication"), one must focus on his words
which explain exactly what he renounced:
" Qui permettetemi di tornare ancora
una volta al 19 aprile 2005. La gravità della decisione è stata proprio anche
nel fatto che da quel momento in poi ero impegnato sempre e per sempre dal
Signore. Sempre – chi assume il ministero petrino non ha più alcuna privacy.
Appartiene sempre e totalmente a tutti, a tutta la Chiesa. Alla sua vita viene,
per così dire, totalmente tolta la dimensione privata." ... " Il
“sempre” è anche un “per sempre” - non c’è più un ritornare nel privato. La mia
decisione di rinunciare all’esercizio attivo del ministero, non revoca questo."
"Here, allow me to go back once again
to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact
that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always –
anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs
always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of
speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated." ...
"The 'always' is also a "for ever" – there can no longer be a
return to the private sphere. My decision to renounce the active exercise of
the ministry does not revoke this."
Here Benedict XVI states explicitly that
the gravity his decision to accept the papacy consisted in the fact that he was
thereby engaged in a commitment, received from Christ, which is "for
always", and his "decision to renounce the active exercise of the
ministry does not revoke this." Thus, Benedict did not renounce the
Petrine office or its ministry, but only the active exercise of the ministry.
He then goes on to say that he will no longer wield the power of office, but
will remain "within the enclosure of St. Peter": " Non
porto più la potestà dell’officio per il governo della Chiesa, ma nel servizio
della preghiera resto, per così dire, nel recinto di san Pietro. San Benedetto,
il cui nome porto da Papa, mi sarà di grande esempio in questo. Egli ci ha
mostrato la via per una vita, che, attiva o passiva, appartiene totalmente
all’opera di Dio." ("I no longer bear the power of office
for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to
speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as
Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life
which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of
God.")
Hence, the intention expressed by Pope
Benedict is to remain in the Petrine office and retain the passive aspect of
its official service (munus), i.e. "the service of prayer"; and to
hand over the active aspect of the munus, i.e. exercise of governance, to a
successor, who will effectively fulfill the function of a coadjutor with power
of jurisdiction. Thus, Benedict's clearly expressed intention was not to
abdicate the office, but only to vacate the cathedra in the qualified sense of
handing the seat of power of governance to one who will succeed him in the
active governance, but not abdicating from the office itself. This solves the
apparent mystery and explains why Benedict XVI refused to revert to being
Cardinal Ratzinger; and why he retains his papal coat of arms and papal attire.
In his Declaration of Feb. 11, 2013, Pope
Benedict states as the reason for his decision his waning energy and consequent
inability to administer the official duties of the papacy due to advanced
age: Conscientia mea iterum atque iterum coram Deo explorata ad
cognitionem certam perveni vires meas ingravescente aetate non iam aptas esse
ad munus Petrinum aeque administrandum.
However, he states his awareness of the
spiritual nature of the official service, the munus of the petrine office;
namely, it is not merely active and verbal, but is to be fulfilled to no lesser
degree by praying and suffering: Bene conscius
sum hoc munus secundum suam essentiam spiritualem non solum agendo et loquendo
exsequi debere, sed non minus patiendo et orando. It is this passive
function of the office that he expressly stated was his intention to retain in
his above cited discourse of 27 Feb. 2013.
It was only the active service, the
execution of the ministry regarding grave affairs of the Church and proclaiming
the gospel, which he said he could no longer adequately perform: Attamen
in mundo nostri temporis rapidis mutationibus subiecto et quaestionibus magni
ponderis pro vita fidei perturbato ad navem Sancti Petri gubernandam et ad
annuntiandum Evangelium etiam vigor quidam corporis et animae necessarius est,
qui ultimis mensibus in me modo tali minuitur, ut incapacitatem meam ad
ministerium mihi commissum bene administrandum agnoscere debeam.
Therefore, in the next sentence he
declares his intention to renounce that ministry:Quapropter bene conscius
ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae,
Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV
commisso renuntiare ita ut a die 28 februarii MMXIII, hora 20, sedes Romae,
sedes Sancti Petri vacet et Conclave ad eligendum novum Summum Pontificem ab
his quibus competit convocandum esse.
One notices the corrected Latin in this
Vatican website version of the Declaratio. In the official document the word
"commissum" was used, and not "commisso" as
you can see in the sentence. This is one of two glaring grammatical errors in
the document that, according to the canonical custom which remains in force,
renders the juridical act null & void. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states
explicitly that where there is no statute or custom ruling on some matter in
the Code, the jurisprudence of the Roman Curia is to be followed*. The
precedents go back to Pope St. Gregory VII, as I have explained in previous
posts.
However, leaving aside the question of the
Latin errors; the far more weighty consideration of the pope's intention not to
abdicate the munus, but only to renounce the active ministry is decisive in
determining the nullity of the act. It is patent that a pope who intends to
renounce the active exercise of the Petrine ministry, but who expresses his
intention to retain the passive service of the munus which he received on 19
April 2005, does not vacate the office. Hence, the intention to render the
chair vacant is defective, since one who retains the passive exercise of the
munus retains the munus, and therefore still occupies the chair.
* Can. 19 - Si certa de re desit
expressum legis sive universalis sive particularis praescriptum; aut
consuetudo, causa, nisi sit poenalis, dirimenda est attentis legibus latis in
similibus, generalibus iuris principiis cum aequitate canonica servatis,
iurisprudentia et praxi Curiae Romanae, communi constantique doctorum sententia.
The assertion made by some, that Jorge
Bergoglio is the "vicar of Christ on earth" is highly problematical
(to put it mildly). Not only was Benedict's renunciation canonically defective,
but Bergoglio's election, according to some eminent canonists, canonically irregular.
Even more problematical is the matter of
Bergoglio's belief system. He is no Christian, but a Deist who does not believe
in objective moral standards, or supernatural dogmatic revelation. He is an
infidel who rejects the necessity for faith in the revealing God.
Revelation, for Bergoglio, is obtained
through phenomenological experience. His contempt for dogmatic Christianity is
visceral. His "theology" is not the theology of the Catholic Church,
but of the Deists, such as Lord Shaftesbury, Gotthold Lessing, and Friedrich
Schleiermacher. By Catholic standards, Bergoglio is a heathen -- an unbeliever,
an infidel. Such a one, even if he had been canonically elected, such a one is
to be "cast out and trampled underfoot by men"; according to Innocent
III (Sermo IV).
Father Paul Kramer, Easter Sunday, April
5, 2015.
28 May 2015
A “Feminized” Catholic Church?
by
Jonathan Ekene Ifeanyi
“Religion
does not fear the dagger’s point; but it can vanish under corruption. Let us
not grow tired of corruption: we may use a pretext, such as sport, hygiene,
health resorts. It is necessary to corrupt, that our boys and girls practise
nudism in dress. To avoid too much reaction, one would have to progress in a
methodical manner: first, undress up to the elbow; then up to the knees; then
arms and legs completely uncovered; later, the upper part of the chest, the
shoulders, etc.,” says International Review on Freemasonry, 1928.
If you wish to visit a
Church where this freemasonic instruction is being followed to the letter, then
Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church, located in Victoria Island, Lagos,
is the place to be. It is a typical example of a “Vatican 11 Catholic Church”
here in Lagos State. A similar example is Church of the Assumption, located in
Falomo, Ikoyi, but Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic Church, built just a few
years ago, has simply “out-shined” the Falomo Church in immorality—in the war
against Catholic beliefs and practices. Among innumerable evils existing in
this church, particularly in the area of their Protestantised Mass, if you
haven’t witnessed young girls serving the “mass”, with their hairs completely
uncovered, then visit this Church. If you haven’t witnessed a Church where
almost the entire women dress like harlots every Sunday during “mass”, with the
hairs completely uncovered, then visit this Church. If you haven’t witnessed a
Church where women—instead of God—are increasingly becoming the object of
worship on each passing day, then visit this same Church.
Modern atheistic democracy that preaches gender
equality, human right and freedom without a limit has simply confused most
Catholic men and women—starting from the very clergy themselves—in these times.
In 1930 Pope Pius XI condemned the previous decades' women’s emancipation
movement as undermining the divinely founded obedience of the wife to her
husband and a false deflection from her true and sole role as mother and
homemaker. Feminism was intrinsically linked to suffrage and therefore abhorred
by the church. Nearly 50 years later in the late 1960s and early 70s, the women
at the helm of the second feminist movement again found the Catholic Church to
be among their “staunchest foes”. But today’s tragedy is that those who have
been given the mandate by heaven of opposing the errors of feminism and defending
Catholic doctrine, now hiding under the priestly cassock and manifesting like
angels of light—more than the feminists themselves—are the very people
championing these errors in ours time with all their powers. Their quest for “women empowerment”—women lay
readers, altar girls, priestess, etc—goes together with the clamour for women’s
nudity inside the church. There
are even some seemingly “good” priests who are also sympathetic to feminism,
and support its errors either directly or indirectly because of the powerful
influence of democracy.
We start from the issue of head-covering: In fact,
today if you wish to see real religious women, who need not be reminded that
they must cover their hairs during worship, then the Mosque, rather than the
Church, is the place to be. But why this? Is head-covering only a Muslim
practice and not a Christian practice?
Now pay attention! On the issue of head-covering,
we know that canon 1262 of the 1917 code (promulgated by Pope Benedict XV) says
that women must cover their hairs while in the Church. We also know that the
same canon says that women should be separated from men in the Church—a pious
practice which also exists now only in the Mosques, and in the Catholic Church only
among the traditionalists such as the Society of Saint Pius X. However, this
canon was “abrogated” by John Paul II, who promulgated a new Code of Canon Law
in 1983, which is “in force” today. With regards to head-covering, this new
canon—deliberately silent on the issue—is the cause of the scandal we witness
today all over the Catholic world. We have seen “priests” who even believe that
to tell women to cover their hair and dress modestly during worship is to
marginalize them. We have seen “priests” who, following the atheistic
principles of modern democracy, clamour for women leaders in the church, and
even openly give the impression that the early Church of the Apostles was
biased against women simply because it was against their current unchristian
belief. Saint Augustine, the greatest Catholic theologian after St. Paul, tells
us that the entire Scripture—from Genesis to the Revelation—was written by God
Himself. He calls the sacred writings of St. Paul “letters sent to us from
heaven”. Now this Bible—particularly the writings of St. Paul on this issue of
women—is simply put aside as something biased and outdated by the majority of
modern clergy and “theologians.” The reason? Because “the times have changed!” But
ironically, these are the same people who, after the evil Council, now claim
that the Bible, more than ever before, has been made accessible to all and is
now well read and understood by all!
Women indeed played a large part in the ministry of
Our Lord Jesus Christ. Some of His closest friends and faithful followers were
women (cf. Matt. 27:55-56; Luke 23:49, 55). They were the last to leave Our
Lord’s cross and the first to see Him resurrected (Luke 23:55; 24:1ff.). There
were women who followed Jesus as He travelled about, and who supported Him and
His disciples (Luke 8:1-3). If perchance we are inclined to think that the role
of women was primarily in the kitchen, or preferably in the kitchen, we need to
be reminded that Jesus commended Mary for sitting at His feet, while Martha was
obsessed with fixing the meal (Luke 10:38-42).
We must also recall what women did not do to minister
when they accompanied Our Lord. Our Lord did not choose women to be among the
12 apostles. He did not send women to teach, preach or heal. So far as we know
He did not invite women to the Lord’s Supper in Matthew 26:20. When the great
commission was given in Matthew 28:16-20, it was given to men. In brief, women
did minister to Our Lord and with Our Lord, but never in a capacity of
leadership or of authority such as teaching or preaching.
Likewise the Apostle Paul had high regard for
women. Many of those greeted in the last chapter of Romans were women. Phoebe
was especially mentioned as one who had greatly helped the church at Cenchrae
(verses 1-2). Paul’s teaching on the marriage relationship greatly enhanced the
position of the married woman (cf. Eph. 5:22-33). But once again we see that
women were not allowed to assume positions of leadership or authority within
the church. In 1 Timothy Paul wrote:
“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. 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. 2:9-12).
And why should a woman remain quiet? Saint Paul
explains:
‘But
I suffer not a
woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not
seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. Yet she shall
be saved through child-bearing; if she continues in faith, and love, and sanctification,
with sobriety.’ (1 Tim. 2: 12-15).
Again, in 1 Corinthians we read:
“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).
The uniform practice of the churches, then, was
that women should not take leadership in the church meeting. They were not to
teach or to exercise authority, nor were they to engage in questions. They are
to subject themselves, as the law teaches, says Paul.
Now back to head-covering: St. Augustine, the great theologian, describes any
failure in the veil to conceal all the hair, even a minor one, as a violation
of chastity. St. Ambrose of Milan says: “Is anything so conducive to lust as
with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body
which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks,
to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offense
against God. For what modesty can there be? ”
We read the following from the same Apostle Paul:
“But I would have you know, that the head of every
man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is
God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his
head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered,
disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be
not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or
made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head,
because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the
man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was
not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman
to have a power over her head, because of the angels. But yet neither is the
man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the
woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.
You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? Doth
not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourishes his hair,
is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourishes her hair, it is a glory to her;
for her head is given to her for a covering. But if any man seems to be
contentious, we have no such custom, nor the church of God.” (1 Cor. 11: 3-16).
First
Corinthian (11:3-16) is not limited to a woman’s presence in the church, angels
are indeed present in the sanctuary with the consecrated host, for angels bring
the Eucharistic sacrifice to God’s altar in heaven (as the Eucharistic canon
says: “may your angels bring this sacrifice to your altar in heaven”). The
angels have a keen eye on the entire proceedings of Mass, including how the
parishioners are conducting themselves. As St. Paul says in First Corinthian
(4:9), “we are made…a spectacle to angels.” St. John Chrysostom, chiding the
misbehaving parishioners of his day, once said, “Know you not that you are
standing in company with angels? With them you chant, with them sing hymns, and
do you stand laughing? Is it not wonderful that a thunderbolt is not
launched…For such behaviour might well be visited with the thunderbolt.”
The
angels are sensitive to the issue of head-coverings, for the covering
demonstrates that one is under authority, since the angels, in the presence of
God, always cover themselves, yet God is uncovered (Is 6:2).
Now on “women leaders” in the church: In First
Corinthians (11: 3) we read again: “But I would have you know, that the head of
every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of
Christ is God.”
Here St. Paul indicates that there is a divinely
ordained hierarchy, in which men are directly under Christ as their “head”
while women are under the headship of man. Christ is directly under the head of
God the Father in this grand scheme of things. A similar hierarchical
conception was expressed by Paul earlier in the epistle, in 3:21-23, where the
arrangement is of teachers under the church, which is under Christ, who is
under God. There the relationship is expressed in terms of ownership. The point
concerning Christ being under God is also repeated in 15:28, where it is
expressed in terms of subjection. Paul mentions it here, in the context of his
discussion of the relationship between men and women, so as to impress upon the
Corinthians how important the “chain of being” principle of hierarchy is in
spiritual matters, and in the very constitution of the universe. And perhaps he
mentions the subordination of Christ in particular to suggest the teaching we
have in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians: “Have this mind
among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the
form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.”
The subordination of the woman to man is no more done away with in Christ than is the subordination of men to Christ. Christ himself is functionally subordinate to God the Father, and did not “seek equality” with God. Though he is the “radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3), he also willingly fills his place in the divine economy.
The subordination of the woman to man is no more done away with in Christ than is the subordination of men to Christ. Christ himself is functionally subordinate to God the Father, and did not “seek equality” with God. Though he is the “radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3), he also willingly fills his place in the divine economy.
It may be that Paul had information that certain
women in Corinth were falling into extravagant notions of Christian liberty
(the usual problem at Corinth — “all things are lawful to me”), and had cast
off their head-coverings in some kind of demonstration of sexual equality.
14:34-35 gives us some reason to think that egalitarian tendencies had created
problems at Corinth. If this was the case, then Paul’s words here go straight
to the root of the problem.
In verse 7 of First Corinthians 11, we read: “For
indeed a man ought not to cover his head, being the image and glory of God; but
woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from
man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” The Greek passage
reads: 7 Ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν, εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα
θεοῦ ὑπάρχων· ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν. 8 οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀνὴρ ἐκ γυναικός ἀλλὰ
γυνὴ ἐξ ἀνδρός· 9 καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἐκτίσθη ἀνὴρ διὰ τὴν γυναῖκα, ἀλλὰ γυνὴ
διὰ τὸν ἄνδρα.
Here Paul begins a new argument in which the head-covering
is explained as a symbol. He begins by explaining that man and woman are
themselves like symbols, pointing to the purposes for which they were created.
When he says that man is the “image” (εἰκὼν) of God he is referring to Genesis
1:26-7, where it says, “Let us make man (Heb. adam) in our image, after our
likeness.” When he adds “and glory” (δόξα) he is probably using it in the sense
of “honour, majesty,” in contrast with the “dishonour” mentioned in verse 4.
The majesty of God belongs to men according to the mandate, “Let them have
dominion,” and for a man this is part of what it means to be the image of God.
The phrase “image and glory” in Greek is “εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα”. It is probably
best understood as a hendiadys, meaning “image of the majesty” (or perhaps
“majestic image”). Man was created to symbolize God’s dominion in the earth.
But the woman was not created for that iconic purpose, she was created for man.
It should be noticed here that Paul does not say that woman is the εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα
“image-glory” of man, but only the δόξα “glory” of man. The omission of the
qualifying word εἰκὼν is not accidental — the implication is that her “glory”
is not iconic or imitative. She is not merely a lesser man, an inferior
second-hand copy of the image of God, as those who accuse us of “male
chauvinism” rashly suppose. While she remains substantially human like man
himself, she symbolizes something altogether different, and this will have
consequences for the way in which she ought to worship God.
We should notice at this point that Paul rejects
the idea that God has ordained a “unisex” spirituality for Christians. God, who
created us male and female, has ordained a masculine spirituality and a
feminine spirituality. The influence of the Holy Spirit does not lead us to
androgyny, but to a sanctified masculinity for men and a sanctified femininity
for women. This is contrary to certain pagan ideas which were becoming popular
in places like Corinth in ancient times. Under the gnostic ideologies that
arose from Middle Platonism in the first century, the human soul was
essentially a spark of the cosmic Reason or mind of God, and the ideal and
glorified human soul, liberated from the accidents of the flesh, was androgynous
or sexless. Women in their spiritual exercises were supposed to become more
like men, and men more like women. This idea is plainly expressed in various
pseudo-Christian writings of the gnostic sects in the first three centuries of
the Church, and there is good reason to suppose that it was present already in
the first generation of the Corinthian congregation. The first-century
gnostics, like the “inner light” Quakers and the Transcedentalists of the
nineteenth century, maintained that there is “no sex in the soul.” But Paul
does not share that opinion.
For Paul, the outstanding fact of woman’s existence
is her subordinate position, or rather her subordinate nature, as revealed in
the story of creation. It is not merely a matter of position, determined by
custom, or an accident of the flesh. A woman is womanly by nature, and by God’s
design. She is ontologically subordinate to man because she was fashioned for
man. In another epistle he says that in this subordination she symbolizes the
Church under submission to the authority of God. A well-ordered marriage is a
holy mystery that “refers to Christ and to the Church” (Ephesians 5:32). This
is the inherent symbolism of man and woman, intended by God from the beginning.
Sexual differentiation and identity is not a tragic result of the Fall, to be
reversed or transcended by the soul’s escape from the body of flesh (as the
gnostics taught), but a consequence of the Creator’s good design.
We have witnessed how, in his two
years at the head of the sprawling worldwide Church, Jorge Bergoglio has, among
innumerable errors and heresies, consciously—and assiduously—worked towards a
complete “Feminized” Catholic Church. Feminism is Atheistic Communism in liquid form. Massively championed
by atheistic democracy, it has seeped into every crack and crevice of our
families, our culture, our schools, and our churches. The papacy was to be infiltrated by
Communists and Freemasons, as warned by Our Lady of Fatima, and it is clear
that now the warning has been fulfilled. But something that perhaps no one
expected: a homosexual "Pope" posing as the leader of the Catholic
Church to further attack and attempt to destroy her from within. In March this year (2015) the Vatican
formally hosted one of Britain’s most virulently pro-abortion and
pro-homosexual writers, as well as the head of an American organization
promoting female ordination, at an officially sanctioned event inside Vatican
City walls. Organizers spoke to Vatican Radio as well as the secular press,
praising the new atmosphere within the Church’s leadership that made the
conference possible. The presence of the outside-organized event held inside the
Vatican is being forthrightly hailed by organizers and the secular media as
feminist victory over the traditional stance of the Church. Among the
organizers and speakers were Deborah Rose-Milavec, one of the US’s most
prominent agitators for female ordination, and Tina Beattie, a British
feminist academic notorious for her advocacy for abortion, homosexual
relations, and “gay marriage,” and who once compared the Catholic Mass to
homosexual sex.
Even Moscow has vehemently condemned this. The Patriarch of
Moscow and All Russians, Kirill, warns against the “danger” of feminism,
condemning the existence of a propaganda which encourages women to take on
roles that jeopardise their household and family duties. “I believe that
this phenomenon, feminism as it is called, is very dangerous,” Kirill said in a
speech to an organisation of Ukrainian Orthodox women, the content of which is published
on the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church. “Feminist organisations
proclaim a pseudo-freedom for women, which must be manifested outside of
marriage and the family,” Kirill said, adding that “it is the man's job to take
care of things outside the home; he must work and earn, while the woman's place
is inside the home, looking after the family.” “If this incredibly important
role the woman has is broken, then everything else will collapse along with it:
family and, in a broader sense, the country,” he added.
Hopefully, however, this Satanic plan has never been unnoticed
by an insignificant number of the faithful and church leaders themselves. It
has particularly roiled many conservatives and traditionalists. US Cardinal Raymond
Leo Burke, the former top canon lawyer at the Vatican, now
demoted by Bergoglio himself, is a perfect example of a Church leader who seems
to understand a little about the evil mission of the man called Jorge Mario
Bergoglio. Cardinal
Raymond Burke has warned that Bergoglio’s views had “done
a lot of harm” at a so-called synod on family
life held in October, 2014. Burke went even further in a website interview when
he spoke
out, in no uncertain terms, against what he said was the
“radical feminism which has assaulted the Church and society since the 1960s”,
and which “has left men very marginalized.”
The “heroic nature of manhood” has been lost, the
former archbishop of St. Louis told the online site The New Emangelization, a
magazine whose pun decries what it terms the “man-crisis” in the Catholic
Church today.
“Manly character” and “chivalry” have been obscured
since the church has had “to constantly address women’s issues at the expense
of addressing critical issues important to men,” Burke said.
“Apart from the priest, the sanctuary has become
full of women,” Burke continued. “The activities in the parish and even the
liturgy have been influenced by women and have become so feminine in many
places that men do not want to get involved.”
Beyond the current controversy, his words illustrate the wide
gulf between Jorge Bergoglio and many American bishops, unlike what we witness
in Nigeria among the wolves who masquerade as Catholic Bishops and Cardinals.
The Cardinal, too, suggested that the child sexual
abuse scandals that shattered dioceses around the United States since the past
20 years, came as a result of “feminized men” entering the priesthood, rather
than “manly and confident” men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)