INQUISITION
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • PODCAST
  • ABOUT
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • PODCAST
  • ABOUT

Barnhardt: Canon 188, coercion, substantial error, and why Pope Benedict’s death makes no difference to the relevance of his invalid attempted partial resignation, and the ongoing urgent need to publicly acknowledge the Antipapacy of Jorge Bergoglio.

8/1/2023

Comments

 
Pope Benedict XVI was the ONE and ONLY Vicar of Jesus Christ from April 2005 - December 2022. He reigned for 17 years. Since his death on the 31st of December 2022, the See of Peter has been vacant, and thus we are in a time of sede vacante. Francis IS NOT the Pope, and NEVER has been. At best, all he is is the Bishop of Rome, but is just an ordinary bishop and not the Vicar of Christ. He governs Rome like your local bishop governs his diocese. And now that Benedict has gone to his reward, I can guarantee that the Dictatorship of the Antipope will only get worse. He will most likely double-down on ramming Modernism on the Church, supressing the Latin Mass as much as he possibly can, and issuing illegal and uncanonical decrees against true Catholicism.

​Just remember, there is no such thing as two Popes, or 1.5 Popes. There is only one Pope, and it sure isn't Francis. In theory, after Francis disappears from the scene, the next Conclave should be canonical and the Pope it elects will be the true Pope and the true successor to Benedict. Please God. But also keep in mind that the Church has gone well over two years without a Pope. Several times, in fact. But, contrary to the 1958 Sedevacantists, the Church would never go near 70 years without a Pope. That's just absurd. 

Below is a cross-post from Ann Barnhardt explaining things. She can put into the written word the situation we are in far better than I can. [Original article here]
- The Inquisitor

LifeSite’s full reportage HERE.
Picture
“Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves.”

MASS, IMPOSITION OF THE PALLIUM
AND CONFERRAL OF THE FISHERMAN’S RING
FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE PETRINE MINISTRY
OF THE BISHOP OF ROME

HOMILY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

St. Peter’s Square
Sunday, 24 April 2005


FEAR.

FLEE.

WOLVES.

A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
-Canon 188

​The Pope is bound to Canon Law insomuch as Canon Law is derived from DIVINE AND NATURAL LAW.  All three provisions of Canon 188 are derived from Divine and/or Natural Law.

Canon 188: A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

Okay, just off the top of my head here, Coercion would be against the Fifth Commandment if it involved any threats of violence of death.  It would also be against the Seventh Commandment as a form of stealing; stealing of the Office itself, and possibly stealing of a man’s right to his reputation if threats of detraction are involved (aka blackmail of the guilty).  If the coercion is in the form of blackmailing of the innocent, this would be against the Eighth Commandment because it would be bearing false witness.

Substantial Error:  Can the Pope make 2+2=5?  No.  Can the Pope make any number that is not 1 equal to 1?  Can the Pope make 2 = 1?  Of course not.  This is a clear breaking of the Natural Law, of which arithmetic and logic are subsets.

Simony: To accept a bribe or payoff in exchange for attempting to resign the Papacy would be not merely the coveting of money, but is even moreso a sin of IRRELIGION, a sin against the FIRST COMMANDMENT itself because it is the buying and selling of a spiritual thing, namely, in this case, the exercise of an ecclesiastical jurisdiction – the Papacy itself.

Now here is the $64,000 question:

Do you honestly believe that the Pope has the ability to ABROGATE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and/or THE NATURAL LAW?

If the Law is derivative of GOD HIMSELF, being perfect good, truth and justice, and Jesus Christ EXPLICITLY bound Himself to the Law when He gave Peter the Keys, saying:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven

Does it make any sense whatsoever that the Pope can override the very ESSENCE of God Himself, namely truth, goodness, justice and RATIONALITY? That the Pope can do that which even God Himself cannot and would not do given that God is pure goodness, truth, love and justice?

If so, then what EXACTLY is the stable base upon which EVERYTHING exists?  How can Peter be The Rock if Peter is NOT anchored to The Divine and Natural Laws, which is to say to Christ Himself?  If you take away the Earth (God Himself, the Rational Logos) what, exactly is the Rock (Peter) going to sit upon that The Church is then subsequently built upon?  If the Divine Law is mutable and overridable, and even the Natural Law can be casually tossed aside (any positive integer greater than 1 can equal 1 if it suits the Pope’s error), then how can God be rational?  Is the first verse of St. John’s Gospel, proclaimed at the conclusion of almost every Tridentine Mass, in error?  Is Christ NOT the Word, the LOGOS??

Like I said, this all sounds very, very suspiciously like the islamic political system and its irrational, pure will tyrannical satanic fake deity crap.  Red flag much??  Maybe worth a rethink?

The Pope is absolutely bound by Canon Law insomuch as a given point of Canon Law is simply a derivative recapitulation of Divine or Natural Law, which Canon 188 is in every particular. To argue otherwise (if you can even call it that) is madness, and of the Enemy.

The fact that Pope Benedict has been dead for eight days, or ANY amount of elapsed time, makes absolutely no difference with regards to the importance of publicly acknowledging the situation. TRUTH HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE.

The statement that could end the Bergoglian Antipapacy has not changed a single iota with the death of Pope Benedict, because his earthly presence is not required to adjudicate the validity of the juridical act of the putative resignation that he proffered in February ARSH 2013. Only his words and deeds in February ARSH 2013 are legally germane, and we have a thorough record of that. So, we keep up the good fight to have the TRUTH publicly acknowledged. Let it ALL come out.

“Significant Canonical irregularities have been identified with regards to the putative resignation proffered by Pope Benedict XVI in February of 2013. Pending further investigation, a state of emergency suspense is hereby declared.”

I hope this helps.

Love therefore is the fulfilling of the Law.

​Plenitudo ergo legis est dilectio.
Comments

What the Church teaches on Church and State

9/10/2022

Comments

 
Here's something you'll never hear from a modern bishop.

In his Encyclial Libertas Praestantissimum, Pope Leo XIII teaches us: 

​21. This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness — namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession of one religion is necessary in the State, that religion must be professed which alone is true, and which can be recognized without difficulty, especially in Catholic States, because the marks of truth are, as it were, engraven upon it. This religion, therefore, the rulers of the State must preserve and protect, if they would provide — as they should do — with prudence and usefulness for the good of the community. For public authority exists for the welfare of those whom it governs; and, although its proximate end is to lead men to the prosperity found in this life, yet, in so doing, it ought not to diminish, but rather to increase, man’s capability of attaining to the supreme good in which his everlasting happiness consists: which never can be attained if religion be disregarded.
Comments

The Inquisitor's Diary #2

29/8/2022

Comments

 
Divine Providence

It has been two weeks since my first edition of The Inquisitor’s Diary, and a couple of unexpected events have happened at my workplace that could have only been the work of Divine Providence.

I have noticed in the past few years that, in regard to myself, the Lord seems to precede a good that He is about to bestow upon me by first making me suffer some temporary evil. The Tuesday after I posted my first edition of this Diary, my friend with whom I worked with both at our old company and the new company that we both started at this past May 2022, was suddenly called into the manager’s office and essentially fired. I had no idea that such a meeting had occurred as I was busy trying to fix a minor issue with one of the machines I was using at the time.

My friend storms past me in anger raving about going home due to a mistake, and I have no idea what happened. Suddenly, I get called into the manager’s office and, naturally, think that something bad is about to happen. On the contrary. The manager wanted to let me know why he had to let my friend go, and because he knew we were friends, he wanted to make sure I was in possession of the facts. He knew (and indeed it came to pass) that my friend would give me his version of events, but I already had knowledge of everything. During this meeting, the manager expressed concern that I might follow my friend in leaving. I assured him that I wouldn’t. He ended by reminding me of what he said in my review the Friday prior, namely, that I had impressed everyone, including himself, and that he valued me and didn’t want me to leave. And that was that. Naturally, I was a bit sad that I wouldn’t have my friend to work with anymore.

Fast forward to this Thursday just gone, and I get called into the manager’s office again. This time, he informed me that one of my colleague’s who does all the admin for my shift is moving to the morning shift, and thus the admin post would be vacant. After consulting with my supervisor, he said that I was the first and only candidate he could of think of that would suit the position. I informed him that I did have a background in admin, which he didn’t even realise and that pleased him very much. After providing me with a list of the duties for the position, he asked me if I was interested in the position, and I affirmed I was. And so, I was promoted to the role of administrator. I began my training that very day with my supervisor.

So, the Divine Providence so worked events that after my friend left, I was promoted. I have no doubt that I probably wouldn’t have been promoted if my friend was still there.
 
Forgiving of loans and debts.

A debate has arisen in the US regarding the forgiving of student loans. The Biden Administration is seeking to forgive around $10,000 in student debt for millions of Americans. The Guardian newspaper (a British Leftist newspaper) reports that “[a]bout 43 million Americans have federal student debt, with an average balance of $37,667, according to federal data. A third of those owe less than $10,000. Half owe less than $20,000. The total amount of federal student debt is more than $1.6tn.” That amount, $1.6trillion, is bigger than the Australian economy!

American conservatives claim that such cancellation of debt is essentially Socialist. Perhaps these same conservatives - most, if not all, of whom are purported “Bible believing” Christians - need to re-read their Bibles, for in it they’ll find that God instituted the Jubilee Year amongst the Israelites, which was held every 50 years during which all debts were forgiven. If such forgiveness is Socialist, what does that make God Himself? I think American conservatives need to re-think their argumentation. The casual American use of “Socialist” and “Communist” against anything that isn’t American corporatism or consumerism is rather annoying.

The Church v the Antichurch

Antipope Francis continues his assault on the Bride of Christ. The amount of evil he gets up to is far more than I can write about, but here’s a nugget (aside from his continuing to destroy the Latin Mass and promote his Synod on Synods): He gave the red hat to one Bishop McElroy of the Diocese of San Diego. The said Bishop is a known cover-upper of child sex abuse and has even put a sodomite priest back into parish ministry! Once again, the Antipope shows his true colours. He has no problem promoting evil men to such influential positions in the Church, because he himself is an evil man. Not misguided. Not a bumbling fool. Pure and plain evil. And I’m becoming certain that he really might be the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist.

The Cost of Living Crisis

Once again, we are treated with news of the increasing crisis with the cost of living. Here in the UK, the energy regulator – Ofgem – has increased the energy price cap to near £4,000 a year. We’re told it’ll go up again in 2023. Let us remind ourselves when we hear all this economic doomsaying as to why we are in this situation: aside from the fact that our financial system is literally designed to implode, it isn’t helped by the fact that our respective governments decided to commit economic suicide in 2020 by locking everything down. Anyone with half a brain cell could have predicted the fallout we are now experiencing. But, at the time, it was a conspiracy theory to say such things. Now it’s a conspiracy fact. How ironic.
​
However, such financial crises as these remind us of the sobering fact that we should not put our trust in men, but in the Lord. I have consecrated all my possessions, as well as my finances and myself, to Our Heavenly Mother, asking Her to bless me with good things and with only those things which are conducive to my salvation, and to intercede for me that during these says of uncertainty to, as far as reason and the Lord’s Will permit, to grant me financial stability and to grant me relative comfort. Again, as far as is conducive to my salvation. I’m not asking to be stupidly rich (though chance would be a fine thing). Only to be stable and have – as far as God permits – little to no financial worries. So far, I have found that doing such things as consecrating my possessions to Our Lady actually works. I usually don’t have to worry too much about money. And, as noted above, I’ve been promoted which has the bonus of a slightly bigger salary. I’d highly recommend that you consecrate your possessions and finances to Our Lady. 
Comments

The Inquisitor's Diary #1: Elitist thinking, heatwaves & prepping

14/8/2022

Comments

 
Note: Due to my busy work schedule, I am unable to commit to writing articles every day, or even every other day. Instead, I will collate commentary in a Diary version (something I'm borrowing from a magazine I subscribed to until recently). Each edition will be of varying lengths depending on what I'm commenting on. I will try to include a bit of everything to balance it. I hope you enjoy reading it.

Picture
What the Satanic Elite are planning is totally public

The quote on the left is just one example from an ocean of literature that publicly documents what the Satanic Elite are up to. It sounds awfully like what is going on. 

For nigh two years we were all told to be scared out of our wits about a virus that turned out to not be the Plague 2.0 that it was made out to be. The lockdowns, mask mandates etc., all turned out to be what many of us were saying at the time...destructive and suicidal to the state. The DeathJabs are now proving to be the toxic, deadly, DNA altering poisons we warned people about. And now, inflation is through the roof.

Why? Because prices have gone up. And why have they gone up? Because our collective governments thought it a jolly good idea to print tonnes of money (or at least, press a load of zero's into a database to simulate money) which in turn has devalued our currencies, thus causing prices to go up. Example: my 50p bottle of milk is now £1, not because the quality of the milk has increased, but because my currency has halved in value thanks to government flooding the financial scene with more money. 

Of course, the governments of the now suicidal West are blaming the War in Ukraine on some of the problems. Our energy prices are sky-high because of Russia...even though we actually take very little from them. 

As usual, we are all being fed a lie. The Elites already had the DeathJab waiting for rollout, they just needed an excuse. They already were going to wreck the economy, they just needed a reason. It's Problem-Reaction-Solution: They manufacture a problem, control the public's reaction via media, and then impose the solution they already had waiting. 

UK Heatwave and People's Stupid Response

We are currently experiencing another heatwave in the UK where the temperature is over 30C again. As someone who can't stand anything over 25C, this is akin to being in Hell for me. Ironic, considering that I was recently diagnosed with a Vitamin D deficiency so I am taking Vitamin D supplements. You'd think I'd be out there in the sun for a top up. Alas, I can only tolerate the hot sun for a short while, after which....see ya! 

We're told our recent heatwaves are due to Climate Change. Naturally, if anything happens out of the ordinary with the weather, it's Climate Change. And considering I live in a country where the weather is extremely temperamental at times, that out-of-the-ordinary phenomena is quite frequent. I'm waiting to see if our winter is anything out of the ordinary. If so, the Climate Alarmists will be out in force again. And speaking of Climatism, why is using electricity to warm your home or cool your home bad for the environment, but using that same electricity to charge your Tesla isn't bad for the environment? Another case of the elitist "it's okay when I do it" mentality. 

We are also having a drought, we're told, leading to people panic-buying bottled water. Just stop and think about that for a moment. People are panic-buying bottles of water when they already have drinkable water at home via their taps! And how can we be having a drought when we're an island surrounded on all sides by water?! Hasn't Her Majesty's Government heard of desalination - turning sea water into drinking water? How is it possible that we - the once masters of the seas - can't process sea water? It boggles the mind how we're ruled by such babbling clowns, but then I remember that democracy is a sham and our politicians are puppets installed by the Elite. Just look at Joe Biden, for Heaven's sake!

Housework and Prepping

I have been slowly re-arranging my home and storing things in proper places. Mainly, I have been buying collapsible storages boxes and putting them everywhere. So far, I have used them in the living room and I'm about to set them up in my kitchen. They are fantastic. They are also going to be used in my wardrobes to keep my clothes in neat places.

Whilst tidying up, it sprang into my mind to turn one of my small storage cupboards into a pantry and stockpile foodstuffs. What with the rising prices and no doubt the further break down of supply chains, it may get a bit hairy when one attempts to buy food. So, I've been slowly looking at foods I can buy and which will last for a while. I've been advising friends do the same thing as well. Nothing dramatic, but just quietly prepping for whatever may get thrown against the fan. I'm also stockpiling things like candles, batteries, matches, etc. I am trying to (un-successively) move away from electricity as much as I can. I've even gone to switching my internet off when I leave for work and when I go to bed. I know actually doesn't save much money, but at least it disconnects me from the noise on the interwebs. I have a ton of books to read - both Catholic and secular - and I've gone anywhere near them due to my confessed internet addiction. 


Picture
Bible In A Year
One of the practises I got into and then fell out of as quickly - and which I am struggling to get back into - is the Bible In A Year podcast by Ascension Press. It became the #1 Podcast in the world on Apple. It's literally a priest reading portions of the Bible every day for a year. I did end up buying Ascension Press's Bible and their BIAY Companions. They've now come out with a notebook. I wished they did that earlier as I've already got my own notebooks that I am working in!

I listen to the podcasts on Hallow (see image left), a fantastic Catholic app that has a ton of content. It even has hymns and Gregorian chant for prayer, studying, etc. They also have audio rosaries (I use these as I'm terrible at praying the Rosary by myself and I can also pray along whilst doing chores...especially with my Bluetooth speaker), novena's and even reading challenges. If you don't have Hallow but are interested in the BIAY, you can find the episodes on Youtube. 

Ascension have recently announced that from January 2023, they are doing the Catechism In A Year. I'm still debating on whether follow this podcast, since the recent editing of the Catechism isn't very appealing. And plus, I prefer the older Catechisms are they are much easier to understand and you don't get doctrinal indigestion! The CCC has some rather chunky paragraphs that look extremely unhealthy. A simple question and answer for me, please. 

Next to all that, I have taken up the Imitation of Christ and something called Christ in the Gospel, which is a small book with all the Gospels in chorological order with a reading for each day. It helps me to meditate for a about 15 mins on what Christ did and how He is speaking to me now. 

​
Feast of the week

The 15th August is the Feast of the Assumption. It is the principal feast of Our Lady, as it the crowning of all her graces and the epitome of her glory. On this day, Our Lady was assumed, body and soul, by her Divine Son into the glories of Heaven, to the praises and singing of the Angelic Host whereupon, as follows the Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary, she was crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth. Here in England, we are celebrating the feast twice: on Sunday as an External Solemnity and on Monday as the Feast Proper. 

The 16th August is the feast of St. Joachim, the Father of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Grandfather of Jesus Christ. He and his wife, St. Anne, lived in Nazareth. They were old in years and were sort of derided for having no children: a sign of God's judgment in Jewish culture. After much prayer, St. Anne eventually conceived the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin by Almighty God in view of her great role as the Mother of God. Thus, St. Joachim was the Grandfather of God, and no doubt spent many happy days with his Divine Grandson. May he intercede for all fathers and grandfathers, especially those who have no children, that they may be blessed by Almighty God, if not with children, then with an abundance of grace and a happy and holy marriage. 

Comments

Kantianism - The Philosophical Mush of Modern Western Thought

1/8/2022

Comments

 
One of the fundamental foundations to modern Western philosophy is Transcendental Idealism. It is a philosophical system founded by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 1700's. 

Kant's philosophy argues that "the conscious subject cognizes the objects of experience not as they are in themselves, but only the way they appear to us under the conditions of our sensibility. Thus Kant's doctrine restricts the scope of our cognition to appearances given to our sensibility and denies that we can possess cognition of things as they are in themselves, i.e. things as they are independently of how we experience them through our cognitive faculties." 

In layman's terms, Kant argued - against the standard philosophy at the time rooted in that of the great Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas - that man cannot know what objects actually are. An example to help illustrate:

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, when a man observes a door, his senses independently pick up the appearances of the door, such as what it looks like, how it sounds, what it feels like, what it may smell like, and even what it may taste like if he were to lick it. These appearances - called "sensible phenomena" in philosophical jargon, or appearances as they are received by the senses - then carry to the intellect (a faculty of the soul) where the intellect connects the data together to form an understanding of the door. The same is true if one looks at any object. We all know, for example, of what a tree is, or what a cat is, etc. In short, our minds conform to the reality of the object we are focused on.

Kant, on the other hand, would claim that despite our senses picking up the phenomena of the door, we can't really say it's a door since we can't see past the sensible phenomena. In other words, the door may not actually be a door. It may actually be, in substance, a jellyfish. An outrageous claim, but you get the point. If Kant were alive today, he might say that if the door were a living, rational being, it might not identify as a door. Now, can you see where this is leading to, yet?

Yet, in a strange twist, even though in principle Kant would deny that the door is actually a door, in practise he would admit it's a door, since he would have to use the door to enter or exit the room. He already knows he can't walk through the walls! So, what we have with Kant is a philosophical mush that says, in effect: The door is only a door when I need it to be a door. Otherwise, I don't know what it is (again, sound familiar?). 

Fast-forward to today, and we can see the effects of Kant's mush on society. Three extremely apropos examples of Kant in action:

1. The worshippers of Moloch (i.e. pro-aborts) will claim that the growth inside a woman's womb isn't a human baby, but only a clump of cells. Therefore, it can be sliced and diced and sucked up a tube. However, when the abortionist needs to sell the organs of this clump of cells, he doesn't market them as the organs of a clump of cells, he markets them as the organs of a human baby. Thus, the baby only becomes a baby when the abortionist needs it to be a baby in order to sells its organs. Otherwise, it's just a clump of cells. 

2. Leftists today are unable to define what a woman is. We hear them tell us this (ironically, including women!). Yet, if you shut down abortion, all of a sudden these same Leftists will accuse you of attacking women's rights, even though they don't know what a woman is. ​Or rather, they will only define womanhood when it's convenient to promote abortion or feminism, but otherwise they can't define womanhood. (Question: if a transwoman (man-into-woman) can't define what a woman is, how do they know if they've become a woman?)

3. The Transgender movement claim that gender doesn't exist. Yet, they also claim that you can change your gender and even identify as one of a hundred genders - even though gender doesn't exist. Rather, gender only exists when they need it to exist in order to promote their abhorrent ideology (have you watched What Is A Woman?).

Thus, we see how Kantianism is the bedrock of Leftist Ideology. Its premise is the total rejection of reality - except when reality is needed to promote some perverse cause. This waxing in and out of reality is sure to contribute to the global insanity we observe all around us. And this thought has infected all facets of societal life, most especially politics. 

We see, then, that from a human point-of-view, total mush being pushed as serious philosophy has driven modern man completely bonkers, laying the foundation for Leftism and then feeding it afterward. The antidote is for a return to St. Thomas Aquinas and his philosophy that is rooted in Reality - which is none other than Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. As I often say, the further away from Catholicism a man strays, the more insane he becomes. 

St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
​Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us and set right our minds!
Comments

We are beyond Diabolical Disorientation. We're in Diabolical Insanity!

14/5/2022

Comments

 
The world has gone insane. 

Of course, that is obvious to anyone with eyes and ears. The news daily reminds us of how insane the world has become. This insanity has spread like a disease into every sector of life: politics, media, education, entertainment, sports, even the Church. At some point during any given week, there will be something even more insane being reported on. Some of the things that go on in the world look like they took inspiration from The Babylon Bee (an excellent satirical site, I may add). But who is responsible for all this insanity? 

Satan. Duh!

I am currently doing the Bible In A Year plan by Ascension Press. On Day 2, where we read about the Fall of Mankind in the Garden of Eden, I saw something that I hadn't taken note of from previous readings of the text. The moment Satan is allowed a foothold in human society, he immediately begins to collapse it. When Adam and Eve permitted Satan influence into their society, what happened? They ate the fruit which God had forbidden to them and they immediately fell from grace and were now in a state of original sin.

Thus, they were punished with not only death, but also their banishment from the Garden, amongst other penances. After this, we are introduced to their son Cain who becomes the father of murderers after he commits fratricide against Abel due to the fact that the Most High accepted Abel's sacrifice but not Cain's. Of course, these two events - the Fall and Murder of Abel - happened years apart, but the Bible conveniently shortens the time for us (thank You, Holy Spirit!). Cain and Abel didn't exit Eve's womb fully formed and matured like Athena did from Zeus's head.

Throughout the Old Testament, we are repeatedly shown how society collapses very quickly when Satan is allowed to influence it. It got really bad after the Monarchical Schism, when the United Kingdom of Israel broke into the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah. Whilst Judah remained mostly loyal to the True God, the Kingdom of Israel had nothing but a constant apostasy.

The Kingdom of Israel was heavily influenced by the heathenism of its neighbours, whom the Israelites married. They went through a bad epoch where they engaged in child sacrifice and had a witch-king for a prince. They became a society under the close grip of Satan, oppressed and obsessed by him to such a degree that they went insane. That's the only word to describe how any person, particularly a mother, could willingly throw a baby into a fire in sacrifice to a deity that looked like it literally crawled out of Hell! And Israel isn't the only example. Look at the Aztecs, for example. Just watch Mel Gibson's Apocalypto to see what happened to those poor heathens. 

And it's happening all over again in our own age. We are witnessing the collapse all over again, only this time it could the last time. As in the rise of Antichrist and then the Day of Judgement.

The pagan practises of the past have returned, only this time it's all made up to look scientific, modern, and free of religion and superstition. Example: instead of priests throwing screaming children into bonfires in worship of Moloch, modern pagans go to an abortion clinic and a doctor dissects the baby alive and sucks it up through a vacuum. Its organs may be sold for a profit. The priest is replaced by a doctor, the bonfire for the abortion instruments, and the temple for the clinic. The same could be said for sodomy. It's now presented as a legitimate, alternative lifestyle, with a flag, a holiday and all the rest. But, sodomy was almost always connected to sex rites for some deranged, sex-pervert of a god. 

All Satan has done is taken good, old-fashioned paganism and dressed it up for a more "sophisticated" society. Neo-paganism is now the religion of the vast majority of the population. And it requires no outward profession of religion, so it's perfect for atheists. 

But, how does Satan collapse society? It's very simple.

Think of the four stages of Extraordinary Diabolic Activity: Infestation, Oppression, Obsession and Possession. Firstly, Satan (and his demons) infests a society and begins the process of influencing it. Secondly, after said society is infested enough, he moves to Oppression, whereby he begins to visibly inflict society. Thirdly, he then moves to Obsession, whereby he causes society to obsess about evil. Lastly, once obsessed enough, he takes Possession of the society. The perfect fulfilment of all this will be, of course, the Kingdom of Antichrist.

In my opinion, we are now at the Obsession stage. Society is obsessed by constant evil. The words of Scripture can be applied to us today: Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth (Genesis 6: 11-12). Anyone who has seen what's happened as of late in the United States since the leaking of the judgment of the US Supreme Court to de-legalise abortion and return the decision to the States, can see how obsessed people are with utter evil. Oppose abortion and a group of frothing Molochians will come screaming after you like you were a Prophet sent by God. Oppose sodomy, and sodomites will rage at you like the Sodomites of old did against Lot. Oppose transgenderism and the heathens will have you cancelled. 

Oppose any Leftist movement or destroy their arguments, and they will come after you like the religious fanatics they actually are. These poor lemmings are the result of being quite literally under the oppression of the Devil. They have lost the ability to think, reason or even communicate in most cases. They are jibbering fools. They are, literally, zombies. And of course, they are cannibalistic and go after their own kind who aren't as "woke" as they are, or who are not on the right bandwagon. They are insane. And insane people are dangerous, as the Left daily remind us. 

And any society that goes after children either to murder them or to abuse them is clearly under the influence of the demonic. 

Secular political commentators, even conservative ones, are at a loss as to what's happening because they won't accept the basic fact that the world is in the grip of the Preternatural, the Demonic. Satan is collapsing society at such a rate, that it's a free-falling as the Twin Towers on 9/11. Society dethroned Christ the King and enthroned Satan. And this is the result. 

Sister Lucia of Fatima once said that society was under Diabolical Disorientation. That was then. We are far beyond that now. We are in the realm of Diabolical Insanity!
Comments

Read this and then tell me with a straight face that Covid and its subsequent "pandemic" wasn't planned

29/1/2022

Comments

 
Below is a screen-shot of a summary of Event 201, held in October 2019, funded and organised by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Apart from a few differences, it is a blueprint for exactly what happened not long after.

Read this and then tell me with a straight face that Covid and its subsequent "pandemic" wasn't planned. LINK HERE TO ACTUAL ARTICLE. 
Picture
Comments

Yes, there are people that stupid that they'll advance their opponents' cause whilst simultaneously destroying their own cause

4/9/2021

Comments

 
This is not the first time a Leftist has made this suggestion. I believe Alyssa Milano made a similar suggestion a while ago. Now, you should all see the irony in this statement. If women stop having sex, then they'll stop having pregnancies (especially unwanted pregnancies). If they stop having unwanted pregnancies, then they'll have no need to have abortions, thus resulting in abortion companies going out of business. 

With pro-aborts like this, who needs pro-lifers?!
Picture
Comments

You HAVE to watch Dr Lee Merritt!!!

1/9/2021

Comments

 
Share this video as much as you can!!!
Comments

Pretty damning, really

31/8/2021

Comments

 
These articles are pretty damning. 

Fully DeathJabbed people are super-spreaders, have 251 times viral load and are 13 times as likely to be infected. Oh, and natural immunity is FAR superior to artificial immunity. It's as if God knew what He was doing when He designed the human immune system!

You can read these articles HERE, HERE and HERE. 

And don't forget that last week in Japan, 1.6 million doses of the Moderna DeathJab (you just may want to read about that Big Pharma Company) were pulled when it was discovered they were contaminated with some sort of substance that reacts to magnets. Now, a week later, they've found more Moderna doses contaminated with black and pink substances.

Don't ever forget that the people behind all of this are Diabolical Narcissists who have absolutely no qualms about killing people - or at least maiming them - in the most satanic manner possible. Their desire to commit global genocide on the 7 billion people on this earth makes the genocides of Hitler, Stalin and Mao look like an accident! 

And, just like magic, we now have yet ANOTHER variant coming out of South Africa. 

And the UK (my country) has admitted that two-thirds (2/3) of people infected with the Delta variant are, what for it.....VACCINATED!

These variants are most likely, in my most humble opinion, being caused by the DeathJabs. Don't forget, the DeathJabs contain 40 trillion spike protein particles. These spike proteins enter your cells, causing irreparable damage to them. Just realise that the DeathJabs are doing the exact same thing as the actual virus is doing. They are injecting DNA/mRNA into your cells, doing only God knows what. The new South African variant is very much immune to antibodies, apparently. Mmm, I wonder why that might be. Because it came from a DeathJab, maybe? Don't be surprised if new variants become more immune to the DeathJabs, or if - please God - it comes out eventually that many of these new variants are indeed CAUSED by the DeathJabs. 

The evidence is pretty clear, folks. The DeathJabs don't do what normal vaccines are supposed to, and they are dangerous! And people are so stoopid now that they can't see the obvious contradiction in front of their faces anymore: if you are told that in order to return to freedom you must take an experimental, DNA changing drug, then you don't have freedom! Duh!

God help us all!
Picture
Picture
Picture
Comments

Fully jabbed are experiencing rising infections as well as being superspreaders with high viral loads

29/8/2021

Comments

 
Full Reuters article can be read here. 

Sort of begs the question, doesn't it? The Forbidden Question. The Question That Must Not Be Asked.

Do The Jabs actually work? 

Apparently, they don't. And not only do they not work (well, not in the way normal vaccines work, anyway), but the CDC in the US admits that vaccinated people are "superspreaders carrying deadly variants and high viral loads". 

Let's not also forget that The Jab also can cause right side heart failure and thus.....DEATH. 
Picture
Picture
Comments

Know the difference between the true Pope and the Antipope

16/8/2021

Comments

 
Too many Catholics online seem completely confused about what is happening in the Church at present. And why wouldn't they be? Many of them either cannot or will not accept the reality of the situation the Church finds Herself. It is not hard to understand what is happening, and once you accept the truth, everything will fall into place very quickly and everything will become crystal clear to understand. 

1) In February 2013, Pope Benedict XVI attempted a partial abdication of the Apostolic See that was wholly uncanonical and invalid. Thus, according to both Canon and civil law, the situation in the Church automatically reverted ipso facto to the very second before the attempted abdication, namely, that Pope Benedict XVI was and still is to this very second the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the one and only Pope. 

2) The Conclave of March 2013 that elected Jorge Bergoglio as Francis was entirely and canonically invalid since we already have a legitimate reigning Pontiff. Thus, Jorge Bergoglio is nothing other than an Antipope and a usurper of the Throne of Peter. Since he is an Antipope, everything Francis has done (including his extremely schismatic and illegal near-abolition of the Traditional Latin Mass) is invalid and unlawful. 

3) Antipope Francis has proven time and again in the most in-your-face and dramatical fashion possible that he is an heresiarch, a schismatic, an idolater, a Modernist, an apostate, an enemy of Catholicism and thus an enemy of Jesus Christ Himself. His manifest evil is not the cause of him being an Antipope, but clear evidence that he isn't Catholic in any way, shape or form - save that he is baptised. If the Conclave of 2013 was valid, Francis still couldn't be the true Pope since he isn't even Catholic! 

4) Antipope Francis is quite possibly the False Prophet who heralds the coming of the Antichrist, and it is evident that he is helping to erect the False Church of the Antichrist, becoming the "Pope" of the One World Religion of the Kingdom of Antichrist. If he isn't the False Prophet, he is aping him to perfection. 

5) God is so good, that He shines the beauty of His Light upon the darkness of Satan's schemes, revealing to all with eyes to see what is really happening. There is no excuse to know the truth. Jesus Christ isn't a jerk and will NEVER, EVER keep anyone in confusion - only Satan does that. Every heretical, blasphemous and schismatic thing or word that proceeds from Antipope Francis is another proof from Almighty God of the sad but real situation of Holy Mother Church. 

6) Remember: the organ that speaks from Rome, from the Vatican, from the very Tomb of the thrice-blessed Prince of the Apostles ISN'T the True Church of Jesus Christ. The Church of Christ would never teach the blasphemies that daily pour out of the occupied, usurped Vatican. Believe only that which has been always taught in the Church, not the heretical novelties that come out of the Antipope's mouth. 

Study the imagine below well. Be able to tell the difference between the Pope (left) from the Antipope (right):

Picture
Pope Benedict XVI (left) in Papal Regalia seated upon the Papal Throne; Antipope Francis (right) devoid of Papal Regalia seated upon a chair. Know the difference between the true Pope and the Antipope.
Comments

Covid DeathJab causes symptoms of clotting within ONE WEEK of injection & right side heart failure and death within THREE YEARS!!!

31/7/2021

Comments

 
From Ann Barnhardt:​
​

Summary of the nine minute video clip below:


-40 trillion mRNA spike protein particles per injection, which spread throughout the entire body

-Each particle bonds to interior wall of capillaries causing the interior surface of the entire vascular system to become rough like sandpaper instead of the natural smooth blood vessel lining, on the capillary level

-Body reacts by forming clots and blocking the injured vessels and capillaries. This process is permanent and irreversible

-Micro-clotting of capillaries is invisible to scans, only the D-Dimer test shows that clotting is happening in the body on a micro level, but not where it is happening

-Micro-clotting in the lungs causes increased pressure on the right side of the heart which must pump against the blocked capillaries in the lungs. Right side heart failure generally occurs within three years when this pulmonary micro-clotting occurs

-62% of injected people are returning positive D-Dimer tests

“Entire nations will be annihilated. The living will envy the dead.” -The Mother of God
Comments

Antipope Francis moves to abolish the Mass as codified by Pope St. Pius V

19/7/2021

Comments

 
On the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (Friday 16th July) 2021, Antipope Francis issued a Motu Proprio and an accompanying letter in which he illegally and uncanonically bans the Holy Mass as celebrated in its Latin form since the 4th century and codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570. 

That's right: Antipope Francis issued a letter giving the Modernist episcopacy the right the illegally BAN the Traditional Latin Mass in their dioceses. And you can bet that a large majority will do just that. I've already read several articles and posts detailing how some bishops, within hours, sent out a communique to their dioceses informing them that the TLM will be heavily restricted to the point of it being effectively banned. 

I knew this was coming. I could see the logical consequence of having an heretical, Modernist, apostate Antipope defecating over the sacred Throne of St. Peter. This is just more clear, in-your-face evidence that Francis is not now, and NEVER has been, the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Short of the Lord wrenching open the heavens and audibly declaring Francis is an Antipope, this is as clear as it can be. 

The only man on earth who IS the Vicar of Jesus Christ and the Successor of St. Peter is Pope Benedict XVI, because - I repeat - his abdication in 2013 was invalid. Benedict has been the one, sole Pope since April 2005. That's 16 years as Pope! 

And just to let you know: the Mass as codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570 can NEVER be banned or abolished. In his Bull, Quo Primum, the saintly Pontiff said:


“We grant in perpetuity that this Missal is hereafter freely and lawfully to be used, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty or censure…

No one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should anyone dare to contravene it, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”
​

Pope St. Pius V invoked the wrath of Almighty God AND of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, the Protectors of Rome and of the Church, against ANYONE who contravened his Bull. Let that sink in...

From this point onwards, anyone who still refuses to come to terms with the truth - that Francis is an Antipope and that Benedict XVI has been, since April 2005, the one and only Vicar of Jesus Christ - is not only aiding and abetting the Usurpation of the Holy Church, but they are a conspiracy theorist. It IS a conspiracy against the Holy Father Benedict XVI to claim that he isn't the true, lawful and visible Head of the Church on earth. 

Below is the entire English translation of Quo Primum. Read it well! 

​And here are two posts from Ann Barnhardt and Catholic Family News. 
Picture
PIUS BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR A PERPETUAL REMEMBRANCE

THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION QUO PRIMUM
OF OUR MOST HOLY LORD, ST. PIUS V, 
ON PROMUGLATING THE TRIDENTINE LITURGY

A.D. 1570
From the very first, upon Our elevation to the chief Apostleship, We gladly turned our mind and energies and directed all our thoughts to those matters which concerned the preservation of a pure liturgy, and We strove with God’s help, by every means in our power, to accomplish this purpose. For, besides other decrees of the sacred Council of Trent, there were stipulations for Us to revise and re-edit the sacred books: the Catechism, the Missal and the Breviary. With the Catechism published for the instruction of the faithful, by God’s help, and the Breviary thoroughly revised for the worthy praise of God, in order that the Missal and Breviary may be in perfect harmony, as fitting and proper – for its most becoming that there be in the Church only one appropriate manner of reciting the Psalms and only one rite for the celebration of Mass – We deemed it necessary to give our immediate attention to what still remained to be done, viz, the re-editing of the Missal as soon as possible.

Hence, We decided to entrust this work to learned men of our selection. They very carefully collated all their work with the ancient codices in Our Vatican Library and with reliable, preserved or emended codices from elsewhere. Besides this, these men consulted the works of ancient and approved authors concerning the same sacred rites; and thus they have restored the Missal itself to the original form and rite of the holy Fathers. When this work has been gone over numerous times and further emended, after serious study and reflection, We commanded that the finished product be printed and published as soon as possible, so that all might enjoy the fruits of this labor; and thus, priests would know which prayers to use and which rites and ceremonies they were required to observe from now on in the celebration of Masses.

Let all everywhere adopt and observe what has been handed down by the Holy Roman Church, the Mother and Teacher of the other churches, and let Masses not be sung or read according to any other formula than that of this Missal published by Us. This ordinance applies henceforth, now, and forever, throughout all the provinces of the Christian world, to all patriarchs, cathedral churches, collegiate and parish churches, be they secular or religious, both of men and of women – even of military orders – and of churches or chapels without a specific congregation in which conventual Masses are sung aloud in choir or read privately in accord with the rites and customs of the Roman Church. This Missal is to be used by all churches, even by those which in their authorization are made exempt, whether by Apostolic indult, custom, or privilege, or even if by oath or official confirmation of the Holy See, or have their rights and faculties guaranteed to them by any other manner whatsoever.

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.

It is Our will, therefore, and by the same authority, We decree that, after We publish this constitution and the edition of the Missal, the priests of the Roman Curia are, after thirty days, obliged to chant or read the Mass according to it; all others south of the Alps, after three months; and those beyond the Alps either within six months or whenever the Missal is available for sale. Wherefore, in order that the Missal be preserved incorrupt throughout the whole world and kept free of flaws and errors, the penalty for non-observance for printers, whether mediately or immediately subject to Our dominion, and that of the Holy Roman Church, will be the forfeiting of their books and a fine of one hundred gold ducats, payable ipso facto to the Apostolic Treasury. Further, as for those located in other parts of the world, the penalty is excommunication latae sententiae, and such other penalties as may in Our judgment be imposed; and We decree by this law that they must not dare or presume either to print or to publish or to sell, or in any way to accept books of this nature without Our approval and consent, or without the express consent of the Apostolic Commissaries of those places, who will be appointed by Us. Said printer must receive a standard Missal and agree faithfully with it and in no wise vary from the Roman Missal of the large type (secundum magnum impressionem).

Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Would anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at St. Peter’s in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.
Comments

Commentary #15 of 2021 -  Ann Barnhart: VISIBILITY, VISIBILITY, VISIBILITY: God is SO GOOD that Antipope Bergoglio, the likely False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist, is literally publicly devoted to JUDAS ISCARIOT.

7/4/2021

Comments

 
Full repost from Ann Barnhardt. Original post here. 
--------------------
​
Salvation is an OPEN BOOK TEST, folks.  God is not trying to trick anyone or pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.  The sheep don’t need any “secret knowledge” or joke degrees to know who’s who and what’s what.  All you need is love of God and to be in a state of grace so that you aren’t blinded by your own sin.  Remember, sin makes you stupid, no matter how high your IQ.  Sin throws your transmission into neutral, so that no horsepower can get to the axle.

EVERYTHING is out in the open.
​
Antipope Bergoglio brags about having a picture of Judas Iscariot, HANGED, hanging over his desk.  Now, we see that Antipope Bergoglio had the Vatican Newspaper publish their Good Friday edition DEDICATED TO PRAISING AND CANONIZING Judas Iscariot, complete with homoerotica. This is not satire.

The 2021 Good Friday edition of the Vatican's newspaper was dedicated to praising Judas. On the front page was a naked Jesus tenderly ministering to a dead Judas, & featured commentaries stated that Judas was forgiven & that Christ owes His glory to him. https://t.co/kIreZ9WMma pic.twitter.com/4AwssZ5iCv

— Tradition in Action (@TraditionAction) April 5, 2021

​Jorge Bergoglio isn’t the Pope, and never was.  This simply CANNOT be any clearer. Antipope Jorge Bergoglio is a criminal usurper, a manifest apostate who is tasked, as all Freemasons are, with the total destruction and annihilation of the One True Church from the face of the earth, accomplished by the overthrow and destruction of the Papacy, and the erection of an Antichurch which is Freemasonic and in total servitude to Lucifer.

The guy is LITERALLY publishing his devotion to the BETRAYER OF CHRIST with homoerotic images of Jesus, nude, kneeling at Judas’ corpse, claiming that Christ OWES HIS GLORY… to Judas Iscariot.

This is straight out of Satanism.  This is TOTAL INVERSION. Again, THIS IS SATANISM.

Pope Benedict’s resignation in February ARSH 2013 was canonically invalid. Pope Benedict never resigned the Petrine Office, and thus has never stopped being the Pope.  The thing that looked like a conclave in March ARSH 2013 was totally null and void.  Bergoglio is an Antipope, which most orthodox Catholics now realize.  What even more are realizing is that Antipope Bergoglio isn’t just one among the dozens of antipopes in the 2000 year history of the Church – he is very likely the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist, and these are probably the End Times.

Fast. Pray. Go to Confession.  Stay in a state of grace.  Stay close to the Blessed Virgin, the Co-Redemptrix, most especially through her most holy Rosary.

Pray for Pope Benedict, the Papacy, and Holy Mother Church, the spotless and undefiled Body and Bride of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

Comments

Commentary #14 of 2021: Once you understand the spiritual nature of what's going on, you won't be confused

6/4/2021

Comments

 
​Many people I listen to are somewhat confused as to why so many people are rabid about Covid. Two main reasons rise to give answer:

1. Covidism is a religion. A new secular religion. It has priests (gov't) who imposed laws to be obeyed without question. Those who rebel are deemed heretics - or Covidiots, as they are called - and are to be excommunicated and punished.

2. Four simple words that explain everything: Sin. Makes. You. Stupid. The Church teaches that sin darkens the intellect. The more a soul is burdened by sin - especially unrepentant mortal sin - the more the intellect is darkened. Practically every single irrational thing going on today - from Far Left anarchy (Antifa, BLM, Transgenderism, &c) to Covidism - is a product of the fact that most people are being made stupid due to sin. Stand in the street and I guarantee that the majority of the people passing you, whether on foot or in transport, are literally being driven insane by their sins.

And this extends to Catholics as well. We see today insanity in the Church. Why are the bishops so ready to bow to Caesar? Sin. Many bishops are faithless heathens who place their trust in things other than the Lord of Justice. As the Church Doctor's teach, there is only so much sin God will overlook before He smites down the wicked. And what awe fills one's eyes to see how He has thus punished His people!

If only these bishops had been reminded of what Pope Boniface VIII wrote, namely, that the Church is ALWAYS superior to the State. The spiritual sword is greater than the temporal sword. And they should have followed the example of St. Charles Borromeo, who, when the plague struck Milan, held Mass in the streets for the people, stuck in their homes, to attend from their windows, and priests sitting in the streets ready to hear confessions. He did what he could to make sure no one was without the sacraments in their hour of need, and ordered for priests to offer Masses to entreat the Lord to remove the plague from the city, which He graciously did in time.

Did any bishop do this? No. Instead they shut the churches and effectively imposed an interdict on the innocent. They cared more about their lives than the salvation of souls. Thank God He sent this upon us, to show us that the Church is filled from floor to rafters with wolves!

Remember: Sin makes you stupid. And this is what Satan is using to cover the world with Diabolical Disorientation. And when you look at what is going on in the Vatican, you see that very evidently. Rome is now a den of devils as she was during her heathen days.

Just read Ann Barnhardt to see a bit of the horrid truth:

https://www.barnhardt.biz/.../my-encounter-with-the.../
https://www.barnhardt.biz/.../mailbag-gay-cruising-in-st.../
​

Salvation from this veil of tears comes only from the Lord Jesus Christ through His Catholic, Apostolic & Roman Church. Not from government. Not from some pretended vaccine. Not from anyone or anything else. I will not stand in judgment over those who take the vaccine or not. But do not think it any form of liberation. The fact that you can still get Covid after vaccination, and the government here in the UK are saying that even after vaccination some restrictions (read: ALL restrictions) may (read: WILL) remain proves that.
​
And the way the world is going, I stand in agreement with Ann Barnhardt: I do not expect to die a natural death. I expect to be martyred for my faith in Jesus Christ. And if the Lord so wills it, I pray that I will have the courage to embrace it, secured with the knowledge I have received the Last Sacraments by God's mercy and that I stand in the unshakable bosom of my Holy Mother the Church.
Comments

Don't let anyone lie to you: CHRIST IS TRULY RISEN! Happy Eastertide to you all. Remember, Easter is 50 days long. Rejoice each day in the Victory of Christ!

6/4/2021

Comments

 
Picture
Comments

Commentary # 13 of 2021: Frank talk about the T's & P's

13/3/2021

Comments

 
Picture
Little girls are also kinky.....No, that isn't a joke. Non of this is a joke. Not one bit of it is funny.  

As I have repeatedly stated, paedophilia is fast becoming the new "sexual orientation" to be ratified by the LGBT agenda. And the LGBT was only ever a means to an end: the destruction of sexual morality and ethics. And the Transgender movement was only a means to push paedophilia into the public and into ratification.

FULL STOP.
PERIOD.
THE END.

Anyone who supports the Transgender argument that biological sex doesn't exist is quite literally supporting an argument that claims that you don't exist. It's literal suicide of personage. 

Think about this logically. 

What is a homosexual? It is a biological man who has sexual attraction toward another biological man. Such men claim they have certain rights based on that. But, what if you're not really a biological man? And your partner was also not a biological man? Now what are you? And where are you "gay" rights? Well, they don't exist anymore, do they? And not only do they not exist anymore, but homosexuals also don't exist anymore. This is literal suicide of the person. It is also insane. Gay men run around boasting of certain rights they claim to have, whilst also at the same time supporting and promoting an argument that literally says that gay men don't actually exist! 

The same for anyone who supports the "biological sex doesn't exist" agenda. Feminists who support this argument are actually supporting an agenda that claims that women don't exist. Your very person doesn't exist. 

The equivalence to this would be a community of Jews accepting Nazis into their group (for fear of being Nazi-phobic) and subscribing to the Nazis' idea that Jews aren't persons and thus don't exist. Where do you think that ends up? Well, sadly, we know from history where that ended up.

And don't ever, ever, EVER think that that can't happen again because we are "enlightened". I should think that what has taken place around the supposed "free West" has proven that we aren't as rational, intelligent, or enlightened as we pretend to think we are. 

And another thing: leftist agendas are self destructive and cannibalistic. As the Transgender agenda has proven. The L,G,B's (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals) are now being cannibalised by the T's. All of those movements to get governments to sanction their unnatural sexual lifestyles have now ended up being dominated by a new agenda that says all those L,G and B's actually don't exist: not them, not their "orientations" and not their "rights". 

And via the T's, the P's will now be annexed to the Empire of Sexual Perversion. 

I'm waiting for the day when "paedophobia" will become a thing. And where criticising adults raping children will be a crime. It's coming....faster than you think. 

Now, look at that quote again and tell me with a straight face that we don't deserve literal damnation from Almighty God for what we have done! You want to know why civilisation is collapsing?! Take a look at that quote! There's your answer! 

Remember: God said He wouldn't destroy the world with a flood. But He never said He wouldn't destroy the world again. 
Comments

Commentary #12 of 2021 - BARNHARDT: Eight years ago today, in a packed Piazza San Pietro, Pope Benedict made it clear that he was not validly resigning the Papacy.

27/2/2021

Comments

 
Below is a mirror of Ann Barnhardt's post (original HERE) on the eighth anniversary of Pope Benedict XVI publicly declaring in St. Peter's Square at his last public general audience that his resignation wasn't really a resignation of the Papacy, but just the resignation of the active governance of the Church. In plainer English, he didn't give up being the Pope, only the day-to-day running of the Church; ergo, he still retains the Office of the Papacy meaning HE'S THE POPE, AND ONLY HE IS THE POPE!

When King George III went through his bouts of madness, did he stop being the King because he couldn't rule? Nope. Instead, his son George became Prince-Regent on behalf of his father. George III was still the King, only he couldn't exercise his royal authority. Likewise, what Benedict XVI did was step down from his exercising his authority, not actually give up being the Pope. 

What gets me is that not one single Cardinal, theologian nor canon lawyer understood - and still do not understand - what Benedict XVI actually did, nor that his attempted resignation is contrary to Canon Law! Just shows how worthless those degrees in Canon Law are if their owners cannot understand the very law they are "experts" in!

 - The Inquisitor

​Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger, almost certainly despairing and very possibly coerced by the saturation of sodomites and Freemasons infecting the Vatican, and now it has also come to light, the Chinese Communist Party, college of bishops, and institutional Church as a whole, held his so-called “final audience” on a beautiful late winter afternoon in Rome.  To use a chess analogy, Pope Benedict XVI looked at the board and believed that he, the “white king”, was not only in check, but that EVERY PIECE ON THE BOARD, INCLUDING PIECES THAT HE PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT WERE “WHITE”, WERE ACTUALLY “BLACK” AS WELL. 

Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation was canonically invalid.

Pope Benedict XVI himself made this perfectly clear in his “last audience” on 27 February, ARSH 2013, and it was reconfirmed WITH HIS APPROVAL on 20 May ARSH 2016 by his personal secretary (and incredibly suspicious character) Archbishop Georg Ganswein in a speech at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome laying out Pope Benedict’s mindset vis-a-vis his failed partial-resignation.  To deny the clarity of these words is FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST. As in, you have to LIE in order to argue that these words mean anything other than their plain meaning.  In my experience, every person who has made this argument is FINANCIALLY DEPENDENT UPON THE INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH IDEOLOGY, be it for a salaried position, paid editorial writing gigs, a pension, or donations/blegging. To deny objective reality is pretty much the textbook definition of having no integrity.

The “always” is also a “for-ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. 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.Pope Benedict XVI, “Final” Wednesday Audience, 27 February, ARSH 2013
——————————————–
Archbishop Gänswein…said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”

He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’. (Not in its “Office”, the governance of the Church in the world, but in its “essentially spiritual nature”, through prayer and suffering.)

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“ (Do you see how this echoes Benedict’s erroneous idea of the papal coronation being an irreversible event, creating an indelible/irrevocable mark on the recipient forever? It’s exactly the same idea Benedict put forth in his final general audience).

“Therefore he has also not retired to a monastery in isolation but stays within the Vatican — as if he had taken only one step to the side to make room for his successor and a new stage in the history of the papacy.” With that step, he said, he has enriched the papacy with “his prayer and his compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.”

Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger WAS AND IS IN SUBSTANTIAL ERROR, and thus, per Canon 188, his resignation was INVALID BY THE LAW ITSELF.

Since his attempted partial-resignation was made in SUBSTANTIAL ERROR and was thus INVALID, this BY DEFINITION MEANS that the status quo was maintained – THERE WAS NO CHANGE FROM 28 FEBRUARY to 1 MARCH ARSH 2013 in the occupancy status nor the occupant of the See of Peter.  To argue that the law would allow for an INVALID resignation to lead to a vacation of the Petrine See is FLATLY IRRATIONAL, and would utterly negate the entire principle of validity qua validity.  If the principle of validity falls, or is declared “unimportant” with regard to Canon 188 and the identity of WHO THE VICAR OF CHRIST IS, then validity also is “unimportant” with regards to marriage, and consecration of the Eucharist.  Sauce for the Goose, gentlemen.

Given that Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation was INVALID BY THE LAW ITSELF, it is absolutely essential to understand and acknowledge that THIS IS THE ONE AND ONLY PREMISE UPON WHICH THE REMOVAL OF ANTIPOPE BERGOGLIO CAN BE BASED UPON.  The problem is 28 February, ARSH 2013.  Nothing AFTER 28 February ARSH 2013 is germane to the discussion. Any other criterion is a FALSE BASE PREMISE that will only yield more chaos and plays directly into satan’s hands.

I would also like to point out that EVERY defender of the validity of the Bergoglian Antipapacy MUST relentlessly attack the office of the Papacy itself in order to hold their erroneous position.  Oddly, this never seems to register with them – they are doing satan’s dirty work for him, and are seemingly quite proud of themselves for it.  On a daily basis, in order to not acknowledge the clear logical progression that the false base premise of Bergoglio as Vicar of Christ inescapably demands, these exponents must argue that the Papacy is completely and totally irrelevant and always has been, and beyond that an IDOLATROUS AND THEREFORE EVIL INSTITUTION, that the dogma of Papal Infallibility is false, and thus that Vatican I was false, and most critically, that Our Blessed Lord’s promise to His Holy Church that the See of Peter would be uniquely and perpetually protected by the Holy Ghost Himself, and would thus be trustworthy – a promise which history, no matter how much people try to deny it, clearly shows has held even in the face of some spectacularly bad men ascending to the Papacy, was, in fact, a lie.

If Our Lord’s promise was a lie, a wicked set-up just for us, and He has now, with us today, broken His promise, then he is not Divine. If He is not divine, then we are not saved, and TO HELL with The Church and The Mass, because we’re all completely and totally screwed.  Pope Benedict XVI is our chastisement as articulated by St. John Eudes, but even in this chastisement, Pope Benedict XVI has never said or done anything to “completely overturn the moral edifice of The Church”, nor fulfill the prophecies of schism and apostasy, and Pope Benedict XVI remains VISIBLY the Pope – which is quite possibly the biggest mind-blower and testament of God’s awesome love for us in all of this.  The trail of breadcrumbs has been left since day one.  He has not left us, or tried to deceive us in any way. The truth has been right in front of us in plain sight all along. Accuse Our Lord of abandonment and deception at your own extreme peril.

Finally, I want to briefly address an argument that has always left me gobsmacked.  This is the argument that the College of Cardinals are the dogmatically infallible arbiters and gatekeepers of the Papacy, above Canon Law, above the infallible Vatican I ecumenical council which EXPLICITLY stated the opposite in Pastor Aeternus, above even Divine Law. Interestingly, this argument is bellowed unceasingly by people who have held the public position for over a decade that “Novus Ordoism is a different religion.”  That is, that the Novus Ordo church, and thus every bishop (with the exception of the SSPX bishops presumably?) and certainly every cardinal, are members of A DIFFERENT RELIGION WHICH IS NOT CATHOLICISM, which is, by definition, an Antichurch.

And yet, to be a “good Catholic” and not a “schismatic”, one must be told by people WHO ACCORDING TO THE PREMISE THAT NOVUS ORDOISM IS A DIFFERENT RELIGION, ARE NOT CATHOLIC who the Pope is, and assent to this authority which is, by definition and according to the stated premise, NOT THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH.
 
According to this insanity-on-parade, in order to not be in schism from the One True Church, one must be in full submission to and communion with A TOTALLY FALSE ANTICHURCH, which has god-like power over the One True Church, and over ontological reality itself, therefore superseding God Himself.

If anyone can explain how to reconcile this to simple logic, or the Good Shepherd Discourse, I’m all ears.  I’d pay good money to see the flow chart and truth table on that one.  That must graph into one hell of a Klein Bottle.
 
According to this grotesquely mangled diabolical disorientation being held up as “logic”, Peter, when asked by Our Lord, “Who do you say that I AM?” should have replied, “I have no ability to say – only Pontius Pilate can make a definitive determination as to your Nature.”  Note that I didn’t say “the Sanhedrin”. The Sanhedrin were Jews.  No, to make the analogy sound, Peter would have had to have deferred to PONTIUS PILATE – a pagan – according to this argument.  It’s funny what spending one’s days watching TeeVee, playing vidja games, gazing with endless fascination at one’s navel, and not going to Mass can do to a person’s mind.

By the way, at least one prominent (and now rapidly failing) Fwanciss-iz-Pope “Trad” blog owner with repeatedly self-admitted severe psychological issues, has used the CoronaScam excuse to voluntarily totally cease the public practice of the Catholic Faith and abandonment of the Sacraments. This week will mark a year since this person or their family has been seen in a church. No Mass. No Sacraments. And a confessed hatred of the Rosary. Pray not only for the website owner, but also for the numerous children in their care.

Does the identity of the Vicar of Christ even matter?  It matters only as much as whether or not Our Lord is Divine matters. Or as much as the eternal fate of every human soul capable of being scandalized by Antipope Bergoglio matters.

It matters only if you truly love and are devoted to the Chair of Peter, and to the God-Man who established it as the rock upon which He built His Church. So… you tell me.
Comments

Commentary #11 of 2021: Israel (you know, the Holy Land where Christ once walked) is to MANDATE its citizens to take the Vaccine

26/2/2021

Comments

 
LifeSite reportage here. 

Anyone who says that the government can't force the Covid Vaccine on people are simply asleep, stupid, or scared of the truth. 

Democracy is dead, boys and girls.

It's been dead for some time (if it truly existed at all). Our governments are now rogue, out-of-control dictatorships that any crowned tyrant of yesteryear could only salivate about. This is the Great Collapse; the event of the world's societies collapsing in order for the rise of the Kingdom of Antichrist (commonly called the New World Order, Global Communism, The Great Reset, etc). And yes, the United States of America - the world's first Masonic Nation - is no exception to that. In fact, she is one of the leaders of the Great Collapse and the Ascendency of Antichrist.  

The Masonic motto is Ordo ab Chao, Order out of Chaos. The Chaos will be the forced collapse of the world's societies: morally, financially, economically and spiritually. Everything must go, as the adverts on TV are want to say. On the ashes of the chaos, the New World Order will be ushered in by none other than the Man of Perdition: The Antichrist (dun-dun-duuunnn). 

The Israeli government is not only going to mandate forced vaccination, but will also share info on the dissenters. One of the departments that will receive this info will be the Ministry of Labour. And you know what that means, right? No jab, no job. Companies here in the UK are making it a policy to not hire anyone who doesn't have the vaccine, but Israel - you know, the Holy Land - is taking it to the next level: they're making it THE LAW to have the vaccine or there's not income for you, sunny boy! Another department is Social Services, meaning you're children will be taken away by force by the State if you don't take the Great Panacea. 

You can see where this is heading, right? If you don't, I feel sorry for you. Being that stupid is going to kill you - literally. 
Comments

Commentary #10 of 2021: Tower of Babel 2.0

25/2/2021

Comments

 
Reportage here at Church Militant.

You cannot make this up. 

Antipope Bergoglio is going to hold an interfaith prayer service at the Plain of Ur, which is believed to be the site of the Tower of Babel. No, I'm not kidding. The Pope of the Antichurch is going to go and pray at the site of Babel, an image of rebellion against God. In fact, the text of the Bible says that the men of Babel wanted to make a name for themselves. We today call that: Humanism. Something Antipope Bergoglio loves to talk about and encourage. 

Just more solid evidence that Bergoglio is not now, and never has been, the Pope/Vicar of Jesus Christ. This man is possibly the False Prophet who is sent to usher in Antichrist. Possibly. If he isn't, then he's certainly stealing the limelight from the real False Prophet!

I left a comment on the Church Militant article, but it's waiting to be approved. No surprise to me if they don't approve of it. Church Militant have been rather militant (pun-intended) in not allowing people to question the legitimacy of Antipope Bergoglio. 

Remember: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the Pope. Never has been. The Pope is Benedict XVI. He has been Pope since his lawful, canonical election at the Conclave of 2005. No one but Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles. Since AD 2013, the Church has been under Bergoglian Usurpation by since Benedict XVI's attempted resignation in March 2013 was uncanonical due to error and force. Watch Ann Barnhardt's two part presentation for all the details. And pray for the Church, the Papacy and Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI, the one true Vicar of Jesus Christ, whether he likes/knows it or not. 
Picture
My comment on Church Militant. Will it be approved?
Comments

Apologetics #6: Protestant claims that Peter wasn't appointed to the headship of the Apostolic College

24/2/2021

Comments

 
Claim: Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Read Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11). There is no mention in Scripture or history that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome." ​

   We have all heard it. The denial that St. Peter was made the Vicar of Jesus Christ. The denial that Christ gave to him the Headship over the Apostles. This denial, of course, is needed in order to legitimise the falsely named "Reformation". Because, if Peter is truly the head, then to break from that head would prove one to be outside the Church, and thus outside the saving Faith of Jesus Christ. But, it is common sense that there should be an earthly head. 

    Whilst on earth, Our Lord was the visible sign of unity, around Whom the Apostles and other disciples gathered, sitting at the feet of that great Teacher and Master of souls. Around the feet of the Divine Preacher, the whole Church gathered, and still gathers, as if lying under the shade of a tree, listening the gentle Voice of Her Spouse. Whilst on earth, He was visible, and therefore the visible Head on earth. But, what should happen after the Ascension, when Christ would ascend to the Father, and be seen no more? The natural question would be: who did Jesus leave in charge on earth? 

    Think of it like an Empire. The Emperor appoints governors for his Empire, and endows them with his authority. In the same way, Christ bestowed authority on one Apostle in particular, not to supersede Him, but to rule in His Name. This Apostle was St. Peter, who the Holy Church calls "the Prince of the Apostles". The Successor of St. Peter is the Pope, the Supreme Sovereign Pontiff. 

    So, as around Christ, the whole family of the Church is gathered around the Prince of the Apostles, listening to him, because through him, Christ speaks. When anyone in authority departs from his usual place, he always leaves someone in charge. So, too, did Christ likewise. Specially more so with the Church, since She is the only way to Heaven. What great confusion would there be if Christ left no one in charge, and each Apostle and disciple argued amongst themselves about whom was to take charge, finally leaving one another to found their own churches! What scandal would that be to the Unity of Christ? And what manifest contradictions would there be in what doctrines are to be believed?! If that sounds like Protestantism, well, you now know the cause of the illness! For this reason did He leave St. Peter to be Head of the Church on earth, not to replace Christ, but to speak in His place and to bind the faithful to that saving Truth which Christ entrusted to His Catholic Church (called the Deposit of Faith). 

    It would be absurd to think, as the Protestants seem to, that Christ left the Church without a governor, without someone we could turn to for guidance and instruction! Is Christ so without heart so as to abandon His beloved Church to be grappled and torn asunder by men? Is He with love that He would leave His sheep without a visible shepherd to follow? Would He leave us in uncertainty about doctrine, so that we wouldn't know the correct way to believe in Him? This is seemingly the Protestant Christ, so heartless, cold and cruel, as to leave poor children without any help. But the true Christ, the Catholic Christ, as it were, is not so heartless, but ever full of compassion gave to us our Shepherd, the man whom we call our Holy Father - the Pope!

​    I shall use herein the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible in the main for the Scriptural text. Any other version shall be duly noted. Verses from the DR shall be linked to for your reading. Links are in bold red.

(1) Jesus & Peter:
​Who is Head of the Church?

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Read Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11). 
It is rather interesting that the Objection put forward above does not involve any attempt to refute the Catholic interpretation of such verses as Matthew 16:16-19, or John 21:15-17, as is customary amongst Protestants. Instead, we are asked to read some other verses that, we are told, prove the Catholic doctrine false.  

    (1) The first of these is from St. Luke, which reads: And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And He said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so: but he who is the greater among you, let him be as the younger: and he who is the leader, as he that serveth. [22:24-26]

    (2) The second is from Ephesians, which reads: And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church, which is his body, and the fullness of him who is filled all in all. [1:22-23]

    (3) The third is from Colossians: And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy. [1:18]

    (4) And the fourth is from 1 Corinthians: For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. [3:11]

    By this, we are told that these verses forbid the idea of Peter being head. Surely, some of these verses seem damning, since Christ is called the "head of the body, the church" and the "foundation...which is laid". Yet, as always, the Protestant extracts these verses out of context, and tries to impose upon them an opposition which is not there, coupled with the fact that the Protestant may not have sufficient understanding of Catholic teaching itself. 

Who is greater?

The first text from St. Luke is presented as proof against Rome. Yet, I fail to see how. Jesus is clearly instructing the Apostles in humility in this text. Why? Precisely because of the great Office which He is to give them, that of ruling the Church [Cf. Acts. 20:28]. For this reason He says "but he who is greater among you [Peter], let him be as the younger" and also "and he who is the leader [Peter], as he that serveth". So the very text used to condemn the idea of a leader, supports the idea that the Apostles have a leader! 

    Since Christ explicitly mentions a leader, rather than forbidding the idea, He is, thus, instructing this leader on humility. The leader, and indeed the rest of the Apostles, are not to use their authority to lord it over the people. Peter, the leader, ironically repeats this teaching of Christ, warning the bishops (the Apostles and their successors) not to "lord it over the clergy" [1 Pet. 5:2-3]. Peter is repeating what his Master has taught him - to use your authority responsibly. The fact that St. Peter is instructing the other Apostles and their successors in the teachings of Christ, and presents to them the rule by which they are to govern the Church, is a clear sign of his primacy over the Apostolic College and the Universal Church. 

    It also worthy to note that Christ uses a generic term, "leader". He does not directly name Peter here, but rather says "and he who is leader". Did He not know that Peter was the leader? Of course; but not Peter alone but also his Successors in his Chair, and so He did not direct His teaching just at Peter alone, but rather to Peter's heirs in the Petrine Office, and so says "and he who is leader", that is, "I tell you Peter to not use your supreme authority which I have given you to lord it over the Church, even as I, Almighty God, have not lorded it over you, but rather have served you as a Servant; and this rule of Mine is binding upon you and your Successors for ever. Teach them, Peter, and remind them of My rule: to observe My meekness, and to be fathers of children, and not masters of slaves. But doing this, you shall perfectly reflect My meekness and thus will glorify Me."

    In order to properly understand what is taking place in this text of St. Luke, let us turn to a Catholic commentary. The commentary for the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition New Testament Study Bible states in reference to verse 26: The disciples must not confuse worldly honour and recognition with spiritual greatness. The shepherds of God's people must instead imitate Christ in their humility and selfless concern for those under their care (Jn. 13:12-15; CCC 894: "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.)

   So, from this commentary, we begin to understand what is taking place. Our Lord is instructing His Apostles in right exercise of government in the Church, especially directing His teaching to the "greater" and "leader" of the Apostles. So, Christ verifies that the Apostles have a leader, and we all know his name: Peter. 
   
    In fact, in order to clarify that Peter is head, St. Peter is named the most after Christ, and is always named first and apart from the other Apostles. And to clarify it more for those who doubt, St. Matthew writes the list of the Apostles (Matt. 10:2-4), and says "the first, Simon who is called Peter". In Greek the word used for "first" is πρῶτος (protos), which means: 

1) first in time or place 
1a) in any succession of things or persons 
2) first in rank 
2a) influence, honour 
2b) chief 
2c) principal
 
3) first, at the first.

    The word "chief" is sometimes translated in Latin as "princeps", meaning prince. So, St. Matthew describes Peter as the first in succession, rank, influence and honour, chief/prince of the Apostles. Pretty strong language being used considering, according to the Protestants, that Peter isn't the head of the Church! Using that language, St. Matthew might mistaken people into thinking Peter was the head of the Apostles! Of course, we Catholics have no problem with this, since by using such language, St. Matthew proves to us that Peter was made head of the Apostles. And thus Rome's teaching on this matter is proved. 

Simon....confirm thy brethren

    But what is also interesting, is what Christ says after this, which our Protestant doesn't direct us to read: For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at table? but I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth. And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: And I assign to you, as my Father hath assigned to me, a kingdom, That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22: 27-32)

    The text I have emphasised is rather telling. Christ assigned a Kingdom to the Apostles, that is, the Church. And they shall sit upon thrones to judge Israel, that is, the Church. Then Our Lord says to Simon, directly and personally, that Satan wished to have the Apostles, but that He has prayed for Simon's faith alone, that he may confirm the Apostles. Now, why would Christ only pray for Simon's faith? and why would He direct Simon to "confirm thy brethren"?

    The Haydock commentary says on this:

That thy faith fail not. The faith of Peter, established by the coming of the Holy Ghost, hath never failed, nor can fail, being built upon a rock, which is Christ Himself, and being guided by the Spirit of truth, as Christ promised. (John xv. 26. and xvi. 13.) --- And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren, even all the other apostles and bishops, over whom I have made and constituted thee and thy successors the chief head, that such a head being appointed by divine authority, all occasions of schisms and divisions might cease, says St. Jerome. (Witham) --- Admire the superabundance of the divine patience. That the disciple might not lose courage, He promised him pardon before he has committed the crime, and restores him again to his apostolic dignity, saying, confirm thy brethren. (St. Cyril) [Emphasis mine]

    The RSV 2nd Catholic Edition New Testament Study Bible says regarding this:

    In reference to the "kingdom", the same commentary says thus: Jesus confers royal authority on the apostles and entrusts them with the Church on earth (12:32). Jesus alludes to the prophetic vision of Daniel 7, in which God gives a worldwide kingdom to the Son of man,  who in turn gives it to the saints (Dan. 7:18, 22, 27). In context, these events coincide with the Son of man's heavenly enthronement (Dan 7:13-14). The historical unfolding of this prophecy begins with the Ascension of Jesus and the birth of the Church (Mk 14:62; 16:19; Acts. 7:56) 

    In reference to the "thrones", the same commentary says: Seats of royal honor. As the new Davidic king, Jesus gives his apostles a share in his kingdom, enabling them to exercise his royal authority over God's people (1:32-33; Mt. 19:28). See note on Mt. 16:19. The role of the apostles is described in terms that recall how long King David's cabinet of ministers ruled Israel from thrones in Jerusalem (Ps. 122 (121): 3-5; Is 22:20-23).  

    So, altogether, we see here that "the leader" is Peter, Who Christ is teaching to be like Him "as he that serveth" (in fact, the Pope is called "the Servant of the Servants of God"), because Christ has given him, along with his brother Apostles, not only authority on earth, but "a kingdom" in which they "may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel", which is both the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom of the Church. Their authority, according to Christ Himself, ends not at death, but continues in Heaven. And, pray tell, what shall they judge? Whether the faithful have kept the teachings of the Apostles [Acts 2:42], have also kept the Apostolic Traditions [2 Thess. 2:14], and have imitated the Apostles [1 Corinth. 4:16; 1 Corinth. 11:1], have kept the Gospel they preached [Gal. 1:8; 2 Thess. 1:8], have obeyed the lawful rulers of the Church [Hebrews 13:17] and such like. This is what they, with God's leave, will judge. 

The co-operation of men with God in our salvation

    The underlying premise behind the denial of Peter's peculiar authority stems from the Protestant belief that since man is so depraved by sin, he has no free will, and therefore unable to do anything: even co-operate with God in his own salvation. Luther, Calvin and others denied the free will of man, and thus a man with no free will can not be Vicar of Christ. Now, whilst a Protestant may personally accept free will, his theology denies it. Denial of free will is inherent in Protestantism. It is the reason why they deny the efficacy of good works (man can do no good), the Priesthood, the Mass, etc.

    It is a most merciful thing for a Catholic to know, that God, although the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, by no means excludes the redeemed from participating in their own salvation. Indeed, the very fact that Christ commissioned His Apostles, mere men, to preach to other men and guide them into the True Faith, is a clear sign that God uses men to advance the salvation of the world, chooses men to administer to other men; not that He has any need of them, but that He shows His love and Paternity by such co-operation. For just as Moses co-operated with God in the administering of the Old Covenant, so does the Church co-operate with God in the administering of the New.

    And Catholics understand that no one co-operated more perfectly or fully than the Blessed Virgin Mary, who gave her free consent to being the Mother of God, Jesus Christ, when she said "fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum" (Luke 1:38: be it done unto me according to thy word). The Latin word "fiat" means: 

1. An arbitrary or authoritative command or order to do something; an effectual decree.
2. Authorization, permission or (official) sanction.

    Thus, Our Lady gave her permission and sanction for the Word of God to be made flesh in her womb, because the Most High would not that she should be coerced, but commanded the very Prince of Messengers, St. Gabriel, to personally rehearse His message to her, and when doing so, to show her all honour and deference (he addressed her with the Greek chairo, or Latin ave, which both mean "hail", a formal salutation to one's superior, thus showing her to be Gabriel's superior. This could only be if she is, as Catholics believe, Queen of Angels), and by obtaining her consent, the Salvation of the world was born of her. In this, she becomes to us a model of perfect humility and obedience toward God. And seeing that these same virtues most pleased the Lord, how could later Christians not take her for their rightful model, knowing that by imitating her, they are imitating Christ, and thus pleasing their Heavenly Father?

    We see in Scripture the co-operation between God and men; God is the true Judge of men and their works [Ps. 49:6; Matt. 16:27, etc], yet God permits the Saints to judge with Him [1 Corinth. 6:2-3]; that even though Christ be the one Mediator [1 Tim. 2:5], yet does St. Paul also call Moses a mediator [Gal. 3:19]; that although Christ makes intercession for us [Rom. 8:34], yet we are called to intercede for each other [1 Tim. 2:1] (to mediate and to intercede are synonymous with each other); that although God be Redeemer, yet Moses is also called a redeemer [Acts. 7:35]. None of these are done in opposition to Christ, but rather are done because of Christ, precisely because Christ does them first. We imitate Him, and glorify Him in our imitation. So, with this in view, why can't Peter be head of the Church, even as Christ is Head of the Church?

Jesus, Head of the Church

Thus, we can here refer to the texts of (2), (3) and (4).

     Now, to the Protestant, these words of St. Paul seem to be damning for the Catholic teaching that Peter, and his Successors, are the heads of the Church. Yet there is no problem for Catholics (as I have mentioned in the last section). We know that Christ is the true Head of the Church, and that He alone rules the Church as King. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us: 792 Christ "is the head of the body, the Church." He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, "in everything he [is] preeminent," especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things. So, the Church knows who is Her Head; it is Christ, of Whose Body She is. 

    But, how can Catholics, who accept that Christ is the Head, admit another head? Well, St. Paul says, "wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus." [Hebrews 3:1] Now, since Christ is called "apostle" does that mean the Twelve aren't Apostles? Does that mean that we have been "stealing" from Christ by referring to these mere men as Apostles? When St. Peter mentions Jesus as being the "shepherd and bishop of your souls" [1 Pet. 2:25], does this forbid any other shepherd or bishop? If so, then why do multiple Protestant "churches" have men who call themselves bishops? Surely this is stealing from Christ! 

    When Christ taught us to call no man father but God [Matt. 23:9], was He contradicting Himself when He commanded for us to honour our fathers? [Luke 18:20] Such a thought is repugnant!

    Yet, the reason why the Twelve are called Apostles, Shepherds and Bishops is because Christ was the first. They share in the same titles and the same authority as Christ, because He gave them the power. As Apostles, Shepherds and Bishops they reflect and show forth the glory of Christ in those functions, just as Bishops, called "high priests", reflect the true High Priest, Jesus Christ. 

    So, if giving to men that which belongs to God does no injury to God, but rather glorifies Him because by joining these titles to men we recognise the great dignity they carry, how then can one deny that Peter be called by that which is proper to Christ, namely, being head of the Church? 

​    And so in reference to (4), although Christ be the corner-stone or foundation, the Apostles are also called the foundation upon which the Church is built [Eph. 2:20], and thus they, in turn, are built upon Christ, Who is the Chief of them. And when St. John, in his Apocalypse, described the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Church, as having twelve foundations in which are inscribed the names of the Twelve Apostles, [21:14] was he denying the Chief Foundation, Jesus Christ our Lord? God forbid that the very Apostle who so loved Our Lord should also deny Him! Thus, if no injury is done to Christ as foundation even with the Apostles being named the same, then how can one deny Peter being head even as Christ is Head? 

    In all these things we see that such people are named by so many titles because God is named first. And if the very Scriptures, inspired by the Holy Spirit, does no damage to the Person of God by giving His titles to mere men, then how can a Protestant denounce the Church who, observing Christ as Head, names Peter as head and Vicar of that Head also? To denounce such a practise would be to denounce the very Scriptures, and that is something the Church refuses to contemplate! Rather, Holy Mother Church takes the Scriptures as Her basis, and does only what the Holy Spirit has sanctioned, as expressed clearly in Holy Writ.

Church Fathers on Peter's Primacy 

I shall here quote from some Church Fathers to prove that the early Christians understood that Peter was given a primacy over the Church. 

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this [Roman] Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“And he says to him [Peter] again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him [Peter] that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church [Rome] whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252). 
”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle.” Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342). 

“And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him [Julius] appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.” Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

“Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.” Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367). 

“…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

“Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion.” Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

“The Holy Synod said: ‘Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:–‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse.” Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

To read more, go here.

(2) Was St. Peter in Rome?

There is no mention in Scripture or history that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome." ​
I shall start here by answering that last sentence regarding St. Clement. That claim is completely false, since St. Clement, who was actually the fourth Bishop of Rome, was Pope from 88-99 AD. That is, he was Pope during the 1st Century! How, then, could he deny the evidence of his own Century? Secondly, he was personally ordained by St. Peter, along with Linus and Cletus (both of them being Popes after Peter). St. Clement is named in the New Testament [Philip. 4:3]. You can read St. Clement's epistle, and will come to realise that he said no such thing that our adversary claims he said. Naturally, we are not informed as to a source for this supposed quote. What gives its falsity away is the use of "1st century": a phrase that wasn't used at the time. This is the give away that this quote is fakery. 

Does Scripture say Peter was in Rome?

    Now let us turn to the first part of the claim. According to our Protestant, there is no mention in Scripture or history that Peter was in Rome. Of course, Protestants need this supposed absence of Peter from Rome in order to justify his not being Bishop of Rome. Sadly, however, there is proof of his being in Rome, maybe not so much from Scripture, but plentiful it is in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers. It must be first noted that Peter didn't go straight to Rome. Most forget, or simply don't know, that he was first Bishop of Antioch, before leaving that See to go to Rome to found the Apostolic See.

    In his first Epistle, St. Peter writes that "the church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark. " [1 Pet. 5:13] The "Mark" he mentions here is St. Mark the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel of St. Mark. However, what we need to take a note of here is his use of the name "Babylon". Now, most of us are familiar with Babylon. It was the capital of the Babylonian Empire, and was the figure of a sinful, decadent city. The name is now used to described a wicked, Godless society. Let us work out who this Babylon is. 

    In St. Peter's day, the wicked, Godless, heathenistic, hedonistic Babylon was which city? Let me give you a few clues:  It was the seat of the divine Caesars; home of the Roman pantheon; home of the corrupt Senate; home of trade and commerce; mistress over a vast Empire. Yes that's right: Rome! Thus, when he talks about the church in Babylon, he is speaking of the Church of Rome. Thus, he is writing from Rome. Thus, he has to be in Rome to be writing from Rome! Sorry if I have had to spell that out, but there it is. 

    In fact, our Protestant here who sent me this claim, said at the end of their message: BRETHREN! The Word of God commands us to get out of Babylon, saying: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4). [See Objection #21] So, if Protestants understand that Babylon is a code for (heathen) Rome, then why not that the Babylon St. Peter is writing about is the very same heathen Rome?! How is it Rome for St. John , but not for St. Peter?

Church Fathers on Peter being in Rome

Here are some quotes from Church Fathers:

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.” Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican [Peter's tomb] or to the Ostian way [Paul's tomb], you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church [in Rome].'” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198). 
​
“[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

‘We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross.” Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

“Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.” Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

“Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.” Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

“[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome…” Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

To read the rest of the Church Fathers please read them here. ​
Comments

Commentary #9 of 2021: The Freedom App - You'll need it to be free

23/2/2021

Comments

 
Once again the UK Government, currently controlled by the Conservative Party, has reneged on its decisions. After being told by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment that we wouldn't have vaccine passports,  we are now being told that there won't just be a vaccine passport for international travel, but even a domestic passport for certain venues. 

Take a gander at this from my Lunchtime Briefing email from the Spectator: 
Picture
In a twisted sense of irony, this vaccine passport app is being nicknamed the "Freedom App", because freedom needs tracking with an app, apparently. 

This decision of having vaccine passports may not go down so well, and the government may have a discrimination problem on its hands. Why? Because data shows that compared with 80% of white Brits taking the vaccine, only 50% of Black Brits are taking the jab, meaning that Jamaican Brits won't be able to internationally travel, say to Jamaica to visit family, unless they have the vaccine. But, since they aren't as likely as white people to have the vaccine, it means they will be denied the (not-any-longer-a) right to travel.

This opens a can of worms. The Vaccines Minister has already acknowledged that vaccine passports would be discriminatory, and since BAME  (Black, Asian, Minority Ethnic) people are less likely to take the Covid jab than white people, it's going to look an awful lot like racism against non-white people. I'm (not really) surprised that BLM haven't kicked up a fuss about this. I mean, aren't these discriminatory vaccine passports evidence of white supremacy and institutional racism?!

There's only three solutions to this problem:
1. Scrap the passports altogether.
2. Give BAME people an exemption, which will look like racist discrimination against white people.
3. Force BAME people to have the vaccine, which will look like racist discrimination against BAME people. 
Comments

Apologetics #5: Protestant claims the Church invents new doctrine, Part 3

23/2/2021

Comments

 
The Roman Catholic Church says it never changes; yet it invents new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible / Objections to the Magisterium & Sacred Tradition

In this section, let us look at what the Scriptures and the Church Fathers have to say of Sacred Tradition. 

When one logically thinks through the Protestant doctrines concerning Sola Scriptura, it becomes evident just how illogical they truly are. 

The teachings which comprise Sola Scriptura say that Scripture is:

(1) the sole source of Christian doctrine - Yet how can this be when before any Gospel was written; before any Epistle came forth from the hands of Paul or Peter, James or Jude; the Apostles were already preaching the doctrines of the Faith? And why is it that the very Scriptures that we are told are the sole source, are silent on this very principle? We are told Scripture is inspired and profitable, but how does that equate it to being the sole source of doctrine? Indeed, St. Paul tells us that good works, too, are profitable for men (Titus 3:8); but does that necessitate we believe that good works alone are the source of salvation? If the Bible were the source of all Christian doctrine: 1stly, it would be no Bible but a catechism; 2ndly, its status as such is contradicted by the very fact - a fact that irks the Protestants - that no one of them agree on even the most fundamental teachings of that Bible; for one accepts infant baptism, yet another rejects; one accepts free will, another rejects; one accepts the Trinity, another rejects; and all this they lay at the feet of the Bible. Each claims the Bible teaches their creeds; they thus dare accuse the Scriptures - and also the One Who inspired them - of being contradictory and confused. 

Also, in order for the Bible to be the sole source of doctrine, it must necessitate that it have been always in existence from the beginning; yet we know that the Canon of Scripture was not set until the 4th century, when such councils as Rome, Hippo and Carthage confirmed those 73 books which comprise our Canon, and this was the one used at Rome. Before these councils affirmed the Canon, in which we find four Gospels, there were 27 gospels that were circulated; how did the Church know which were false? She knew from Tradition, viz, the oral Revelation handed down through the Apostolic Succession. She compared these multitude of gospels to the oral teachings She received from Christ, and judged the former to be in contradiction to the latter. We may also state that the Church was preaching the Faith for circa 400 years before the Bible was compiled, and the first Ecumenical Council, that of Nicaea in Ad 325, already defined dogma afore the Bible's compilation.  

Lastly, the very Scriptures themselves teach us that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth [1 Tim. 3:15], but the Bible is nowhere called such. Again, it did not exist until much later on. Surely, the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament, and the books of the Old, were already written and thus contained truth, yet they had not heretofore been stamped with ecclesial approbation. Thus, it requires the existence not only of the Church, but of Tradition along with it, so that, moved by the Holy Spirit, the Church could finally set down those written teachings which the same Spirit inspired. We may also end with noting a great pain for the Protestants: that they, who so abuse the Catholic Church and slander Her, must also accept Her approbation for the Bible they hold - or rather, those books still retained after Luther's mutilation of Scripture. They unwittingly accept the very authority they protest against.   

(2) the sole norm of doctrine - Since we have established that the Bible cannot be the sole source of doctrine, thus also it cannot be the sole norm of doctrine. The norm of doctrine is the Church, who has faithfully preserved God's entire Revelation, both written and oral. We may ask: how does a Protestant find Biblical norm regarding bioethics when the same Bible touches no such topics? Whence did God pronounce on stem-cell research? How can the Bible be the sole norm, when it doesn't even contain all of Divine Revelation, as St. John expressly mentions [John 21:25]?

(3) the supreme, infallible and sole authority in the Church - According the Protestant Religion, Christ left infallible teachings to fallible men. But such a thing is absurd, for how would these men know that their interpretation of the Scriptures was the true one? Indeed, as noted above, we see that Protestants disagree with one another using only the Bible alone, showing that its infallible authority cannot be the sole one, for if it is, it is found most wanting; and I would not dare to denounce Scripture to be wanting in any thing. Instead, when God gave us His infallible Revelation He also left with it an infallible judge to properly interpret it, and that infallibility was left with the Roman Church, and exercised by the Roman Pontiff and the College of Bishops in union with him. We may see, in the civil affairs, how laws are judged and interpreted by judges and other such officials who have the competent authority imposed upon them; for what society would leave its laws to the private judgment of ignorant men? How can it be that even Protestants agree that mere man-made civil laws and constitutions require an equal authority to rightly judge them, yet charge that the Divine Law of Almighty God was left to ignorant men to privately interpret? How can civil laws be judged more fittingly than God's Law?! 

(4) that every single statement, doctrine, command, of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance, without the use of reason - This proposition is not only illogical, but also highly dangerous. Firstly, for Scripture is both a product of Divine Reason and human reason; 2ndly, without the use of reason, Our Lord's teachings regarding cutting off one's members that cause us to sin would have to be taken literally, which would necessitate the mutilation of body parts. Yet, we know that Our Saviour asked no such things of, because we use reason to discern the true meaning of His words. 

We may also note that Luther had an aversion to reason, even going so far as to call it the Devil's handmaid; indeed he had to have such an aversion, for how could one reasonably believe what Luther proposed, or that which other pretended Reformers had divined? Even to our own day, we have many Protestants who accept absurd ideas, because they abandon reason when they interpret the Scriptures, exempli gratia: some Protestants interpret the Heavenly Jerusalem in the Apocalypse as being a literal city which shall descend from the heavens; this city is, in our modern measurements, said to be bigger than the sub-continent of India! Do they really believe such an absurd idea? Indeed they do, and they must abandon reason to accept such. Yet the Church has defined that with the light of natural reason, man can come to know the existence of the Most High; but supernatural faith is required to believe all the doctrines which He commands us to accept. Faith, then, completes what reason begins. 

We may also ask: why did God endow us with reason, if we are not to use it? If reason must be used to interpret civil laws, then how could it not be used to interpret Divine Law, which same Law contains most weighty and grave matters that pertain to the eternal destiny of men? 


(5) sufficient, that is, that Scripture has no deficiencies to be supplied by oral tradition, pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, Bishops, theologians or Councils - Most laughable is that Protestants accept the pronouncements of the aforementioned authorities for their belief in the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, the Natures of Christ, the Person of the Holy Spirit, etc. If Scripture be sufficient to the degree given it by the Protestants, then where does it define the doctrines thus mentioned? Whence does it speak of the very intricate details of the Holy Trinity? If one asks a Protestant where the doctrines of the Trinity are defined, he would have to admit they were defined by the the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (Ad 325), presided over by Pope St. Sylvester I's legates, and the bishops. So, the Protestant must accept the oral Tradition and pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, bishops and theologians of an Ecumenical Council; the same which they reject! 

(6) Perspicuous, that is, that the Scriptures sets forth all the doctrines on Christian faith and life in most clear terms that both the unlearned and learned can understand, and that Scripture needs not wait for any Pontiff, theologian or Council to make clear its teachings, 

(7) its own authentic and infallible interpreter, that is, no human authority, or even reason, is needed to divine its true sense. 

(8) That is it is the privilege and duty of all Christians to read and study the Scriptures,
​
(9) That every man can use his private interpretation to come to the knowledge of saving truth. ​

Mark 16:15 - And He said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. - Jesus here does not instruct the Apostles to write, but to preach, that is, to orally announce the Gospel. Any writing is accidental to their mission, not natural to it. 

Mark 3:14: And he made that twelve should be with him, and that he might send them to preach. - Again, Jesus does not tell the Apostles to write, but to preach. 

Luke 10:16: He that heareth you, heareth me. - The oral Gospel is preached by Jesus to the Apostles, and from the Apostles to the world. No command to write. 

Luke 24:47: And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. - Again, no mention of writing. 

Acts 15:27 - We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things. - So, the Gospel was transmitted by word of mouth, not by writing.

Romans 10:17: Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ. - Why doesn't St. Paul mention anything about reading a book? How could he, when so many of his hearers could not read!

[1] - 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6; The imposition of hands to pass on authority comes from the Patriarchs of old, who imposed their hands upon their sons to pass on to them their authority and the blessing of God. In the Church, this imposition of hands takes on the new meaning of passing the Apostolic Authority from one man to another, as a father to his son. Priests and bishops have their authority passed to them by the imposition of hands by other bishops (who have the fullness of the priesthood). 
-----------------------------------
[2] - 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:15-16. 
-----------------------------------
[3] - The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament says about this verse: Timothy is the second link in a chain of succession that stretches from the apostles of the first century to the bishops of the present day. Having received Paul's authority and mission, he is charged with passing on both the priestly ministry and the apostolic faith to the next generation. Timothy must transmit these traditions in the same way he received them from Paul: through public instruction, the sacramental imposition of hands, and the witness of his life (1:6, 13-14; 3:10; 1 Tim 5:22; 6:20).
-------------------------------------
[4] Inter Insigniores, No 4: Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value. However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate. [Emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------
[5] - The Ignatius Commentary says about this verse: The teaching that Paul handed over to his readers, whether in writing or by oral instruction. This was the standard against which doctrinal claim (2:5) and moral behaviour (3:6) were to be measured and judged. Even Paul's personal example was a form of apostolic catechesis (3:7-9; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Tim 1:13) (CCC 75-76, 82). - The apostles did not hand down everything in writing; many unwritten things were handed down as well, and both written and unwritten are worthy of belief. So let us also regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 4). 

St. John Chrysostom's actual quote on 2 Thess. 2:15: Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the Tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a Tradition, seek no farther.
Comments

Apologetics #4: Protestant claims the Church invents new doctrines, Part 2

22/2/2021

Comments

 
The Roman Catholic Church says it never changes; yet it invents new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible / Objections to the Magisterium & Sacred Tradition

In this section, I shall comment on the verses that are put forward to prove the falsity of Sacred Tradition. 
5] ​2 Tim. 2:2, "The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition when its context is that Paul was instructing Timothy to entrust what he said to faithful men who can then teach others?  Nothing is there about then transferring that knowledge down an apostolic line with intended apostolic authority.

This comment denotes its author misunderstands what Tradition is, but which I have explained in Section I. Since Tradition is the handing on of the Faith, what St. Paul is asking St. Timothy to do is exactly what Sacred Tradition is: passing on Divine Revelation from one generation to the next. This passing on (traditio) is secured by the Apostolic Succession of bishops throughout the ages. 

This verse also shows Apostolic Succession, since Timothy was made a bishop by St. Paul, an Apostle, who by imposition of hands passed on his authority to Timothy [1], which same authority St. Paul received from St. Peter and the other Apostles, and who is now directing Timothy to follow his example by entrusting Divine Revelation to faithful men, that is, to men who have proven orthodoxy and are learned in the Faith; which same men are able to teach others, or as the Douay-Rheims translates it, are "fit to teach others". St. Paul doesn't tell Timothy to chose any Tom, Dick or Harry for this ministry, but only those men who are proven. And by this we understand that there are no better nor more fit men for preaching than the priests and deacons, which St. Paul himself mentions. Neither Paul nor Timothy were ignorant of what St. Peter later wrote regarding the unlearned and their twisting of Scripture according to private interpretation (which Protestants engage in). [2] Thus St. Paul is really asking St. Timothy to ordain faithful men to preach the Gospel. In this way, St. Paul's authority passes to Timothy and to the other men Timothy appoints. [3]

And yet, even if we admit that St. Paul here did not mean ordained clerics, but laymen, this still would not destroy Apostolic Succession or Sacred Tradition because these men would be receiving religious instruction by their bishop, St. Timothy, who was taught and ordained by another bishop, St. Paul, who himself was taught and ordained by another bishop, which was St. Peter based on Galatians 1:18. So, Apostolic Succession has secured the Deposit of Faith which Timothy will expound to the faithful men he is teaching. The Deposit was originally handed on orally, until the Holy Spirit inspired certain men to write down their teachings. This is Sacred Tradition at work: oral and written teachings passed on from one generation to the next. I, today, cannot learn nor teach the Faith unless the Deposit was secured from nigh 2,000 years of Apostolic Succession. The fact that the Gospel has been perfectly preserved by the Church for so long, even after heresies have arisen to rob Her of the truth (including Protestantism), is a sign of Divine Intervention. Only God could keep the Church preaching the Gospel for so long. This is, also, a sign of the Church's Divine Commission, and a proof that She has been founded by Jesus Christ; unlike Protestant sects who, over the years they have existed, have changed their doctrines and swayed to and fro from one fancy to another. ​

6] 1 Cor. 11:2, "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition when its context is either about avoiding idolatry or the restating the tradition concerning head-coverings, authority, and prayer. There is nothing here about RCC Sacred Tradition where authority and tradition is passed down from apostle to apostle.

Let us make a simple exposition of this.

1) If this text refers to avoiding idolatry, that is part of the Sacred Deposit, and thus part of Sacred Tradition. Divine Revelation warns us to stay from idolatry, and the Church warns us against idolatry, and even warns us to be on guard lest, in our piety, we corrupt the simple veneration of the Saints and make it into idolatry. 

2) If it is about authority or prayer, they are both part of the Sacred Deposit, and so are part of Sacred Tradition. The Catholic Church has the true authority which Christ has endowed Her with, and the Sacred Scriptures teach us to obey the authorities of the Church, and to be in communion with them. In terms of prayer, there is no greater nor more pleasing prayer that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It is the highest prayer the Church can offer to God, the greatest adoration She can render to Him, since the Mass is none other than Christ the Priest offering Himself as a Pure Sacrifice to the Father; the Once-for-all Sacrifice re-presented to the Father on the Altar. 

3) If it is about head-coverings for women, the Church has determined that this is a custom, or discipline, which is not part of Sacred Tradition, but only a human tradition that can, and has, been changed as the Church sees fit. [4] Customs and disciplines are merely human traditions, although venerable, which can be changed if required. However, it should be noted that such ancient customs or disciplines should not be suppressed or discontinued except for a very grave pastoral reason. The ceasing of the enforcement of the veiling of women in Church was done, it has to be said, not for any theological or grave pastoral reason, but simply because during the 1960's certain officials of the Church wanted the Church to look more "modern". Ironically, the use of veils for Catholic women is becoming more popular, even amongst young women. Another custom is the use of Latin in the Sacred Liturgy. The Catholic Church is made of various Rites, each having their own language. The largest Rite is the Latin Rite, which, as its name suggests, uses Latin. After the Second Vatican Council, the use of the Latin was (wrongfully and against the Council's intentions) abandoned in favour of purely vernacular liturgies. Again, ironically, more and more Catholics, especially young Catholics, are returning back to exclusive Latin Masses. 

We have to ask some questions regarding the traditions St. Paul mentions here.

1) Was St. Paul one of the Twelve? No he wasn't.

2) So where did St. Paul learn of the traditions he is handing on? From the original Apostles.

3) Does he mention any specific Apostle? Yes he does. St. Paul tells us in Galatians 1:16-18 that after the Lord appeared to him on the road to Damascus, he fled to Arabia for three years, and afterwards returned to Jerusalem to see Peter for fifteen days. Why? Because he had to have St. Peter, the Pope, confirm his election to the episcopacy [as every bishop does], give him Apostolic Authority, and to instruct him in the Christian faith. Thus, what St. Paul is handing on is none other what he has received from Peter: i.e. Apostolic, or Sacred, Tradition! This is why in 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26, when talking about the Blessed Eucharist, he starts by saying that he has "received of the Lord" what he is handing on to them. Now, Christ Himself did not teach his about the Eucharist directly; rather St. Paul is here saying: What I preach here came from Christ through the Apostles to me, and now I hand it over to you. In this way, Sacred Tradition, that is, the transmission of Revelation, is being fulfilled here. St. Paul wasn't present to witness the Last Supper (or First Mass!), so he clearly received it from the other Apostles, most likely from St. Peter when he visited him for fifteen days. Thus, St. Paul is here handing to the Corinthians the very Tradition he has received from St. Peter and the other Apostles.

7] 2 Thess. 2:15, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition when its context is about the return of Christ, not about apostolic succession? There is nothing here about RCC Sacred Tradition where authority and tradition is passed down from apostle to apostle.

This verse clearly validates Sacred Tradition since St. Paul mentions "the traditions" which the Thessalonians were taught "by word of mouth", that is, oral tradition, "or by letter from us", that is, written tradition. We have to keep reminding ourselves: what is Sacred Tradition? It is the handing on of the Faith in diverse forms: oral, written, liturgical, artistic, etc. St. Paul is referring to two of those modes of tradition: oral and written. And this verse obviously doesn't refer to Apostolic Succession as he is asking the Thessalonians at large to hold the Faith; he is not directing his writing to any specific person. When he writes to St. Timothy or St. Titus, he mentions the Succession.  

The context here is not about the return of Christ, but of the obtaining of the glory of the Lord [2 Thess. 2:12-14]. He connects the obtaining of the glory of the Lord with keeping the traditions, meaning you cannot receive the former if you don't hold the latter. In fact, in 3:6 of this same letter he says: And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us. [5] What tradition is this? Non other than the Gospel itself preached by word and letter, and by other diverse means.

8] 2 Thess. 3:6, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." How can this verse be used to validate Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition when its context is about working hard and not being idle? There is nothing here about RCC Sacred Tradition where authority and tradition is passed down from apostle to apostle.

​See Note [5] below that explains how St. Paul used his very actions as a mode for tradition. 

​9] Matt. 15:4-6, Jesus said, "For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ 5 “But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition."  Does this teaching of Jesus speak against tradition in general or a specific kind of tradition?  If so, which kind?

In order to answer this question, we must first put the above quote into perspective, as it has been isolated from its context. If we put the above quote into context, we immediately understand what Our Lord was condemning. 
Then came to Him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But He answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the Commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death. But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the Commandment of God for your tradition. Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth Me with their lips: but their heart is far from Me. And in vain do they worship Me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.  [Matt. 15:1-8; Douay-Rheims]
Some suitable commentary may help to understand this passage. I quote here from Bishop Challoner's commentary.
"The gift": That is, the offering that I shall make to God, shall be instead of that which should be expended for thy profit. This tradition of the Pharisees was calculated to enrich themselves; by exempting children from giving any further assistance to their parents, if they once offered to the temple and the priests, that which should have been the support of their parents. But this was a violation of the law of God, and of nature, which our Saviour here condemns.

 
"Commandments of men": The doctrines and commandments here reprehended are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God,) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, etc., without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the Holy Church, touching fasts, festivals, etc., these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy Word, and all Christian piety: neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men; because they proceed not from mere human authority; but from that which Christ has established in His Church; whose pastors He has commanded us to hear and obey, even as Himself. St. Luke 10. 16; St. Matt. 18. 17.
It becomes evident that Christ was condemning man-made traditions that circumvented the Law of God. Note that Our Lord does not condemn tradition in general, but only those traditions that transgress the Law of God. Naturally, Apostolic Tradition is the very Tradition of Christ Himself, for He commanded the Apostles and their Successors to hand down His Doctrines, and as Challoner above mentions, the Church Herself is so imbued with His Authority, that whenever She establishes a law, such as times and lengths of fastings, this is to be received as if Christ Himself had directly commanded it.  Such is the reverence Catholics show to their Holy Mother Church, who Christ Himself has founded to minister to us in His Name. 

It is naturally evident that some traditions of men are bad, whilst others are good. Sadly, most Protestants cannot tell the difference, and consider all tradition as bad and contrary to the teachings of Scripture, even though they themselves engage in the very tradition they claim to condemn. Many of these same Protestants have problems with Catholic tradition, but have no problem with celebrating birthdays, anniversaries, the handing down of family customs and heirlooms, all of which are man-made traditions. And to say nothing of civil or political traditions, which have been handed down through the centuries! When the United States was founded, did God command that her citizens forever observe the 4th of July as a holiday? Of course not, because such an observance is purely a human tradition that - alas! - even Protestants keep! But, is keeping such a man-made tradition contrary to the Law of God? 

Many traditions provide stability in an ever-changing world, so long as they are not contrary to the laws laid down by God, whether moral law, natural law, etc. Naturally, if we find something worth handing down, we just tend to do it. I doubt God ever judged anyone damned because they observed some civil holiday, or even some religious holiday like Christmas or Easter. Many Protestants - like the Pharisees of old - are far too scrupulous about the externals of such festivals - such as condemning the use of trees or eggs in these festivals - rather than judging the interior intentions, which is to celebrate the Nativity and Execution of Salvation, respectively. 

Incidentally, it must be added that the attendance of Church on Sundays was never ordered by God, and was a tradition established by the Apostles. Thus, from a Protestant view, this is a tradition of men, and must therefore be wrong. Yet, most Protestants attend church on Sundays, despite it being a purely human tradition. From a Catholic point of view, we have no problem with this, since the Apostles had Divine Right to establish such a tradition, because they were directly given the authority by Christ to do such a thing, and Christ Himself has, over the centuries, that such a tradition - although established by the Apostles - was actually started by Divine Inspiration, and repeatedly Christ Himself has made it know of His approval of it, and even warns those who break His Holy Day. ​

10] Mark 7:8-9, "‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ 8 “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” "  Do you see this verse as a warning about the tradition of men?  If so, what are the traditions of men?

It is clear that the only traditions of men Christ warns against are those which contradict the laws which God has laid down. The traditions of men are, as the name implies, traditions created by men. In the context of the Church, even traditions that are not directly commanded by God - such as fasting for Lent - and which are the product of the Church's faith, are to be received with reverence, since they are ordained by the Church, who has the right to bind and loose laws upon the faithful. Yet, respecting long established laws, it is usually considered a scandal if centuries old custom is abrogated. 

Lastly, in the the verse quoted above, Our Lord condemns the Pharisees for claiming their traditions were doctrines from God, rather than affirming that they were merely human. Interestingly, even after all this condemnation, Christ does not deny that the Pharisees have the authority to bind the Jewish people to pious customs.

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men's shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them. [Matt. 23:1-4; Douay-Rheims; Emphasis mine]
Some commentary from Fr. Haydock on this passage with help to enlighten our understanding. ​
The Scribes. They, who professed the greatest zeal for the law of Moses, and gloried in being the interpreters of it, sat upon the chair of Moses, succeeded to his authority of governing the people of God, of instructing them in His law, and of disclosing to them His will. Such, therefore, as did not depart from the letter of the law, were called Scribes. But such as professed something higher, and separated themselves from the crowd, as better than the ordinary class of men, were called Pharisees, which signifies, separated. (Origen) --- God preserveth the truth of the Christian religion in the apostolic See of Rome, which in the New Law answers to the chair of Moses, notwithstanding the disedifying conduct of some few of its bishops. Yes, though a traitor, as vile as Judas himself, were a bishop thereof, it would not be prejudicial to the integrity of the faith of God's Church, or to the ready obedience and perfect submission of sincere good Christians, for whom our Lord has made this provision, when he says: do that which they say, but do not as they do. (St. Augustine, Ep. clxv.)


All therefore whatsoever they shall say. St. Augustine, in his defence of the Apostolic See, thus argues, contra lit. Petil. "Why dost thou call the Apostolic Chair the chair of pestilence? If, for the men that sit therein, I ask: did our Lord Jesus Christ, on account of the Pharisees, reflect upon the chair, wherein they sat? Did He not commend that chair of Moses, and, preserving the honour of the chair, reprove them? For He sayeth: they have sat on the chair of Moses. All therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do. These points if you did well consider, you would not, for the men whom you defame, blaspheme the Apostolic See, wherewith you do not hold communion." (lib. ii. chap. 51) And again, chap. 61 Ibid. "Neither on account of the Pharisees, to whom you maliciously compare us, did our Lord command the chair of Moses to be forsaken; (in which chair He verily figured His own) for He warned the people to do what they say, and not what they do, and that the holiness of the chair be in no case forsaken, nor the unity of the flock divided, on account of the wicked lives of the pastors." --- Christ does not tell them to observe every thing, without exception, that the Pharisees should say to them; for, (as it was observed in a previous chapter) many superstitions and false ordinances had obtained amongst them, corrupting the Scriptures by their traditions; but only such as were not contrary to the law of Moses. We are taught to obey bad no less than good ministers, in those things that are not expressly contrary to the law of God. Hence appears how unfounded and unreasonable is the excuse so often adduced by persons in justification of their misdeeds, viz. that they saw their pastors do the same. Such must attend to the rule here given by Jesus Christ. What they say, do: but according to their works, do ye not. (Denis the Carthusian) --- The words, all whatsoever, shew that nothing must be excepted, but what the supreme law orders to be excepted. (Estius)

Heavy and insupportable burdens. Some understand in general the ceremonies of the law of Moses; but Christ seems rather here to mean the vain customs, tradition, and additions, introduced by the Jewish doctors, and by their Scribes and Pharisees. (Witham) --- They thus greatly increase the burden of others, by multiplying their obligations; whilst they will not offer themselves the least violence in observing them, or alleviating the burden, by taking any share upon their own shoulders.

11] Col. 2:8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." Paul warns about the traditions of men.  How do you determine the difference between good tradition and bad tradition?  Remember, if you say the Church tells you then you are assuming a tradition to validate tradition and that is a fallacious argument.

Christ Himself has already defined bad traditions - those that contradict or circumvent the Laws of God. Apostolic Tradition, by the fact that it was founded by Christ as the means of handing on the Deposit of Faith, is per se a good tradition. From that, it doesn't become too difficult to use common sense to determine the difference.

Notes:
​

[1] - 
1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6; The imposition of hands to pass on authority comes from the Patriarchs of old, who imposed their hands upon their sons to pass on to them their authority and the blessing of God. In the Church, this imposition of hands takes on the new meaning of passing the Apostolic Authority from one man to another, as a father to his son. Priests and bishops have their authority passed to them by the imposition of hands by other bishops (who have the fullness of the priesthood). 
-----------------------------------
[2] - 2 Peter 1:20; 2 Peter 3:15-16. 
-----------------------------------
[3] - The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament says about this verse: Timothy is the second link in a chain of succession that stretches from the apostles of the first century to the bishops of the present day. Having received Paul's authority and mission, he is charged with passing on both the priestly ministry and the apostolic faith to the next generation. Timothy must transmit these traditions in the same way he received them from Paul: through public instruction, the sacramental imposition of hands, and the witness of his life (1:6, 13-14; 3:10; 1 Tim 5:22; 6:20).
-------------------------------------
[4] Inter Insigniores, No 4: Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value. However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognises as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate. [Emphasis mine]
-------------------------------------
[5] - The Ignatius Commentary says about this verse: The teaching that Paul handed over to his readers, whether in writing or by oral instruction. This was the standard against which doctrinal claim (2:5) and moral behaviour (3:6) were to be measured and judged. Even Paul's personal example was a form of apostolic catechesis (3:7-9; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Tim 1:13) (CCC 75-76, 82). - The apostles did not hand down everything in writing; many unwritten things were handed down as well, and both written and unwritten are worthy of belief. So let us also regard the tradition of the Church as worthy of belief (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 4). 

St. John Chrysostom's actual quote on 2 Thess. 2:15: Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the Tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a Tradition, seek no farther.
Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    January 2023
    October 2022
    August 2022
    May 2022
    January 2022
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018

© 2022 Inquisition. All rights reserved.