Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts

Traditional Roman Catholic Thoughts

Reintroducing Logic and Reason to the Age of Sentimentalism

Traditional Marriage

All of the posts under the "Traditional Marriage" category.

You Have a Moral Duty To Vote Trump and Defeat Hillary Clinton

With the election looming only three short weeks away, we are hearing more and more Catholics and conservatives talking about something that seems rather absurd; voting for a third party candidate.

Photo taken by Gage Skidmore

Photo taken by Gage Skidmore

Why would I call this idea absurd? Simply put, we have Hillary Clinton, the most radical, pro-abortion candidate to ever run for President in this country as the front-runner of this race, according to polls released thus far.

Hillary Clinton has an excellent chance of winning this election, whether through honesty or rigged elections. The only other candidate who has an excellent chance of winning this election is Donald Trump, a man who has proposed giving us pro-life Supreme Court justices, willing to defend the 2nd Amendment, and many other pro-family values. He has also written a sincere letter to Catholics discussing the importance Catholics have had in building this country and how he will fight for our religious freedom.

No matter what your argument may be in Donald Trump not being “the best man for the job” there is a near zero chance of a third party candidate winning this election. Unless you can convince 60 million people to vote for said candidate in the next 20 days, you are throwing your vote away and allowing Hillary to walk away with this election.

In the third Presidential debate, Hillary admitted that she would put justices on the court that will make abortion legal for all nine months, up until the day the baby is ready to be born. If you are pro-life in the slightest, the very thought of this should leave you appalled, and this should send shivers down your spine. Babies who are ready to be born will die under this woman.

abort baby

But what I have discovered is that it almost appears to me that the Catholic “pro-life” Church in America might want Hillary to win. I have seen numerous Bishops (Archbishop Chaput for example), come out against both candidates, treating Donald Trump as bad, if not worse, than the most radically pro-abortion candidate in the history of this country, a woman who admires Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

In 2008, we were told that we couldn’t vote for Obama, but we had to vote for McCain.

In 2012, we were told that we couldn’t vote for Obama, but we had to vote for Romney.

Both of these men were known as soft Republicans who had no interest in running a pro-life platform, except for those pesky six months before the election. Romney ran all of his previous election campaigns for various offices under a pro-choice position. “Well, he is from Massachusetts, but he was pro-life.” McCain was another soft Republican who never did much for the pro-life platform. But with both of these candidates, we were told that we had to stop Obama because of his staunch pro-abortion stance.

Apparently, that isn’t the case anymore now that Hillary is the nominee.

In 2016 we are told to vote our conscience even though Trump has done far more than either McCain or Romney ever had with pro-lifers or Catholics. Trump has given us a list of 20 Supreme Court justices who will uphold the Constitution, and overturn Roe V. Wade when given a chance. But apparently, when push comes to shove, it’s easier to claim to be pro-life when it makes one look like a good Catholic than to actually put those principles into practice.

Catholics and every single person on this planet have a moral duty to stop evil. But all I see Catholics doing is getting up on their high horses, puffing out their chests, and pretending that they are so high and mighty by ignoring Trump and allowing Hillary to walk away with this election, all because they voted their “conscience.”

As Pope St. John Paul II says in Christifideles Laici:

Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture-is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The USCCB, in their document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship write:

Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and “the art of the possible.” At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, “limiting the harm done by such a law” and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

Pope Pius XII, in his March 16, 1946, letter to the Pastors and Lenten Preachers of Rome, wrote:

The exercise of the right to vote is an act of grave responsibility, at least when there is the question involved of electing those whose office it will be to give the country its constitutions and its laws, particularly those which effect, for example, the sanctification of feast days, marriage, family life and school, the various phases of social life. It therefore falls to the Church to explain to the faithful their moral duties which derive from their right to vote.

Again, two years later, Pope Pius XII strictly commands:

It is your right and duty to draw the attention of the faithful to the extraordinary importance of the coming elections and to the moral responsibility which follows from it for those who have the right to vote. In the present circumstances it is strictly obligatory for whoever has the right, man or woman, to take part in the elections. He who abstains, particularly through indolence or cowardice, commits thereby a grave sin, a mortal offense.

Photo by Roaming Catholics

Photo by Roaming Catholics

Anybody who decides not to vote, or votes for a third party candidate (their “conscience”) commits a mortal sin. Thus it is important that you form your conscience properly, and use it to stop evil.

Every single vote matters in this election and for Catholics who want to continue down the pro-life, pro-religious liberty, anti-contraceptives in health care, pro-traditional marriage path, I don’t see them rallying around Trump, the man who is going to stop Hillary. Hillary has promised that she will throw Catholics under the bus.

I urge you, to take what could very well be your last stand against evil. Protect innocent life. Cast your vote for Donald Trump.

Or you can stand on your pedestal and vote your conscience. We’ll both be in the gulags if Hillary wins.

Catholic gulag

Jeff October 20, 2016 1 Comment Permalink

Despite What You’ve Heard Jesus Never Permitted Divorce

It is a common misconception that Jesus permitted divorce in certain circumstances, those circumstances being unfaithfulness or spousal abuse. However, this is simply not at all what Our Lord taught.

Matrimony, The Seven Sacraments, Rogier van der Weyden, c. 1445

Matrimony, The Seven Sacraments, Rogier van der Weyden, c. 1445

When it comes to Bible translations, it is important that we use accurate translations, especially with a Catholic Bible. You can not trust that a Protestant Bible will be accurate, as it has been demonstrated that they deliberately mistranslate it so they can validate their Protestantism.

Looking at Douay-Rheims, the official Catholic translation, we read the following:

And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. – Matthew 19:3-10

Additionally in the Gospel of Mark we read:

And the Pharisees coming to him asked him: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. But he answering, saith to them: What did Moses command you? Who said: Moses permitted to write a bill of divorce, and to put her away. To whom Jesus answering, said: Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you that precept. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing. And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. – Mark 10:2-12

In both Gospels, we read that Jesus never permitted divorce and further condemns remarriage. In the case of adultery, Jesus allows for the adulterous spouse to be put away, but He does not allow for them to find another spouse. Once the wedding has occurred, and husband and wife have consummated their marriage, they are no longer two, but one, and can only be separated by death.

Many within the Church are encouraging those who have divorced and have remarried to step forward to receive the Holy Eucharist. However, as we see from the mouth of Our Lord that this is not His Holy Will, but the will of the enemy. It is not a matter of disciplinary teaching, but doctrine, a doctrine that can not change.

It is not unloving to point out Our Lord’s teachings, as He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Keep true to Christ’s teachings and His Church, even if her members do not.

Jeff October 19, 2016 Leave A Comment Permalink

The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Primary Purpose

A trend that is growing within the Catholic Church is the idea that a majority of Catholic teachings given before the Second Vatican Council are no longer necessary. More alarmingly, many Catholics appear only interested in what the current Pope teaches and declare his teaching as the Catholic position, whether it is in clear contradiction with his predecessors or not. There has been a drastic change in what is taught within the Church today, compared to what the Church taught only a short half century ago. To give an example, we are going to talk about sex and marriage.

Matrimony, The Seven Sacraments, Rogier van der Weyden, c. 1445

Matrimony, The Seven Sacraments, Rogier van der Weyden, c. 1445

For well around the portion of 1950 years, Catholics were taught, and knew, that there were two purposes of the marital act; 1. to bring forth children and 2. to unite the husband and wife together. The order of this matters because the first is the primary purpose and the second is the secondary purpose. The unitive aspect of sex is ordered to the primary purpose; that is to bring forth children.

Does this order of primacy sound strange to you? If so, it’s because you were probably taught that the unitive aspect of marriage is the primary purpose and that being open to children is the secondary purpose. At least this is what many priests, bishops, cardinals, laity, and even the Pope himself teach.

To better understand how this order has switched, it is important that we learn what the Church has said in regards to this teaching, and more importantly, when this teaching suddenly changed. In the Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566) we read that there are three motives and ends of marriage:

We have now to explain why man and woman should be joined in marriage. First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age.

 

A second reason for marriage is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God. That such was the principal object of the holy Patriarchs when they married is clear from Scripture. Hence the Angel, when informing Tobias of the means of repelling the violent assaults of the evil demon, says: I will show thee who they are over whom the devil can prevail; for they who in such manner receive matrimony as to shut out God from themselves and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. He then adds: Thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain a blessing in children. It was also for this reason that God instituted marriage from the beginning; and therefore married persons who, to prevent conception or procure abortion, have recourse to medicine, are guilty of a most heinous crime nothing less than wicked conspiracy to commit murder.

 

A third reason has been added, as a consequence of the fall of our first parents. On account of the loss of original innocence the passions began to rise in rebellion against right reason; and man, conscious of his own frailty and unwilling to fight the battles of the flesh, is supplied by marriage with an antidote by which to avoid sins of lust. For fear of fornication, says the Apostle, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; and a little after, having recommended to married persons a temporary abstinence from the marriage debt, to give themselves to prayer, he adds: Return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent declares that the purpose of marriage is ordered and that bearing children is a higher purpose than that of sexual intimacy. What is raised to a higher purpose is that marriage allows for a man and a woman to assist each other in this earthly life to obtain their reward in the next life.

Jumping ahead to the 20th century, in 1930, Pope Pius XI penned his encyclical Casti Connubii on Christian Marriage. He writes:

Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.” As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy when he says: “The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: ‘I wish,’ he says, ‘young girls to marry.’ And, as if someone said to him, ‘Why?,’ he immediately adds: ‘To bear children, to be mothers of families’.” – Paragraph 11

 

The second blessing of matrimony which We said was mentioned by St. Augustine, is the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied to him or permitted to any third person; nor may there be conceded to one of the parties anything which, being contrary to the rights and laws of God and entirely opposed to matrimonial faith, can never be conceded. – Paragraph 19

Pope Pius XI further reiterates the teachings of the Council of Trent in highlighting the purpose of marriage, in that children are the primary purpose and intimacy is the secondary. If you have never read this encyclical, I encourage you to do so, as it is full of beautiful teachings on how to live a good, holy, Catholic marriage.

Pope Pius XI penned this encyclical as a response to the rising demand of birth control that was beginning to take place in secular society and starting to creep into the mindset of many within the Church. In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, felt that this encyclical was a personal attack against her as she was fighting tooth and nail to make birth control legal within the United States. Unfortunately, this encyclical did not stop many from writing books and articles that tried to provide confusion amongst the faithful.

In a decree declared by the Holy Office on April 1, 1944, we read:

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

 

In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected by the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

 

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

 

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 28th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them “Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.

We see that there is a good track record within the Church as to what marriage is, the primary and secondary purpose of marriage, as well as the holiness of the Sacrament if practiced by loving our spouse as Christ loved His Church. But after the Second Vatican Council, we see this has changed to some extent.

Jump ahead to today. Pope Francis recently released his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia and had this to say in regards to the unitive aspect of marriage:

We need a healthy dose of self-criticism. Then too, we often present marriage in such a way that its unitive meaning, its call to grow in love and its ideal of mutual assistance are overshadowed by an almost exclusive insistence on the duty of procreation. Nor have we always provided solid guidance to young married couples, understanding their timetables, their way of thinking and their concrete concerns. At times we have also proposed a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage, far removed from the concrete situations and practical possibilities of real families. This excessive idealization, especially when we have failed to inspire trust in God’s grace, has not helped to make marriage more desirable and attractive, but quite the opposite. – Paragraph 36

Pope Francis argues at best that the two are equal, or at worse that the unitive aspect is greater than the procreative aspect. One could give the benefit of the doubt, but knowing what we have seen from both the Synod on the Family and Amoris Laetitia it would be hard to assume that Pope Francis doesn’t believe that the purpose of bringing a couple together is for unity.

To further demonstrate that this teaching has changed, we can look no further than the Church’s laws in the Code of Canon Law.

From the 1917 Code of Canon Law #1013:

1) The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. It’s secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscense. 2) The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which acquire a particular fitness in Christian marriage by reason of its sacramental character.

As opposed to the 1983 Code of Canon Law #1055:

The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

The evidence is clear. We can see something has changed. From the beginning of the Church up until the Second Vatican Council, the Church was clear and concise in her teaching stating that the primary purpose of marriage was the rearing and bringing up of children, with a secondary purpose ordered to the first of the unity of husband and wife. Then, in 1983, it was codified that the primary purpose of marriage was the uniting of husband and wife, and then the secondary purpose of marriage was from this uniting, if it was God’s will, that a child would come forth, but not necessarily.

If the doctrine of marriage and its purpose are allowed to be changed ever so slowly to the point where we see an inversion has occurred, then we must ask the hard question of what other teachings can change over time? Contraception? Abortion? Reception of communion by those in second marriages? And if the doctrine was wrong before, then how do we know it is right now? And if the Church was wrong before, then how can we be confident that the Church can even proclaim the Church if it is fallible?

Jeff June 1, 2016 6 Comments Permalink

The Synod Is Over and All I Got Was This Lousy Shirt

The Synod on the Family is over. If you recall from my post three weeks ago in which I outlined the three possibilities that I foresaw the Synod  coming to, I was somewhat right:

I see that Option Two is much more likely to happen, simply because those who want to administer Holy Communion to adulterers and actively homosexual, will be able to through a liberal reading of the documents. Meanwhile, those who will actively refuse this reading will accuse the Synod of intentionally allowing this evil to occur. Thus what we will see is those who adhere to the “traditional view” (read: Catholic) will be accused of going the way of the SSPX and causing schism, when the reality simply is that Rome has condoned the practice by not condemning it, all for appearing to be “pastoral”.

Pope Francis leads the Synod of Bishops on the family at Vatican

The final report from the Synod does not come out and say that adulterers can receive Holy Communion. On the other hand, the report also doesn’t come out and condemn it either. From paragraphs 84-86 of the document as translated by Rorate Caeli:

84. The baptized who are divorced and civilly remarried are to be more integrated in the Christian communities in the various possible ways, avoiding every occasion of scandal.
The logic of integration is the key to their pastoral accompaniment, so that they be aware not only that they belong to the Body of Christ, that is the Church, but that they may have a joyful and fruitful experience. They are baptized, they are brothers and sisters, the Holy Spirit pours gifts and charisms in them for the good of all. Their participation can be expressed in various ecclesial services: it is therefore necessary to discern which of the different forms of exclusion currently practiced in a liturgical, educational, pastoral, and institutional role that can be overcome. They should not only not feel excommunicated, but they should live and mature as living members of the Church, feeling her as a mother that welcomes them always, takes care of them affectionately, and encourages them on the path of life and Gospel. This integration is necessary for the Christian care and education of their children, who must be considered what is most important. For the Christian community, taking care of these persons is not a weakening of their own faith and testimony regarding matrimonial indissolubility: rather, the Church expresses precisely in this care her charity.

85. Saint John Paul II offered an all-encompassing criterion, that remains the basis for valuation of these situations: “Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.” (FC, 84) It is therefore a duty of the priests to accompany the interested parties on the path of discernment according to the teaching of the Church and the orientations of the Bishop. In this process, it will be useful to make an examination of conscience, by way of moments of reflection and repentance. Remarried divorcees should ask themselves how they behaved themselves when their conjugal union entered in crisis; if there were attempts at reconciliation; what is the situation of the abandoned partner ["partner" in the original Italian]; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and in the community of the faithful; what example does it offer to young people who are to prepare themselves to matrimony. A sincere reflection may reinforce trust in the mercy of God that is not denied to anyone.

Additionally, it cannot be denied that in some circumstances, “the imputability and the responsibility for an action can be diminished or annulled (CIC, 1735) due to various conditioners. Consequently, the judgment on an objective situation should lead to the judgment on a ‘subjective imputability’” (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration of June 24, 2000, 2a). In determined circumstances, the persons find great difficulty with acting in a different way. Therefore, while holding up a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that the responsibility regarding specific actions or decisions is not the same in every case. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account the rightly formed conscience of persons, should take these situations into account. Also the consequences of the accomplished acts are not necessarily the same in every case.

86. The path of accompaniment and discernment orients these faithful to becoming conscious of their situation before God. The conversation with the priest, in internal forum, concurs to the formation of a correct judgment on what prevents the possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church and on the steps that may favor it and make it grow. Considering that in the same law there is no graduality (cf. FC, 34), this discernment must never disregard the demands of truth and charity of the Gospel proposed by the Church. In order for this to happen, the necessary conditions of humility, reserve, love for the Church and to her teaching, in the sincere search for the will of God and for the desire to reach a more perfect answer to the latter, are to be guaranteed.

There are a few interesting things to note of these three paragraphs. Each paragraph in this document required a 2/3 majority vote in order for it to be considered in the final text of the document. This means that a total number of 177 yes votes were needed. On paragraph 84, 85, and 86, the vote tallies came up as 187, 178, and 190 respectively. These three paragraphs received the least amount of yes votes in the entire document. Even more interesting is paragraph 85, which is a direct quotation from Pope St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, conveniently leaves out this key paragraph:

Similarly, the respect due to the sacrament of Matrimony, to the couples themselves and their families, and also to the community of the faithful, forbids any pastor, for whatever reason or pretext even of a pastoral nature, to perform ceremonies of any kind for divorced people who remarry. Such ceremonies would give the impression of the celebration of a new sacramentally valid marriage, and would thus lead people into error concerning the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage.

Because this document does not explicitly condemn the act of administering Holy Communion to adulterers, it easily allows for those who read this document with a non-Catholic lens to misuse and abuse the document. In short, the document is written with ambiguity in order that whoever reads it can obtain the interpretation that they want to use. Church documents require clarity when written. If you look at the pre-conciliar documents of the Church, you see that they are written in such a way that no matter what “lens” you read them through, you always arrive at a traditional and Catholic interpretation. Any other interpretation is clearly taken out of context.

This clarity follows from the example of Jesus in the Scriptures. In the entire Bread of Life Discourse in the 6th chapter of John’s Gospel, Jesus says six times that unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you do not have life within you. It is clear as day that Our Lord was not speaking of the Eucharist as merely a symbol, but rather, what it actually is. His Flesh and Blood.

But what Jesus has to say in the Gospels does not seem to be taken seriously by Pope Francis. In fact, Pope Francis had some very heavy words to those who uphold the law of Christ and the Church:

It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God, and to transmit the beauty of Christian Newness, at times encrusted in a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible.

Compare this with what Pope Pius XII said:

Some assert that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by ever changeable notions.

Pope Francis glare

Even worse:

It was also about laying closed hearts, which bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church’s teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families.

Is it not odd that Pope Francis, the Pope famous for the words “who am I to judge?” when it comes to homosexuals, is judging the hearts of those that uphold the teachings as ones who want to lord the rules of Christ and His Church in order to judge? Even more ironic, is that Jesus said specifically in the Gospel when it comes to divorce:

And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, and saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery. His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry. Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’ s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. Matthew 19:3-12

Jesus Christ makes it crystal clear with complete clarity that divorce is forbidden. There is no such thing as divorce, it is a lie. Yet, Pope Francis would make it sound as though those who adhere to the teachings of Christ are sitting in the throne of Moses (who as you just read allowed divorce) in order to cast judgment. Those who adhere to these “archaic rules” are not casting stones at those who sin, but rather, protecting the souls of those who are in a state of mortal sin from damaging their soul further by making sacrilegious communions.

St. Paul explains in his letter to the Corinthians:

Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29

Allowing the divorced, remarried, and actively homosexual to receive Holy Communion without amending their lives and repenting will not bring mercy to the sinner, but rather, far more judgment that will only damn the poor soul to an eternity in Hell. But this isn’t my own opinion or my own teaching, but Our Lord’s teaching and the Holy Catholic Church’s. Real mercy would get the sinner away from that which causes their soul harm, not encourage them to live their life in that sin. But tell that to the Pope; after all, we’re in the “new Catholicism” and this is the “Church of Mercy”.

Jeff October 26, 2015 Leave A Comment Permalink

Saints Louis and Azelie Martin, Pray For Us and Protect the Synod

Yesterday, Pope Francis canonized the parents of St. Therese of Lisieux, Louis and Azelie Martin. This is the first time a married couple has been canonized at the same time. There have of course been other married couples who are saints, but they were canonized at different times.

image

A couple of months ago, I wrote an article for One Peter Five in which I pointed out that canonizing this wonderful couple and model of Catholic marriage should have been done prior to the Synod on the Family, instead of in its final week. I also give an in-depth look at the lives of the Martin family and how they truly radiate the glow of Catholic holiness.

Please, give the article a read here.

Sts Louis and Azelie Martin, Ora pro nobis.

Jeff October 19, 2015 Leave A Comment Permalink

get_footer() ?>