More Bad Fruit: Confirming our beloved Jewish brethren in a Covenant of Death and Hell, for Passover

passover-eucharist

Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ and the New Covenant, in his blood.
Only ONE of these is capable of saving a soul. 

The writer of this piece doesn’t want to offend anyone, but unfortunately, she has embraced the Modernist heresy about the nature of the Old Covenant and the “faith” of the Jewish people – and so, miserably fails.

Read the article

Now, read this:

There is absolutely NOTHING in the Old Covenant which is, or was ever capable of saving a soul. Anyone who clings to the Old Covenant embraces only death and hell.

Salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ and membership in the Catholic Church, which he founded for that express purpose., for if salvation was available by the Old Covenant, there would have been absolutely no need for our Holy Redeemer Jesus Christ, to become man, suffer and die on the cross. for us!

Anyone who – knowing this – fails to accept the divine truth of the matter – is – at the very least – going to have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do, come Judgment Day!

Catholics should understand that confirming our beloved Jewish brethren in their spiritually deadly theological error is not in any way charitable – nor is such a thing appropriate at Passover, or ANY OTHER TIME – even if certain highly place church officials might believe otherwise.

The theological matter was settled, long, long ago. Here are the ERROR-FREE official Catholic Church citations. If the Catholic Church was WRONG then, there is no longer ANY ASSURANCE that it is CORRECT about ANYTHING, today. If the church was RIGHT then, there is no doubt that the Modernists who control today’s church (and teach otherwise) are indeed, WRONG.

The logic is irrefutable.

crucifixion_tintoretto

Pius XIIMystici Corporis, 29: “And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ…but on the Gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.”

30: “On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers”

Council of Trent, ch 1, 793: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”

Council of Trent, Session 6, ch 2: “that He might both redeem the Jews, who were under the Law”

Council of Trent, Canon 1: “If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done through his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law…let him be anathema.”

Council of Florence, DS 695: “There are seven sacraments of the new Law: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, which differ a great deal from the sacraments of the Old Law. For those of the Old Law did not effect grace, but only pronounced that it should be given through the passion of Christ; these sacraments of ours contain grace, and confer it upon those who receive them worthily.”

Council of Florence, DS 712: “It firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosiac law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally.”

“All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism’ to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum, #59: “However they are not attempting to observe the precepts of the old Law, which as everyone knows have been revoked by the coming of Christ.”

Pope Benedict XIV, Ex Quo Primum, #61: “The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel.”

Pius VI, DS 1519-1520 (condemned the following): “Likewise, the doctrine which adds that under the Law man ‘became a prevaricator, since he was powerless to observe it, not indeed by the fault of the Law, which was most sacred, but by the guilt of man, who, under the Law, without grace, became more and more a prevaricator’; and it further adds, ‘that the Law, if it did not heal the heart of man, brought it about that he would recognize his evil, and, being convinced of his weakness, would desire the grace of a mediator’; in this part it generally intimates that man became a prevaricator through the nonobservance of the Law which he was powerless to observe, as if ‘He who is just could command something impossible, or He who is pious would be likely to condemn man for that which he could not avoid’ (from St. Caesarius Serm. 73, in append., St. Augustine, Serm. 273, edit. Maurin; from St. August., De nat, et “rat., e. 43; De “rat. et lib. arb., e. 16, Enarr. in psalm. 56, n. I),– false scandalous, impious, condemned in Baius (see n. 1504).

1520 20. “In that part in which it is to be understood that man, while under the Law and without grace, could conceive a desire for the grace of a Mediator related to the salvation promised through Christ, as if ‘grace itself does not effect that He be invoked by us’ (from Conc. Araus. II, can. 3 [v.n. 176]),– the proposition as it stands, deceitful, suspect, favorable to the Semipelagian heresy.

The Last Supper was the ultimate, eternal fulfillment of the Passover – in Jesus Christ, our Lord.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The institution of the Eucharist

1337 The Lord, having loved those who were his own, loved them to the end. Knowing that the hour had come to leave this world and return to the Father, in the course of a meal he washed their feet and gave them the commandment of love.163In order to leave them a pledge of this love, in order never to depart from his own and to make them sharers in his Passover, he instituted the Eucharist as the memorial of his death and Resurrection, and commanded his apostles to celebrate it until his return; “thereby he constituted them priests of the New Testament.”164

1338 The three synoptic Gospels and St. Paul have handed on to us the account of the institution of the Eucharist; St. John, for his part, reports the words of Jesus in the synagogue of Capernaum that prepare for the institution of the Eucharist: Christ calls himself the bread of life, come down from heaven.165

1339 Jesus chose the time of Passover to fulfill what he had announced at Capernaum: giving his disciples his Body and his Blood:

Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. So Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and prepare the passover meal for us, that we may eat it. . . .” They went . . . and prepared the passover. And when the hour came, he sat at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you I shall not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”. . . . And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.”166

1340 By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus’ passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom.

“Do this in memory of me”

In times of great confusion, such as our own day, many Catholics are baffled on how to react.

questionSome claim that we must obey our leaders no matter what, and that to voice the slightest disagreement with them is a manifestation of disrespect and disobedience. Not only is this way of thinking incorrect, it also paralyzes Catholics into inaction and heightens their confusion. What we hope to demonstrate is that, according to the Saints, and according to the consistent teaching of the Church, Catholics are bound to resist even prelates if they deviate from the unchanging doctrine and Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Many also believe that it is impossible for a Supreme Pontiff to deviate in any way from the straight and narrow. This is partially correct. The Holy Ghost will always protect a Pope from defining error as truth, for example, from teaching error in an ex cathedra pronouncement. (1) That is certain. But it is demonstrable from the teachings and writings of the Saints that even the highest authority in the Church may fail in his duty and may drift into deviations from Church Teaching.

Read more

Michael Voris’ refusal to criticize the Pope – for any reason – is based on unsound biblical interpretation.

VorisAccording to Michael Voris and Church Militant.TV:

A very poignant example of how we should treat the Holy Father is found in Genesis 9:18-27, particularly 21-23:

18 And the sons of Noe (Noah) who came out of the ark, were Sem, Cham, and Japheth: and Cham is the father of Chanaan.
19 These three are the sons of Noe (Noah): and from these was all mankind spread over the whole earth.
20 And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard,
21 And drinking of the vine was made drunk, and was uncovered in his tent.
22 Which when Cham the father of Chanaan had seen, to wit, that his father’s nakedness was uncovered, he told it to his two brethren without.
23 But Sem and Japheth put a cloak upon their shoulders, and going backward covered the nakedness of their father: and their faces were turned away, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.
24 And Noe (Noah)  awakening from the wine, when he had learned what his younger son had done to him,
25 He said: Cursed be Chanaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
26 And he said: Blessed be the Lord God of Sem; be Chanaan his servant.
27 May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Sem; and Chanaan be his servant.

A strong case can be made that “ecclesiastical porn” sites and publications, and those who write for them, are walking in the footsteps of Cham by telling others of their father’s nakedness. Scripture gives us the example of Sem and Japheth who “covered the nakedness of their father, “their faces were turned away,” and “they saw not their father’s nakedness.” The sons of Noe knew that their father was naked, but they chose to “cover” it. – END

Here’s the important part:

The “father’s nakedness” spoken of in the above passage was actually Noah’s wifenot Noah, himself.

Keep my laws and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them, I am the Lord. No man shall approach to her that is near of kin to him, to uncover her nakedness. I am the Lord. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother: she is thy mother, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s wife: for it is the nakedness of thy father(Leviticus 18:5-8)

I will leave out the rest of the details, as they have little bearing on this discussion.

The point is: Michael Voris is basing his policy on an incorrect and uninformed interpretation of scripture and he’s holding others up to unjust criticism, based on his mistake.

Michael needs to apologize for his mistake, reformulate his policy, based on the truth, and get on with his otherwise good work.

Here’s the pertinent link to Michael Voris’ February 25, 2014 article

I’m Doug Lawrence, the author if this post. I’m a frequent critic of the Pope’s “nakedness” – and I’m also a Michael Voris “fan”.

Fellow Jesuit finds numerous, very serious errors in Pope Francis’ recent Apostolic Exhortation

The latest to take Bergoglio to task is an Egyptian Jesuit and expert on Islam, Rev. Samir Kahil Samir, who teaches in Beirut, Rome and Paris, and is the author of several books and essays on Islam and on its relationship with Christianity and the West. On December 19 the “Asia News” site of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions published an extensive commentary by Fr. Samir on the passages dealing with Islam in Bergoglio’s September 24 Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. Thereafter, his article received a much wider publication when the respected Vatican correspondent Sandro Magister posted a large section of it in his blog on December 30.

While the first part of Fr. Samir’s commentary praises what he regards as “many positive things” in the exhortation, his second part, “Points of ‘Evangelii Gaudium’ that Require Clarification,” is of great interest to us — for it demonstrates that Bergoglio’s optimistic-sounding declarations about Islam are either the product of stupidity or are simply a pack of lies.

Here is synthesis of Fr. Samir’s catalogue of Bergoglian howlers on the subject of Islam, Moslems and the Koran, taken from Nos. 250-253 of Evangelii Gaudium.

1. Muslims “together with us adore the One, merciful God” (No. 252)

Read more

Either Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, and the 2nd member of the Holy Trinity, incarnate – or he was a great pretender!

JCtemplescourge

Jesus “pretending” to cleanse the Temple?

It is the first mark of the “sensus catholicus” that a properly instructed Catholic immediately or almost immediately perceives that something is not in order, even if in the moment he might have some difficulties in saying why. Expressions like “Jesus was pretending to be angry”, or “Jesus in the Gospel was never angry” instinctively go against our grain of Catholics, because even if we cannot remember on the spot that God cannot deceive or that Jesus drove the merchant out of the temple with savage fury, we have been instructed to fear the Lord and not incur His wrath, and to say “the Word of the Lord” as the very epitome of everything that is truthful.

It is evident now that Francis completely lacks this kind of sound perception of Catholicism.  What he has learned – if he has ever learned it – and what faith he used to have – if he ever had it – has been now buried under so many strata of social and socialist blabbering, and washed out by so many decades of “social Gospel” and ecumania, that he might genuinely wonder how it can be that so many people take scandal whenever he opens his mouth.

At some point, Luther must have totally forgotten the truths that he used to believe; to the point that he must have been shocked at being repeated verbatim what he used to believe decades earlier. Francis isn’t as far advanced in this process as Luther, but it is clear that we are in front of one whose Catholicism has slowly slipped out of his hand, becoming the exterior clothing of an ideology that is not Catholicism anymore, though perhaps he does not realise it.

Read more at Mundabor’s Blog

Editor’s note: It’s time to quit blaming poor translations or mischievous newspaper editors for the Pope’s strange and often unchristian remarks. We have – in writing – his latest Apostolic Exhortation, which is literally riddled with inconsistencies and material heresy. We have his many, recent public statements, which have already been widely used to damage the Church and discourage souls from conversion.

In this matter, Pope Francis’ many “spinmeisters” and apologists perform no good service for the Catholic Church.

The Papacy is a prophetic, holy office and the long established standard of Catholic truth is the only standard to which the Pope absolutely must be held. If the Pope cannot develop the personal discipline necessary to speak Catholic truth – always and everywhere – in season and out – he runs the distinct risk of simply being disregarded – just like false prophets and lying, tin-horn politicians – or worse!

I hate to say it – but it now seems quite appropriate that all of this nonsense proceeds from a cheap, Vatican “guest house” – rather than the hallowed halls of the Apostolic Palace. Who says God has no sense of humor?

The Pope should know better! The Catholic Church, Francis wrote, holds “the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked.”

covenant

In his recent Apostolic Exhortation, Pope Francis cited the erroneous passage in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (shown below, in its’ entirety) which incorrectly and improperly conflates the Old Testament of the Holy Bible with the now undoubtedly revoked and no longer valid Old (Mosaic) Covenant of the Jews.

Here’s the erroneous and problematic segment from the Catholic Catechism:

The Old Testament

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

ERROR: Here, the term “COVENANT” is used interchangeably with the term “TESTAMENT” – BUT in this particular context, the meaning of the two is entirely different.

The term “Testament” refers to the Old Testament of the written Word of God – the Holy Bible – while the term “Covenant” refers to the Mosaic Law of the Jews and the TEMPORARY/NON SALVIFIC covenant God made with Moses on Mount Sinai.

The two are not the same!

Now we are treated to a bit of Catholic truth –

122 Indeed, “the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men.”93 “Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,”94 the books of the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God’s saving love: these writings “are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of our salvation is present in a hidden way.”95

And now – more ERROR – as once again,the post-Vatican II style of imprecise (intentionally misleading?) language erroneously conflates the Old Testament of the Holy Bible with the now undoubtedly revoked and replaced Old (Mosaic) Covenant of the Jews: 

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. “The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).”

This above statement is absolutely true in terms of the Old Testament of the Holy Bible – yet it proves to be absolutely false when applied to the Old Mosaic Covenant of the Jews.

The Holy Spirit inspired, totally inerrant,
written Word of God –
The OLD Testament of the Bible –
along with the NEW Testament
has never been revoked!

The status of the Jew’s OLD Mosaic COVENANT however,
is a totally different matter.

There is no doubt that Jesus gave us ALL
a NEW and better COVENANT.

Jesus perfectly fulfilled and respectfully set aside
the OLD COVENANT,
which IS NO LONGER VALID for ANYONE
when he have us the New Covenant in his blood,
at The Last Supper.

The reason for this is simple:
The Old Covenant was never able to save a soul.
Absent Christ’s saving work on the cross,
everyone who ever attempted to live by the Old Covenant alone
would likely have suffered eternal death, as a result.

Only by the merciful and timely application
of the grace of Jesus Christ is salvation possible.
NOT by the “keeping” of ANY LAW.

Several popes (including Pope Francis) seem to be comfortable repeating the scandalous, vaguely written and erroneous passage from the Catholic Catechism, which mistakenly gives the impression that the Old Covenant might still somehow be valid for the Jews, when it most certainly is not.

To make this state of affairs even more scandalous, even the Muslims seem to know the truth, and they are able to prove it, by correctly citing both chapter and verse from the Holy Bible.

From the reader comments on the linked article – apparently written by a Muslim:

Jesus (PBUH) accused the Pharisees and Scribes of being “blind leaders of the blind”. The Pope (at the very least, this one) and other leaders in the Roman Catholic Church are the “Christian” version of those Jewish blind leaders whose followers are also blind.

From a Christian point of view, what is the “new covenant” all about if the “old covenant” still abides? Practically the whole of the “New Testament” writings declare that the “Old Testament/Covenant” has PASSED AWAY with the bringing in of the New Testament/Covenant in which there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile. Particularly the whole letter called “Hebrews” deals with the contrast between the two covenants, the new REPLACING the old. Consider a few verses from this letter to the Hebrews (New King James Version):

7:18 and 19 – “For on the one hand there is an ANNULLING of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.”

8:13 – “In that He says, ‘A new covenant’, He has made the first OBSOLETE. Now what is obsolete and growing old IS READY TO VANISH AWAY.” [This was written shortly before the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, thus actually causing the old to “vanish away”.]

9:8 – “the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All WAS NOT YET MADE MANIFEST WHILE THE FIRST TABERNACLE WAS STILL STANDING.” [The “first tabernacle” no longer stands though, nor does the ‘covenant’ associated with that “first tabernacle”.]

Jesus Christ himself (peace to him) could not have been clearer than in the parable he told about a landowner “…who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he lease it to vinedressers and went into a far country” (Matthew 21:33) When the landowner sent servants to collect the fruit of the vineyard, the vinedressers/tenants beat up and killed the servants, finally killing the son of the landowner. ” ‘Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?’ They said to him, ‘HE will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Did you never read in the Scriptures: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’S doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes”? Therefore I say to you,

” ‘Therefore I say to you, THE KINGDOM OF GOD WILL BE TAKEN FROM YOU AND GIVEN TO A NATION BEARING THE FRUITS OF IT’ “.

It doesn’t matter whether the new nation to whom the kingdom is given is ‘the Church’ or the Arab “Ishmaelite” nation. The point here is that the the Jewish nation is REJECTED from the kingdom while another nation takes their place. Certainly there are “Jews according to the flesh” who enter into the kingdom of God; but it is not through that “old covenant” which has been annulled. They enter on the same footing as everyone else who enters it.

That at least is the teaching of Jesus Christ and his apostles (peace to them all). The Pope claims to be the earthly representative of Jesus Christ, yet he repudiates the teaching of Jesus and his apostles. Surely he is among those who will be shocked to hear Jesus Christ say to him: “Depart from me, you wicked ones; because I never knew you”.

Link

Editor’s note: We have apparently come to a point in history where we have Catholic popes preaching fallacy – and we have Muslims correcting them on significant matters of Catholic doctrine. What a sad state of affairs! – Ed.)

The Protestant Heresy – by Hilaire Belloc

luther-wittenberg

Martin Luther and his 95 Theses at Wittenberg, Germany

What Was the Reformation?

The movement generally called “The Reformation” deserves a place apart in the story of the great heresies; and that for the following reasons:

1. It was not a particular movement but a general one, i.e., it did not propound a particular heresy which could be debated and exploded, condemned by the authority of the Church, as had hitherto been every other heresy or heretical movement. Nor did it, after the various heretical propositions had been condemned, set up (as had Mohammedanism or the Albigensian movement) a separate religion over against the old orthodoxy. Rather did it create a certain separate which we still call “Protestantism.” It produced indeed a crop of heresies, but not one heresy_and its characteristic was that all its heresies attained and prolonged a common savour: that which we call “Protestantism” today.

2. Though the immediate fruits of the Reformation decayed, as had those of many other heresies in the past, yet the disruption it had produced remained and the main principle_reaction against a united spiritual authority_so continued in vigour as both to break up our European civilization in the West and to launch at last a general doubt, spreading more and more widely. None of the older heresies did that, for they were each definite. Each had proposed to supplant or to rival the existing Catholic Church; but the Reformation movement proposed rather to dissolve the Catholic Church_and we know what measure success has been attained by that effort!

The most important thing about the Reformation is to understand it. Not only to follow the story of it stage by stage_a process always necessary to the understanding of any historical matter_but to grasp its essential nature.

On this last it is easy for modern people to go wrong, and especially modern people of the English-speaking world. The nations we English- speaking people know are, with the exception of Ireland, predominantly Protestant; and yet (with the exception of Great Britain and South Africa) they harbour large Catholic minorities.

In that English-speaking world (to which this present writing is addressed) there is full consciousness of what the Protestant spirit has been and what it has become in its present modification. Every Catholic who lives in that English-speaking world knows what is meant by the Protestant temper as he knows the taste of some familiar food or drink or the aspect of some familiar vegetation. In a less degree the large Protestant majorities_in Great Britain it is an overwhelming Protestant majority_have some idea of what the Catholic Church is. They know much less about us than we know about them. That is natural, because we proceed from older origins, because we are universal while they are regional and because we hold a definite intellectual philosophy whereas they possess rather an emotional and indefinite, though characteristic, spirit.

Still, though they know less about us than we know about them, they are aware of a distinction and they feel a sharp division between themselves and ourselves.

Read more