Saturday, January 28, 2017

Christendom, Refugees, Immigrants, and the Right of Conquest

"If a stranger dwell in your land, and abide among you, do not upbraid him: But let him be among you as one of the same country: and you shall love him as yourselves: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God." - Leviticus 19:33-34
"Destroy all the inhabitants of that land: beat down their pillars, and break in pieces their statues, and waste all their high places, Cleansing the land, and dwelling in it. For I have given it you for a possession... But if you will not kill the inhabitants of the land: they that remain, shall be unto you as nails in your eyes, and spears in your sides, and they shall be your adversaries in the land of your habitation." - Numbers 33:52-53,55

Since President Trump has signed executive orders regarding immigration and supposed refugees, we are again being endlessly reminded that European Christians are the ultimate sinners. We are told that the United States has absolutely no right to defend its borders or limit immigration because all of this land was "stolen from the Native Americans." Christians, we are told, cannot turn away refugees even if they are the avowed enemies of Christendom. We must open our doors to foreigners. We must let them dwell among us. To this end, progressives have started to cite Leviticus 19:33-34 as seen above, which certainly does seem to suggest that God commands us to let foreigners live among us as though they are one of our own. But, how can that passage be reconciled with Numbers 33:52,55, also seen above? Has God commanded us to let paynims live among us as they are our own, or has He instead warned us to do the exact opposite?

On its face, it may seem as though God has given us contradictory commandments, but this speaks to the value of digging deeper into the text when that appears to be the case. As should be expected, it is the progressives who are subverting God's will. In Leviticus 19:33, the word translated as "dwell" is יָג֧וּר, or Hebrew for "sojourn." This means that the passage is referencing a stranger temporarily visiting, seeking lodging, &c. This is reinforced by the fact that each case of "stranger" uses the same word in Hebrew (גָּר), which is derived from the verb above, per Strong's Lexicon. Thus, consider an alternative reading: "If a stranger visits your land, do not mistreat him but rather treat him as one of your own." In its proper context then, we can see that Leviticus 19:33-34 is commanding us to be hospitable to strangers rather than treating them as the Egyptians treated the Hebrews in the story of the Exodus. God was not commanding us to embrace foreign invaders.

Let's look at Numbers 33:51-55 for full context:
"Command the children of Israel, and say to them: When you shall have passed over the Jordan, entering into the land of Chanaan, Destroy all the inhabitants of that land: beat down their pillars, and break in pieces their statues, and waste all their high places, Cleansing the land, and dwelling in it. For I have given it you for a possession. And you shall divide it among you by lot. To the more you shall give a larger part, and to the fewer a lesser. To every one as the lot shall fall, so shall the inheritance be given. The possession shall be divided by the tribes and the families. But if you will not kill the inhabitants of the land: they that remain, shall be unto you as nails in your eyes, and spears in your sides, and they shall be your adversaries in the land of your habitation."
We can compare this with Deuteronomy 7:2-5,16:
"And the Lord thy God shall have delivered them to thee, thou shalt utterly destroy them. Thou shalt make no league with them, nor shew mercy to them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for thy son: For she will turn away thy son from following me, that he may rather serve strange gods, and the wrath of the Lord will be kindled, and will quickly destroy thee. But thus rather shall you deal with them: Destroy their altars, and break their statues, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven things... Thou shalt consume all the people, which the Lord thy God will deliver to thee. Thy eye shall not spare them, neither shalt thou serve their gods, lest they be thy ruin."
 And Deuteronomy 20:10-12,15-18:
"If at any time thou come to fight against a city, thou shalt first offer it peace. If they receive it, and open the gates to thee, all the people that are therein, shall be saved, and shall serve thee paying tribute. But if they will not make peace, and shall begin war against thee, thou shalt besiege it... So shalt thou do to all cities that are at a great distance from thee, and are not of these cities which thou shalt receive in possession. But of those cities that shall be given thee, thou shalt suffer none at all to live: But shalt kill them with the edge of the sword, to wit, the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: Lest they teach you to do all the abominations which they have done to their gods: and you should sin against the Lord your God."
These passages and others like them cannot be any clearer. The righteous are called to take the lands that God has placed before them, and they are to wipe away the godless who may occupy those lands. Otherwise, the godless will remain enemies of the righteous and will try to lead them astray. Consider the "synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie (Revelation 3:9)." Are the modern Pharisees not nails in our eyes, spears in our sides, and adversaries in our own lands? Is the same not also true of Muslims? Is it not true that virtually every minority has been weaponized by the godless hedonists so as to undermine and subvert Christendom? In no uncertain terms, these passages are demonstrating the right of conquest for the faithful. When Christians discovered the New World, were they not acting in accordance with the passages above, even as they waged war and moved the paynim populations that stood in their way? Did the Christians not build something glorious out of nothing more than uncultivated earth, all in the name of God?

Some would certainly try to argue that the Old Testament only speaks of God granting Israel to the Hebrews, but remember that Jesus was foretold as the King of the true Judeans (Matthew 2:2). It is Christians who are now the house of Israel, granted a new covenant with God where the old decayed as the Hebrews lost their way (Hebrews 8:8-13). When God says that He will grant lands to His children and that they should take them in His name, the expansion of Christendom and the white race are cast in a new light. The failure of the West is in forgetting that God warned us not to let our enemies live amongst us because they will subvert us.

The Crusades were not a sin. The Age of Discovery was not a sin. The "Trail of Tears" was not a sin. By God's own commandments, Christians have a right to take what He has set before us. Why would so much have been placed at Europeans' feet if it was not God's will that we take it? The sin was in allowing our enemies to remain amongst us, or letting them move amongst us after the fact. Let us look back to the passages above. If God sets territory before Christians, it is His will that the paynims be exterminated or driven from our lands so that they cannot subvert or lead us astray. If they are outside of our lands, then we should attempt to make peace with them, requiring that they pay tribute in service of the righteous faithful.

Jesus came not to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34), and we are called to take up the cross and follow Him (Luke 9:23), selling our cloaks if need be so that we may arm ourselves (Luke 22:36).

For study: How are Biblical translations weaponized, purposely or not, so as to lead Christians from the true path? For example, compare the Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition translation of Leviticus 19:33-34 above to that found in the Common English Bible (2011), sponsored jointly by the Disciples of Christ, Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church:
"When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God."

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Progressive: "Jesus was a liberal, and the Women's March was his Second Coming."

In the aftermath of the Inauguration, progressives met in Washington, DC, and other deeply blue areas for so-called "women's marches." As it happens, the national co-chair of the primary march is a Muslimah by the name of Linda Sarsour, who is the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York as well as a proponent of Sharia law in the United States. It is not surprising that a hijab-wearing Muslimah would have such views. After all, polling has shown that 1-in-2 Muslims in America want Sharia law in the US, and 1-in-4 say that it is "legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.” (Source) Similarly, 4-in-10 Muslims in Britain also want Sharia law (Source).

Linda Sarsour attempting to subvert the West in the name of her paynim religion is not surprising, but it is perhaps somewhat surprising just how easily subverted progressives are in such instances. Take, for example, the fact that the "Women's March" in DC included white feminists donning "American flag" hijabs and learning how to tie them (Source). And others carried posters and such depicting a Muslimah wearing such a "patriotic" hijab (Source). Islam is everything that progressives accuse the West of being, but there were those same progressives willingly and gleefully submitting to it in the name of anti-racism and tolerance. Now, it would be all too easy to dismiss this as being a case of the progressives being too ignorant to understand what they were doing, but consider the possibility that progressives rather know exactly what they are doing.

It is impossible to believe that progressives do not understand how Muslims treat women in their own countries, or homosexuals, and so on. How could progressives not know that even our supposed allies still execute people in the street for things progressives claim are fundamental rights? How could they not know that the hijab is tied to Sharia law, which, in turn, allows for executing homosexuals? They must know all of that, and yet they still donned what they would have quickly labeled symbols of oppression had Christians required that women wear them. If you take progressive talking points at face value, you will never truly understand what they do and why because they are not being honest.

A progressive can attack a white Christian for oppressing women through mean thoughts and words even while they wear a literal symbol of Islam's oppression, and they will have no concept of being a hypocrite or cuckold for doing so. This is because the progressive is not actually motivated by a desire to combat oppression, but they are rather motivated by a desire to subvert the West. They seek to destroy the white, Christian male, and everything else can be shaped and formed around that even when that means they hold multiple contradictory positions. In light of that, let's consider what they were actually marching for in DC.

1. Women deserve free birth control and on-demand abortions.

In Matthew 15:19, Jesus lists fornication along with murder, adultery, and other heinous sins. In John 8:7-11, we see Jesus save an adulteress from being stoned to death, but His final words to her were, "Go, and now sin no more." Consider then that all premarital sex is fornication, and single women using birth control for that purpose are embracing their sin rather than turning from it. They have not only embraced their sin, but they are actively working to avoid any consequences. The same is true of them having an abortion, going so far as to end a small life because they wish to lead hedonistic lives without risking the natural consequences.

2. Women deserve to be in positions of authority and power.

Feminists believe that Hillary Clinton should have been President, and their argument is usually only that "it is time." They assume that women belong in positions of authority, but is that the case? 1 Timothy 2:11-12 tells us, "Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence." This is also seen in 1 Corinthians 14:34—"Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith." The Bible is clear that woman can indeed speak in churches within their allotted roles, so these verses must be understood as speaking to positions of authority. If the Bible tells us that women cannot be priests, why should we assume that they should be presidents? After all, 1 Peter 3:7 tells husbands to honor their wives, but it also makes it clear that women are the weaker vessel. Indeed, 1 Peter 3:1-6 also says that wives are to submit to their husbands, calling him lord in all obedience. If a woman were to become President, would she not inherently usurp the authority of her husband as both head of household and ruling him as a monarch, against God's will?

3. LGBT rights are human rights.

Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination." This is reiterated in Romans 1:26-27, which states that homosexuality is a "shameful affection" that changes "the natural use into that use which is against nature ... working that which is filthy." Deuteronomy 22:5 shows us that engaging in "trans" behavior is also a sin: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trannies are all abominations before God, and the leftist desire to normalize and encourage the degenerate, sinful behaviors of such a tiny minority serves no other purpose but to subvert our values.

4. Immigrants and refugees welcome.

In Luke 22:36, Jesus said, "But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword." In Matthew 10:34,38, Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword," "And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me." And John 14:6: "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." Muslims are heathen enemies of the Lord, and they have sought to overthrow Christendom since their religion was established in the 7th century AD. Why should we willingly import infidels who openly support bringing their bastard faith with them, who rape the wives and daughters of our own men, and who do not share our values in the slightest? Jesus made it clear that paynims are not right with the Lord, and at no time did Jesus command that we should help to destroy our peoples, nations, and the Church itself in favor of foreigners.


Following the "Women's March," one liberal woman informed me that "Jesus was a liberal" and that their march "might be his Second Coming." It is painfully obvious that the Bible does not support the beliefs held by the progressives, and the Old and New Testament both speak to the fact that they not only sin but that they wallow in their own filth. This liberal and others like her are fond of loosely referencing Matthew 7:1—"Judge not, that you may not be judged"—and John 8:7—"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone "—because they believe Jesus was saying that we are to never interfere with the lives of others, to never judge or condemn even the most egregious of sins. This is, of course, not what the Bible says. Jesus was condemning blatant hypocrites who were taking enjoyment from their condemnations of others.

Indeed, Matthew 18:15-17 tells us that if our brother sins against us that we should first rebuke him privately, then before witnesses, and then before the whole church. If he still will not change his ways, then you are to treat him as a stranger. Similarly, James 5:19-20 tells us that "he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins." Why would we be called to rebuke one who has sinned against us if we are never to judge? Is rebuking them not in itself a judgment on their behavior? Why would Jesus tell us that saving another from sin saves not only them but also ourselves? How can we correct error and save others if we must act as though their sins are acceptable?

Ultimately, the truth is that progressivism does not exist to promote "progress," or to combat "isms," or anything else of the sort. Progressivism is just a new incarnation of godless Marxism, and its entire purpose is to subvert the Christian West so as to make it easier to overthrow entire nations. This is why progressives only condemn racism, sexism, and so on in one direction. They do not actually care about bigotry, but they do care about tearing down every defensive barrier that Christendom has standing in their way. They seek to subvert and destroy the European man because he stands in the way of their global Marxist goals, but he can only truly defeat them when bolstered by his faith and pride in his ancestors. If the Marxists can reduce the European man to a sniveling, godless shell of a creature wherever he is found, who else will stand in their way? Progressivism is not an assault on anyone's views on race, gender, sexuality, or the like beyond how the European Christian understands and challenges the godless barbarity seen in the modern world.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Rabid Individualism: At Odds with God, and Americanism

Writing in the National Review in 1956, Frank Chodorov, a noted libertarian thinker of the time, stipulated that the "free market ... is mechanistic and amoral" (Source). This was meant as a defense against charges that libertarianism's individualistic philosophy is selfish, materialistic, and hedonistic. In Chodorov's screed, he dismissed the charges by claiming that it is all just a "bag of semantics" set toward the "besmirching of individualism," but what he failed to do is show that modern libertarianism's philosophy is not selfish, materialistic, and hedonistic. In fairness to him, however, it must be said that doing so would be an impossible task because libertarianism is not amoral, but it is rather immoral.

To understand the flaws of libertarianism, we must first dispense with the No True Scotsman fallacy. At its most basic, libertarianism is defined by the OED as an "extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens, (Source)" but this fails to fully capture the essence of the modern libertarian movement. For that, we can turn to David Boaz of the Cato Institute—the premier American libertarian think tank, co-founded by Murray Rothbard himself—who wrote in 1999 that the key concepts of libertarianism include individualism, individual rights, spontaneous order, the rule of law, and limited government (Source). Interestingly, Boaz also felt the need to stipulate that libertarianism "is not libertinism or hedonism," which shows that the criticism stuck despite Chodorov's efforts in 1956.

Even if entirely unfamiliar with libertarianism, one would have to question its underlying philosophy when faced with such consistent criticism. As the age-old adage suggests, where there's smoke, there's fire. Indeed, one need not look any further than the Libertarian Party itself to find support for abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, multiracialism, multiculturalism, open borders, and so on (Source), and this cannot be dismissed as Boaz himself has said that "members of the Libertarian Party are much more committed to the libertarian philosophy" than those who "hold broadly libertarian views" yet do not identify as such (Source). A libertarian might defend all of the above by saying that what people do in private is their own business, but must society accept degeneracy in its midst simply in the name of individualism? According to the philosophy of Chodorov and Boaz, both of whom have cited classical liberals such as Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers as being representative of libertarianism, society must indeed accept degeneracy.

The problem with such an assertion, however, is that libertarianism has virtually nothing to do with the thoughts or actions of the men who founded the United States. For example, as John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (Source). The Libertarian Party's platform certainly is not representative of the "moral and religious People" to which he was referring. Furthermore, the Founders were not above severely punishing what they saw as degeneracy. For example, in 1778, Thomas Jefferson proposed that Virginia should treat both sodomy and polygamy the same as rape with perpetrators being castrated (Source). If modern libertarianism is representative of American ideals, why then is it so vastly different from anything the Founders believed?

As another example, let's consider that David Boaz has criticized Donald Trump for his supposed "nativism" whereas Boaz asserts that "America is an exceptional nation in large part because we’ve aspired to rise above such prejudices" (Source).

That is particularly funny considering that Thomas Jefferson wrote that "[blacks'] existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. ... Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous" (Source). Jefferson was in favor of the eventual abolition of slavery, but he also said, ""When freed, [the black] is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture" (Source).

The latter view was shared by James Madison who said that "freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population" (Source).

Benjamin Franklin was actually opposed to blacks having ever been brought to the Americas, writing in 1751, "All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. ... And while we are ... clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red?" (Source)

It makes sense then that in 1790 the First US Congress limited naturalized citizenship to whites even though the free population of the new nation was already 98.15% white at the time. It also makes sense that this "whites only" policy was reinforced in 1795 and again in 1798. Again, however, David Boaz says that it is un-American to deport illegal aliens, to bar Muslims from entering the nation even temporarily, and so on. Libertarians claim to be classical liberals like Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin, but it is quite clear that the former would denigrate the latter as "racist," "xenophobic," "nativist," "homophobic," and so on if they were alive today. It appears that this boils down to the Founders understanding that individual liberty must be balanced against the good of their nation and also the good of their people in a more general sense. After all, they did not seek to limit naturalized citizenship to fellow British people, but they instead stipulated "white."

Modern libertarianism lacks any such balance. It is quite common to see libertarians dismiss anything and everything as "collectivism," and that shows us that the highest concept of their philosophy is unbridled individualism. Also intrinsic to libertarianism is the belief that people are inherently selfish and materialistic, motivated solely by personal gain and benefit. We are told that this is why an unrestrained and unregulated global free market is needed so that people will find ways to consume and also meet the demand of other consumers in the most efficient way possible. The problem here is that it is not "amoral" for a philosophy to posit such about human nature because to do so is to actually encourage people to believe it not only about themselves but others, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where personal desire is the only true calling. The Founders' Americanism understood that there was something greater, but libertarianism does not.

To further understand this, consider that libertarianism primarily hinges on the notion of "natural rights," or rights seen as intrinsic to a person in a moral sense, and limited government that cannot infringe upon those rights. This is taken to the extreme by saying that abortion must be legal because it is a woman's body, or that sodomy must be legal because they are consenting adults, or that people should be free to cross borders because they are artificial constructs of collectivism. In this sense, modern libertarians are again more radical than those they claim to be emulating in the United States. The Founders clearly did not share the view that anything and everything must be accepted by society in the name of individual liberty.

In another example of libertarianism being more radical than its supposed historical antecedents, we can contrast the modern philosophy with the writings of John Locke, who they also reference as an early proponent of their thinking. In Two Treatises of Government (1689), Locke posited that a man has the natural right to own property insofar as he cultivates it and can use the product thereof (Source). In his estimation, one cannot complain that another has enclosed land or taken water from a river so long as there is still other land and water for the next man's own use. If we make a different set of assumptions and apply the same principle, a man would not have a right to take land or water for his own use where he entirely deprived others of the same. The implication being that said man still has some obligation to others even if it runs contrary to his personal desires. Libertarianism, on the other hand, espouses a sort of rabid individualism where there is no higher calling for a person than to do what they wish and when they wish it. This includes people buying far more land than they intend to cultivate or use, companies being free to pollute air and water so long as the market allows it, and so on. If there is a sense that there is nothing greater than oneself, the inevitable result must be hedonism with society breaking down as everyone chases their next pleasure.

To quote Adams again, the "Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." How can anyone claim to love America as founded and to hold to the nation's original ideals while espousing the acceptance and normalization of hedonism? Indeed, the rabid individualism of libertarianism flies in the face of the Christian faith that so defined the lives of the Founders. After all, 1 Peter 2:13-14 says, "Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God's sake: whether it be to the king as excelling; Or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good." Similarly, both Matthew 22:21 and Mark 12:17 say, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's." As can be seen, we are called to submit to proper authorities, but we are also called in James 5:19-20 to protect our comrades: "My brethren, if any of you err from the truth, and one convert him: He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way, shall save his soul from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins." How can one reconcile rabid individualism with the Lord calling us to obey the laws of secular authorities and also to be our brothers' keeper, saving them from their own sinful desires?

Rabid individualism with its complete rejection of any form of collectivism is wholly at odds with the ideals, morals, and values of the United States and the men who founded it. They recognized the fact that individual liberty can only truly exist within a narrow set of parameters, and they set out to protect the high-trust, homogeneous society necessary for their envisioned limited government to work. Unbridled individualism, however, must always result in a steady march towards hedonism and debauchery in the name of personal desire, which is itself cultivated by this wicked philosophy. If you care not for your family, community, nation, people, and religion, then what do you care for? Answer: only yourself. That is not some moral higher calling for the truly enlightened. It is the lowly call of the debased and debauched, no different than leftists.

Sunday, January 8, 2017

As the Weeds of Heresy Grow, a Cleansing Fire is Needed

For decades, you could ask any traditionalist Catholic about the state of Christendom, and they would likely all tell you the same thing: namely, that the Church is in very real trouble. In this new year, there is a certain sense that traditionalism could soon sweep through the faith, mirroring what has been seen with nationalism, but the faith is also perhaps in more danger than ever before. This is due in no small part to Pope Francis, who has shown that advancing a liberal agenda is more important than preserving the faith.

For example, consider that Francis went to Sweden to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, and, while doing so, he was seen embracing Antje Jackelén, the female primate of the Church of Sweden. (Source) It is worthy of note that "Archbishop" Jackelén is a supporter of gay marriage, and the Church of Sweden is also home to Eva Brunne, the openly gay "Bishop" of Stockholm, who called for crosses to be removed from a church so that Muslims could use it without being offended (Source). Both Jackelén and Brunne have used their positions as Lutheran "bishops" to lobby Francis to ordain female priests (Source).

Now, it may seem silly at first to think that these Lutheran heretics could have undue influence over the Church moving forward, but remember that Francis visited their Reformation celebration. Also, consider the fact that Walter Cardinal Kasper, who Francis has referred to as “a talented theologian, a good theologian” (Source), said that Francis going to Sweden was "to confess the sin (shared) of division," and Kasper went further to say that he hopes Francis will allow "Eucharistic sharing" en route to full reconciliation with Lutherans, so long as "rigid" forces within the Church do not stand in the way of "progress" (Source). Bear in mind that Francis already opened the door to Lutherans taking Catholic Communion (Source).

In this same heretical vein, Francis has also created a "Special Commission for the Study of the Diaconate of Women," and one of the people appointed thereto is Hofstra University professor Phyllis Zagano, a feminist advocate for female ordination (Source). Zagano actually has ties to Women’s Ordination Worldwide, a heretical group claiming to ordain women in addition to openly supporting homosexuals (Source).

If these various progressives, both within the Church and without, are correct that Francis plans to give them everything they want, what will happen to the faith? We can be sure that some Catholics would embrace an openness to divorce, female clergy, tolerance of homosexuals, and so on as proposed by heretical factions, but we can also be fairly certain that many would not. That is the exact same path that has resulted in the Episcopal Church bleeding away members for years, and that is most likely exactly what would happen to the Catholic Church. That the door is even slightly open to so many heresies and at the same moment in time speaks to one very glaring fact—the Church and Christendom are in need of a new Counter-Reformation.

Heterodox Catholics have grown too bold in conjunction with Protestants, Jews, and Muslims subverting Latin Christendom, and Francis is a symptom of this terrible cancer. We have liberals masquerading as theologians when they are clearly motivated by their political ideology rather than by the Bible or Catholic tradition. They espouse things in direct opposition of everything Catholics hold dear, but the saddest and most dangerous thing of all is that so many heretics are hiding in plain sight by donning the collar and cassock. They are not shepherds tending to their flock nor soldiers for Christ. They are rather hellspawn in sheeps' clothing, purposely and knowingly leading people astray for whatever reason.

Non-Catholic conservatives are prone to point the finger at Catholicism as though the liberal faction is the very Church itself, but the current state of affairs is the direct result of Vatican II pushing the notion that Catholics should be reaching out to Protestants and Jews. The liberal heretics pretending to be faithful clergy are spiritual descendants of that heresy, and they can and must be purged to make way for a spiritual rebirth, a re-embracing of a militant and zealous faith that stands against the enemies of Christ, both supernatural and natural. Sadly, due to the current hierarchy, any effort to right the proverbial ship will most likely have to come from the masses of Roman Catholics as well as traditionalists found among the SSPX, Old Catholics, Independent Catholics, and others loyal to the true faith who would see the Church restored.

"Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is." - 1 Corinthians 3:13

Sunday, January 1, 2017

For Reflection, An Abridgement of Christian Doctrine

A new year is upon us, and, in the spirit of bettering ourselves, here is a selection from "An Abridgement of Christian Doctrine" as found in the 1962 Missal available from Baronius Press. Each of us should ponder what is truly expected of us so that we may better live the faith.

The Six Precepts of the Church
1. To hear Mass on Sundays and holydays of obligation.
2. To fast and abstain on the days commanded.
3. To confess our sins at least once a year.
4. To receive the Blessed Eucharist at Easter or within the time appointed.
5. To contribute to the support of our Pastors.
6. Not to solemnize marriage at the forbidden times; nor to marry persons within the forbidden degrees of kindred, or otherwise prohibited by the Church, nor secretly.

The Seven Sacraments
Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Holy Matrimony.

The Three Theological Virtues
Faith, Hope, and Charity.

The Four Cardinal Virtues
Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance.

The Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost
Wisdom, Understanding, Counsel, Fortitude, Knowledge, Piety, and the Fear of the Lord.

The Twelve Fruits of the Holy Ghost
Charity, Joy, Peace, Patience, Longanimity, Goodness, Benignity, Mildness, Fidelity, Modesty, Continence, and Chastity.

The Spiritual Works of Mercy
To give counsel to the doubtful.—To instruct the ignorant.—To admonish sinners.—To comfort the afflicted.—To forgive offences.—To bear patiently the troublesome.—To pray for the living and the dead.

The Corporal Works of Mercy
To feed the hungry.—To give drink to the thirsty.—To clothe the naked.—To shelter the needy.—To visit the sick.—To visit the imprisoned.—To bury the dead.

The Eight Beatitudes
1. Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
2. Blessed are the meek; for they shall possess the land.
3. Blessed are they that mourn; for they shall be comforted.
4. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice; for they shall be filled.
5. Blessed are the merciful; for they shall obtain mercy.
6. Blessed are the clean of heart; for they shall see God.
7. Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.
8. Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice's sake; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

The Seven Deadly Sins

Contrary Virtues
Humility.—Liberality.—Chastity.—Meekness.—Temperance.—Brotherly Love.—Diligence.

Sins against the Holy Ghost
Presumption upon God's mercy.—Despair.—Impugning the known truth.—Envy of another's spiritual good.—Obstinacy in sin.—Final impenitence.

Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance
Wilful murder.—The sin of Sodom.—Oppression of the poor.—Defrauding labourers of their wages.

Nine Ways of Being Accessory to Another's Sin
By counsel.—By command.—By consent.—By provocation.—By praise or flattery.—By concealment.—By partaking.—By silence.—By defence of the ill done.

Three Eminently Good Works
Alms-deeds, or works of mercy. Prayer and Fasting.

Three Evangelical Counsels
Voluntary Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience.

Subjects for Daily Meditation
Remember, Christian soul, that thou has this day, and every day of thy life:

God to glorify,
Jesus to imitate,
The Angels and Saints to invoke.
A soul to save,
A body to mortify,
Sins to expiate,
Virtues to acquire,
Hell to avoid,
Heaven to gain,
Eternity to prepare for,
Time to profit by.
Neighbours to edify,
The world to despise,
Devils to combat,
Passions to subdue,
Death perhaps to suffer,
Judgment to undergo.