Viganò, the Homoheresy, and Spiritual Blindness

Not long ago, I was in an online controversy with a young woman who objected to something I wrote. We went back and forth a bit, but the discussion went nowhere fast. She was defending positions diametrically opposed to the Catholic Church’s moral teaching on grave matter. The longer the argument progressed, the more the woman revealed of herself, and it was disturbing, both considering where she started from, and where she ended up spiritually. At the same time, I was arguing with a young man of whom the very same may be said. Both are individuals who might variously be described as “lapsed,” “fallen-away,” or (the greatly misused term) merely “cultural Catholics.”

In the context of the online controversy, the young woman frankly and unashamedly admitted (without my asking her about it) that she routinely violates the sixth and ninth commandments, and chose to give up feeling guilty about it and going to confession. The young man, while not making such admissions, made statements indicating that he lives the same libertine sort of lifestyle. Regardless of his deeds, he defends immoral behavior in word.

My freethinking interlocutors resisted all arguments, not only from supernatural revelation, but also from the natural law, which one of them seemed to mistake for the “law of the jungle,” inasmuch as he actually pointed to the behavior of beasts to justify moral turpitude. Homosexual acts, he noted, are sometimes seen in the animal kingdom, a true claim, but one which says nothing about their probity. It is easily answerable by pointing out that we do not get our morals (including our sexual morals) from the beasts, who are incapable of moral acts anyway. As a child, I learned from a filicidal pet gerbil that rodents are not models of virtuous fatherhood.

When the Angel Raphael advises Tobias the younger not to be like those who “give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding” (Tob. 6:17), he speaks a language that even unbelievers acquainted with the animal kingdom can understand, presuming they consider that we “rational animals” are indeed superior to the brute beasts.

Back to my online argument with the two youths: the imperviousness to reason, to sound arguments drawn from the purpose of the human sexual faculties, and common sense, was striking. It led me to the conclusion — provisional, of course, not definitive — that I was dealing with two cases of what moral theologians call “spiritual blindness.”

Reading the “Third Testimony” of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò strikingly brought the same phenomenon to my mind.

An excellent, brief treatise on the subject of “spiritual blindness” may be found at the New Theological Movement website. The author, Father Ryan Erlenbus, cites Saint Thomas, who asks the question, “Whether blindness of mind and dulness of sense arise from sins of the flesh?” He answers in the affirmative, and here is part of his explanation:

Now it is evident that pleasure fixes a man’s attention on that which he takes pleasure in. Now carnal vices, namely gluttony and lust, are concerned with pleasures of touch in matters of food and sex; and these are the most impetuous of all pleasures of the body. For this reason these vices cause man’s attention to be firmly fixed on corporeal things, so that in consequence man’s operation in regard to the intelligible things is weakened; more, however, by lust than by gluttony, forasmuch as sexual pleasures are more vehement than those of the table. Wherefore lust gives rise to blindness of mind, which excludes almost entirely the knowledge of spiritual things. (ST II-II, q.15, a.3)

Reference to this phenomenon is common in traditional moral manuals and books of spiritual theology. Prayer and penance, fasting and other bodily mortifications are the effective remedies these traditional books recommend.

More modern works also reference the problem. There is this almost matter-of-fact reference in Michael E. Giesler’s relatively recent Guidebook for Confessors: “Lust can lead to spiritual blindness and even denial of the faith, since it often affects a person’s power to reason and to see the truth about other people and things.”

Taking the Doctor of Grace as his reference, Father John F. Harvey (founder of Courage), in his Moral Theology of the Confessions of Saint Augustine, writes along similar lines: “At the same time, it has not been forgotten that in the unity of the sinner’s person the elements of spiritual blindness, lust, and confusion are bound up with one another in a dynamically intimate way. In the vicious circle of blindness and vice, lust tends to create blindness quite as effectively as blindness contributes to the habit of lust.” Father Harvey goes on to explain that, in Saint Augustine’s thought, the sinner brings upon himself his own punishment, the terrible effects of sin (including blindness) being themselves a penalty for sin.

We all have to discipline our lower passions. This is a commonplace of the Catholic moral life. But we don’t often think of the consequences of giving in routinely, and especially in grave matters, to those passions. All sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will. But the sin of lust has a particular gravity to it — and here I don’t mean gravity in the technical sense of “grave [i.e., mortally sinful] matter,” but in the common sense of “weighing us down,” or “making us heavy and sluggish to rise up.” For the person burdened by these encumbrances, to elevate the mind to God, to supernatural mysteries, and to one’s Christian obligations, becomes progressively more difficult. And the more crass the sins of the flesh, the worse these effects will be.

Keep what has been written here in mind as you read the following paragraphs from Archbishop Viganò’s “Third Testimony,” published, as it is appropriately headlined, “On the Feast of the North American Martyrs.” (Note: On the Novus Ordo calendar, that feast is October 19, the day that one of them, Saint John de Lalande, died. The traditional calendar celebrates them on September 26, the liturgically available day nearest, I believe, to the “birthday” of the first of the martyrs to die, Saint René Goupil. He died on September 29, which was already taken by Saint Michael.)

Please note especially the passages I here underline in Archbishop Viganò’s latest text, which is a response to attempted rebuttals of his earlier testimonies, especially to that of Cardinal Ouellet:

In the public remonstrances directed at me I have noted two omissions, two dramatic silences. The first silence regards the plight of the victims. The second regards the underlying reason why there are so many victims, namely, the corrupting influence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy. As to the first, it is dismaying that, amid all the scandals and indignation, so little thought should be given to those damaged by the sexual predations of those commissioned as ministers of the gospel. This is not a matter of settling scores or sulking over the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical careers. It is not a matter of politics. It is not a matter of how church historians may evaluate this or that papacy. This is about souls. Many souls have been and are even now imperiled of their eternal salvation.

As to the second silence, this very grave crisis cannot be properly addressed and resolved unless and until we call things by their true names. This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons. It is an enormous hypocrisy to condemn the abuse, claim to weep for the victims, and yet refuse to denounce the root cause of so much sexual abuse: homosexuality. It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.

Unquestionably there exist philandering clergy, and unquestionably they too damage their own souls, the souls of those whom they corrupt, and the Church at large. But these violations of priestly celibacy are usually confined to the individuals immediately involved. Philandering clergy usually do not recruit other philanderers, nor work to promote them, nor cover-up their misdeeds — whereas the evidence for homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate, is overwhelming.

It is well established that homosexual predators exploit clerical privilege to their advantage. But to claim the crisis itself to be clericalism is pure sophistry. It is to pretend that a means, an instrument, is in fact the main motive.

Denouncing homosexual corruption and the moral cowardice that allows it to flourish does not meet with congratulation in our times, not even in the highest spheres of the Church.

He writes of “the corrupting influence of homosexuality in the priesthood and in the hierarchy.” If spiritual blindness results from repeated, habitual sins of lust, then it makes sense that worse sins of lust beget worse spiritual blindness. Homosexual acts being unnatural, they are worse than natural sins against the sixth and ninth commandments. The “worse” blindness is a blindness to a wider scope of spiritual truths, and even truths pertaining to natural virtue. Common features of homosexual clerics include their disregard for truth in matters of faith and morals, their passive-aggressive behavior, and an almost constitutional aversion to the cardinal virtue of justice. They also tend to be incorrigible liars. The “corrupting influence” of their vice is sickeningly palpable.

Sounding authentic supernatural notes of Catholic spiritual fatherhood, His Grace writes, “This is about souls. Many souls have been and are even now imperiled of their eternal salvation.” Who speaks like that now? This is a man, a bishop, who is preparing to meet the Just Judge. He knows that “one thing is necessary” (Luke 10:42), and that is union with God, the eschatological alternative to which is damnation — and yes, he even uses the “d-word” in his “Third Testimony,” twice! Clerical homosexualists tend to dismiss such a challenging and bracing orthodoxy about the last things. The preferred homosexual eschatology would be more Balthasarian in its orientation: universalism would, for instance, rule out such unpleasantness as the everlastingly burning sands and fiery rain that Dante assigns to the sodomites in Canto 7 of his Inferno.

His Grace goes on: “This is a crisis due to the scourge of homosexuality, in its agents, in its motives, in its resistance to reform. It is no exaggeration to say that homosexuality has become a plague in the clergy, and it can only be eradicated with spiritual weapons.” Here we have masculine and fatherly words. Archbishop Viganò points to a spiritual problem of massive proportions (which I here call the spiritual blindness of homosexual clerics) that requires spiritual solutions. Blind men who think they see, blind men who tell us lies about God and man, blind men who exert power even as they commit dark deeds are resistant to reform. What incentive, positive or negative, do they have to reform? Hell? See the above paragraph. The good of souls? They scoff at this. Heaven? But what concept of beatitude does such a carnal man have? At best, only that of the Muslim or Mormon, which they already enjoy here below in the ecclesiastical bordello they have created.

(The remedies are there, of course, as I mentioned above; they are found in the tradition of the Church: prayer and penance. And far be it from me to say that the healing power of grace cannot penetrate the heart of one of these evil men and make him good.)

He continues this same strong language here: “It is hypocrisy to refuse to acknowledge that this scourge is due to a serious crisis in the spiritual life of the clergy and to fail to take the steps necessary to remedy it.” Bureaucratic solutions, however popular among bureaucrats and however profitable for the companies that sell them to the bureaucrats at the expense of the faithful, will do little or no good. (Frank and erudite talk about the true remedies may be found in Ryan Grant’s revealing interview with Father Chad Ripperger on the priestly vocation in light of the McCarrick affair.)

Note the contrast drawn by His Grace between heterosexual “philandering clergy” and homosexual priests. Some will object to it, but it is reasonable. Philanderers are rotten, wicked priests, but the rot is comparatively contained, whereas, among those committing sins against nature, we find, “homosexual collusion, with its deep roots that are so difficult to eradicate.”

Let us grasp the full force of the crisis: If we have cardinals, bishops, pastors, confessors, seminary professors, catechists, high school teachers, etc., who are homosexual clerics, then we have spiritually blind men in lofty positions of teaching, governing and sanctifying Christ’s faithful — some in very high offices. In light of Our Lord’s sobering words about “the blind leading the blind,” the urgent tone and extreme measures of Archbishop Viganò are responses that are both prudent and proportional.

I have said it before and I will keep saying it. The crisis we are in will not be overcome by State interference, by media exposure, or even by the entirely justified and necessary anger of the faithful. In God’s providence, these things will all be catalysts, but the crisis will only be overcome by the polar opposite of homosexual priests, namely, by true spiritual fathers, men whose interior life and external good works correspond to that august title.

Let us ask the Eternal Father, “of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named” (Eph. 3:15), to send us real men, real fathers, who are not blind, but who can see so well as to guide the faithful around the yawning pit of Hell, and whose spiritual vision was described by Jesus Himself in the sixth beatitude:

Blessed are the clean of heart: they shall see God.

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

Are Catholics Born Again?

Catholics and Protestants agree that to be saved, you have to be born again. Jesus said so: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

When a Catholic says that he has been "born again," he refers to the transformation that God’s grace accomplished in him during baptism. Evangelical Protestants typically mean something quite different when they talk about being "born again."

For an Evangelical, becoming "born again" often happens like this: He goes to a crusade or a revival where a minister delivers a sermon telling him of his need to be "born again."

"If you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and believe he died for your sins, you’ll be born again!" says the preacher. So the gentleman makes "a decision for Christ" and at the altar call goes forward to be led in "the sinner’s prayer" by the minister. Then the minister tells all who prayed the sinner’s prayer that they have been saved—"born again." But is the minister right? Not according to the Bible.



The Names of the New Birth



Regeneration (being "born again") is the transformation from death to life that occurs in our souls when we first come to God and are justified. He washes us clean of our sins and gives us a new nature, breaking the power of sin over us so that we will no longer be its slaves, but its enemies, who must fight it as part of the Christian life (cf. Rom. 6:1–22; Eph. 6:11–17). To understand the biblical teaching of being born again, we must understand the terms it uses to refer to this event.

The term "born again" may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated "born again" (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated "again," but in the New Testament, it most often means "from above." In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated "again" are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering.

Another term is "regeneration." When referring to something that occurs in the life of an individual believer, it only appears in Titus 3:5. In other passages, the new birth phenomenon is also described as receiving new life (Rom. 6:4), receiving the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11–12), and becoming a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15).



Regeneration in John 3



These different ways of talking about being "born again" describe effects of baptism, which Christ speaks of in John 3:5 as being "born of water and the Spirit." In Greek, this phrase is, literally, "born of water and Spirit," indicating one birth of water-and-Spirit, rather than "born of water and of the Spirit," as though it meant two different births—one birth of water and one birth of the Spirit.

In the water-and-Spirit rebirth that takes place at baptism, the repentant sinner is transformed from a state of sin to the state of grace. Peter mentioned this transformation from sin to grace when he exhorted people to "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

The context of Jesus’ statements in John 3 makes it clear that he was referring to water baptism. Shortly before Jesus teaches Nicodemus about the necessity and regenerating effect of baptism, he himself was baptized by John the Baptist, and the circumstances are striking: Jesus goes down into the water, and as he is baptized, the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father speaks from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son" (cf. Matt. 3:13–17; Mark 1:9–11; Luke 3:21–22; John 1:30–34). This scene gives us a graphic depiction of what happens at baptism: We are baptized with water, symbolizing our dying with Christ (Rom. 6:3) and our rising with Christ to the newness of life (Rom. 6:4–5); we receive the gift of sanctifying grace and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27); and we are adopted as God’s sons (Rom. 8:15–17).

After our Lord’s teaching that it is necessary for salvation to be born from above by water and the Spirit (John 3:1–21), "Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized" (John 3:22).

Then we have the witness of the early Church that John 3:5 refers to baptismal regeneration. This was universally recognized by the early Christians. The Church Fathers were unanimous in teaching this:

In A.D. 151, Justin Martyr wrote, "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true . . . are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61).

Around 190, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, wrote, "And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34).

In the year 252, Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, said that when those becoming Christians "receive also the baptism of the Church . . . then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ [John 3:5]" (Letters 71[72]:1).

Augustine wrote, "From the time he [Jesus] said, ‘Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5], and again, ‘He that loses his life for my sake shall find it’ [Matt. 10:39], no one becomes a member of Christ except it be either by baptism in Christ or death for Christ" (On the Soul and Its Origin 1:10 [A.D. 419]).

Augustine also taught, "It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated . . . when that infant is brought to baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ [John 3:5]. The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam" (Letters 98:2 [A.D. 408]).



Regeneration in the New Testament



The truth that regeneration comes through baptism is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible. Paul reminds us in Titus 3:5 that God "saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit."

Paul also said, "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:3–4).

This teaching—that baptism unites us with Christ’s death and resurrection so that we might die to sin and receive new life—is a key part of Paul’s theology. In Colossians 2:11–13, he tells us, "In [Christ] you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision [of] Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ" (NIV).



The Effects of Baptism



Often people miss the fact that baptism gives us new life/new birth because they have an impoverished view of the grace God gives us through baptism, which they think is a mere symbol. But Scripture is clear that baptism is much more than a mere symbol.

In Acts 2:38, Peter tells us, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." When Paul was converted, he was told, "And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16).

Peter also said, "God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:20–21). Peter says that, as in the time of the flood, when eight people were "saved through water," so for Christians, "aptism . . . now saves you." It does not do so by the water’s physical action, but through the power of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, through baptism’s spiritual effects and the appeal we make to God to have our consciences cleansed.

These verses showing the supernatural grace God bestows through baptism set the context for understanding the New Testament’s statements about receiving new life in the sacrament.



[B]Protestants on Regeneration



Martin Luther wrote in his Short Catechism that baptism "works the forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and grants eternal life to all who believe." His recognition that the Bible teaches baptismal regeneration has been preserved by Lutherans and a few other Protestant denominations. Even some Baptists recognize that the biblical evidence demands the historic Christian teaching of baptismal regeneration. Notable individuals who recognized that Scripture teaches baptismal regeneration include Baptist theologians George R. Beasley-Murray and Dale Moody.

Nevertheless, many Protestants have abandoned this biblical teaching, substituting man-made theories on regeneration. There are two main views held by those who deny the scriptural teaching that one is born again through baptism: the "Evangelical" view, common among Baptists, and the "Calvinist" view, common among Presbyterians.

Evangelicals claim that one is born again at the first moment of faith in Christ. According to this theory, faith in Christ produces regeneration. The Calvinist position is the reverse: Regeneration precedes and produces faith in Christ. Calvinists (some of whom also call themselves Evangelicals) suppose that God "secretly" regenerates people, without their being aware of it, and thiscauses them to place their faith in Christ.

To defend these theories, Evangelicals and Calvinists attempt to explain away the many unambiguous verses in the Bible that plainly teach baptismal regeneration. One strategy is to say that the water in John 3:5 refers not to baptism but to the amniotic fluid present at childbirth. The absurd
implication of this view is that Jesus would have been saying, "You must be born of amniotic fluid and the Spirit." A check of the respected Protestant Greek lexicon, Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, fails to turn up any instances in ancient, Septuagint or New Testament Greek where "water" (Greek: hudor) referred to "amniotic fluid" (VIII:314–333).

Evangelicals and Calvinists try to deal with the other verses where new life is attributed to baptism either by ignoring them or by arguing that it is not actually water baptism that is being spoken of. The problem for them is that water is explicitly mentioned or implied in each of these verses.

In Acts 2:38, people are exhorted to take an action: "Be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ," which does not refer to an internal baptism that is administered to people by themselves, but the external baptism administered to them by others.

We are told that at Paul’s conversion, "he rose and was baptized, and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus" (Acts 9:18–19). This was a water baptism. In Romans 6 and Colossians 2, Paul reminds his readers of their water baptisms, and he neither says nor implies anything about some sort of "invisible spiritual baptism."

In 1 Peter 3, water is mentioned twice, paralleling baptism with the flood, where eight were "saved through water," and noting that "baptism now saves you" by the power of Christ rather than by the physical action of water "removing . . . dirt from the body."

The anti-baptismal regeneration position is indefensible. It has no biblical basis whatsoever. So the answer to the question, "Are Catholics born again?" is yes! Since all Catholics have been baptized, all Catholics have been born again. Catholics should ask Protestants, "Are you born again—the way the Bible understands that concept?" If the Evangelical has not been properly water baptized, he has not been born again "the Bible way," regardless of what he may think.


NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Hi brethren,

Children are only allowed their first Holy Communion at the age of 10, if I am not mistaken in Malaysia. My question is why are our young not allowed to take Holy Communion any earlier ?

Not to sure. Dont they need to be a bit more matured to understand thats the body of Christ. Explaining that to a 7 year old will be tough. I took my first communion at 12. Now its 10 years old ?

I am not sure of the age, it was just a wild guess. I apologize if what I've written was incorrect.

Yes I do agree with you however I believe if any child is brought up properly & accordingly to Catholic values, the child will surely understand it. Not to mention the protection the Holy Communion offers against the evil one.

It's really hard finding an answer for my 6-year old God-daughter why she is still disallowed to take Holy Communion, which I think its strange since that in our Holy Bible it written that trained children & babies to offer perfect praise.

Well, the catholic does provide protocols and such for a reason, so that the growth and understanding of the Catholic faith is strong and complete to withstand the new challenges. They also need to complete certain years of Catechism before they are allowed first holy communion.

Even more so now as kids nowadays question everything. 6 years old for me it too young. They will most probably take the Eucharist as a play thing.

Full Question

At what age was reception of the Eucharist allowed prior to the papacy of Pope Pius X?

Answer

Until the thirteenth century, the usual practice was for infants and children to receive First Communion immediately after baptism. This was normally done by administering a drop of Precious Blood to the infant or by the priest dipping his thumb in the chalice and then placing his thumb in the infant's mouth. At Masses small children were often given the fragments of hosts that were left over after the adults had received Communion.

This practice in the Western Church generally died out by the thirteenth century, and the Eucharist was given only to those who had reached the "age of discretion" and had gone to confession.

Obviously, there were differences of opinion as to when children had reached the age of discretion. Local customs vaired in their established age of discretion from ages seven to fourteen.

In 1866, Pope Pius IX condemned the practice of overly delaying the reception of First Communion but did not set a universal age.

In 1910, the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments set out that the age of discretion should be considered to be around seven years of age. St. Pius X approved and published the decree.

Source: https://www.catholic.com/qa/a-history-of-th...first-communion

-----

Above answer gives the rationale behind the age at which a child is allowed his or her First Holy Communion. This is largely dependent on whether the child has reached the "age of reason" ("age of discretion", in the article), i.e. able to understand the significance of the Sacrament of Holy Communion / Eucharist.

Do take note that for parishes within the Archdiocese of Kuala Lumpur, and Malaysia, the age has been set at 10 years old, when a child should be in Standard 3, by secular Primary School reckoning.

On a similar note, the article below explains the Sacrament of Confession and going for penitential rites for children.

-----

The 1983 Code of Canon Law says, "It is the responsibility, in the first place, of parents and those who take the place of parents as well as of the pastor to see that children who have reached the use of reason are correctly prepared and are nourished by the divine food as early as possible, preceded by sacramental confession" (CIC 914).

Cutting out the opening words relevant to parents, the canon says, "It is the responsibility. . . of the pastor to see that children who have reached the use of reason. . . are nourished by the divine food as early as possible, preceded by sacramental confession" (CIC 914).

Your priest has a responsibility under the Code of Canon Law to see that the children of your parish are given the instruction and opportunity for sacramental confession prior to their reception of First Communion.

The importance of this has been re-emphasized by the Vatican in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Children must go to the sacrament of penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time" (CCC 1457). If your parish does not supply its children with the instruction and opportunity for confession prior to First Communion, it is in violation of the Vatican's directives.

Source: https://www.catholic.com/index.php/qa/shoul...first-communion

Hi Khool,

TQ for the answer.

It's really interesting to note that from the earliest of times, Holy Communion was administered immediately after baptism of infants and now its 10 years old. Just shows how inclusive was the Christian community earlier on, as compared to present times. With all the theology that's going around, I wouldn't be surprised if the eligible age of 10 was delayed even further. So much for faith.

Who Do You Expect?

WHO, and What, do we expect to come to us when our Advent is over? To put the question in His own words, “Whom [and What] do men say that the Son of man is?” (Matt. 16:13).

Protestants often ask us if we have accepted Jesus as our Personal Lord and Savior. But is He that? He is both Lord and Savior, as Holy Scripture amply teaches. It seems reasonable to concede that He is our personal Lord, if we accept His lordship over us. But three things come immediately to mind here. First, the words, “personal Lord” are not found together in the Bible, not in any of the numerous Protestant or Catholic translations I’ve checked. Second, acknowledging someone to be our “Lord” demands that we obey Him and keep His commandments, something most Protestants find unnecessary. Third, even if we do not receive Him as our Lord, He is still our Lord, because He has universal Dominion (i.e., “Lordship”). We can reason that He is our personal Savior (again, the words aren’t in the Bible) if we have freely cooperated with His gift of grace in this life, and, especially, when that gift is fulfilled in heavenly glory. Then, we are completely and irrevocably “saved.”

The terms are unbiblical, awkward, and inadequate. They also entail serious contradictions for the sola scriptura Protestants who throw them around so generously. Jesus is so much more that our “personal Lord and Savior” — and we true Christians have to accept that so much more. What can each one of us say that Jesus Christ is to us? And what, in return, ought we to be to Him?

First, He is — here and hereafter, I will be personal — my God. As one of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the Father. He is “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28), as Saint Thomas called Him, and “the great God and Our Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13), as wrote Saint Paul. If Jesus is my God, I ought to know, love, and serve Him as such, and render to Him those divine homages that are His due.

If He is my God, He is also my Creator, for all the works of the Holy Trinity in creation are done by all three Persons. In the words of Saint John, “All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made” (John 1:3). He is “the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist” (Col. I:15-17). If Jesus is my Creator, I ought to be grateful to Him for the gift of my life and all the natural goods He put at my disposal.

To Saint Francis of Assisi, whose love of Lady Poverty detached him from creatures and united him so perfectly to God, Jesus is “my God and my All.” I believe we can only say that if we, like the Poverello, are detached from creatures, which too often prevent God from being “our All.” If Jesus is my All, I ought to remain detached from what is not He, especially those things that would sever me from Him.

He is my King. Yes, He is a king! He is, in truth, “the prince of the kings of the earth” (Apoc. 1:5), who “hath on his garment and on his thigh written ‘King of kings and Lord of lords!’” (Apoc. 19:16). Saint Gabriel told Mary that “of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:33). Our Lord’s own narration of the final judgment in Saint Matthew’s Gospel is quite regal: “the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty” (Matt. 25:31). Further along, He becomes more explicit: “And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:40). Before Pilate, He unambiguously affirmed his Kingship (John 18:36-37). If Jesus is my King, I ought to be a loyal subject of so worthy a Monarch.

He is my Redeemer and my Savior. As Redeemer, Saint Paul says that Christ “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works” (Titus 2:14). As Savior, the angel announces Him thus to the shepherds: “For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David” (Luke 2:11).

What is the difference between these titles, “Redeemer” and “Savior”? Had we not fallen into sin, we would not need to be bought back from it, which is what redemption is. But, to go to Heaven, even had we not fallen, we would still need to be “saved” from a merely finite, natural existence. Heavenly Beatitude is not natural to man. We see the contrast between these two interrelated titles when we apply them to the angels. The good angels were never redeemed, as they had never fallen, and the evil angels were instantly damned — literally “beyond redemption.” Yet, all the good angels count Jesus as their Savior too, since through His mediation, they were spared an existence that was only natural, and were raised to a supernatural state of grace and glory. It is not Church doctrine, but a pious belief, notably of the Franciscan school, that the test of the angels was the plan announced to them whereby Jesus Christ, the Man-God would be their King, and Mary, the Mother of God, would be their Queen. The evil angels rejected this exaltation of a nature inferior to their own, while the good angels embraced God’s plan. Thus, Jesus is the Savior of all the saved, including the Holy Angels, but He is the Redeemer only of Man. If Jesus is my Redeemer, I ought to be grateful for the terrible price He paid, for I was “not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver… but with the precious blood of Christ” (I Pet. 1:19-19). If Jesus is my Savior, I ought to cooperate with His saving action in my soul.

He is my Mystical Head. Saint Paul writes that Our Lord is “the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy” (Col. I:18-20). In his Epistle to the Ephesians, the Apostle compares Christ’s headship of the Church to the husband’s headship over his wife: “Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.” (Eph. 5:23). A few verses later (5:30), he movingly writes that “we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” If Christ is my Head, I ought to be a faithful member of His Body, and take the part He assigns to me, however uncomely or without honor it seems (Cf. I Cor. 12:14-31).

Our Lord is my Priest, as He offered and still offers, the perfect sacrifice to God on my behalf: “But Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hand, that is, not of this creation” (Heb. 9:11). He is “a high priest over the house of God” (Heb. 10:21). If Jesus is my priest I ought to be receptive to the fruits of His priesthood, as it was exercised on the Cross, and as it is exercised still through His ministerial priests in Holy Orders; further, I should honor the Catholic priesthood as God would have me do, neither being a clericalist nor an anti-clericalist.

I only have so much paper on which to write, and I don’t want the font size to be too small! Some things Jesus is to me can only be mentioned. He is the Victim for my sins (cf. Heb. 10:10), my Brother (Rom. 8:29), my Judge (John 5:22), my Benefactor (Phil. 1:6).

There is one last aspect under which I would like to consider Our Lord. He is my Friend. After giving His Apostles Holy Communion at the Last Supper (note that!), He says these sublime words to them: “This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you. I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends: because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you” (John 15:12-15).

What a condescension! What a gift! He who is my God, Creator, King, Redeemer, Savior, Head, Priest, and all the rest, also wants to be my Friend! If He is my friend, I ought to keep His commandments and not be a fair-weather friend to Him. Moreover, I ought frequently to renew my friendship with Him throughout the day.

May His blessed friendship embrace you and yours now and always! And may God bless you and Mary keep you this Advent and Christmastide.

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

Hi Yeeck,

Just read Post # 902, interesting to read.

However I strongly believe that being born of water & being born of the Spirit are both mutually exclusive events. In short to clear any ambiguity, all Catholics are baptized correct but not all Catholics are born of the Spirit and that's is not of the Roman Catholic Church teaching.

Hi Yeeck,

Just read Post # 902, interesting to read.

However I strongly believe that being born of water & being born of the Spirit are both mutually exclusive events. In short to clear any ambiguity, all Catholics are baptized correct but not all Catholics are born of the Spirit.

My view is definately not the same of my own Roman Catholic Church teaching.

Irreconcilable Doctrines on Justification

An article I came across recently quoted a very high-ranking churchman saying, not in so many words, that Martin Luther was right about the doctrine of Justification. It was alarming to see, though not entirely surprising in these days when ecumenism is the tail that wags the dog of Catholic thought.

What we might call the “classic” Catholic-Protestant controversy on justification was very clearly outlined for hundreds of years, and on both sides. That is to say, informed Catholics and informed Protestants generally agreed in saying that the other party was wrong. There was therefore a clear, certain, and bilateral agreement that what Catholics and Protestants believed on the subject was different — and by that I mean that Catholic and Protestant beliefs on the issue are contrary and logically irreconcilable. That clarity and certitude, along with other certitudes, has been obscured in the last half-century. This is especially the case since the signing, on October 31 of 1999 (Reformation Day), of the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church.

Writing with a decade’s worth of hindsight, the Lutheran, Paul T. McCain, calls the Joint Declaration “a betrayal of the Gospel,” and goes further in claiming that, while the Catholic side made no concessions, the “mainline liberal Lutherans” (his words) sold out to Rome — which claim I find to be comical, but understandable, given the man’s perspective. Traditional Catholics, of course, also condemned the thing when it came out, and are still doing so — as indicated by a fairly recent traditionalist polemic that mentions the Declaration.

Further details about the history and reception of the document may be found at Wikipedia.

I bring up the Declaration only because its very existence would seem to be a contradiction of the thesis I advance in this Ad Rem. In response to that objection, I offer one solid refutation: whether it actually did so or not, the Declaration had no authority to contradict the Council of Trent in the matter; indeed, nobody could have invested it with such authority. As Mr. McCain informs us, Cardinal Cassidy confirmed this very fact:

Asked whether there was anything in the official common statement contrary to the Council of Trent, Cardinal Cassidy [who represented the Catholic side of the dialogue leading to the Joint Declaration as President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christianity Unity] said: ‘Absolutely not, otherwise how could we do it? We cannot do something contrary to an ecumenical council. There’s nothing there that the Council of Trent condemns” (Ecumenical News International, 11/1/99).

After a brief review of salient parts of the Church’s doctrine on grace, I would like to conclude this little offering with what Saint Thomas Aquinas says about “operating and cooperating grace,” for it is my conviction that both the Catholic and the Protestant of good will can find in this theology a highly satisfactory reconciliation of what is apparently in tension here: the doctrines of free will and merit one one side, and the doctrines of the primacy and absolute necessity of grace on the other. These lay at the root of half-millennial Catholic-Protestant polemics on justification and the related question of Faith and good works.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Grace (in general) is “a supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels) for their eternal salvation, whether the latter be furthered and attained through salutary acts or a state of holiness.” This definition allows for both what we call “actual” and “sanctifying” grace. Actual grace is defined as “a supernatural help of God for salutary acts granted in consideration of the merits of Christ.” It is transient in nature, and terminates in the performance of a salutary act, either leading us to faith and justification, or (once in justification), leading us to merit. “Act” is the operative word here, since actual grace terminates (or is “spent”) in our performing a salutary act — or not, as we could fail to cooperate, in which case that grace did not achieve its purpose. In the technical language of theology, actual grace that does not achieve its purpose would be called merely “sufficient” and not “efficacious” grace (a distinction we cannot go into here).

Sanctifying Grace, or “Habitual Grace” in Saint Thomas’ lexicon, is defined as “a quality strictly supernatural, inherent in the soul as a habitus [habit], by which we are made to participate in the divine nature.” Sanctifying Grace is also called “justification,” but it is important to note that in Catholic theological parlance, “justification” has a distinct but related meaning, which I will explain shortly. Regarding sanctifying grace being a habit, what we mean is that it is a permanent (or “semi-permanent” as it can be lost by mortal sin) supernatural quality that inheres in the soul, which beautifies it, making it truly pleasing to God. The Council of Trent teaches that justification (meaning here the transfer into the state of sanctifying grace) “is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.”

This definition of justification was contrary to the Lutheran notion of “forensic justification,” which is also called “imputed justice.” According to that view, Christ’s justice is merely imputed to the sinner who is no different interiorly now than he was before. It is called “forensic” because it is a legal judgment — more of a legal fiction, really — by which a sinner is declared to be just and sentenced appropriately. Whether or not Luther actually compared the justified Christian soul to a snow-covered dunghill, that grotesque image is perfectly consonant with both Luther’s depraved ideas on imputed justice, and his scatological way of expressing himself.

The reader will hopefully see that the Catholic and Lutheran views on justification (in the sense of sanctifying grace) are mutually exclusive and logically irreconcilable.

That other meaning of the word “justification” is the “process of justification,” i.e., that succession of steps from the first utterly unmerited actual grace (often called prima gratia vocans, the “first grace of calling”) up to the actual translation into the state of sanctifying grace. So “justification” is both a state (as described above) and the process to get us into that state. The Council of Trent masterfully describes this process:

Now, they [the adults] are disposed to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace, receiving faith by hearing,[21] they are moved freely toward God, believing to be true what has been divinely revealed and promised, especially that the sinner is justified by God by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;[22] and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves from the fear of divine justice, by which they are salutarily aroused, to consider the mercy of God, are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice, and on that account are moved against sin by a certain hatred and detestation, that is, by that repentance that must be performed before baptism;[23] finally, when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God.

At last, we come now to Saint Thomas’ doctrine of operating and cooperating grace. In response to the question, “Whether grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating grace?” he says:

I answer that, As stated above (I-II:110:2) grace may be taken in two ways; first, as a Divine help, whereby God moves us to will and to act; secondly, as a habitual gift divinely bestowed on us.

Now in both these ways grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating. For the operation of an effect is not attributed to the thing moved but to the mover. Hence in that effect in which our mind is moved and does not move, but in which God is the sole mover, the operation is attributed to God, and it is with reference to this that we speak of “operating grace.”

God is the sole mover here. The human mind is “moved and does not move.” In other words, man is passive (but receptive), while God is active. Here God operates in us, but we do not operate at all. Saint Thomas continues:

But in that effect in which our mind both moves and is moved, the operation is not only attributed to God, but also to the soul; and it is with reference to this that we speak of “cooperating grace.”

Here, the human soul both is moved (passively) and moves (actively). Because the motion of grace moves the soul to the good and the soul thus assisted moves itself, it now cooperates with God. Yet note, our grace-influenced motion is itself called a grace: “cooperating grace.” Saint Thomas goes on to explain this:

Now there is a double act in us. First, there is the interior act of the will, and with regard to this act the will is a thing moved, and God is the mover; and especially when the will, which hitherto willed evil, begins to will good. And hence, inasmuch as God moves the human mind to this act, we speak of operating grace. But there is another, exterior act; and since it is commanded by the will, as was shown above (I-II:17:9) the operation of this act is attributed to the will. And because God assists us in this act, both by strengthening our will interiorly so as to attain to the act, and by granting outwardly the capability of operating, it is with respect to this that we speak of cooperating grace.

What the Angelic Doctor is saying in that last sentence is that even our cooperation with grace is a grace, because God both assists and continually sustains us in the supernaturally salutary act. Here, it might be good to bring in what he elsewhere says about efficient causality, for it provides us with an illuminatingly analogous way of looking at nature and grace together. For Saint Thomas, to regard God as the efficient cause of things refers not only to His activity in the six days of creation (after which, no new natures were created), nor even to His bringing each new thing into existence. For Saint Thomas, God’s causing things to exist is a continual divine activity comparable to the presence of light in the air resulting from the sun’s continued illumination of the atmosphere. This, in fact is how Saint Thomas explains that God is “in all things.” The Catholic philosopher, Dr. Edward Feser, describes this sustained divine causality as a “deeper efficient cause” whereby God keeps all things “in existence here and now” (Five Proofs of the Existence of God, pg. 55). All that is in the order of nature. A fortiori, in the order of grace, we are radically dependent upon God to sustain us in doing the good.

Saint Thomas cites a passage from Saint Augustine to back up his doctrine of operating and cooperating actual grace:

Hence after the aforesaid words Augustine subjoins: “He operates that we may will; and when we will, He cooperates that we may perfect.” And thus if grace is taken for God’s gratuitous motion whereby He moves us to meritorious good, it is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating grace.

Now Saint Thomas goes on to explain how habitual grace (sanctifying grace) can be divided into operating and cooperating:

But if grace is taken for the habitual gift, then again there is a double effect of grace, even as of every other form; the first of which is “being,” and the second, “operation”; thus the work of heat is to make its subject hot, and to give heat outwardly. And thus habitual grace, inasmuch as it heals and justifies the soul, or makes it pleasing to God, is called operating grace; but inasmuch as it is the principle of meritorious works, which spring from the free-will, it is called cooperating grace.

As a “form” of the soul, habitual grace gives it a new, supernatural mode of being, but it also becomes the principle of operation in the supernatural order, the principle, that is, of supernaturally meritorious good works. Thus we see our radical dependence on grace before and during our performance of a good work. Thus are reconciled human freedom and the necessity of grace. This radical dependence upon grace before and during a good work is found in the Church’s lex orandi in many places, especially in her liturgical collects. Here is an oration from the Litany of the Saints:

Direct, we beseech thee, O Lord, our actions by thy holy inspirations, and carry them on by thy gracious assistance, that every prayer and work of ours may begin always from thee, and through thee be happily ended.

The Protestant heresies on grace have numerous disastrous ramifications. For one, they are contraceptive of any notion of growing in love and intimacy with God. This implies another result, one that actually becomes blasphemous: Because of their denial of free will, human cooperation with grace, and merit, adherents to the errors of Luther and Calvin fail to see anything special in the saints, and, especially, in the Blessed Virgin Mary.

May the Mother of Divine Grace lead these erring souls to the Catholic truth.

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

Hi friends,

Out of curiosity, from the perspective of roman catholic theology, are protestants headed to hell?

Do you view protestants as heretics or apostates?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_c...ium-ccc_en.html

"163. How are non-Catholic Christians to be considered?

817-819
870

In the churches and ecclesial communities which are separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, many elements of sanctification and truth can be found. All of these blessings come from Christ and lead to Catholic unity. Members of these churches and communities are incorporated into Christ by Baptism and we so we recognize them as brothers."

Well, it not nice to condemn anyone to hell regardless of the perspective. I am sure they see us the same in "worshiping" Mary, when there is only one God. I just pity some of the protestants as they are quite extreme in their ways.

Ultimately it is God who judges whether one goes to heaven or hell. He has given His Revelation and instituted the Church to guide us.

14 Q. Who are heretics?
A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.

15 Q. Who are apostates?
A. Apostates are those who abjure, or by some external act, deny the Catholic faith which they previously professed.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Jan 14 2019, 10:07 AM

Catholic - Universal Church

"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it."
Pope St. Felix III, Papacy 269-274

"The true religion has shown forth with greater splendor the more it has been oppressed."
Pope St. Symmachus, c. 506 A.D.

"You are certainly aware, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, that every kind of impious and deceitful writing, lies, calumny, and blasphemy has been let loose from hell. No pain has been spared to transfer schools to non-Catholic teachers and to appropriate churches for non-Catholic worship. With a multiple of other, surely diabolical treacheries, arts, and undertakings, the enemies of God employ every effort to destroy completely - if that were possible - the Catholic Church, seduce and corrupt the people, especially guileless youth, and uproot our holy faith and religion from the souls of all."
Pope Pius IX, "Quanto Conficiamur Moerore", 1863 A.D.

"If the Lord wishes that other persecution should be suffered, the Church feels no alarm; on the contrary, persecutions purify her and confer upon her fresh force and a new beauty."
Pope Pius IX, Papacy 1846-1878

"Our lot has been cast in an age that is bitterly hostile to justice and truth"
Pope Leo XIII, "Mirae Caritatis", 1902 A.D.

"Recourse to God, so infinitely good, is all the more necessary because, far from abating, the struggle grows fiercer and expands unceasingly. It is no longer only the Christian faith that they would uproot at all costs from the hearts of the people; it is any belief which lifting man above the horizon of this world would supernaturally bring back his wearied eyes to heaven. Illusion on the subject is no longer possible. War has been declared against everything supernatural, because behind the supernatural stands God, and because it is God that they want to tear out of the mind and heart of man."
Pope St. Pius X, "Une Fois Encore", 1907 A.D.

The Job of a Prophet is to be hated

Fourth Sunday in Ordinary Time Year C



A joke that I tell my priest friends who know Latin goes as follows: If I ever get a dog I’ll call him ‘Anathema’ so that I can shout out regularly ‘Anathema –sit’! The word “anathema”, which is actually Greek in origin, originally meant “an offering” or “something dedicated”, eventually came to be used as the ecclesiastical ‘curse’ or decree of excommunication used by the Church from the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century until Vatican II, to condemn erroneous or heretical teachings and those who promoted them. As harsh as this may sound, the anathema curse actually has scriptural origins and is used by St Paul against those who preach a false Gospel: “As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be ‘anathema’ (Gal 1:9).

St Paul uses such harsh language in his condemnation because he understood how utterly evil and incredibly damaging it is to the faith of the faithful to preach a false Gospel. There really is no issue more serious for a Christian. Yet so few Christians take this subject seriously. Few care in the least or bother to determine whether they are deliberately or inadvertently holding to or teaching a false or corrupted gospel. Personal preferences and sentiments often trump Truth. Ambiguity seems to be the rule of day. On the other hand, doctrinal certainty is often labelled as rigid and unbending. The irony today is that it is not those who spew heresies and false teachings from the pulpit who often get cursed in this manner, but rather, the ones who defend orthodox teaching and speak the truth who risk being thrown out of the pulpit either by an angry audience or by their more politically-correct superiors.

This was the fate of our Lord. Today’s passage follows immediately last week’s episode where our Lord after reading the passage from the Book of Isaiah was treated like the local hero. They marvelled at the wonderful things He said among them. He was one of their own, He grew up among them and they knew His background. Now He spoke with eloquence and graciousness and this “won the approval of all.” They felt proud that their town could produce such a man. He told them that the words of hope they treasured in the Scripture were being fulfilled in their hearing. He was basically telling them that “all is well,” because God has come to save the day. That wonderful warm fuzzy feeling – who could deny or reject this. Everything was going well, until our Lord began to challenge their expectations, perception and belief system.

Jesus takes up the attitude and role of a prophet and in so doing, begins to provoke His listeners. He ‘judgmentally’ tells His audience that His prophetic words will not be accepted or recognised “in his own country”, citing two examples of great prophets in the Old Testament who were also rejected by their own people. When the Lord shifted the tone of His sermon, the crowd’s response also moved from hospitality to hostility. We might well think Jesus was imprudent in the way He provoked His own relations and fellow townspeople. It is always wise to look for allies rather than make enemies. We may even be tempted to fault Him for being the cause of the people’s indignation and wanting to drag Him out of the town to murder him. Yet, later Christian teaching and preaching will imitate His method. The martyrs and confessors of the Church had to pay the price for it. One can tiptoe around diplomatically only for a short time before it leads to the point where one has to jump feet first into truth-telling.

This Gospel is like a microcosm of the whole story. As the Prologue to the Gospel of John says: “He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.” (John 1:11). He was one of their own, and they were more than happy to go along with him for a time. How often this happens in the life of Jesus – that people follow Him and then go off in a different direction when things don’t suit, when the gospel He preaches is no longer “nice” but has a sharp painful sting to it with a big price tag. There is no problem when you tell people what they want to hear. The man whose message is ‘repent’ sets himself against his age, and will be battered mercilessly by the age whose moral tone he challenges. There is but one end for such a man…either rejection or death!

The spiritual gift of a prophet is not so much foretelling, as it is forth-telling. The prophet sees a problem and addresses it. Such was the role of the prophets in Israel. The Old Testament prophets called God’s people to repentance, revival, and renewal. They could not and would not settle for status quo. Being a prophet was never an easy calling, then or now. A prophet’s uncompromising truthfulness was both utterly confronting and utterly ego-deflating. To be prophetic is to call sin, sin. It is to say, without apology or reservation, “The Lord says ...” and sometimes, He says things which are not very comforting or pleasing to the ear, especially when He is confronting our sinfulness. He did so, not because He was intentionally mean and wanted to hurt His listeners. St Paul was right in the second reading. The prophet is motivated by love, never by spite. Love doesn’t seek to hide the truth. Love doesn’t lie.

A priest friend once told me that the job of a Parish Priest is to be hated. I guess this includes someone who plays the “prophet.” If he is doing his job, and doing it right, there are bound to be people who would disagree with him or eventually hate him. I’m not sure if I have the thickness of his skin to endure this. Bishop Emeritus Anthony Selvanayagam once shared how the legendary late Monsignor Aloysius gave him this piece of advice, “A bishop must have the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of Job and the hide of a rhinoceros.” No wonder we have so few bishops and God forbid if any of us priest ever got chosen to be one.

The truth is that whether it be a priest, or a parent, or just an ordinary Christian, our job is not to be popular. Our job is to be faithful and that’s the hardest part of our calling. The litmus test of a true Christian is best measured not by how many bouquets that have been pinned on him, but rather by how many brickbats that have been pitched at him. Prophets have been on the receiving end of mud more than medals. I’ve personally experienced this truth - the preacher who jests and jokes with his people all week will soon find that he cannot stand in his pulpit on Sunday with power to reprove, rebuke, and exhort. He may be the life of the party but it will be the death of the prophet. Popularity has killed more prophets than persecution. I understand that my role as a true pastor must not only be to feed the flock, but also to warn the flock. To turn black and white into grey doesn’t honour God, it just makes sinners feel better about themselves.

The prophet’s calling is lonely, sometimes discouraging and usually misunderstood. People will either run from a prophet or try to destroy him – only the remnant minority receives the prophet and his message with gladness. But remember this - the only reason a true prophet speaks is because he is compelled by God and moved by Love, a love that “takes no pleasure in other people’s sins but delights in the truth.” The prophet may not be perfect. He often isn’t. He too is broken by sin but he desires God’s people to experience God’s best and experience what he has experienced – forgiveness and mercy at the point of repentance. And if we doubt whether we would have the gumption or the “hide of a rhinoceros” to do the job, let us be reminded that we have something far greater – the promise of the Lord to make us into “a fortified city, a pillar of iron, and a wall of bronze to confront all.” He assures you: “They will fight against you but shall not overcome you, for I am with you to deliver you – it is the Lord who speaks!”

Source: http://michaelckw.blogspot.com/2019/01/the...o-be-hated.html

Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord and that includes any prophet, who has been born again.

Not sure what you are trying to say here, but I'd not add my own words to Scripture.