Posts (2008):
|
Monday, December 22nd, 2008
| |
New Book Nearly Complete
| |
I'm currently working on the last chapter of a new book that I hope to publish in January or February of 2009.
The book is called 'The First Part of the Tribulation'; it is the first of a two book series, though it may be
some time before I will get a chance to finish the second book in the series. The book is about the events of
the Tribulation, especially focusing on the Great Monarch and the Angelic Shepherd, and on the Three Days of Darkness.
There is also a chapter covering the inter-tribulation period, that is, the time between the first and second parts of
the tribulation. Hoping to finish the book soon.
| |
|
|
Sunday, October 26th, 2008
| |
What is evil?
|
Properly speaking, evil is an absence of good; it is an absence of good where good ought to be, in accord with the will and plan of God. Since evil is an absence, evil does not literally exist, as if it could stand on its own. There is nothing that is pure evil, for nothing can be a pure absence. However, evil exists in the sense that there are good things which both exist and are lacking in good that ought to be present. The angelic nature as created by God is good; so fallen angels have a good nature, but they are evil in that they have freely chosen to do evil acts with their nature. Fallen angels are correctly called evil because of the evil acts, acts lacking in the good that ought to be present, that these fallen angels have freely chosen to do.
Sin is evil because sin is an act lacking in good that ought to be present, in accord with the will and plan of God. All acts by all persons ought to be a reflection of the goodness of God. Any act by any person which is lacking in such goodness is an evil act and is a sin. Sin is nothing else but an evil act, an act lacking in good that ought to be present. Actual sins are knowingly chosen evil acts. A merely objective sin is an evil act that is not knowingly chosen. The term moral evil is used in theology to refer to any sin, even lesser venial sins.
Human nature, as created by God, is good. But sinners in general can be called evil, because they have freely chosen to do acts that are evil, acts lacking in good that ought to be present. Thus Jesus said: "Therefore, if you, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your sons, how much more will your Father, who is in heaven, give good things to those who ask him?" (Mt 7:11). So any and all sinners can be called evil, not because they are evil, but because they choose to do evil. This refers not to evil itself, but that which does evil.
But the use of the term evil to refer to sinners can be fittingly restricted to those sinners who continue to commit mortal sins and who continue to refuse to repent. So when persons publicly admit that they commit acts that are objective mortal sins, and publicly display their lack of repentance, we can properly call such persons evil.
We can also correctly use the term evil to refer to things that tend toward evil acts. So concupiscence, which is a tendency toward sin in all persons who have been harmed by original sin, is evil. It is not itself an act, so concupiscence itself is not sin, but it can be called evil because it tends toward sin, which is an evil act. This refers not to evil itself, nor to that which does evil, but that which tends toward evil.
So the term evil (that is, moral evil) can be used in three senses: moral evil itself, which is nothing else but evil acts; the persons who commit evil acts, especially those who are unrepentant from objective mortal sin; and anything that tends to influence persons to commit evil acts.
| |
|
|
Sunday, September 28th, 2008
| |
the Miracle of Garabandal
|
I've read very many prophecies about the future, from Saints and Blessed, even from Popes, from various true private revelations of the Virgin Mary. All of these are very reliable sources of information. Yet it is impossible to reconcile all of the claims that are made about future events.
Consider this example about a past event:
St. Bridget of Sweden says, based on private revelation, that Mary died at Jerusalem near the Valley of Jehoshaphat. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich says that Mary died at Ephesus. (Of course both say that Mary was raised from the dead and was then assumed into Heaven.) The two statements are irreconcilable. So what is the solution? that one claim is erroneous.
Even true private revelations can contain errors, based on the misunderstandings of the one receiving the private revelation, even if that person is a Saint. God permits such misunderstandings, and He does not give a correction, because He does not want even true private revelations from Himself to be placed above, or made equal to, Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium.
So in determining future events and dates, I have to prudently evaluate all of the information, and I have to conclude that some information from some visionaries is incorrect or has been widely misinterpreted. This is obvious in the case of the two contradictory statements, both attributed to Conchita's private revelation, that the date would not coincide with a feast day of the Virgin Mary, but that it would be a particular Saint whose feast day is the same as the feast day of the Virgin Mary. Clearly, these statements are either a misunderstanding of what Conchita was told in true private revelations, or are misreported.
The date of the Miracle of Garabandal must coincide with a major event in the Catholic liturgical calendar, because otherwise the event might lead people away from the Church, not towards it. The Church is the means that God has chosen to dispense truth and salvation to the world. The date of May 13th, 2010, is the feast of the Ascension of Jesus Christ, so any feast day of the Virgin Mary would be suppressed on that day. The Miracle has to occur on a major feast day of the Church, so as not to lead people away from the Church, and it can't be a feast day of the Virgin Mary, so it must be a major feast day of Jesus Christ. The Feast of the Ascension fits perfectly.
As for the claim that Conchita says she saw St. Tarcisius as the martyr of the Eucharist, perhaps this is incorrectly reported. But another possibility is that she misunderstood the meaning of what she saw. She was not being shown the martyr of the Eucharist whose feast day will be the date of the Miracle, but was instead being given an indication as to the correct martyr. Otherwise, why even show her a martyr, why not just tell her the date? St. Tarcisius and Blessed Imelda both died at about the same age, both died as martyrs of the Eucharist, both are patrons of First Communicants, his feast day is the Assumption and hers is the Ascension (in 2010). Notice the strong connection between these two martyrs.
You have all read Sacred Scripture. Do you not know that many truths are placed in Sacred Scripture in an obscure and hidden manner? So, too, Conchita was shown the one martyr of the Eucharist as a way of pointing to the other martyr of the Eucharist. Otherwise, Mary could have simply given Conchita the date, as she did with one of the other visionaries. Mary often presents truths in a hidden manner, requiring both faith and wisdom to fully understand.
Finally, I believe and predict that, after the Miracle, the date for the feast of St. Tarcisius will be moved to that of Blessed Imelda (likely a future Saint since she was chosen by Mary for this event). The Miracle has three aspects: worldwide healings, conversion of unbelievers, and the many permanent miraculous signs. All of these aspects will bring many conversions, will bring many persons to the Eucharist, and therefore will bring about many First Communions (of children and adults). So it will be fitting to have both Saints who are patron and patroness of First Communicants be remembered on the same day, the day of the Miracle, May 13th, 2010.
| |
|
|
Sunday, September 21st, 2008
| |
Usury
|
Usury is not merely charging interest. In the OT, the Jews were prohibited from charging any interest in loans to their fellow Jews, but were specifically permitted to charge interest in loans to non-Jews. And in the NT, Jesus uses the figure of loaning money at interest to refer to His own relationship with His disciples. "And so, why did you not give my money to the bank, so that, upon my return, I might have withdrawn it with interest?" (Luke 19:23)
There are two types of usury; one is intrinsically evil and the other is not.
1. Usury as interest on a loan is not defined by any particular number (a percentage or other way of calculating interest). In the case of the loaning of money, it is a matter of intention and circumstances (the first and third fonts of morality), so usury as interest is not intrinsically evil; it is a matter of degree. Things that are a matter of degree are not in and of themselves evil. A just interest rate can be charged. For loans to the poor, no interest should be charged, as a duty of charity. (Example: Kiva.org which gives interest free loans to the working poor). An excessive interest rate is immoral.
2. But there is another type of usury, and this type is intrinsically evil. Example: a man purchases a measure of wheat to feed his family. He pays a price for the wheat, but he is also required, at a later time, to return the same amount of wheat. This is misrepresented by the seller as if the wheat were merely being borrowed and as if the money were interest. In fact, the wheat is being sold for its price, and the requirement to also return the same amount of wheat later constitutes usury. In this practice, the goods are not loaned, but rather are purchased; the purchase is misrepresented as a loan and the purchase price is misrepresented as interest. The evil is found in both charging money for the purchased goods and requiring their repayment in kind (same amount of wheat or other goods). This type of usury is intrinsically evil because, to the just price of the goods is added the condition to also return the same goods. Since the goods have been paid for, the ownership of the goods passes to the buyer. The requirement to return the same goods constitutes a type of theft.
| |
|
|
Tuesday, August 26th, 2008
| |
Scott Hahn's substantial theological errors
|
he claims that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree because Satan threatened them with death.
he claims that the original sin of Adam was in not engaging the serpent (which was really a dragon or other monster) in the garden in mortal combat, at the sacrifice of his own life, for the sake of his beloved (Eve).
he claims that the wine mixed with gall (corrupted wine), on the sponge, the wine that Jesus rejected, is the fourth cup of the last supper (the first Mass). There are numerous theological problems with this claim, including that it equates corrupted wine with the earlier consecrated wine (the Eucharist), that it was rejected by Christ, yet included by Hahn as if equal to the other three cups, that this idea is not found in Tradition, nor does Scripture support the idea of even three cups at the last supper.
he represents the Holy Spirit as feminine, in contradiction to Liturgiam Authenticam, in contradiction to Tradition and Scripture.
Hahn calls the Holy Spirit "mother," "motherly," "maternal," "feminine," "womanhood," and "bridal," (New Oxford Review, http://www.newoxfordreview.org/note....tes-gnosticism)
But since Father, Son, and Spirit have one and the same Nature, it cannot be in the nature of the Holy Spirit to be motherly, maternal, feminine, etc.
Catholic teaching on the nature of God and on the Trinity: Creation is like God, but God is not like Creation. The Divine Nature is One, with no divisions or parts at all. God does not have traits. In God, existence is the same as knowledge is the same as will is the same as love is the same as justice is the same as mercy, etc. God does not have 'male and female traits'.
Furthermore, since the Divine Nature is One, the Spirit cannot have different 'traits' from the Father and the Son. The Spirit cannot be maternal, feminine, motherly, bridal, etc. in contrast to the Father and Son who are properly described as Father and Son, not mother and daughter.
Also, the distinctions between the Three Persons are based on procession. But none of the Three Persons proceeds from the Spirit. So the Spirit does not have the role of mother; a mother is a woman who conceives a child, but no Persons proceed from the Spirit. The Son is called Son because he proceeds solely from the Father. There is no basis for calling the Spirit mother within the Trinity.
As concerns the role of the Spirit with the Virgin Mary, He is her Spouse, so He cannot be feminine, maternal, bridal, etc. Also, Christ was conceived by a miracle of God, making God His Father, not the Spirit His Mother.
In addition, Hahn's theology is often plagued by novelties, not found in Tradition, Scripture, or Magisterium. It is as if he is reinventing the Christian Faith.
| |
|
|
Thursday, July 24, 2008
| |
CatholicPlanet.net
|
CatholicPlanet.net is my online Catholic discussion group. It has recently grown to almost 100 members. This group differs from many other Catholic discussion groups in a number of ways:
The group is a place to continue to learn the Catholic Faith
It is not merely an exchange of baseless opinion, as so many other groups are
Ideas contrary to Catholic teaching are corrected, not promoted or tolerated
Member can receive clear answers to many questions on faith and morals; other groups treat every question as if it were an open question
Many members have an appreciation for Catholic eschatology (Catholic theology and pious opinion about the future)
The members are very supportive of one another, encouraging and praying for one another; other groups mainly argue and compare one another's ignorant opinions
| |
|
|
Friday, June 20th, 2008
| |
Current Projects
|
Currently, I'm working on several interesting projects.
1. I'm translating the entire Bible from Latin into English. The translation is about 84% completed. Estimated time of completion is mid-March 2009. The translation is called the Catholic Public Domain Version.
2. I'm working on my third book about the future, which is my fifth book overall. If you are familiar with my other books and writings about the future, it is more of the same. There is some more in depth discussion of about certain events, but everything is inline with what I have been saying in my other books.
3. I'm putting various rare versions of the Latin Vulgate Bible online: the 1861 Vercellone edition (online as scans of every page; need chapter and verse numbering for index pages), the 1914 Hetzenauer edition (online as searchable/editable text and also as scans; needs work on index pages and a few books of the OT for the text version), the 1822-24 Leander van Ess edition, which compares the 1590, 92, 93, and 98 editions of the Sixtine and Clementine editions (NT competed as scans; OT waiting for books I purchased to arrive for scanning).
4. I'm doing my own light edit of the Clementine Vulgate. This should be done in early 2009.
5. Occasionally making notes for future books I'm planning.
6. Writing articles about private revelations some persons claim to receive, especially those that I discern are false.
7. Writing other articles on topics in theology, as well as numerous discussion group posts. Misc. other projects. (And this blog.)
| |
|
|
Tuesday, May 27th, 2008
| |
The election of the next Pope
|
According to my understanding of the future, the current Pope, Benedict XVI, will die in either 2009 or 2010. I don't know anything about the circumstances of his death. Pope Benedict XVI was given the phrase 'from the glory of the olive' in St. Malachy's prophetic list of future popes.
The next Pope is the last one on St. Malachy's list: Peter the Roman. He is not the last Pope ever, just the last on the list. His reign occurs at the beginning of the tribulation, when the events of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse begin.
During his brief reign as Pope, the great apostasy will begin, during which most Catholics will abandon the true Catholic faith and the true Catholic Church.
I believe that this next Pope, called Peter the Roman by St. Malachy, will be Cardinal Arinze, and that he will take the name Pope Pius XIII. He will be elected in either 2009 or 2010. He will flee from Vatican City and Rome, because of World War 3, in 2012; but he will be captured by the enemy in northern Italy, taken to Syria, put on trial, blinded, and then taken to a prison in Iraq, where he will die peacefully.
Why do the Cardinals choose Arinze (a black man from Africa) as the next Pope? The conservative Cardinals will choose him because he is conservative. The more liberal Cardinals will choose him partly because he is not from Europe; the Catholic Church is worldwide, so they want the Pope to sometimes be from other parts of the world, especially developing nations. They will also choose him partly because he is black.
There will have been some type of controversy in the United States over the nomination/election of Obama. Either Obama fails to be nominated, or fails to be elected, or is assassinated, and as a result there is anger and violence and charges of racism. Some of the liberal Cardinals will want to elect a black man as Pope in response to that controversy.
| |
|
|
Monday, April 28th, 2008
| |
The Approaching Famine
|
The great famine of the 21st century will occur from mid 2013 to mid 2020. But even before it begins, there will be food shortages, disruptions in food distribution, and severe economic problems. The famine will be at its worst in 2015, and it will decline in severity from the late 2010's to its end in mid 2020. By the early 2020's, there will be feasting.
This famine was foretold by Christ himself in the Parable of the Prodigal Son:
[Luke]
{15:11} And he said: “A certain man had two sons.
{15:12} And the younger of them said to the father, ‘Father, give me the portion of your estate which would go to me.’ And he divided the estate between them.
{15:13} And after not many days, the younger son, gathering it all together, set out on a long journey to a distant region. And there, he dissipated his substance, living in luxury.
{15:14} And after he had consumed it all, a great famine occurred in that region, and he began to be in need.
{15:15} And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that region. And he sent him to his farm, in order to feed the swine.
{15:16} And he wanted to fill his belly with the scraps that the swine ate. But no one would give it to him.
{15:17} And returning to his senses, he said: ‘How many hired hands in my father’s house have abundant bread, while I perish here in famine!
{15:18} I shall rise up and go to my father, and I will say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.
{15:19} I am not worthy to be called your son. Make me one of your hired hands.’
{15:20} And rising up, he went to his father. But while he was still at a distance, his father saw him, and he was moved with compassion, and running to him, he fell upon his neck and kissed him.
During the great famine, the Orthodox Church, and all the Protestant Churches, will repent of their unbelief, and will convert and seek to be united with the one holy Catholic Church. Like the Prodigal Son, their journey back to their family will be a long journey. But even before they complete that journey of returning to full unity in the holy Catholic Faith, God and His Church will take pity on them, and will extend mercy to them.
The famine will not end until all the Orthodox and Protestant Churches are firmly resolved to unite in belief, practice, and leadership with the one holy Catholic Church. Nothing can end the famine except the Unification of all Christians in one holy Catholic Church. Then, during the early 2020's, from mid 2020 to late 2023, the one holy Catholic Church will be restructured to have seven parts: one part for the Latin Rite, one part for the Eastern Churches, and five parts for the formerly-Protestant Churches. Then the faithful thoughout the world will feast and rejoice. And in the liturgical calendar year from late 2024 to late 2025, a Jubilee year will be celebrated by all Christians.
| |
|
|
Bible Footnotes
|
Modern Bibles, especially those published since the mid 20th century, often have numerous footnotes and other annotations which treat the Bible as if it were merely a human book, and not the infallible inspired Word of God. It is common for a footnote to comment on a verse to the effect of assuming, or even stating, that the verse contains an error. It is claimed that one sacred author or another erred, because he misunderstood, or did not remember correctly, or was misinformed about some fact. Such annotations often make assertions of alleged fact about history, geography, ancient culture, and the like, without any concern for the spiritual meaning in the text. The Bible is treated as if it were the object of scientific study, and not a gift from God to be used in following the path of salvation.
Some Bible commentaries even go so far as to claim that the sacred authors deliberately invented fictional details and used blatantly false assertions in the service of explaining a particular teaching. Such commentators excuse these falsehoods by saying that the passage is a particular type of literature, and therefore (they imply) it's assertions need not be true. It is as if a set of falsehoods and lies could pave the way to salvation. But God is Truth. Therefore, the way to salvation cannot possibly be paved falsehoods, even if it is said to be a type of literature.
In the original Douai Rheims Bible, and in the Challoner revision, the annotations served to explain the text on the basis of Faith, not science. The footnotes of those versions defend the Catholic Faith, rather than undermining it. The writers of those footnotes offer holy and insightful explanations of difficult passages. But this approach has fallen out of favor, largely, I think, because the scientific method has infiltrated the field of Biblical studies; it demands an explanation based solely on reason, and defensible with historical or linguistic research. Faith and piety and holiness are considered useless to the search for truth.
I recommend the original and true Douay Old Testament, and the original and true Rheims New Testament, published by Dr. von Peters at lulu.com: “The copious marginal notes and voluminous annotations make it a superb study bible. Contains references from the Apostles, Fathers of the Church, Councils and Saints.”
| |
Sunday, March 30, 2008
|
|
The Approaching Schsim
|
Any devout Catholic can easily discern that the foundation is already laid for the great apostasy (that of the first part of the tribulation) and for an accompanying schism. The vast majority of Catholics adhere firmly to certain ideas that are directly contrary to the definitive teaching of the Church. Examination of just a few issues reveals this extensive lack of faith. Most Catholics do not believe that use of contraception is always immoral; most Catholics do not believe that abortion is always immoral. Very many Catholics who attend Mass do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ. Very many Catholics engage in various sexual sins; and among those Catholics who do not engage in these sins, many nevertheless believe that such sins are not sin or not serious sin.
Most Catholic theologians are in a state of formal heresy, since they openly reject certain definitive teachings of the Catholic Church. Typically, these heretical opinions are in complete harmony with the teachings of modern secular society. Even many theologians who state that they adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium, do in fact adhere to and teach ideas that are material heresy.
When the next Pope requires Catholics to believe and practice the Catholic Faith in order to receive Communion, most Catholics will leave the Church. When the next Pope rebukes dissident theologians, most will not listen or obey. This is the beginning of the great apostasy (of the first part of the tribulation).
Even some Bishops, many priests, and very many religious will leave the true Church during this great apostasy. They do not all leave at once; this occurs over a period of a few years. But an even worse situation follows. Some of these Bishops and priests and religious will attempt to start a competing Church. When the next Pope (the one after Benedict XVI) dies, his successor will not be able to be elected according to the proper rules, since Rome will be occupied by the Arab/Muslim forces during the war (World War 3). The heretics will take this opportunity to try to elect their own Pope (invalidly). Thus a true pope and an antipope will be elected within a short space of time.
When the Allies recapture Rome, both men will go to Rome to support each one's claim to be the true Pope. Then in July of 2013, Rome and Vatican City will be struck by a nuclear missile and both men will be killed.
[Zechariah]
{13:7} Awake, O spear, against my shepherd and against the man that clings to me, says the Lord of hosts. Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered. And I will turn my hand to the little ones.
The spear is a nuclear missile; the shepherd is the true Pope; the man that clings to me is a well-meaning but misguided antipope. When the city is struck, the sheep will be scattered.
| |
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
|
|
Heresy!
|
Heresy is not so broadly defined that it would include any error on the subject of the Catholic Christian faith. Heresy is not any mere theological error, or misinterpretation of Scripture, or misunderstanding of what the Church teaches. Real heresy is any obstinate doubt or any type of fundamental rejection of an essential teaching of Tradition or Scripture or the Magisterium on faith, salvation, or morals. The error has to be on a substantial matter, otherwise we would all have to be infallible in order to avoid heresy. A Catholic can dissent from a minor point of Church teaching, and even if the dissent is culpable, he has not committed the sin of heresy. This is also obvious from the fact that Bishops and Cardinals and successive Popes often disagree on minor points of theology without falling into heresy.
However, heresy is not so narrowly defined that it only includes a direct contradiction of an explicit teaching of the Magisterium. All the early Church Fathers argued against various heresies which did not contradict any explicit teaching of the Magisterium, but which contradicted essential truths of the Faith taught by Tradition or Scripture. Also, some heretics will state that they agree with a particular teaching, but then they devise a clever system of terminology and concepts which in effect circumvents or undermines, in some substantial way, that same teaching. And although heresy is not so narrow that an error in the application of Church teaching to a particular case would constitute heresy, if such an error is due to, or based on, a denial of fundamental teachings, then the underlying denial is itself a heresy.
The Pope can never fall into the sin of heresy, not even privately and secretly. For if the Pope could become a heretic, or if a heretic could be elected Pope (whether validly or invalidly), then the guidance of the Church by its Head would be continually uncertain. For each member would have to judge whether or not each Pope was a heretic, before or after his election. God is not so foolish as to establish His Church on such sand.
Instead, the truth is this: if a heretic is validly chosen as Pope, and he is validly ordained as a Bishop (at whatever point in time), as soon as he willingly accepts the office (which is the third requirement for validity), he loses his heresy. Neither can any valid Pope fall into any kind of heresy because he is the seat of the infallible teaching authority of the Church. Though he can sin privately and personally, he cannot commit the sin of heresy; God prevents this sin in the Pope in order to make certain that the keys to the kingdom of Heaven open and close as they should, and that the gates of Hell do not prevail against the teaching of the Church.
A heretic who is validly elected as Pope is like a man who has committed many serious sins in his life, from which he has not repented, but then he has an opportunity to do an act which is so selfless and good that the act itself contains the implicit repentance of all the evil acts he has ever done. He freely chooses to do the good act in full cooperation with grace, and he is no longer under the guilt of those sins. As for past Papal temporal decisions, stating that a heretic must not be chosen as Pope, this is a prudent rule. But if it is violated, it is God who sets things right by converting the heretic as soon as he accepts his election (or sooner).
| |
Sunday, January 20, 2008
|
|
|
| |
|