Interview 030 – Robert Sungenis on the Book of the Apocalypse (Revelation)


Download           Play in New Window

The Last Judgment -Hieronymus Bosch

The Last Judgment
-Hieronymus Bosch

SungenisToday we are joined again by Robert Sungenis (Interview 12) of Catholic Apologetics International to shift gears from where his recent work has been back to Biblical scholarship. Today we will be looking at an overview of the Book of the Apocalypse, the last book in the Bible, and explore its symbolism, its order and plan, who is Antichrist and what does 666 mean?

Resources:

Catholic Apologetics Study Bible II: The Apocalypse
Abridged Version
Antichrist by St. Robert Bellarmine

 

Interview 029 – The Mike Church show on the evil of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Click Here to Listen (embedded player coming soon)
Download     Play in New Window

Today Ryan was interviewed on the Mike Church show to talk about the immorality of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings considered from moral principles and from the actual history. You won’t find clarity like this anywhere else.

We talk about the historicity of the Japanese surrender offers prior to the bomb from decoded messages, state department meeting notes that have been declassified, and the testimony of Generals contemporaneous with the event who lamented or else outright condemned it. We also talk about the moral principles involved so that even if the American propaganda narrative was correct, it was still immoral to drop the bomb on defenseless cities. An hour of clarity not to be missed.

The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb
The Bells of Nagasaki
The Miracle of Hiroshima

Interview 028 – Fr. Chad Ripperger, PhD on Metaphysics, Evolution, Divorce and Remarraige


Download [Right Click]    Play in New Window

ripperger_pipePrepare for the Exhortation by getting the right principles to judge it! Fr. Ripperger rejoins us for a serious conversation on Metaphysics, its importance, the Thomistic tradition in metaphysics and how the modern philosophy and evolution are opposed to the principles of metaphysics and are the main cause for divorce and remarriage. You’ll want to listen to this one twice.

 

 

Resources for Fr. Ripperger
Interview 008 – Exorcism and issues in Theology
The Metaphysics of Evolution
Introduction to the Science of Mental Health
The Morality of the Exterior Act

If you liked this, then consider supporting my translation de_romano_pontifice_vol2_frontwork, especially if you want sound Theology from a great doctor of the Church. St. Robert Bellarmine’s complete treatise on the Papacy is in English for the first time! Click here for more details.

Notes:
Metaphysics
Evolution—For the inability of evolution to stand the test as a scientific argument, see Interview 011 with Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center
Gender identity disorder
Girl believes she is cat trapped in human body
One false doctrine makes a religion false

Interview 027—Fr. Ioannes Petrus on Elections, Voting and Islam


Download [Right Click]         Play in New Window

Saint_Augustine_by_Philippe_de_ChampaigneToday Fr. Ioannes Petrus re-joins us for a wide-ranging interview which is perhaps the first one I did not script with pre-planned questions. We discuss voting, the trajectory of government in the West, the current Holy Father, the threat of Islam, Immigration and how Christians should respond to the crisis of our times.

Episode Notes:

USCCB guide on Voting
“36. When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.” (My Emphasis)

 

 

 

 

Non é Francesco
Teilhard de Chardin and the Cosmic Christ
Chagal and White Crucifix:

white-crucifixion-chagall_blasphemy

 

 

 

 

 

 

white-crucifixion_chagall_hebrew2

 

 

 

 

 

white-crucifixion_chagall_hebrew

 

 

 

 

Michael Davies talk on Savonarola
G.J. Meyer

Interview 026 – Reconquest with Brother André on St. Robert Bellarmine


Download [Right Click]    Play in New Window

On 23 March I was on Reconquest! with Br. Andre Marie, MICM of the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire to talk about the life and holiness of St. Robert Bellarmine. The first segment is a summary by Brother André, and in the rest of the show I join him to talk about his life, his holiness, the life of churchmen in the 16th century, and how Bellarmine, being full of holiness and love for the poor, excelled as a cardinal and as a scholar.

de_romano_pontifice_vol2_frontNB: I am preparing to release volume 2 of On the Roman Pontiff, which contains books 3-5. I am currently taking pre-orders discounted $6 from what the retail price will be. If you would like to pre-order, you can do so here and I will notify you when it is ready to ship.

 

 

Resources:

Catholicism.org
Missa Papa Marcelli mentioned in the talk.
Chicory

The god of surprises vs. the Tradition on Feet Washing

Just today, the Congregation of Divine Worship, at the command of Pope Francis, has decreed that women must be included in the Mandatum, that is the washing of the feet for Holy Thursday, effective this year. Thus, the god of surprises has come to visit us just in time for Septuagesima and the beginning of Lent.

There are lot’s of things to say, but the most important thing is to treat it dispassionately and in union with the Tradition. Pope Francis has said that those who resist change are closed to the working of the spirit, who cling to the way things have always been done are closed to the message of the Gospel. In spite of the twisting of the sense of Scripture in that particular discussion (my basis for which is the original Italian of Francis’ words, not some media report), let’s give him that for the moment. He posits a dichotomy of those who only want to do things the way things were, vs. those who want to apply new things. Thus we don’t receive a teaching and a praxis conditioned by the tradition of signs and symbols that lead us to Christ, to the teaching of the Gospel and the very person of Christ, but rather to the whims of this or that age. What is new and hip and inclusive in our age will be outmoded in the next age.

Moreover, the opposition is not comprised of those who say we must do everything as it has always been done, but that there is a reason why things have been done this way. Thus, the onus is on the Pope to explain why something in the traditional signs and symbols is somehow insufficient to express the reality of the Gospel. The problem is, he prescinds from this, and simply characterizes the opposition as a stick in the mud. It is one thing if he were to show how the traditional signs and symbols were insufficient for some reason, this is possible and the Church is in fact always in need of renewal. But can he show the use of men alone is somehow opposed to the expression of the Gospel?

The practice of washing the feet of men is supposed to express the relationship of Christ with his Apostles, not merely with the Christian community. Still, for all that, there is ample testimony of the Fathers that could be applied also to the community of the faithful, including examples where women’s feet were washed by the Bishop, just not during the Maundy Thursday liturgy. But then again, that might be too much the way things have always been done. The teaching of the Fathers on the question is well summarized by Cornelius á Lapide, in his commentary on the relevant passage of the Gospel (John XIII:6-10), which will suffice for our purposes here: [NB: My translation. There is a very good translation of this available from Loretto, but I do not have it at hand]

“St. Bernard understands in this place as if it were a  sacrament, a symbol, a type, a figure, a mystical meaning as he explains a little after, on which we will say more soon.
Symbolicly, Origen and St. Jerome [epist. ad Damasus, de prima visione Isaiae] reckon that Christ washed the feet of the Apostles in order that he might prepare them to preach the Gospel, according to what is said: ‘How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that brings good tidings, and that preaches peace: of him that shows forth good!’ [Isaiah LII:7; Rom. X:15].
Secondly, S. Ambrose, [de iis qui initiantur mysteriis, cap. vi] reckons that Christ in baptism washes away actual sins by washing the head, but here by washing the feet, he washed the remnant of original sin, that is, the motion of concupiscence, for in this washing of the feet, it is effected to have fortified them so that they would resist concupiscence.
Thirdly, St. Augustine and St. Bernard [de Cœna Domini] say: “By such feet we tread over the earth, the love of the earth is signified, filth and defects, which, while on earth, that is while we live among earthly affairs, just as the dust or mud on our feet it behooves us to wash by tears and penance, especially before holy communion.
Fourthly, St. Cyprian [de Cœna Domini] and St. Gregory [lib. ix epist. 39]: “Of the feet, which are the lowest and last part of man, the washing means not only that we must scrutinize our exterior works, but that we must descend even to the lowest and most intimate hidden corners of our conscience, and purge them from every secret stain and wicked intention through contrition, tears and groans.
From this washing of the feet by Christ, the custom of Milan, and several other churches, sprung up that the Bishop would wash those who were going to be baptized, and thereafter the priests and clerics in the font, who stood straight for this purpose outside the Church; thereafter the Bishop kissed the feet of those he washed, and they placed the outer part of the foot over the head of the bishop. St. Ambrose relates and defends this custom [lib. III de Sacram. cap. 1] and says that it was begun by St. Peter and Christ, wherefore he marvels that it is not kept in the Roman Church. Moreover, the Council of Toledo [XVII, cap. iii] ratifies that the Bishops and priests should wash the feet of the faithful at the Lord’s supper after the example of Christ, and commands the use which had ceased for a while to be recalled.
St. Ambrose relates the mystical nature of this washing [lib. De initiandis, cap. VI] saying: “Peter was clean, but ought to wash the sole [of the foot] : for he had the sin of the first man by succession, when the serpent supplanted it and persuaded error; therefore his sole is washed so that hereditary sins would be abolished.” He alludes to those words of God to the serpent concerning man: “Thou shall lie in wait for his heal,” [Genes. III:15]. The same Ambrose [lib. III de Sacram., cap. 1] says: “Because Adam was supplanted by the devil, and the poison flowing into him and over his feet, therefore you wash the feet so that in that part, in which the serpent lies in wait, shall come upon a greater sanctification, in which afterward he cannot supplant you. Therefore you wash the feet, so that you wash the poison of the serpent. Moreover, it will effect humility, so that you will not blush in the mystery, that we will not disdain obedience.”
Another reason was more literal, because formerly those to be baptized approached with naked feet, that they would conduct themselves with humility. For that reason, this nakedness of the feet is called humility by St. Augustine [lib. de Symbolo ad Catech., cap. 1]; because they will wash the filth that has been contracted on the feet. This custom began to spread from the Church of Milan to others, as is clear from St. Augustine.”

Now, we could go on at length with many more testimonies to the same thing. What we can see is that the objections of some, that the priest will kiss a woman’s foot at the mandatum, was not a problem for St. Ambrose and the fathers of other churches where this custom spread to. Then again, the culture was not as over-sexualized as it is today where you have foot fetishes and other things of immoderate men. I don’t know if such a thought would occur to most priests, but it may to some laity. So if Francis wanted to overturn the custom prevailing in all Churches of only washing men’s feet, he could appeal to this example in the Fathers, that such washings were done from the Lord’s example for the community (men and women) who were to be baptized, and then he might have some ground to stand on in terms of uniting this symbol at the liturgy with the example of antiquity. But then his notion of mercy, trumpeted so much at the last synod in regard to public adulterers, could be exposed to attack by the same example. Again from á Lapide, on John XIII:10:

“Mark, here Christ alludes to those who wash themselves in a bath, who go out from it with their whole body being cleansed, but because they tread upon the earth with their naked feet, therefore they might say the feet, for that reason alone are washed afterward. Mark secondly, Christ speaks anagogically [that is, in regard to man’s final state] that by his custom they rise from corporal washing to a spiritual one, in other words, one who is washed is done so spiritually through baptism, in which I have washed you, O Apostles, or one who is washed through contrition and penance, here is wholly clean in soul, but still needs that he wash only his feet, that is the affects of the soul, again by reason of earthly things, in which they live, are stained by contagion and contract light filth that they must often purge through contrition, castigation of the body and like virtues (of which this my washing is a symbol), and especially before the Sacred Liturgy and reception of the Eucharist. Thus St. Augustine, Bede, and especially St. Bernard [serm. In Cœna Domini] say: “He who is washed, needs nothing but that he should wash the feet. He is washed, who does not have grave sins, whose head, that is intention, and hand, that is the operation and good life, is clean; but the feet, which are the affections of the soul, while we step in this dust, from the whole cannot be of the world, which at some time tread in vanity, lust or curiosity, it rather more behooves the soul that it should fall even now. For we all offend in many things. But no man scorns or slights. For it is impossible to be saved by those, it is impossible that I have washed except through Christ Jesus, and by Christ.”

Whereas, directly contradicting what Christ said, that he who divorces his wife and marries another (Matt. XIX) commits adultery, can that be said to be a light matter? Not a grave sin?

Nevertheless, picking up in the next paragraph with Lapide, we see the relationship of Christ with the Apostles:

“Therefore, Christ, in this washing of the feet of Peter and the Apostles cleanses sins, especially venial ones, because through that and only through His forgiveness does he goad their minds, and admonished them by making internal washing through contrition in their souls, through which venial sins are expiated.
For this reason, priests in the OT washed their feet and hands before the sacrifice, as I have already said. Likewise, many heathen did the same thing, as Brissonius recalls [lib. I De Formulis Roman., pag. 4]. Formerly the Jews did the same thing, as is clear from Mark VII:4, and they still do the same thing today.
Next, St. Augustine [epist. 108 ad Seleucianum] from “qui lotus est“, probably gathers that Peter and the Apostles were baptized before the Eucharist, then because no man has the capacity for the Eucharist unless he has been baptized, for after His death he baptized no man, it is certain that they were all either immediately or mediately baptized by Christ. Then, the “washing” would probably have been the washing done in baptism.”

Thus, the relationship expressed in the washing of the feet of the Apostles by Christ, is not just of a hierarchical relationship, though that is properly one aspect, but one of the intimate communion that his Apostles, as priests conformed to Christ’s very person, share with him in spite of their human nature. They are washed as preparation for becoming priests of the new and eternal covenant, of which baptism is necessary, that is being put to death to the world, and born anew in Christ Jesus. The mandatum, as preserved and passed down in the sacred liturgy of Maundy Thursday, is intended to preserve this identification of Bishops and Priests as other Christs, being cleansed from sin and made unto him, whereas the early Church (as seen in St. Ambrose, St. Augustine and the Bishops of other Churches, as Lapide mentions) also sought to incorporate the symbol of the Bishop conformed to Christ, the suffering servant who is nonetheless God, in the rite of baptism.

As a side note, Catholics should take note that the practice of blessing themselves with Holy Water when they come into Church derives from this ancient practice, which is why the modern practice in many modern churches of removing the holy water during Lent an replacing it with sand is all the more inexplicable.

Now, as I noted, Pope Francis could overturn this particular tradition in the mandatum under the desire to emulate the Baptism of the faithful, but if that were the case he should give very clear reasons as to why the old symbol were inefficient to this, or why the expression of the priesthood as perfectly conformed to Christ as servants no longer satisfies and should be expressive of who we are today. In fact, the very purpose of liturgical symbols is to remind men of changing fashions what the symbols represent and call them back to the gospel—both clergy and laity—not to correspond to changing fashions. What Pope Francis has done, is to destroy a symbol without any particular reasoning or purpose apart from what seems inclusive for today. And therein lies the very problem. A protestant friend of mine very aptly encapsulated the faulty reasoning of this initiative in the following satire:

“I hereby propose that a reasonably accurate modern equivalent of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet would be Jesus doing their dishes. Harder to fit into the Maundy Thursday service, though.”

Could it be that Pope Francis is the one doing things the way they have always been done—since 1965?

Cardinal Franzelin on the Virgin Birth

Peter_Paul_Rubens_AnnunciationThere is no end of people today who argue that in the text in Isaiah: “Behold, a Virgin will conceive and bear a son,” the term “Virgin” merely means a young woman. This is not a new or clever argument, but is answered in the Church’s tradition. The best analysis I have seen, however, is Cardinal Franzelin, a peritus at Vatican I, whose work I present on this subject:

De Verbo Incarnato
Romae, 1902
Thesis XV, II

1) We ask in what way is the revelation that is consigned to the Scriptures disposed in regard to this chapter of doctrine. The principle place pertaining to this is the prophecy of Isaiah (Is. VII:14): “Behold a Virgin will conceive and bear a son, and his name will be called Emmanuel … which means God is with us,” as is added in Matthew’s Gospel (I:23). In Hebrew this is literally: “Behold a Virgin, herself pregnant and giving birth to a son, and she will declare his name (matter, being) ‘God is with us.’”

a) The prophecy refers to Christ and his Virgin mother; for it is clear from the nature or rather more from the divine and human natures of the son. Emmanuel is certainly a name, which no man in the Scriptures is said to have born, it was not imposed from the will or external circumstances, but denoted by a name through the biblical use of speech and its intimate nature which is preached. (cf. Is. IX:6) Meanwhile this also was omitted, the son Emmanuel (Is. VIII:8) is hence said to be he whose land is Israel, I say the promised messiah. [1] For this reason, the conception and birth of this Emmanuel should be declared to be above the laws of nature, on which we will speak a little later. Therefore, St. Matthew I:22-23, that argument alone suffices which he eloquently teaches that the prophecy pertains to Christ and his miraculous conception and birth. For that reason, both the Holy Fathers and all Christian interpreters understand this prophecy.

b) The mother of the Emmanuel is certainly called a Virgin, and with an article  παρθένος, to which the quality designated by this noun fits in a singular and excellent mode. For in six places, where besides this name is found, and the meaning present is no other than a Virgin: Genesis XXIV:3; Exodus II:8; Ps. LXVII (Heb. 68):26; Cant. I:3; VI:7; Prov. XXX:19.[2] Nay more, lest a very serious matter be reduced to the trifles of grammarians, the determination of the true sense of Isaiah in no way depends from the exclusive meaning of the name considered in itself; for in this place the mode is of a solemn announcement demands a singular prodigy, so necessarily the meaning of a virgin, lest the prayer would be inept. For this reason, the Jews even to the controversies against Christians (as it is clear from the Septuagint and from the manner of citing of St. Matthew), all Christians even to the birth of rationalism, understood the prophecy to be about Christ and his supernatural, miraculous conception from a Virgin. Lastly, again the very interpretation of the Evangelist (Matth. I:22, 23) is sufficient to prove this by itself.

c) With these being fixed already, the words: “Behold, a Virgin will conceive” necessarily must be understood in the sense composed both with Isaiah and most evidently with St. Matthew, where either from the Evangelist or from the appearance of the Angel to St. Joseph the prophecy is declared. But now, if this is conceded, no also the other word “and will give birth” necessarily must be understood in the same sense. Therefore both with Isaiah and Matthew, A virgin remaining a Virgin is said not only to conceive but also to give birth. Therefore, the most holy mother was revealed just as was  παρθένος. A Virgin through excellence before the conception and in the conception of the Emmanuel, so remained in the same integrity even in birth. What we say in the major and minor proposition, is clear in the first place from the words themselves, especially as and what is read in St. Matthew: “behold a Virgin herself (which the prophet looks to in the present) pregnant and giving birth.” Besides these words were advanced by Isaiah after he offered the choice to the king of a sign completed above the order of nature. When the king refused to ask for it, the prophet intended to prophecy a characteristic prodigy: “for that reason (because you refuse to ask) the Lord himself will give you a sign (worthy by his omnipotence and infinite wisdom); behold a Virgin, etc.” After dividing the sense, not only would he announce no miracle, but something common and obvious with solemnity of words, which would be unsuitable for a prudent man, much more a prophet; but in the composed sense, which words alone are advanced, he announces something contradictory according to the laws of nature, “a Virgin, pregnant and giving birth,” which, therefore, could be effected by the almighty alone, and duly is a miracle corresponding to the solemnity of the prophetic oration. Therefore, with Matthew it is thus proved that he was not only conceived, but also born virginally. The Evangelist enunciates two distinct facts, the conception without the work of man through the power of the Holy Spirit, and the birth of a son; both however are said to have come to pass, that the prophecy would be fulfilled about a Virgin pregnant and giving birth. Therefore with the witness of the Evangelist, just as the prophecy foretold a pregnant Virgin by a supernatural mode of conception without the loss of inviolate virginity, so the prophecy foretells the supernatural mode of birth in regard to the Virgin giving birth without wound to the same virginity.

It is certain, therefore, from revelation of a most intact virginity preserved even in birth is from the Scriptures themselves. That the very thing by reason could not be arranged in a dissimilar way from the narration of St. Luke; both because the words of the angel to the Virgin (Luke I:31) “Behold, you will conceive in the womb and bear a son,” are themselves an application of the prophecy of Isaiah, and therefore the name and quality of a virgin ought to be understood, and because solicitude for the blessed Virgin for preserving her virginity (v. 24: “how shall this be?”) is related to the whole thing which preceded “You will conceive and bear a son;” and also therefore, even the power of the Holy Spirit and the overshadowing of the most High (v. 35) in the response of the angel is extended to the preservation of her virginity in both, that is not only in the conception but even in birth.

[1] If we were to give, the son of king Achaz could absolutely be called in these very words: “thy land o Emmanuel,” certainly could not be meant of another among the sons of the king, unless he was going to succeed in rule. But this was certainly Ezechias, and he was not going to be born of time but was still a new adolescent at least in those years, as St. Jerome adverts, or duly more increased with the passing of years.

[2] In the last place some reckon it comes about that the name in Hebrew, in itself does not provide the meaning of virgin, but of any young girl. But even if by chance the noun there will mean abstractly a young girl for the Hebrew as well as for the Septuagint, Syriac and Latin interpreters, certainly it retains the meaning of virgin; for it means an unmarried girl, diligently guarded, to which it is clear no man has gone into her, unless someone procures for himself a very secret way by arts of deception. Thus: “There are three difficult things and the fourth I am altogether ignorant of (The Hebrew has there are three more wonderful things to take, and the fourth I know not): the way of the eagle in heaven, the way of the snake over the rock, the way of a boat in the midst of the sea, the way of a man in adolescence.” (In Hebrew the words can be read: the way of a man to a virgin.).