Friday, June 24, 2016

INEXCUSABLE EXCUSES !!! 13th Sunday in Ordinary time.

 1. God is bountiful.
     But He does not grant to everyone absolutely and indiscriminately heavenly and divine gifts. He gives, only, to those who are worthy to receive them; to those who are free from the stains of wickedness. 
     There were three young men who wanted to follow Christ. Every thing seems to be in order when the three expressed their desire to follow Christ. Yet not one was considered qualified to follow Christ. This is quite disconcerting in that if these three men who expressed their desire to follow Christ were disqualified, what will  you expect of those who do not express any desire to follow Christ. ......like most of us. 
     Indeed, we must follow Christ. It is a command of Christ who said; deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Me (we saw last Sunday, 12th Sunday in Ordinary time.) 

2. First man.
    Someone went to Christ and said; 'I will be your follower wherever you go.'  Unlike the second and third man, this first man was not invited by Christ to follow Him. No one can follow Christ unless he is invited by Christ. No one should be a priest or a bishop without any invitation from Christ. No one can be a Catholic without an invitation. The grace comes from the invitation. Most are priests and bishops by guess work and not by invitation. 
     Secondly,  the situation of the first man is aggravated in that he wanted to follow Christ without first, denying himself and renouncing the affections of this present life;  and secondly, without carrying his cross. He will never make it following Christ. 
     Thirdly, he was presumptuous in that he thought he could follow Christ wherever He goes without Divine help.  Like every one  he can learn the teachings of Christ. But he cannot follow those teachings without grace because His teachings are incomprehensible.

3. Second man.
    This second man was invited by Christ; 'Come after me,' Christ said.   The man gave an excuse, 'let me bury my father first.' The man gave his obligation to recognise human affections to delay his following Christ.  As we have seen in the previous post, mere human affections and obligations are among those from which we must deny ourselves to be able to follow Christ. Even mere human affections towards parents and children must be objects of self-denial. 
     Christ answered; 'let the dead bury the dead.' Meaning to say; if you want to save his soul, then you can stay behind. But if you, yourself, do not have Faith, Hope and Charity....how can you save him. You cannot! So don't bother. Besides, he is dead. There is nothing more you can do except to pray for his soul which you can do while following Me.  If it is just burying his remains, any body can do that. Do more important things like following Me. 
     The obligation towards neighbour, whether parents or children is supernatural Charity.   Not the id, ego and super ego of Sigmund Freud.  Because they are natural feelings and not of Faith, St. Paul wrote, they are  sinful thus the necessity of denying oneself in treasuring such relationships. The acts of  true Charity towards our loved ones are much more superior than the pure emotionalism of the Romeos and Juliets. 
     In Ascetical theology, frequent visits of relatives to seminarians and religious is the first cause of lost of vocations. The usual excuse.

4. Third man.
     The third man, like the other two, merely delayed their following of Christ. But Christ sees the heart and He knows that these delay show deeper spiritual problems that made these three men unworthy to follow Christ. 
     This third man gave this excuse; I will take leave of my people at home. His defect is similar to the second man in that he is attached to pure human relationships. But in his case he recalls all the good times he has with family members and friends, he relives them and would not abandon these past experience.
     In his inability to give up these past pleasant memories he desires to relive it in the present or enjoy fantasising these past good times. So he constantly looks back on the past desirous to relive the past. Thus he becomes guilty of being stuck in the past and constantly regrets leaving it.
     The classical example is Lot's wife who looked back and became a pilar of salt. She looked back regretting leaving behind what she had to leave to be saved from the fire and brimstone that would fall on Sodom and Gomorrah.  In looking back and refusing to go forward, the third man was not worthy to be given the gift of following  Christ.

5. Modern application.
     Let us look at the silliest excuses. The adulterer who says; 'I cannot follow Christ because I just left my wife and I am enjoying my latest sin. Or I cannot follow You because I want to try something new that was last heard in Sodom. Most will not follow Christ for sinful reason. In fact, it has never even crossed their minds to follow Christ. 
     There is the other who would follow Christ because some secret society had paid them to infiltrate the Church and destroy her when he has been made bishop or even Pope.
     
     Some follow Christ just to be a bishop, which St. Thomas said is a mortal sin. You follow Christ to be a saint. Some like to be a bishop just to succeed Pope Francis and finish his work of abolishing hell; which should make many happy........for a short while until they land in hell. Because you cannot abolish hell even through a papal exhortation. 
     But seriously speaking, what are the most popular reason for not following Christ; well, because they are so busy welcoming immigrants destined to destroy their culture, religion and their lives. Others are busy preventing global warming, not knowing  that God is just heating the stove for sinners. Others are busy propagating communism under the guise of building the church of the poor. Others want, first, to make the Mass interesting by making it a vaudeville show. 
     But as the Gospel depicted, the most common excuse that even sounds holy just like the two gentlemen's excuses is love for pure human relationship; love for humans like Tony Palmer, for Pentecostals, for Scalfari, for Jews, for communist and immigrants, for Waldesians, for Castro and Obama, for gays and transgenders......all purely human emotionalism of high public relation value but of utterly no salvific value. 
     He who puts his hands on the plow and distracts himself with a thousand worldly things is unfit for the reign of God. The wife of Lot left all worldly things then looked back....and was punished for it.  We have not left the world at all and  are very much engrossed in it.  In such a state we cannot look forward to following Christ.....we from Pope Francis to the youngest child. Proof? We all do not have the signs of the true Church of Christ. 

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

WAY TO HEAVEN

 1. The road to heaven.
     The past Masses had been giving us small pieces of the teaching of the Church on what we must do to attain heaven. Today's Mass summarises all the past lessons in two statements. 
     First, whoever would save his life will lose it.
     Secondly, whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.

     The first; whoever would save his life will lose it by going to hell.
     The second; whoever would lose his life because he is obeying the commands of Christ (i.e. for the sake of Christ.) will save it by going to heaven.

2. How to go to hell.
    First, let us see how to go hell since the Gospel describes that first. Everyone knows that the way to hell is by disobeying the 10 commandment of God as brought down by Moses from Mt. Sinai. So everybody knows not to worship the Catholic God will bring us to hell. Also, to commit adultery by remarrying, to abandon your wife and children, to be an unbeliever, to lie like the Presidents of most countries, to kill babies or any one else you do not know.
     Everybody knows this; though there is a great movement  in the world to transform these sins into a Bill of Rights with previleges of receiving Holy Communion. And the Catholic Church has become the most popular star in spearheading this movement. In which case we should just be silent.
     But there is a Mass today. And there is a Gospel to explain; and the Mass is in Latin. The explanation of the Gospel must, therefore, be from the Fathers of the Church, as in the ancient practice of the Church. And here it is.

     So you know that adultery, lying, murder, refusal to worship the true God will lead you to hell. You know this but you don't believe it.  Here is the continuation of the Gospel 
      There is another batch of sins that will bring you directly to hell that does not sound like a sin. In fact it sounds like a virtue, but it is not. It is a sin, and this is 'loving to save your life.'  I didn't say that. Christ said that. Look at the Gospel 'he who loves or saves his life will lose it' by going to hell.

     Let us leave sins behind and go to the good things in life. In life there are many good things; in fact lawful things. There is absolutely nothing wrong with these things; a nice house, a good car, a high end computer, an expensive cell phone with GPS, a nice vacation in Fiji, three bank accounts. There is nothing wrong with all these. So many  love  to live in a nice house, with that nice car, with that computer and cell phone. And by all means, they want to maintain and, if it is in danger, to save that kind of life. 
     To love to live a life with these conveniences is something we want to save and keep.  Did you get it?....to love and keep safe that kind of life that obviously  had nothing wrong with it. That is what will bring you to hell. What??? I know everybody is doing it and are enjoying doing it.  Yet Christ said; 'you will lose it.'
     Christ said you cannot love God and Mammon. You will love one and hate the other. If you love to keep or save that kind of living in a nice house, you could lose, not the house, but your soul.
     So St. Augustine wrote that we should teach everybody to love God first. And later wrote 'Love God and do what you want,' which everybody would love to misinterpret.  He continued and states that if a child learns how to love God first, then, he will not love the house, the car, the computer and cell phone. He will just use them. While  his love for God will not be affected
       But if the child  first learns to love living in a nice house, have a nice car and use a nice cell phone ....he will hate God.
     So there is nothing wrong with the nice house and nice car. It is loving to live a life in the nice house that will make the soul totally incapable of loving God. Loving creatures will prevent a soul from loving God. St. Augustine wrote; we must love God and merely use creatures like the nice house. 

3. How to go to heaven.
    Those who will merit everlasting life in heaven are those who lose their lives for the sake of Christ; thus their souls will be saved. How do you 'lose your life?' The same Gospel tells us the answer on how to 'lose your life and become  a follower of Christ.'   First,  by denying our very self. Secondly, by taking up our cross each day.  And thirdly, by following Christ in His foot steps.
     Note, it takes one step to go to hell and three steps to go to heaven...ahh..six steps, all overlapping.
     
 4.    To 'loss you life' is first, to deny oneself; secondly,  take up our cross and thirdly, follow Him. There are two levels of self denial.

     The first degree of self denial is to give up all sinful acts which are against the 10 commandments of God. The second degree of self denial is to give up good or lawful things, like the nice house and nice car. To 'loss your life'  is to loss the love of living in a nice house and having a nice car. 
     Unless you give up your nice house and nice car you will not be able to prevent stealing what belong to others. He who gives up what is his own will never steal what is not his own. He, really, becomes a good man.
     The government officials who steals millions are those who own nice houses and nice cars. If they give up their nice houses and nice cars, they will certainly not steal what belongs to the people. That is, evidently, the way to heaven. 
     
      The giving up of one's sins is not really self-denial. Though we should give  up  our sins. What is meritorious in self denial is the giving up of good things. And there are three levels of good things to give up. I just finished mentioning two degrees of self denial; now we still have three more. These two and three are inter related.
     First, is to give up material resources. Like nice house, nice car, nice computer and cell phone, nice fridge and stove, nice food and vacations. Note, there is nothing bad in these.  This is the important theme of 'Veritatis Splendour,' regarding the young rich man. He had to give up one thing that is still lacking for him to be saved. These are material resources, like those mentioned above.

     Secondly,  we must give up emotional, human affections; human affections towards husband, wife, children, friends, etc...Note, these are human affections and not spiritual affections. Charity or love of neighbour must be maintained at all times. All affections should be in the spiritual level; otherwise it won't last. This is called Chastity.

     Thirdly, you must deny yourself of your own thoughts, ideas and opinions no matter how brilliant they are. This is called obedience. 

     In the act of self - denial he refuses to give in to his sown requests.. It is the complete emptying of oneself of everything  so that the Blessed Trinity  will dwell in the soul, which is the foretaste of heaven. If heaven is tasted here on earth, naturally it will be tasted better in heaven. 

 5.    So what do you do when you have completely emptied yourself of evil and denied yourself of many good things? Now, you cannot cook having given up your stove. You cannot go anywhere having given up your car. Well,  then, find a 6th century monastery and join the community. There they will feed you, so no need for a stove. And you will not be going anywhere because it is on a mountain top; so you won't need your car. 
     Now that you have given up.....or have lose all your plans on how to enjoy living your life, what next? Well, 'taking up the cross.' The 'cross' are the commands of Christ in the New Testament. These are difficult commands both to learn and to put into practice. It is really a cross, but sweet and light; but a cross, nevertheless. 
     You have to deny yourself of your love for a nice way of life because you will need the strict discipline needed to study the commands of Christ in your 'carrying of your cross.' To be distracted with any thing of the world will prevent you from having this needed discipline. To make the story short, then what do you do? 'Follow Christ' by putting the commands you have learned into practice.
     
6.   Today, it is all the opposite.
      Let us briefly review the steps; first, give up your sins. Secondly, give up material things. Thirdly, give up human, emotional affections. Fourthly, give up your own thinking, ideas, opinions, in other words, everything that comes from your mind.
       Fifthly, fill yourself up with the teachings and commands of Christ. Sixthly, put those commands into practice. Now let us see what everybody is doing today, from Pope Francis down to many bishops and further down to the parish priests in the barrio.
       From the fourth, everything they say or write comes from their individual, personal thinking; untested and unproven. This is because (thirdly) they do not want to give up their emotional personal human affections towards the Jews, the Pentecostals, women inmates, married adulterers, same sex attractions, immigrants they do not know, etc. Absolutely no 'Caritas.' Everything is 'Id'. 
     Why are they so emotional and so human? Because they have not read nor obeyed 'Veritatis Splendour,' and have not done what Christ told the young rich man as the 'one thing lacking' to attain eternal life. And because this one thing is lacking, most priest, bishops and even the Pope will not have eternal life, as Christ, Himself said. And why have they not given up the good things that Christ demanded from the young rich man? Because they have not given up their sins. They are even  propagating sins all over by contamination;  adultery, infidelity, pride, ambition, lying, same sex attractions.....to mentions a few. 

7. Using the Gospel of today's Mass, twelve Sunday in Ordinary time, what conclusion can we make?
     Most Catholics do not want to lose their pleasurable way of life for the sake of being able to obey Christ's Command. They love the level of the good life they are living. So they are not willing to deny themselves of whatever they have earned so hard. They will do anything to enjoy life and they love it. Giving up will never enter their minds. Everybody is enjoying life. They will save this life by all means. 
     But one day, someone more powerful will intervene and say; 'Because you love very much this pleasurable way of life and have done everything to save and keep it, you have failed to love Me and because of this ........you will lose your soul. 








   

Friday, June 17, 2016

WHOEVER SHALL BE ASHAMED OF ME........

  1. A state of testing.
     We are all here on earth undergoing a test. Are we for God or against God? And the outcome of this test will decide if we shall merit eternal life with God in heaven or lose our souls for all eternity in hell.
     Like all games there are rules in this test...God - given rules, violation of which is tantamount to failing the test. The test is meant to find out if we are ashamed of God or not. Christ said; 'whoever shall be ashamed of me and my words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed.' Clearly, Christ states that if we are ashamed of Him, He, on His part, will disown us in the judgement seat of God. 
     How do we show we are ashamed of Christ? Well, to go against Christ and His commands is not just being ashamed; it is rebellion. To be ashamed is when we keep silent when someone teaches something  in favour or against Christ and His words.  Ordinarily silence is a virtuous act. But this time silence  in front of the Words of God or on something that is against His Words  is disastrous to our souls. 
     
2. We must make a visible stand. 
     Confronted with the person of Christ or His Words, we are obliged to make a stand in being for Him. Otherwise, we are against Him. 
     In the presence of the Person or Word of Christ, any sign of confessing that you believe in Him is more than sufficient. But a more elaborate response, like expounding more on the Person and on the Words of God will be very beneficial to our souls.
     In the presence of the Person or Word of Christ, any sign of disbelief or disobedience to His Words, is being ashamed of Him. Or worse, a more elaborate objection or show of contempt at Christ or His Words is not only being ashamed of Him but outright  insulting Him. 
     To be ashamed of Christ is a serious sins seeing the punishment attached to it........which is condemnation.  Many bishops do not know that their complacent and silent non-reaction to many things happening today is actually being ashamed to show their stand in favour of Christ. 

3. Take the example of the issue on the remarried receiving Holy Communion.
     Pope Francis had been hinting on this before the 2013 Synod using Cardinals Kasper and Tagle.  Some Synod bishops bravely and unashamedly made their stand and voted against the Pope's proposal, though most of the officers of the Synod, picked men of the Pope were running the show, 
     We had Cardinal Burke leading the majority to stand up unashamedly in favour of the Word of God prohibiting those in mortal sin from  receiving Holy Communion. On the other side we have Pope Francis, Cardinal Kasper, etc. totally ashamed  and embarrassed at the teachings of Christ on adultery.  They would not even mention the word 'adultery'. They use the word 'marginal.' Two very clear stands. 

     Everyday, Pope Francis and his bureau had been showing great embarrassment at the teachings of Christ, the apostles and the Fathers.  They describe  the Church as sickly, old, decrepit that should be euthanised.   They are so ashamed of Christ's teachings that they keep on changing them to make  them acceptable to all sinners. In fact, they are so ashamed of Christ's teachings that they won't even mention or quote them. Christ and His teaching are untouchable leprosy to them. It smells, it stinks. They would not touch those teachings with a ten foot pole. 
     But the worse perverted sins they find acceptable and such are the most favoured guests at the Vatican. 

4. The bishops' different reactions.
     Let us take a concrete example of those who are ashamed of Christ and those who are not ashamed.
     Obviously, Pope Francis is ashamed of Christ and His teachings shown by the fact that he would not touch either with a ten foot pole. If he quotes Christ in his Casa Martha homilies, he immediately misinterpret Christ as if ashamed of what Christ really meant by His teachings.  Pope Francis is ashamed of the entire Catholic Church which he considered to be an old man better destined to be euthanised. 
     Now, Bishop Villegas, President of the Philippines Bishop's Synod believes this, too, as he expressed in his opening addressed to the Conference of Bishops in Pius XII centre.
     So far, none of the other bishops had reacted to that statement. As if they were ashamed of that old, decrepit man called Catholic Church. This is being ashamed of the Mystical Body of Christ; it is being ashamed of Christ, Himself. 
     Maybe, most bishops did not hear what Bishop Villegas said, which is a great possibility. But then, it was widely published and criticised in international circles.  OK. It is still possible that they have not read it. So it can still be invincible ignorance.

     But when Pope Francis issued the Apostolic Exhortation 'Amoris Laetitia,' on 'Amoris laetitia' Sunday, it was very clear that Pope Fracis' idea of the Joy of Love is contradictory to the Gospel's notion of the Joy of Love. Now, everybody who said or attended Mass should notice this contradiction and should have made a stand; not to be ashamed of what the Gospel explained and to be ashamed of what Pope Francis wrote. 
     But the spirit of the world understood both very well; and the world was ashamed of what the Gospel taught and rejoiced at what Pope Francis wrote.      
     The exhortation is available for all to read. Countless commentaries both pro and critical  of the exhortation filled up the international press. To be unable to make a stand is inexcusable. This time Bishop Villegas, President of the CBCP announced that the Philippine bishops will immediately implement the exhortation.
     Wait now. There is a provision in the document  that goes against the Word of God. Will no one stand up and make a stand on it? Though most of the Bishops said that they cannot implement that provision of allowing remarried to receive Communion because they have not yet discussed it; though the news gave the impression that the entire CBCP had approved it for immediate implementation.

5.  The issue is this. The fact that an issue for Christ or against Christ had been presented publicly (and the bishops should have read it by now) and many are already discussing it around the world,  had put each bishop in a situation to make a stand; to be ashamed of Christ's teachings on adultery or to be brave to be counted as one against the provision and, therefore, against Pope Francis, as those against the provision will turn out to be. 
     Cardinal Muller of the CDF had described the idea in 'amores laetitia' as heretical. This should give everyone a hint what stand we must take. 
    Yet  most bishops had stood silent. This is to be ashamed of the Word of God and to implicitly connive with those who are rebelling against Christ. 

6. Most bishops  in the world are in this situation. A situation that could spell the salvation or damnation of their souls, according to the Words of Christ; 'I will be ashamed of you before My Father.' 
      'You are either ashamed of Me and My Words... or you are not.'  It is like saying; 'you are either for Me or against Me.' We can see that salvation and damnation is the consequence one's choice. 
     Fortunately, it is the laymen who are making all the noise clamouring 'SHAME ON YOU'  that Pope Francis finds irritating. He should be ashamed that he is spending more time pleasing transgenders, adulterers, migrants, atheist, protestants, Jews, Pentecostals rather than Christ in His Mystical Body which he is not only neglecting  but is thoroughly destroying by encouraging them to sin. 
     Imagine how Pope Francis discouraged his friend Tony Palmer, an Anglican, from being a Catholic because of his wrong belief that Palmer could convert more by remaining an Anglican.  Where did he get that idea? Now that Palmer is dead, where is his soul, since there is no salvation outside the Church.  He should be ashamed of the advice he gave. No,  instead, he was ashamed to preach the truth that 'outside the Church there is no salvation.' 

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

THE ART OF HUMAN REASONING

  1. The Art of Human Reasoning
      God made man into His Image and Likeness.  What made man like God? The fact that he has an intellect and a free will. The intellect is akin to God the Son. While the free will is akin to God the Holy Spirit. Thus St. Augustine took effort in showing that man with his intellect and free will is akin to God the Father with God the Son and  God the Holy Spirit. This is referred to as the Mystery of the Blessed Trinity whose image and likeness is reflected in man. 
     So man, himself, is the proof that there is a God with three persons and that the God of the Catholic Church is the true Church because its God is the only true God. Both proofs being within man himself. No other proof is needed to prove which is the true Church and which is the true God. 
     As the saying goes; if you want to know the true Church and the true God, which always go together, just look at the mirror.  There is the proof. Unless the mirror is blurred, stained and distorted. This is what happened because of original sin. 
     Though original sin caused great destruction in man, God saw to it that his intellect would remain unscathed. Man can, still, think rightly and slowly rediscover the way to perfect truth and the perfect good. 

2. Common sense and the intellect.
     This unscathed intellectual faculty can be seen in the functioning of the 'common sense' or its more sophisticated term 'Philosophy.'  Philosophy and common sense are identical; Philosophy uses more sophisticated language to give the impression of being sophisticated. 
     All men had been endowed with common sense or this unscathed intellect. And with this faculty alone man can know all natural good and the true God of nature, the true natural religion and get a hint on the way to go to heaven. Not to know these  natural things is utterly inexcusable. 

3. So why are so many people in the wrong?
    Many are in the wrong religion, in the wrong church and doing everything wrong because they refuse to think. Gilbert Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc had clearly seen this during their century; that no one is thinking right. 
     Not to think right is the punishment for all who do not have the supernatural virtue of Faith. Without Faith everything done is sin, St. Paul wrote.  To think badly and wrongly is the punishment for being proud and being in the state of mortal sin.   
     Faith  can be attained by having the right disposition, a disposition that is naturally attainable through a mature act of the intellect. The road to Faith is to think rightly, which all man can do. 

4. An example on how to think right.
    A man is riding a car and somewhere ahead he sees a 'closed road' sign blocking the road. Now, let us see the behaviour of a thinking man.
     First, there is a sign giving a command; 'to stop' because the road is closed. 
     Secondly, it does not give a reason 'to stop.' But the intelligent man will say, 'there is a reason for the instruction to 'stop.' So he will stop and then find out the reason for stopping. Maybe there is a large sink hole in front of the road that could cause his death. He does not know the reason and because he does not know the reason he uses his intelligence and stops.
     Thirdly, he tries to find out the reason for the 'stop' sign. He should. He cannot just remain motionless in the road, otherwise he will not reach his home. He does this by walking and looking around or he may ask someone around in the know why the road is closed. But the intelligent man will find out the reason why the road is closed. 
     Fourthy, if he finds the reason for the 'closed road' he will now find out if the reason is reasonable or not; is the reason for the 'closed road' valid enough to make him stop. Or is it invalid and that he should go through the sign. The reason for stopping is valid if there is a large sink hole ahead. The reason is invalid if the sign was just placed there by some drunkard who thought the road led to hell. 
     Fifthly, then the intelligent man should make a conclusion. If, indeed, there is a large sink hole then he should turn and take another route home. If, on the other hand, there is no sink hole and the sign was just placed there by a drunkard who thought the sign was a fired hydrant, then he can continue on his journey ahead towards his home. 
     Sixthly, he will continue ahead the same blocked road if he is convinced this road is better than if he took another detour route on his way home. But if he is not convinced that a drunkard put up the sign and that there is still a danger that the large sink hole is further ahead and cannot be seen or checked, then the wiser thing to do is play save and take the detour road him. The latter is the wiser decision. 

5.  I think all would agree that this is an intellectual decision. Now, let's see the behaviour of an unthinking man. And this is important because this is how all men are behaving today according to that monster Chesterton-Belloc, who like to eat up unthinking men. 
     First, he is driving home and sees a 'closed road' sign. And he says, I am going home, this sign will not delay me. I am going through. Unthinking he crashes through the sign and ends up in a sink hole or running over a drunkard. Now, he has plenty of time to think....... in jail.
     Secondly, the driver sees the sign; he looks around and sees no reason for the sign. He, also, sees no police to flag him down so he goes through the sign in his desire to reach home on time for the basketball games. Because he is not intelligent enough to look for reasons for the 'closed road' sign, he thinks he is so intelligent. I do not see any reason so there is no reason. Fine, until he sees himself in the sink hole being buried alive or he sees the face of a man flat on his front windshield, well there is the reason but it is too late. Now he knows but it is too ate. 
     Thirdly, the driver sees the sign but the sign does not give a reason for stopping. He looks around and cannot find any reason either. So he says; if I do not see the reason, therefore, there is no reason! He is acting believing that other people do things without a reason, like the one who put up that sign.  He refuses to wait and goes ahead. After a few feet he finds the reason, whatever it is. But it is too late. 
     Fourtly, the non-intellectual does not look for reasons, so he cannot evaluate if the reason is valid or not. He does not reach this stage of reasoning. This stage is important in evaluating dogmatic and moral issues. This stage is reserved for a very few naturally intelligent people. Even in Greece, only a handful were able to reach this stage. The majority of men are not-intelligent that is why Democracy is the rule of the unintelligent majority. 
     Fifthly, everybody makes a choice but not according to the wise workings of the intellect. Man with his fallen nature always chooses what he likes no matter how stupid the choice is. Thus the unthinking man who is in a hurry to watch the games will rush through the 'closed road' sign. While the drunkard will, also, rush like the unthinking man except he will crash  through the 'closed road' sign. No difference.
     Sixthly, so finally, the unthinking man is one who does things, like changes, without thinking if the change is for better or for worse. 

6. The sin of the world. 
     St. Thomas of Aquinas wrote that the most common sins of men are  ignorance and pride. The two go together. Man, because of pride, thinks he knows everything when he really knows nothing. What a death dealing combination for the soul  
      In an age of mass easily available information?  Well, man knows all the 'curiositas,' i.e. informations that purely satisfies the curiosity of man, like, are there people in Mars?  But nothing of the information of what is essential, the object of 'studiositas,' like the salvation of his soul. Ignorance of what is important is a grievous sin.  With pride it is a deadly mortal sin. 
     Of the six stages of reasoning, man is unable to do even the FIRST.  Like the unthinking or drunken driver, they do not even stop at the stop sign. The only difference is that the unthinking man drives around the sign while the drunken driver goes through the sign. 
     CHANGE! This is the cry of politicians and this is what makes people vote. For change. Without first finding out the reason for the first sign saying 'closed road.' And they want a change and go through. Sign of the times; both political leader and voters do not think. Where will they end? The bottom of the sink hole. 
     The ten commandments of God are stop signs saying 'stop worshipping idols',  'stop telling lies,'  'stop committing fornication,'  'stop committing adultery,' etc..etc. See how everybody just goes through the signs and worships money and high positions, tells lies in national TV, commits fornication and gets killed in bed, changes wives and children as if they were socks.  And they are encouraged and led by Pope Francis in his 'Amoris Laetitia' and followed by leaders of Bishop's conference like in the Philippines; as they have just announced. 

7. Sins of religious congregations.
     In the Catholic religion, there are many 'closed road' signs. Adultery, receiving Holy Communion in mortal sin, same sex marriage, Pride, ........these are all 'closed road signs' that Catholics cannot enter. 
     In the religious life too much talking , visiting relatives, having worldly visitors, owning your own things, gossiping, masturbation, talking off the religious habit, dressing like laymen, .......all these are 'closed road' signs religious should not enter. And they are all going through these signs. Pope Francis is crying out; take out all  'closed' signs, remove barriers leading to cliffs, open doors to the devil and new religions.  And this is echoed by Bishops like Tagle and Villegas. 
     They call it freedom to drive your car anywhere you want, including to sink holes with large signs 'Do not enter'. Today, almost all religious orders have disregarded the 'close road' signs of their  Holy Rules. So that, today,  no Catholic religious order have the four signs of the Catholic Church mentioned in the Nicene Creed. None of them is Catholic. 
     Religious change their Rules without asking the true reason for the rule; why it is there in the first place. And cannot prove that the change is better than the original reason given by the Holy Rule. Is is change, change, change, ...for the sake of change.  The same goes with Pope Francis and other bishops who came from these seminaries. 

8. Sins of Pope Francis and the Bishops.
     Pope Francis did not even stop. When he became Pope he just rushed without even reading the 'stop sign' leading to adultery made by God, Himself. He, also, did not know God's reason for putting up that sign.  He did not go neither through the first nor second stages of thinking.
     Bishop Villegas, in his opening remarks at the 2016 Bishops  Conference in Pius XII centre said that the 'old religion' of St. Augustine and St. Thomas of Aquinas is old, feeble and sickly. But he gave no proof to it. Then said that the new protestant sect of Pope Francis is better without proving it either. That conclusion is supposed to be the sixth step and yet he did not go through the six steps of reasoning.  Most of the bishops did not object to the irrationality of the statement. 
     They don't think. They are reckless drivers at the expense of thousand of souls.  They have not even done the first step of common sense or Philosophy. And still show pride as if they are right and knowledgeable. Not realising that because of their absence of Faith, which is the first step after the six stages of thinking, all their decisions are wrong and bad. This is a punishment of God for their pride and ignorance. 
     What do we do in a situation where both Pope and Bishops don't think?  Well, we have to think. We have to, because Faith, the first supernatural virtue needed for salvation is an Act of the Intellect. Nobody goes to heaven without using their heads. In the event that our spiritual heads are not using theirs we have no choice. We must use our heads and reason out.........correctly. Use our common sense or a sound philosophy. It's 'common', so you and I have it. No excuse.

Monday, June 13, 2016

THE WOMAN WHO LOVE MUCH - 11th Sunday in Ordinary time.

  1. Forgiveness of sins.
     Not everyone will die with the luxury of being assisted by a priest. Some will die due to a plane crash. Some because of a terrorist attack. Others because of old age. And a few of heart attack.  All of these will not be able to call for a priest to hear his or her confessions.
     Besides, the priest's help is useless  unless the soul is repentant. So repentance should still come first before absolution  
     Repentance leads to Faith. Faith is what forgives sin.
     But Faith is dead unless it is alive with Charity.
     So Charity that enlivens  Faith is the best way to have sins forgiven as shown by the woman, known as a sinner, but who had great love for God and neighbour. Such love, alone, can forgive all sins, as Christ said. 'your sins are forgiven because you have loved much. 
     In the event of a plane crash or a heart attack, the best thing to do is to make an act of great love to have all our past sins forgiven. But a crashing plane or a heart attack will not give us enough time to be able to make such an act. This act of love takes a lot of time for preparation. Preparation should start from childhood.

2. Forgiveness of sin occurs within the Church.
    You should know which is the true Church and how to enter that Church. Because sins are forgiven within the Church, and not outside. Which is the true Church? That which has the visible sign of Oneness, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity. These are the four visible signs of the true Church as described in the Nicene Creed.
      How do we enter the Church? By an act of Repentance. We begin repentance outside the Church.  Then it is completed within the Church. Within the Church, repentance is followed by the gift of Grace by which sins are forgiven. And with that Grace Faith, Hope and Charity are Given by God to the soul. 
     Now, let's see how the sinful woman went through these steps.

3. The whole scenario of the woman with great love occurred within the Church; though it begun outside Simeon's house.  The steps are commented by St. Thomas of Aquinas.
     a. The Gospel narrates that she was outside and saw Christ enter a house.  She followed Christ into the house of  the Pharisee. Any house where Christ is becomes the Church. So the house where Christ entered is the Church and the sinful woman followed Christ there.  The woman begun her act of repentance even before she saw Christ then completed her repentance inside the house (inside the Church).
     b. She showed the perfection of her repentance when she wept at the feet of Christ.
     c. The perfection of her repentance produces the fruit of humility, the first Beatitude,  showing her washing His feet. This first Beatitude, poor in spirit, is the beginning of the grace of Faith. Thus Christ said; 'your Faith is your salvation.'
     d. Faith is dead without Charity (love). Both virtues are now present in the sinful woman. And the presence of Charity is shown when she wiped the feet of Christ with her hair.  Her hair is the symbol of her possessions. She used all her possession in the service of the Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ in which she is now inside. This is equivalent to wiping the feet of Christ with her hair.
     The presence of Charity is what enabled her to wipe the feet of Christ with her hair. Not the way around. 
     The end of the Gospel, in fact, describes the women who accompanied Christ and the apostles. They were described as   'assisting them from their means.'
     Assisting others using your resources is meritorious only when it is done to persons with Faith, Hope and Charity, i.e. to those who are inside the Church. If it is done to such persons, it is done to Christ because they make up the Mystical Body of Christ. Such acts are considered great acts of love or charity; and they are supernatural acts.
     If the same act is done to those without the four visible signs of Catholicity they are not considered acts of love; and they are not considered done to Christ.  There are mere natural acts of Philanthropy. 

4. Using one's resources for the work of God. 
    Before the sinful woman could 'love much' and have her many sins forgiven she had to do the following; first, she looked for the true Church and that is any house where Christ was. In effect she was looking for Christ. That means she should know Christ. That is only possible if she had the beginnings of Faith. Secondly, knowing Christ partially, she realised that only Christ can forgive her sins. So she searched for Him and followed Him.  Thirdly, realising that sins, first and foremost, is an offence against God she weeps and ask for forgiveness from Christ. Fourthly, weeping can only be regret as in the case of Judas. And that is not enough. The woman went deeper into humility which she had learned in her partial knowledge of Christ. Fifthly, having realised that Christ and His Mystical Body, the Church, are identical she uses her resources to serve Christ. 
      That last act is evidence that God had given her the supernatural gift of Charity by which she now fully recognises Christ. In the span of a brief moment, the sinful woman with many sins had become a woman without a single sin and a great saint. In a short span of time! 

5. The sinful woman and the young rich man.
     When the young rich man was told to go home, sell all his possession and give them to the poor, the act of giving was not to the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. The giving to the poor was an act of good works which is a part of repentance. It was not yet an act of Charity like the act of the sinful woman.

     When Ananias and Saphira withheld a portion of their resources, they withheld it from the Church, the Mysical Body of Christ. This is liked refusing to give it to Christ; a refusal to love Christ in the church. So it was a more serious sin than the inability of the young man to give all his possession to the ordinary poor people.
     The young rich man refused to repent. Ananias and Saphira refused to love the Church. 
    

6. The importance to know the true Church. 
     The sinful woman was able to do what she did because she knew Christ. That is like knowing the Church. Christ and the Church are identical.  The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.
     We can, also, have all our sins forgiven if we can do what the sinful woman did which transformed her into a great saint in a matter of minutes. But we must first know Christ and the Church; and believed that forgiveness of sin is from Christ and within the Church. Christ forgives within the Church. We must enter the Church and get the forgiveness of Christ within the Church. And there is where all our problems begin.
     Modern man knows neither Christ nor the Church. Nor do they care to have their sins forgiven. If they do not care to have their sins forgiven why should they look for Christ and the Church. In fact the tendency today is to encourage man to commit sin. This encouragement is coming from Pope Francis down to the Bishop's Conference, from presidents of nations to the lowest grades in schools. 

     When Gilbert Chesterton was asked why he wants to be a Catholic, his answer was that the Catholic Church has the most convincing way on how to have sins forgiven. From Anglicanism, he became a Catholic and even a great Catholic writer. If conviction on the forgiveness of sin motivated Chesterton to be Catholic, what will motivate man to be a Catholic when men are not interested in the forgiveness of sin but instead in multiplying their sins? And this encouragement is coming from the Pope and from the Bishops and priests. 
     And the Pope gives his missionaries of mercy the power to forgive special sins. What for? Men are not interested in having their sins forgiven believing they can forgive their own sins just by an act of the mind. Pope Francis gave man the excuse; ' you could not help sinning.' And he is the head of the Church that is supposed to help.

7. Conclusion.
    It all follows. Man loves to sin. It is his fallen nature. As such, it is distasteful for him to leave his sins through repentance. This repentance is necessary for him to prepare himself to receive the grace of Faith that forgives his past sins. And only when he has Faith can he reach Charity that will enable him to wash the feet of Christ with his hair. 
    Only after you wash Christ's feet with your hair will Christ say; your many sins are forgiven because you have loved much. Your Faith is your salvation; a true Faith that is enlivened with Charity. Not the Faith alone of the Protestants. 

     Christ had prophesied that our era will experience the 'decay of Faith' and the 'waxing cold of Charity.' If so, how can we have our past sins forgiven and avoid future sins?  No way.
    


Saturday, June 11, 2016

A TEST TO PASS

  1. A return to Archbishop Ganswein.
     The world is always in a state of being tested ; God is testing everyone at every moment to see if they deserve to be rewarded or punished. For this God placed us in this planet.  Not for us to enjoy or worship this world but to undergo a test. No other humans are undergoing this test. So we can be certain there are no other creatures in the other worlds. Only we are undergoing this test. Unless, of course, there are other Adams and Eves somewhere else. In which case it would be interesting to know if they passed their test unlike our Adam and Eve. But the probability that there are other human being tested in other planets is almost non-existent. 
     Of course, no one can prove this.  But we are thinking that God is not the type to do unnecessary things.  One human race is trouble enough. Wise persons do not do unnecessary things. That is why we have so many unnecessary things and inventions. We even have spaceships to go nowhere.

     It is this fact, that we are always being tested by God, that what Archbishop Ganswein is important. Because he is giving us a hint on how to pass the present test that the Church is undergoing; a test we must pass under pain of condemnation.  Our salvation is at state at every test.  We cannot afford to fail the test. And every hint that will help us pass counts. 

2. Archbishop Ganswein's syllogism.
     The Archbishop gave a syllogism with a major, a minor and a conclusion. The major is clear as is always the case. The minor is debatable. The conclusion can be a logical conclusion or a 'non-sequitur.' 
     In the very confused present situation in the Church, the conclusion we make will either save us or condemn us. See, that this is not a child's game. It is very serious business.  And as mentioned, every hint we can get to know the right answer will be a great help. The Archbishop did not give us the answer because he did not want to spoon feed us. He gave us the major. Hinted at the minor. And left the conclusion for each of us. After all, salvation is a very personal matter. No one may give us the right answer to the test of God. Each one has to pass the test. 

3. Archbishop's major.
     His earth shaking major statement is that Pope Benedict did not really resign. This revived the on going debate on the two Popes. Some very learned writers are probably saying; 'I told you so.' Others are saying; 'this cannot be.'  While the Vatican is probably in panic. See the confusion. This is a test and how do you pass a test which is so complicated that probably needs five doctoral degrees to pass?
     God is giving the test. Pope Benedict, through Archbishop Ganswein is merely giving us hints to the right answer. Let us see Archbishop Ganswein's major statement; that Pope Benedict did not really resign. 
     We have mentioned that in Ascetical Theology, it is clear that no one.....absolutely no one may resign from doing God's Will. You cannot say; 'I resign in carrying my cross,' or 'I resign in doing Good Works,' or 'I resign in seeking holiness,' or I resign in adoring God.'  Or whatsoever. It sounds ridiculous. No holy person or one merely seeking holiness will ever resign doing something spiritual. 
     The idea of resigning is too worldly to be mentioned in the realm of the spiritual. As St. Paul would say; 'only those ruled by the flesh will ever say 'I resign.' Never by one ruled by the Spirit. 
     Popes never resign as shown by the last five Popes. If there is one who resigned it is just a way of saying things......as used in describing Pope Celestine and recently Pope Benedict. But see how complicated things became. Now, they are saying what is true.....that he really did not resign; which is held by many serious writers. 
     That is the rule in the spiritual life. No one may resign any step in the spiritual life. You walk forward up to the end or you don't  make it. Imagine saying 'I resign being your husband or your wife.' 'I resign being a man.' 'I resign staying in the state of grace.' 'I resign being of the brown race.' And we can go on being more and more ridiculous. 

4. A proof from the Gospel of Matthew. 
     The apostles were in a boat toss by a storm. They were in danger of sinking.  The Church had always been like a boat in danger of sinking. Then Christ appeared walking on the water. Peter saw Christ. He left the boat and went to Christ. Now wait there.
     It says Peter left the boat to go to Christ. What for? To ask for help because the boat was sinking. He went to Christ to pray; this is the main duty of a Pope.

     This was what Peter said when he was faced with the problem of the Greek widows. He said the Pope's job is not to serve at table but to pray, meditate on the Words of God and to preach. 
     
     When Peter left the boat to go and pray to Christ, did he assign somebody to take over the boat? No. Did he tell the apostles in the boat to hold a conclave and elect a Pope because he is leaving the boat for a while? No.  'Hey, Peter would probable drown in this storm let's elect his successor. '
     No. Peter left the boat for a while to pray to Christ to help and then return to the boat with Christ and safely reach the shore. 

     See, it is possible for a Pope, just like Peter, to leave the seat of Peter for a while to pray for help when the boat is in danger of sinking. But that does not mean he resigned. He just left to pray. He returned with Christ who guided the boat safely to shore. What happened before with Peter is what is happening right now. And Pope Benedict is acting exactly like Peter, the first Pope. 
     Just as Peter did not resign when he left the boat to go to Christ, Peter did not resign when he stayed in the roof top to pray without going down to feed the Greek widows. 
     So based on Divine Revelation and Ascetical theology, the Pope cannot resign like an ordinary CEO.  It is a mortal sin for a Pope not to do God's Will by resigning.  Maybe God told him to resign. God will never command anyone to resign doing his expressed Will.  So much for the major of the syllogism. 

5. Let us go to Mary and Martha. If Benedict is Mary, the contemplative , Francis can be Martha the active worker. If Benedict is St. Peter, Francis can be the deacons. 
     Mary represents the contemplative life; and Martha the active life. Archbishop Ganswein is presenting the two as working in one papal office. This cannot be, because the two belong to two different levels of spirituality. Mary is in the contemplative and spiritual level. Martha is the natural level, the realm of the corporal works of mercy. 
     While Mary is contemplating divine truths, Martha was cooking. You cannot be cooking and  contemplating; you cannot put them side by side because they are two different levels. 
     In Ascetical theology one must be Martha first before he can become Mary.  The two cannot be done at the same time. Mary is the better part. Martha the inferior part. Francis should be inferior to Benedict, then. 

     The same goes with St. Peter and the deacons. The role of St. Peter is contemplating the Word of God and preaching. The deacons were feeding Greek widows. Both again are in two different levels. They cannot work side by side. Though the qualification of both are almost identical. 
     Even if they are in the same level of spirituality, still, we cannot have two Popes.  To be Pope and to be a deacon are two completely different entity. 

6.  Because Benedict behave like theGospel Pope and Pope Francis do not even behave like Martha or the deacons, the conclusion is a 'non-sequitur.' We cannot have two Popes in one papal ministry.  The conclusion is that Benedict is still the Pope. Pope Francis  by his behaviour is going against the teachings of Christ by saying you can be saved even if you do not have Faith. He goes against the Apostles by becoming pleaser of man rather than of God.   And he goes against the teaching of Pope John Paul II on 'Mercy.'

     There is no other way to describe him except that he had gone against all the teachings of the magisterium. Cardinal Arinze had already described him as guilty of liberalism and a heretic  and declared a 'sede vacante.'  He had been described by so many names but the most appropriate is that he has gone against the last 12 Popes. 
     With  Pope Francis in full swing introducing his private Protestant sect, the church of mercy,  all the bishop's conferences are in complete turmoil and confusion. Most reaction is quiet complacent agreement to his ideas. St. Paul described it as 'great apostasy.'
     Archbishop Ganswein, in his talk, was giving Pope Francis a graceful way out for the salvation of his own soul. But  Francis shows strong intentions to continue in his unpapal behaviour and just announced he had no intention of resigning an office he really does not have. 

7.  We must make our decisions based on right conclusions. What if the Pius X group who celebrate the Mass well,  unite themselves to the church that does not believe in transubstantiation, like some Jesuits and Dominicans. What if the Orthodox Church of Russia who has the right doctrines on sexuality joins the Roman Church whose seminarians go on  homosexual orgies on Fridays.  
     Don't they read the news. The Vatican church is going  against the Catholic Church's teachings on just war, on capital punishment, on celibacy, on the True Presence, on infallibility, on the rosary. Why, this is not the Church of St. Augustine and St. Thomas of Aquinas. It is more like the sect of Martin Luther and Zwingli.

 8. What do we do next? Still look for hints that will either confirm or debunk the minor and conclusion of the syllogism. By now, we are leaning towards the conclusion that we have two Popes but one is probably inferior to the true pope. How did the Church handle that problem before, since it had happened more than 40 times. Having occurred so many time in the history of the Church, she must be an expert in detecting one. Well, no exactly.  In fact, no cardinal, bishop or priest could pick the real pope from the anti-pope those times. No one. 
     The two easiest way of detecting a true pope is first, by analysing prophecies. The other is by using the four visible signs mentioned in the Nicene Creed. Most bishops during those times knew neither. 
     So it is suggested that the two tests be used again. First, prophecies. Judas was the type of bishops who turn traitor to the Faith. And we have had Judases all through the history of the Church; and we can have more today because both Judas and the whole priesthood of the Old Testament went against Christ, except for one or two.

     Cardinal Arinze, Burke and Brand Muller had described Pope Francis as on on the verge of heresy. They could be biased being their confrere. Let us see someone earlier who do not know Pope Francis, Robert Hugh Benson.
     Robert Benson's apocalyptic novel is worth mentioning. Benson wrote this book 'Lord of the World'  because if he preached this topic no one would listen though he was a brilliant preacher. So he wrote this book in the form of a novel. And, indeed, many read it including Pope Francis who gave a homily on it.
     
     Benson wrote of an anti-pope that would exist at the time referred to by John Newman as 'the infidelity of the future.' Both were referring to St. Paul's 'great apostasy.' Benson calculated it to be around the year 2000. 
     Here we are getting his hints that will narrow the scenario of Archbishop Ganswein. Benson's anti-pope was a Catholic priest who became an apostate and joined the anti-Christ Felsenburgh, purportedly the head of the U.S. who acts as if he owns the world. Both this president and the anti-pope work hand in hand to destroy the Catholic Church. It reminds us of the uncanny mutual admiration between Obama and Pope Francis, both having leftist leanings among other things. And the name of the anti-pope in Benson's work was Francis. 
     Benson's narration is based on prophesies from Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers of the Church. With Chesterton and Belloc they described the Church of today. With all those hints we should be able to make a very intelligent stand that  will enable us to withstand the judgement seat of God.


Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Archbishop Gaswein and the TWO IN ONE POPE.

 1. Archbishop Gaswein had spoken.
     Some time ago a heated discussion was started  claiming that we have two Popes. Then it became that we do not have a Pope because Pope Francis was not canonically elected, which means we have a 'sede vacante'.  A third opinion was raised that Pope Francis was not the real Pope; that Pope Benedict is still the Pope. This last opinion was just whispered around. 
    All sides were held by very able lay writers using very good arguments.  I could not stay out of a good fight; so I poke my nose into the argument using what I know;  little of Scriptures and a little of the Fathers of the Church. My reasoning is simple; if it is according to the teachings of the Catholic Church it is right. If not, then, it is wrong.  Narrow minded but it is always right.
     As will be noticed, most of the posts in this blog are reflections based on the  Sunday Liturgy as interpreted by the Fathers of the Church. 

     As the lively discussion went and as the erudite analysis flew in  the air, I kept to the firm ground of sticking to Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church. And in this discussion pertaining to the two Popes in one, suddenly Archbishop Ganswein spoke and he presented the same identical position that I presented on the topic on the two Popes. 

2.  Ganswein's position.
     The Archbishop's position is valuable  because this position surely comes from Pope Benedict since Benedict does not have anyone else to talk to except Archbishop Ganswein.   So we have a consensus of three.
     a. First, Archbishop Ganswein said that Pope Benedict is still the Pope of the Catholic Church.  And he presented the same proofs we raised though he did not include the fact that 'no holy person will ever resign in doing God's Will.' Evidently, it was God's Will that Ratzinger become Pope. and Benedict is holy and, therefore, will not resign doing God's Will. 
     Pope Francis is, also, Pope but the two makes two ministries of one Church;  the contemplative, referring to Pope Benedict. And the second;  an active ministry representing Pope Francis. 
     The two Popes makes up one Papacy united in collegiality to the college of bishops.  This is a new possibility, Ganswein is promoting, for the office of the Papacy.
    Archbishop Ganswein showed the physical similarities of the two Popes. Both are addressed as Popes. Both wear white with white skull caps. Both are addressed 'Your holiness.' and both live in the Vatican. The bishop worked his hypothesis on these mere physical similarities. The idea, therefore,  arose of one body with two heads for the papal office with emphasis on the fact that there is only one Papacy.
     Archbishop's idea is workable if a few kinks can be resolved. 
     Archbishop Ganswein stopped here.  This confused many people. They wondered whether these things  are doctrines because the idea of two Pope is alien to Catholic doctrine.  Or is he just trying to say something  that is leading to a further conclusion which will be completed later on. It seems that the latter is true. 

3. Let me repeat my stand on the topic of the two Popes, using once again Scriptures and the Fathers of the  Church and see the similarity of our answers. It seems that Ganswein undisclosed conclusion is the conclusion we have made. 
     My stand is based on the incidents with St.  Peter in Acts. There he was acting as a Pope par excellence. 

     St Peter was at the roof top praying.  One day a problem arose with regard to the feeding of the widows. The Greek widows were sort of neglected. And they went to Peter to solve the problem. Now watch St. Peter's answer. He spoke like a Pope par excellence.  He described  in a very precise way the job of a Pope.
      A. These words are directly from the mouth of the first Pope. St. Peter said; my job as a Pope is to master the Word of God, to pray and to preach the Word of God.   
     B. What is not the job of the Pope? St. Peter said; it is not our work to wait at table. 
     C. To whom will waiting at table be given?  To reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, filled with Faith and the Holy Spirit.
     D. The fruit of this arrangement? The disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly in becoming obedient to the Faith.

4. This is clearly the distribution of roles during apostolic times.  Two personalities are involved;  the Pope, St. Peter.  And the deacons.
    The Pope sticks to the most important spiritual aspect which is the salvation of souls. This consist in having knowledge and wisdom, both of which are supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, to understand the Word of God. This practically entails learning the Word of God directly from God, as Christ told St. Peter, 'this can only  be taught by My Father in Heaven.'
      St. Thomas described this role as having a perfect knowledge of the Word of God. And since this can only come from God, it has to be attained through unceasing contemplative prayer.  The important adjectives are 'unceasing' and 'contemplative.'This is the contemplative ministry Archbishop Ganswein was referring to and assigning it to Pope Benedict as present reigning Pope since this is precisely what Pope Benedict is doing right now; living alone like a monk in a monastery inside the Vatican studying the Word of God as he has been doing, praying and preaching in words and in silence as St. Francis did. 

     The Christian community agreed that St. Peter, the Pope should not be concerned with the corporal works of mercy. That it should be assigned to deacons described as; reputable men, filled with the Holy Spirit and wisdom, and filled with Faith. Note the state of the spiritual life of these deacons. Being filled with the Spirit, this means that they have reached the heights of the supernatural virtue of Charity. And their description overlapped; in that if they were filled with the Spirit, they would naturally have Faith and be reputable men. 
     Anyway, their work was attending to the Corporal  Works of Mercy, which is feeding the Greek widows. It looks like the deacons were over qualified for their jobs. But this is how over demanding God is on His employees. This work is symbolised by Martha, the sister of Mary who symbolised the contemplative life. 
     So Archbishop's idea which conformed to Martha and May was a brilliant idea. The presentation of the Bishop's idea stopped here. As suspected he was trying to make us make our own conclusion by going forward that direction of thinking. 
     The concern for the corporal works of mercy was assigned to Pope Francis, the active ministry. 

     Now, let us tread on the area which Archbishop Ganswein avoided but which he wants us to tread on....the conclusion from the above minor (in the syllogism).

5. Conclusions from Archbishop's syllogism.
     The contemplative Pope in the figure of St. Peter, the first Pope.
     It is irrefutable that Pope Benedict is living a contemplative life; mastering the Word of God as he had been doing. That he is living a life of unceasing contemplative life as a monk alone in a monastery inside the Vatican and that occasionally he preaches with words and sometimes in silence. In this, Benedict perfectly imitates St. Peter, the first Pope. So, if Pope Benedict is acting like a true Pope, performing the first and highest duty of a Pope, more now than before, then he is, still,  the Pope. 
     The deacons' role was the performance of the Corporal works of mercy. But note their qualifications. Those Corporal works can be performed by doctors, cooks, nurses, care giver. But that is not enough. In the Catholic Church, those corporal works of mercy must be done with perfect Charity which will require the presence of the Holy Spirit in them. In other words, the work of the deacons must be performed by souls as holy as the Pope himself. 

6. Is Pope Francis like the deacons? 
      In Ganswein's diarchy  the deacons are the figures of the active Pope, Pope Francis.  Let us see if Pope Francis is acting like the deacons. The deacons were filled with Faith. Pope Francis has no Faith in that he does not have the four visible signs of the Church mentioned in the Nicene Creed or the expanded 15 Marks of the true Catholic described by the Jesuit St. Robert Bellarmine. The deacons were filled with the Spirit. 'The Spirit is supposed to teach us all things.' Pope Francis does not remember any of his theology, any of his psychology, any of his sociology, any of his genetics and any of his science as seen in his statements. 
     'The Spirit will remind us all things that Christ taught.' Pope Francis seems never to have read what Christ said. Let me give just one example, though 'Milites Christi' gave a longer list. In one homily at Casa Martha before some cardinals and bishops Pope Francis explained the Gospel on old wine being in old wine skin and new wine being in new wine skin. The Gospel ended by stating that old wine is better. As soon as Pope Francis read those words he said that new wine is better. Immediately contradicting the Words of Christ just read. 
     Actually that was not ignorance. He was throwing away, just like the whole Vatican bureaucracy, the entire old religion. And introducing his new Protestant religion, the religion of compassion and mercy he concocted in Argentina based on Cardinal Kasper's Lutheran 'faith alone.'
     'The deacons were filled with wisdom.' Pope Francis is a source of confusion because what he says does not make sense. Receiving Holy Communion in the state of Mortal Sin? Living in unbelief? Disobeying the  Commands of God and the Tradition of the Catholic Church? Being friendly with all the enemies of the Church while being cruel to those faithful to the Church, like the Franciscans of the Immaculate ? I would never hire a deacon who is like Pope Francis. And I don't think Pope Benedict can work with someone who practically goes against all the previous Popes. 

     Archbishop Ganswein's idea is great. It can work. But it is impossible to work in the present situation because in the present situation everything between the two Popes are contradictory; one, having all the visible signs of the true Church. While the other one does not have a single visible sign of the true Church. The marks of the Church are available for all to see and use for analysis. Try them and you will see what I mean. 

7.  With the perfect arrangement of a praying Pope and deacons busy with serving at table, what was the result? 'The disciples in Jerusalem increased greatly in becoming obedient to the Faith.'
      Today, what is the result of this diarchy of two Popes? The lost of countless bishops, priests, religious and laymen from the Faith. The Catholic Church seems to have ceased to exist. What increased within the  Church? Adulterer, homos, lesbians, pagans, heretics, apostates, unbelievers, traitors, child molesters, bishops and cardinals. Not a very bright picture. 

8. So following the idea of Archbishop Ganswein, what do we really have? A true Pope in the image of St. Peter, the first Pope. And probably an anti-pope, who immediately adapted the wrong concept of mercy Pope John Paul II exhorted us to beware. With the disciples of this Protestant sect in the world increasing greatly in becoming disobedient to the commands of God. 
     Again, what happened is that we have a true Pope.  Then some cardinals, following their hidden evil agenda,  hired one among themselves as a deacon. And the deacon took over and ruled the Church according to his own private beliefs. (Hmmm....just like the workers of the vineyard who killed the heir and took over the vineyard?) 
     The first steps in Archbishop Ganswein's proposal was brilliant but if we continue his trend of  reasoning we would end in concluding that we, still, do not have two Popes; which is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. What we have is a true Pope and a deacon who thinks he is a pope as had happened many, many, many times in the history of the Church. If it happened more than 40 times before, why not now when the weather is perfect.