The One True Church

Google the churches in your town and you will find many.  Try to visit a few and you will quickly hear many differing positions on the questions, you may have, on right and wrong, conditions for salvation and even on who Jesus Christ is.

It is plain to anyone who has read my posts on this blog that I firmly hold to the Holy Roman Catholic Church and have confidence to call Her the One True Church.  I have many reasons to call this church my home, but I would like to illustrate one facet of this church, Her authority; the authority to forgive sins "out loud", to discern what sins are and to discern and teach on questions which arise, following Jesus's ascension back to heaven, which leaves us only His spiritual guidance through the Church.

 Matthew 16-16 : Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.  And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but mt Father who is in heaven.  Ans I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Matthew 28-16:  And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.  And seeing Him they adored: but some doubted.  And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.  Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

These two excerpts from Matthew show Jesus passing His authority through to Peter and His church.  In both of these incidents Jesus was talking only to His disciples and not the crowds.  Through Peter the Church is given the grave duty of binding and loosing  sins, which necessitates the judgement of what a sin is, and this applies to all the world and all peoples.

I will ask three questions, which I believe will illustrate the essential necessity for One Church, speaking with One authority in a world that doubts.

First question:  Is it essential for a man to be circumcised in order to receive the graces of Christ?

Today I would be surprised to hear anyone answer "yes" to that question.  Anyone who has read the Acts of the Apostles, has read the story of the first Church council, which settled that issue once and for all.  However, at the time of Peter and Paul, it wasn't so clear; in fact, it was a question of serious import, which threatened to divide the young Church on ideological grounds.  Following the authoritative declaration of the Church there was once again harmony and common understanding.

Second question:  Did God the Father create Jesus the Son, or was the Son always of the Father?

Biblical historians will recognize that question as the Arian heresy.  This heresy spread through Christendom like a bad virus in the early fourth century.  The Catholic Church firmly declared that the Son is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Ghost, in the First Council of Nicaea.  Though the error has never been fully eradicated, there is no doubt on this issue within the Catholic sphere and in those Protestant denominations which trace their roots to the Catholic Church.  This issue isn't in the bible, as it came up post scriptural times.  However, thanks to the Church, who fought this battle, and many others through the ages, we have the Faith in our day.

Third Question:  Is the use of contraception always a grave evil?

All of the western Christian churches agreed that it was a grave evil before 1930.  The Anglican Church, at the Lambeth Conference of 1930 became the first to so carefully crack open that Pandora's Box, and the resulting error spread throughout the post Protestant churches like wildfire.

The Anglican Resolution 15:

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (end)

Read that statement of oh-so careful affirmation and consider the use of contraception today.  The total destruction of western society has been almost completed and every Christian church has accepted contraception and many have accepted the horrible step-sisters of abortion, divorce and homo-sexuality.

The Catholic Church now stands alone in the firm and unmistakable declaration that the use of contraception, by anyone, for any reason is truly a grave sin and will always be.  She never lost the way.  However, Her declaration, while binding upon "all nations"  has been nearly universally ignored, even by the people of Her own.  This clearly shows the severe consequences of the Protestant revolt, for it undermined the teaching commandment of Matt 28 and left the world lost in the jungles of sin.

Separation of Church and State

Separation of Church and State is one of those quips that seems like eternal wisdom and something that everybody knows to be established in law.  Additionally to that, we all "know" that it is primarily for the protection of Church against State regulation of religion.  So, who first declared "Separation of Church and State" - Church or State?

In the natural law, the hierarchy of legitimate authority on all matters of morality and human interaction, which is the total set of areas of Church and State action, flows downward, starting with the One True God.  Definitions of right and wrong begin and end here.

Jesus Christ declared to his apostles, following His resurrection, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.  Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." Matt 28: 18-20 (Emphasis mine)

That is the great commission.  The apostles are the Church and they are commanded to teach the gospel of Christ to "all nations" and they have the power and authority of the Lord of All with them "all days", who has "all power".  Does this sound like someone who needs protecting?

The Church is the ante-chamber to heaven.  She teaches right from wrong and holds the "keys to the kingdom of heaven", and holds the authority to bind or forgive a man's sins.  Her one concern and raison d'etre is the well being of the People and their eternal salvation. Matt: 16: 19 & John 20: 23

On the next lower tier of earthly authority we find the People.  Each and every person born and alive is subject to God, Christ and the Church - everybody, and it doesn't matter weather they know it or not, or believe it or not - everybody is subject to this authority, for this chain of authority is the only possible way to heaven, as set by God, Himself.  It is here, at the People level, that the State is created, for it is a construct of the People, for the People.  It is impossible for anyone to confer authority to another which one does not himself possess.  So, if the People, who create the State, are subject to the Church in all matters of faith and mores, the State is bound to the same teachings and authority.  In a harmonious world, the State would form it's laws and civil structures to compliment and support the teachings of the Church, much as a Mother supports and backs the Father as he teaches their children the way to live; for in unity, we find harmony.

Unfortunately, the State, being a human construct, and not having the guarantee of the Lord being with them "all days" is subject to horrible and destructive errors.  For that reason, it is paramount that the People recognize these dangers and always form their State in specific subjugation to the Church.  The United States Constitution was written that way, albeit for the wrong reasons and in a clumsy fashion.  Remembering the religious persecutions of the English and other European governments, while said governments claimed to hold the authority of the Church, the founders specifically proscribed government interference to religion with the First Amendment.  The grave error lies in the idea that the People have the right and authority to create forms of religion, which suit their tastes, in defiance to the legitimate authority of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Thus it is through the rebellion of the People that the rebellion of the State is fermented.

To answer the question above, I would say that it is the State which declares the separation, for they are the ones seeking independence, and in fact, there is no difference between the English king proclaiming himself to be the "head of the church" and the founders of the Unites States declaring that Church is separate and holds no authority over the State.

Separation of Church and State is like separation of wife and husband, or separation of players and umpires, or separation of enlisted men and generals; it is a declaration of insubordination and only leads to chaos.

One excellent example of this insubordination is the idea of marital divorce.  The Catholic Church has declared that divorce is impossible.  A couple go to the Church and apply for marriage and upon legitimate approval, marry.  Later, they fight and wish to divorce.  They know better than to go back to the Church for a divorce, so they go down the tier of authority to the State, and the State, not recognizing their subjugation, grant a "divorce".  In truth, they are not divorced at all, and the only legitimate thing the State can do for them is to make ruling on how to separate property as they remain physically separated, yet truly married - for life.

We are learning, the hard way, that there is never a true separation of Church and State, and that the only two possible configurations in this relationship are ordered or disordered; subjugated State or insubordinate State.  Examples of errors include laws and government actions on divorces, contraception, abortion, homo-sexuality, extra-marital co-habitation, rest-rooms, property seizures, currency debasement, power hoarding, etc.  These are all symptoms of our disordered and separated State and they all trample upon the legitimate authority of the Church and the intrinsic right of man to find his way to his God.

Everything Wrong With Our Society In One Tragic Story

My last post (January 12, 2016) is titled: Everything Wrong With Gun Control In One Tragic Story.  At that time, the narrative indicated two innocent victims were terrorized by young neighborhood hoodlums.  That whole story turned out to be lies.  In the ensuing investigation, an even more bizarre and disgusting set of facts emerged.

To paint it with large brushstrokes, the father is not innocent and was sexually abusing his daughter, in a public park, and the kids who witnessed the depravity offered to join in, rather than expressing contempt for public lewdness.

Sigh...what to say...

Folks, the sexual revolution was not progress.  De-synthesizing our collective sense of decency and shattering our moral standards has not freed anyone from anything.  It has only led to civil decay and heartache.  It starts with lies and moves through broken promises, the extinction of honor and destroys families.  Families are the cellular structure for society and civil order, thus we now have violent and lawless streets.  This leads to military style police forces and we suddenly live in a police state.  This is freedom?!

If one were to argue for the official "first shot fired" in the sexual revolution, which has led to the current state of depravity, I would point to the Lambeth Conference of 1930. (See: Contracepting  Society and Life 09-09-2013) That conference cracked open Pandora's Box by legitimizing contraception in very limited marital cases.  Unfortunately, the leaders of the Anglican Church learned that cracking open the box is to OPEN the box.  Public acceptance of contraception went viral.  Which led to a yearning market for a "pill".  Failure of contraception led to clamoring for legal abortion.  Sexual license led to no-fault divorce and pre-marital sexual acceptance.  Then came sodomy.  How low can we go?  Well...we get to fathers raping their daughters, in public, and young boys offering to help him.  Sick.

We need to turn back and march against the currents.  Do not accept any of these compromises in your family.  Guard the innocence of your children.  Do not tolerate unchaste behavior and be vigilant against pornography.  Marry once and make it permanent and do not contracept - ever!

We may not reconstruct our society in our lifetimes, but we will earn the soothing words of our Lord; "Well done, good and faithful servant.", for one day we will be called to account for our deeds.  Let them be pure.

Everything Wrong With Gun Control In One Tragic Story

An eighteen year old woman was gang raped in Brooklyn, NY this week.  She and her father were together in a public park, when five young thugs accosted them and told the father to leave.  To add urgency and the motivation to leave his daughter with monsters, they threatened him with a handgun.  Where to start in this tragic story in listing all the wrongs?

New York gun control laws:  New York is one of the most restricted cities in the U.S.  In short, it is nearly impossible for a citizen to have a gun, with the approval of the authorities.  There have been several studies which indicate that the stricter the gun restrictions on citizens, the higher the crime rates.  In his book More Guns Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr. was able to prove the opposite, than more guns in the hand of the people results in less crime.  New York politicians, famously, think otherwise; more laws against guns and there will be less crimes, as thugs will be unable to acquire them.  This case proves them wrong.

The Thugs:  Eighteen something kids who think gang raping girls in public parks is somehow the thing to do, don't give a damn about gun control laws!  Gun control laws do exactly two things: firstly, they give confidence to criminals, as they are sure that this father was unarmed, and secondly, it makes them right - he was unarmed.  That five of these guys have the social development of monsters, indicates something gravely wrong in that community, and it isn't guns, it's cultural and it proves that the other people need arms, more than ever.

The father:  When faced with five stronger, younger thugs, he felt no alternative but to leave them his daughter.  What the hell!?  What has happened to our manhood!?  This is the insidious effect of the "call 911" mentality.  That is exactly what he did.  He ran down the street yelling for help.  By the time he found it, each thug had completed his horrific crime on his daughter.  What kind of society are we fostering when a father abandons his daughter to monsters?

The police:  Well... they did what they always do, gathered up the victims and arrested the criminals, after the fact.  That is a pitifully small consolation for the girl, who now must live with this trauma for the rest of her life.

Other citizens:  It was reported that several people tried to ignore the frantic pleas of the father.  This is another indication of our malformed  society.  In times past, if one yelled for help, it came from all directions; today, "good luck and leave me alone."  This is another unintended consequence of the "call 911" philosophy; "it's not my problem and we pay someone for that, besides, I don't have a gun either, so what am I supposed to do?"  Gun control laws neuter the manhood of the entire community.

Here in Virginia, those thugs would not have liked my response to their threats, as they would not have liked what I would be pulling out of my waistband.

Handy Thug Repellent

The Bureaucrat Gives and the Bureaucrat Takes Away

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Second Amendment

One sentence. Succinct. Placed second in a list of ten crucial enumerations of rights retained by the people as a conditional for the ratification of the Constitution in the first place.  Without the Bill of Rights, there would be no Constitution and no United States.  The Constitution is the glue which binds us together as one nation, for it provides for our mutual co-operation as multiple states acting in unison in the areas which effect us all.  There is a common currency (so far!), a common armed force, common standards of weights and measurements, the right to travel and conduct business across state boundaries.  This works because each state recognizes the citizens of the other states as having the same rights.  It has been the most successful political agreement in the history of human relations.  Appreciate it the next time you drive into another state without having to stop and render entry fees or show citizenship papers.  Appreciate it as you realize the right of free speech, security in your papers and effects, freedom from soldiers quartering in your home, right to trial by jury, right to vote, right against self-incrimination and so many others regardless of which state you are within.

The United States Constitution was written with the God given principle of subsidiarity.  Subsidiarity requires the level of authority for any given power to remain as low as possible, as close to the individual as possible.  These levels can be thought of as: the individual, the family, the neighborhood, the town, the county, the state and lastly, the federal level.  If a man needs food and shelter, then that is his proper area of action.  If his children need an education, then the family has the proper authority to see to it.  If he needs security in his streets, he forms a town council.  If the state needs governing the he forms a state government.  Lastly, the states had those mutual concerns mentioned above, then the federal was formed for those concerns only!  In other words, the Constitution of the United States does not confer rights, but rather, some rights are specifically restricted, for the purpose of the legitimate areas of action of the federal, but no others.  The majority of the rights, held by our citizens, precede the Constitution, and what authority the federal has is granted by the people, not the other way around.  That is why some of the framers argued that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, for to them, the rule of subsidiary was obvious.  Wisely, others argued that men's memories were short, and they wanted the rule written into the document.  The two amendments which demonstrate this most clearly are the ninth and tenth.

 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ninth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Tenth Amendment

The fastest way to end this remarkable federation of our fifty states would be to cease recognizing the rights of our citizens as they cross state borders and this is happening now.  The right to keep and bear arms has been making a slow and determined come-back since suffering severe restrictions in the later part of the nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth.  Starting with Florida in the late part of the last century, the majority of our states have been issuing Concealed Carry Permits to their citizens.  These citizens quickly experienced the reality of the pre-constitution days as they found themselves unable to exercise these new found rights across state lines.  Through much time and effort a strange system of Reciprocity Agreements sprung up between the Attorneys General of such and such state with some other states which would allow arms carrying citizens to enter certain states, but not all.  Right now I, as a Virginia citizen, could enter North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, but not Georgia, as I traveled south on vacation.  My route to Texas had to be through Tennessee and Arkansas, as Mississippi and Louisiana were off limits.  This is what happens when we violate the rule of subsidiarity in one area, it creates more violations down the road.  A man has the right to keep and bear arms, for whatever legitimate reason he may have (self protection, defense of country, sports, etc.), however when the states wrote restrictions in the form of gun control, they violated the rule and created a serious flaw in the federation as well.

The Attorney General for Virginia is Mark Herring.  He has hit the news with his remarkable announcement that he will cease recognizing the right of citizens from twenty other states to keep and bear arms.  In other words, he is unilaterally canceling the Reciprocity Agreements Virginia has with those states for this reason, in his own words:

 “Virginia, and nearly every other state in the country, have recognized that carrying a concealed handgun is a significant responsibility that should be extended only to those who have gone through a process to prove a level of competency and responsibility,” Attorney General Herring said. “The standards for proving competency and responsibility are up to each state, and the General Assembly has established Virginia’s standards for whom it considers capable of safely carrying a concealed handgun. Those standards should be applied evenly, consistently, and fairly to anyone who wants to lawfully conceal a handgun in Virginia.”

Wrong!  He is flipping the rule of subsidiarity on it's head and establishing a precedent wherein each state begins to violate the federation by ever increasing restrictions against the citizens of the other states.  What he has said is, since we violated the rights of our own citizens, in the form of gun control laws, we will extend those violations to any other American who would wish to enter Virginia.  This is why I have argued against any and all gun control laws, for they violate the Constitution and cause further disruptions down the line.  Can you name any other right, which has been listed in the Bill of Rights, which we would tolerate bureaucrats switching on and off at their own whim?  His citation of Virginia, and other states, establishing "standards for proving competency and responsibility" shows the error.  What other right requires such standards?  What other right, as protected by the Constitution, requires us to earn the benefit?

After February, the agreements with twenty states will be revoked, for Virginia.  This will not protect Virginians from all of y'all citizens of other states, as I never heard of a criminal being deterred from committing a crime simply because he couldn't get a permit.  It will simply be a huge restriction to Virginians to travel, the very people this idiot claims to be protecting.  In reality, at the base of his motivations, is the violation of the Second Amendment, wrapped in pretty words.  He wants guns out of the hands of the people, all the people, of every state.  It is my hope that the legislature of Virginia will squelch this guy and write a law which recognizes the rights of all Americans to enter Virginia with their arms, in compliance with the Constitution of the United States.

What's the Difference?!

The following quote is from Rush Limbaugh, this week, concerning the spending bill which the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives just approved.  That bill basically sells out the American people on virtually every issue the Republicans ran on when they won the majority of the seats in 2014.  Even Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) chortled, "We got everything we wanted this year."

“The country was just sold down the river again by your very Republican Party. … I know many of you are dispirited, depressed, angry, combination of all of that. … When you surrender the power of the purse, and that’s the primary power the House of Representatives has. Not a penny of money can be spent in this country by this government without the House of Representatives authorizing it.

They gave up the power of the purse. The reason they did that is because for some inexplicable reason, they are literally paranoid and scared to death of even being accused of doing something that would shut down the government.

And now the Republicans have the largest number of seats in the House they’ve had in Congress since the Civil War. And it hasn’t made any difference at all. It is as though Nancy Pelosi is still running the House and Harry Reid is still running the Senate. ‘Betrayed’ is not even the word here. What has happened here is worse than betrayal. Betrayal is pretty bad, but it’s worse than that.

This was out-and-out, in-our-face lying, from the campaigns to individual statements made about the philosophical approach Republicans had to all this spending. There is no Republican Party! You know, we don’t even need a Republican Party if they’re gonna do this. You know, just elect Democrats, disband the Republican Party, and let the Democrats run it, because that’s what’s happening anyway.”  (end quote)  

Last year, when I heard folks gleefully anticipating a major Republican victory, I warned that it would come to no good.  There is no longer a two party system, wherein different philosophies of governance are there for choosing.  It is a one party system with two divisions, each leading us to perdition, each spending borrowed money like drug addicts; for as money addicts, they have no choice.

When we elected "W" Bush, we also loaded both houses with Republicans.  We are just learning how badly they betrayed us, specifically with the Patriot Act (euphemism) and other "security" measures.  The Republicans are just another specie of snake.

So, I'll not be joining in on discussions of Trump vs. the other snakes.  I'll not be spending one minute in listening to debates, "issues", or campaign speeches.  I'll be sharpening my knives and keeping my powder dry, 'cause when the damage done by these power whores oozes through the system just a little more, there will be chaos.

Am I the only one who thinks Donald Trump is there simply to run interference for Hillary?

Lord have mercy on us.

Trey Gowdy Grills DHS Official on Due Process

Is there only one representative who sees the horror of the Airline No-fly list?!  The maddening thing is this, now that Mr. Gowdy has shown the unconstitutional nature of the no-fly list, nothing will be done about it. Nothing. Nada. Zip!  Even with Republican majorities in both houses, the list is here to stay.