Birth Pains of the Church

From OnePeterFive by Father David Nix:


I am a 38-year-old priest. Most of my priesthood has been spent with university students and young families. Every week, I end up in some conversation on the phone with someone who is enduring unspeakable suffering within their family.  I know that every age of history has suffering, but something is different about this year. For example,  I asked a young Mom at a funeral of a mutual friend how her family was doing. She replied “Good. We’re the only people we know whose lives aren’t falling apart.” I said, “Then I’ll put you on the short list.”  “Don’t put us on any list,” she said as she smiled.

I look at the world at large: 2 million children are sex slaves. Over the past century, more Christians have died for the faith than ever in history, and where Communism has ceased its persecutions, groups like ISIS have arisen to continue the butcher’s work. Half a billion children are wiped out by the pill and abortifacients every year. Human nature has not become more evil, but the instrumentation afforded to us by the modern world has undeniably led to more death and slavery than ever before — including the transatlantic slave trade and the holocaust. This is a statistical fact.

Normally I would look to the Church for the strength I need to lead  families, but when I read Amoris Laetitia, I see that Pope Francis says that the divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion without reform of their life. That is quite a temptation to divorce for so many families who are fighting hard to keep it together. Maybe this is why so many bishops claim that this is not what the Pope asserted. But there’s a problem with that: Even Pope Francis and Cardinal Schönborn have both confirmed that Pope Francis meant what he wrote.

Go down the rabbit hole a little deeper: I just finished reviewing some of the Vatican’s new sex-ed program called “Meeting Point.” Some of it is fine. But small parts are light pornography, with erotic photographs included. I am not a sheltered priest. In fact, I’m an ex-paramedic who has helped deliver babies. But “Meeting Point” had sick pictures of mild erotica. The “decent part” of Meeting Point is still a far cry from the Theology of the Body. The bad part of the program reminds me of the very sex-education that the Communists presented to children in Romania in the 1980s to spike libidos in elementary school. A priest friend of mine recently pointed out to me that rat poison has “99.95% of everything that rats like. Only 0.05% is poison.”

So, as I took these things to Eucharistic Adoration, I had what Ven. Fulton Sheen called “a lover’s tiff” with God. I basically looked at God in that monstrance and said that if the Church would not support me in fighting for the truth, then I didn’t have to either. Now, I don’t “hear” things in prayer, but what I understood in prayer in that next moment was one of the only times in my life that (I believe) God spoke directly to my understanding:

“My Church is being crucified.  Will you leave her?”

I will never forget these words. They not only brought courage to my heart; they brought clarity to my mind: The Church must go where her Bridegroom has first gone, and this would come — as with Judas — as the fruit of a betrayal from within. Our Lady of Good Success promised a “complete restoration” after a prophecied crisis that was described very much like what we are witnessing today. I had seen that the Church was enduring a crucifixion, but how had I missed that after this would come a resurrection? If Paul VI could say that “the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God,” then I am surely not disobedient or schismatic for pointing out that we now have a full conflagration.

In seminary, they told us that the Church would be our bride. But the Church does not belong to me or any priest or bishop — or for that matter, any pope.  This is why St. Augustine’s theology of the priesthood is one that places the priest as another John the Baptist:

“I am not the Christ, but I have been sent before Him. The One who has the bride is the Bridegroom. The friend of the Bridegroom, who stands and hears Him, rejoices greatly at the Bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease.”—John 3:28-30.

The “friend of the bridegroom” is simply the “best-man” in modern parlance.  The Baptist is saying that the old Israel and the new Israel both belong exclusively to the Divine Bridegroom, alone.  John remains the “best man,” and so also is any priest who chooses to walk into battle with the bridegroom.

But where the bridegroom has gone, so also must follow the bride and the best-man.

On Monday, September 19th in the Traditional Latin Calendar, it was the 3rd class feast of St. Januarius. In the Gospel for that Mass, Jesus offers His most apocalyptic discourse, spoken only in private to His disciples:

“For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”—Matthew 24:7-14

The above checklist has mostly been completed, especially the most chilling of it all: “The love of many will grow cold.” On a more measurable scale than charity, consider that even CNN and CBS have reported that “relative to the 20-year period from the mid-1970’s to the mid 1990’s, the Earth has been more active over the past 15 or so years.” They are quoting Stephen S. Gao, a geophysicist at Missouri University of Science & Technology, who is basically saying there are more earthquakes now than ever.

And then the end will come.

I actually don’t think we’re at the end of the world (please forgive me, Jesus, if you’re coming tonight) but I honestly believe we’re at the end of an era.  Something is different this year, different than ever before. And it’s not just “God’s special club of weirdos” who sense this distant storm.  Anyone praying—moms, dads, priests, nuns—all have an ear to the rail of the future. But what awaits? What is coming?

Actually, here begins the really good news.

Remember that in Monday’s Mass, Jesus said:  “All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.”—Matthew 24:8. The word “birth pains” is translated from the Greek plural genitive odinon (ὠδίνων.) The singular is odin (ὠδίν.) My Greek dictionary defines odin as “birth-pain” and places it “equivalent to intolerable anguish, in reference to the dire calamities which the Jews supposed would precede the advent of the Messiah.”

What we are experiencing are not death-pains, but birth-pains. Yes, the earthquakes are part of it. (Check the above CBS article if you think I’m like a paranoid late-night televangelist in a Roman collar.) But this is a lot deeper than that. What we have here is this:  The mystical body of Christ is being born, following Christ the head, and this must arrive with the labor pains of suffering. Remember that when Jesus died, there was an earthquake (Matthew 27:51.) His Passion and the earthquake were just the birth of the head (Col 1:18.) Now, the body, the mystical body, must follow in labor pains.  Hasn’t the Church always been in the dolors of birth?  Yes.  However, among the 70,000,000 Christian martyrs in 2,000 years, over 45 million of those have been in the last 100 years.  That means that most Christian martyrdoms have taken place recently.

Eschatology is the study of the last things. Protestants believe that things must get really bad before Jesus comes again. Catholics believe that things must get really bad, yes, but also really good.

“When He opened the fifth seal, I [John the Apostle] saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, ‘O Sovereign Lord, Holy and True, how long before You will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’ Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be completewho were to be killed as they themselves had been.”—Apocalypse 6:9-11

The quota of holy martyrs must be met for Christ to come! Maranatha! Since the earliest days, the Church has named the day of the death of a martyr as her “birthday.” A sick obsession with death? Not when you realize what comes after the crucifixion of the Church. If Mary is the exemplar of the Church, and the Church is now being crucified, then the Resurrection of the Church can probably mean only one thing:  The era of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as promised by Our Lady of Fatima, 99 years ago. 2017 marks 100 years of the bloodiest century in the history of the world.

I think things will get worse before they get better, but still I write: Hold on, you Eastern martyrs and victims of Western priest scandals. Hold on, any of you readers blessed with the unspeakable joys and crosses of having a disabled child. Hold on, all you holy priests in exile for defending tradition. Hold on, all you Moms who don’t think they can see their children suffer another day. Hold on all you husbands who are ridiculed at work for your love of the Catholic Church. Is it worth it?

Will you leave my bride while she is being crucified?”

Don’t be afraid. The Bridegroom is coming, and He will not delay. What you have are birth-pains unto new life. We want to stay in the womb of our blue atmosphere, but we were made to be born into a new heavens and a new earth with new bodies — if we keep our souls prepared. For it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Fr. David Nix writes at

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Birth Pains of the Church

  1. JabbaPapa says:

    when I read Amoris Laetitia, I see that Pope Francis says that the divorced and remarried can receive Holy Communion without reform of their life

    No such permission is given anywhere in the text of that document.

    Maybe this is why so many bishops claim that this is not what the Pope asserted

    No, the reason why people say that it is not so is because no such assertion has been made by the Holy Father.

  2. mmvc says:

    ‘No such permission is given anywhere in the text of that document.’

    Repeating this until you’re blue in the face won’t make the fact disappear that many orthodox and learned clerics, theologians and canon lawyers find major problems with parts of the document. So much so that they have signed various petitions and declarations to the pope. And in doing so, some have risked their careers:

  3. JabbaPapa says:

    Repeating this until you’re blue in the face

    I didn’t know that the truth turned one’s face blue.

    I keep on being told that there are some so-called “facts”.

    FACT : The words “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039). — do not mean “Adulterers may take Holy Communion”.

    From your link :

    for that confusion can be dispelled effectively only by an unambiguous affirmation of authentic Catholic teaching by the Successor of Peter

    Have these people not read Catechism of the Catholic Church 1650 ?

    Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ—”Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery”—the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive eucharistic Communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

    Not good enough ? Want Pope Francis to say the same ?

    oooooh look — he has :

    Regarding divorced and remarried couples, Pope Francis clarifies, “Integrating into the life of the Church doesn’t mean receiving Communion.” He adds that to do so “would be an injury also to marriage, to the couple, because it wouldn’t allow them to proceed on this path of integration.

    CMTV : Strangely enough, with all the media buzzing about what the Pope really thinks concerning this footnote, and the larger issue of invalidly married couples receiving Holy Communion, almost no one has brought up the Pontiff’s own words uttered less than two months prior which speak directly to this question. Nor have they brought up the Pope’s interview conducted in Rome from the previous year where he responds to the same question in virtually the same manner. Both go a long way in revealing the Pope’s mindset on this matter.


    Truth does not make me blue in the face — but I have ZERO patience for the continuous spreading of falsehood.

  4. JabbaPapa says:

    The Church has consistently taught since its first centuries that a remarried person can’t receive Communion if they’re still having sex with their new partner. John Paul II restated this doctrine in Familiaris Consortio, describing it as a teaching, not of his own, but of God’s Church and God’s Bible. In Reconciliatio et paenitentia, he said the Church “can only” follow this practice.

    In the CDF’s 1994 Letter to Bishops, publicly approved by John Paul and signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the practice is referred to as “doctrine” three times; it adds that a change in discipline would be “impossible”, that this is a “constant and universal practice”, which is “binding” and “cannot be modified because of different situations”. In Sacramentum Caritatis, Benedict XVI affirmed this practice as “based on Sacred Scripture” – that is, God gave it to us.

    This is a teaching of formidable authority. The idea that a Pope could snap his fingers and overturn it – in a private letter which does not even mention the words “communion” or “remarried” – is a fantasy.

    But the fantasy has been solemnly reported as fact. The Irish Catholic leads its latest issue with a story headlined: “Divorced/remarried Catholics can now receive Communion.”

    That headline has already earned a deserved backlash on social media. Less alarming, but not by much, are a number of news sources, including Catholic ones, which report the Buenos Aires guidelines without even mentioning what the Church actually teaches.

    It makes me uncomfortable to bash fellow-journalists. But there are momentous questions involved here: whether confession of grave sin is necessary, or optional; whether we should fear the desecration of the Eucharist; whether the Church’s universal practice matters; whether the breaking of a sacramental marriage is a tragedy or a hiccup.

    The Church cannot change its teaching on communion for the remarried, not only because of the authority of popes and councils, but because nobody has made a decent case against it. If someone gets sacramentally married, and then has sex with someone other than their spouse, they are breaking a covenant with God which can only be healed by a resolution to amend their life.

  5. JabbaPapa says:

    Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith :

    Cardinal Müller spoke directly to arguments interpreting Amoris Laetitia as saying, in the words of the newspaper, that “the door has been opened for the remarried to be admitted to the Sacraments in individual cases.”

    The newspaper reports that the cardinal stated, “with decisiveness,” that this is not the case, and that statements by previous popes on the matter still stand.

    “This applies clearly to the reception of Holy Communion by remarried divorcees,” said Müller. “What has been taught by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio and by Benedict XVI in Sacramentum Caritatis is still valid in an unchanged way.”

    Cardinal Müller clarified that this Magisterial teaching cannot change, and that, even if the pope intended to do so, the conditions for changing such a serious matter are not present in Amoris Laetitia.

    If Amoris Laetitia intended to rescind such a deeply rooted and such a weighty discipline, it would have expressed itself in a clear manner and it would have given the reasons for it. However, such a statement with such a meaning is not to be found in [Amoris Laetitia]. Nowhere does the pope put into question the arguments of his predecessors. They are not based upon the subjective guilt of these our brothers and sisters, but, rather, upon the visible, objective way of life which is in opposition to the words of Christ.

    The principle is that no one can really want to receive a Sacrament – the Eucharist – without having at the same time the will to live according to the other Sacraments, among them the Sacrament of Marriage. Whoever lives in a way that contradicts the marital bond opposes the visible sign of the Sacrament of Marriage. With regard to his existence in the flesh, he turns himself into a “counter-sign” of the indissolubility, even if he subjectively is not guilty. Exactly because his life in the flesh is in opposition to the sign, he cannot be part of the higher Eucharistic sign – in which the incarnate Love of Christ is manifest – by receiving Holy Communion. If the Church were to admit such a person to Holy Communion, she would be then committing that act which Thomas Aquinas calls “a falseness in the sacred sacramental signs.”


    In what way, exactly, are those “learned clerics, theologians and canon lawyers” more “authoritative” for a correct interpretation than the Pope and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who have both clearly stated the facts of the matter ???

  6. JabbaPapa says:

    sorry — three Popes and two Cardinals Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

  7. Toad says:

    “On a more measurable scale than charity, consider that even CNN and CBS have reported that relative to the 20-year period from the mid-1970’s to the mid 1990’s, the Earth has been more active over the past 15 or so years.” They are quoting Stephen S. Gao, a geophysicist at Missouri University of Science & Technology, who is basically saying there are more earthquakes now…”
    Can’t write much, eyes not very good, but this youngish priest clearly believes God punishes people apparently at random – with disasters lie earthquakes (why not blindness, or cancer?). More than ever these days, as well.
    What hope, then, for a rational Church? In the face of such pitiful childish nonsense?

  8. mmvc says:

    ‘I didn’t know that the truth turned one’s face blue.’

    Who said anything about ‘the truth’ turning one’s face blue? As you well know, I was referring to your repeated “nothing to see here” claims and your lack of acknowledgement that there are indeed valid analyses of AL that point to the Truth being compromised. Such as the one below:

    The most obvious example of a rupture with traditional teaching (in AL) concerns Communion for the divorced and remarried. John Paul II, in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (FC) issued in 1982, upheld the Church’s perennial practice of “not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried,” unless they “take upon themselves the duty to live in complete continence.” Emphasizing the permanence of the discipline, the Pope insisted that it is “based on Sacred Scripture” (84). In 1994, after a number of bishops and theologians had put forward certain pastoral proposals, strikingly similar to those found in AL, allowing for exceptions to the discipline in specific cases, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under the auspices of John Paul II intervened and reaffirmed the traditional discipline, which it called “the constant and universal practice” of the Church: “This practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations” (5).

    Despite this history, AL offers “the help of the sacraments” (apparently Penance and the Eucharist) for such persons “in some cases,” since pastoral discernment can “recognize that in a particular situation no grave fault exists” (AL 305, note 351; AL 300, note 336). That this involves persons who have not taken upon themselves the duty to live as brother and sister seems clear, since the passage speaks of “an objective situation of sin” (305). While some have argued that article 305 in AL speaks only of those in certain “irregular situations” and so should not be read as applying to the divorced and remarried, it should be noted that article 300, which is clearly concerned with the divorced and remarried, uses almost the exact same language as 305 and contains an almost identical footnote to note 351, the footnote which references both Confession and the Eucharist. As the eminent German philosopher Robert Spaemann commented regarding AL’s teaching, “Article 305 together with footnote 351 … directly contradicts article 84 of Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio,” adding, “That it is an issue of a breach emerges doubtlessly for every thinking person, who knows the respective texts.”

    But AL’s permission of Communion for the divorced and remarried is only the terminus of a theological argument which begins earlier in the document, and it is in the earlier premises of AL’s argument that the real, epochal departure from established Catholic teaching occurs. For the traditional prohibition against Communion for those in “irregular” situations was itself based on a number of theological premises which lead inflexibly to the conclusion that such persons could not receive the Eucharist. If there was to be a change in the perennial discipline of the Church, one of those premises had to give: either divorce and remarriage must be relegated to something less than what the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by John Paul II, calls “public and permanent adultery” (CCC 2384), or the Eucharist must made available to all, no matter how grave their sins. AL primarily takes the first tack, with a few subtle nods toward the second.

    But how can one reduce the gravity of that which the Lord himself explicitly called adultery? The primary way AL does so is by presenting the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage as an “ideal” (passim). This is arguably the leitmotiv of the whole document, and it colors the entirety of ch. 8’s treatment of what it calls, tellingly, “weakness.” The implications of such language are obvious: few people, if any, can reasonably be expected to live up to an ideal, and hence ordinary Christians are likely not at fault, or not completely so, for failing to follow Church teaching. Thus AL describes various “irregular” situations – including presumably those of the divorced and remarried, some of which it describes in admiring terms – as realizing the Christian “ideal” in “at least a partial and analogous way” (292). Pastoral discernment for those in such “irregular” situations must therefore take account of people’s “limits” (305), because of which a person might find himself in a “concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin” (301). In such a case, a person’s conscience can “recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response that can be given to God and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits.” (303).

    What is so striking about this way of formulating the Church’s teaching on conjugal morality is that it was anticipated, almost verbatim, by the writings of John Paul II, especially in Veritatis Splendor (VS) and in Familiaris Consortio:

    It would be a very serious error … to conclude that the Church’s teaching is essentially only an “ideal” which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man. (VS 103)

    Married people … cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future …. The “law of gradualness” … cannot be identified with “gradualness of the law,” as if there were different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations. (FC 34)

    It is impossible to read the above passages from John Paul II without hearing echoes of ch. 8 of Amoris Laetitia. In presenting Church teaching as an “ideal” which those in an enduring situation of grave sin “realize” in a “partial way,” in describing certain sinful situations as approved by God because they do not allow a person to act otherwise “without further sin,” AL just is promoting “different degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations,” that is, “gradualness of the law,” despite its protestations to the contrary.

    You can read the whole article here:

  9. johnhenrycn says:

    Let’s face it: Pope Francis should think more carefully before speaking and writing, and he should rely less on ghost writers. And he should take greater care not to confuse the faithful. The only people here who seem able to understand him perfectly are JP, anti-Gin and Kehoe – the 3 Stooges Amigos.

    God Save The Pope.

  10. mmvc says:

    Agreed JH.

    Time for me to stop commenting on this lest I turn blue in the face ;o)

    ‘God Save The Pope.’


  11. mmvc says:

    Thanks be to God for priests like Father Nix who remain close to the Blessed Sacrament and lead their flock with great courage.

    As an aside, a friend informed me that today is ‘international blasphemy day’ (!)
    Here is a good selection of prayers of reparation:

  12. Toad says:

    Truth does not make me blue in the face “
    True . Although it’s a great pity that it does not.
    Or else we would all instantly be able to “see” the effects of it – which would never do.
    Because In that case, what would become of religious differences of opinion? No point in roasting anyone who disagrees. (Unless their face went blue, of course)
    But we simply can’t clearly see anything at all.
    So we all have to guess at “The Truth,” or rely on what someone else tells us it is. Which is silly, and not rigorous.
    And Toad suspects his guess is no worse than anyone else’s.
    Oh, and also: God Save Us All – even The Pope.
    Says Tiny Toad

  13. JabbaPapa says:

    Despite this history, AL offers “the help of the sacraments” (apparently Penance and the Eucharist) for such persons “in some cases,”

    It is not truthful to suggest that “some cases” means Adultery and nothing else.

    That this involves persons who have not taken upon themselves the duty to live as brother and sister seems clear, since the passage speaks of “an objective situation of sin”

    NO IT DOES NOT, because not every objective situation of sin is Adultery and nothing else.

    German philosopher Robert Spaemann commented regarding AL’s teaching, “Article 305 together with footnote 351 … directly contradicts article 84 of Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio,”

    Then German philosopher Robert Spaemann is clearly culpable of false accusations from a basis of blatant misinterpretations and bad logic.

    AL’s permission of Communion for the divorced and remarried

    And yet both the Pope and the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, who have the actual Magisterial Authority to teach in these matters, have both restated that this is not possible.

    But how can one reduce the gravity of that which the Lord himself explicitly called adultery?

    It’s just mad conspiracy theory rubbish.

    A strawman argument based on objectively false interpretations for the sole real purpose of trying to “justify” rebellion against the Holy Father and non-stop slanders against him personally.

    only an “ideal”

    This particular accusation that is OFTEN aimed at the so-called “Nu-Church” strawman idea is egregiously stupid.

    The Divine Ideal of Catholic Life has nothing “only” about it, given that it is the Image of Perfection in Christ of the Imitatio Christi.

    Those who claim that the Ideals of Catholic teaching are somehow “lesser” than the Catholicity itself in its absolute Purity simply demonstrate that they have no idea even of the meaning of the vocabulary.

  14. Magdalene says:

    Well it was reported that the pope ‘clarified’ to certain Argentinian bishops that his document did indeed mean it was okay to invite to holy communion certain divorced and remarried people who are pastorally deemed competent to do so. And certainly there are a number of prelates who are giving permission. But then that is nothing new.

  15. johnhenrycn says:

    JP: except for Kathleen and mmvc, no one reads your comments. You’re like Roger when it comes to putting people to sleep (sorry, Roger). Why not say something original, pithy and trenchant instead of boring everyone to death with your boastful knowledge of Catholicism, true though it may sometimes be?

  16. Toad says:

    I read Jabba’s comments,*
    … everyone’s in fact – even yours. And I positively feast on Robot’s.
    You assume too much, I think, JH.
    It’s the heady cocktail of erudition, paranoia, and zany gibberish that gives CP&S its unique savour.
    *True, I seldom understand them, but then I’m not a polyglot theologian

  17. JabbaPapa says:

    Why not say something original, pithy and trenchant

    You first, be my guest.

  18. Roger says:

    John Henryen “..when it comes to putting people to sleep..” I would remind of the Apostles in the garden who slept!

    “My Church is being crucified. Will you leave her?”

    This locution, these few words are an example of sipping words rather than gulping them down or fatally becoming sidetracked away from essentials.

    That the Church would recreate the Life of Christ was believed by the Fathers of the Church.
    That is my belief of what is and has been happening to the Church, but over a much longer timescale than perhaps is appreciated.

    Contemplate the Passion of Christ and especially the events of Holy Week.
    Where are we now?
    The locution says “crucified”. Can you not then see that we are in that final three hours of suffering before the apparent sleep (death) of the mystical Body.
    At the foot of the Cross is Our Heavenly Mother and the priest celebrant St John (His is the Offeratory of the Church, Body Of Christ).
    To come is the lance of Loginus; the Pieta,; the Entombment; the Resurrection and later Ascension;At some point comes the destruction of the Holy of Holies. The Apostles have already scattered.

    Can you not see that in the Passion the same Association between the Temple and the Secular must and will have occured to betray the Mystical Body of Christ.

    Garabandal ( hear the howls of dissenters )
    “Because it was not fulfilled and my message from October 18th, 1961 has not been made known to the world, I tell you this is the last one. Before the cup was being filled, but now it is overflowing. Many priests are walking through the path of perdition and taking with them many souls. Less and less importance is given to the Eucharist. You should prevent God’s anger upon you with your efforts. If you ask forgiveness with sincerity, He will forgive you. I, your Mother, through the intercession of the Archangel Michael, want to tell you to amend your lives. You are in the last warning. I love you very much and don’t want your condemnation; ask and you will receive. You should do more sacrifice; think more in the passion of Jesus.”

    Go back to the Locution FROM THE EUCHARIST “My Church is being crucified. Will you leave her?”


  19. mmvc says:

    Roger, I do believe JH’s remark to you was meant in a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ way but I’m glad you responded with the above because your inspired words will touch and benefit all who read them with an open mind and heart. Thank you and God bless you.

  20. JabbaPapa says:

    John Henryen “..when it comes to putting people to sleep..” I would remind of the Apostles in the garden who slept!

    Excellent, Roger.

    “My Church is being crucified. Will you leave her?”

    This too, which cuts truly to the actual heart of all confrontation between Faith and Doubt.

    Garabandal ( hear the howls of dissenters )

    One cannot “dissent” from Garabandal as if it were some sort of “worthy teaching” because its messages and the events have been formally condemned.

  21. Toad says:

    It’s taken me quite a few years to figure out that most people don’t believe in spite of things being preposterous, but because they are preposterous.
    There. Censor that.

  22. Roger says:

    Preposterous? Toad? Is that conclusion from your Conscious or your Unconscious Mind?

    This weeks New Scientist – Consciousness and Unconsciouness

    “THINK you know what’s going on in your mind? You must be kidding. Much of our mental life happens in the unconscious: a place that Freud famously considered to be a cesspit of our most basic animalistic desires. This is a view that modern neuroscientists definitely don’t share, but they do agree with Freud on one thing – that our brains have an uncanny knack for working stuff out, with no need for conscious involvement. So how do the thoughts you don’t know you’re having run your life? Is it possible to bring those murky machinations to the surface for closer inspection? ”

    The Our Father Prayer expressly deals with Conscious decisions based on Unconscious thoughts (Temptations).

    I will leave you with your remaining years (few or many) to discover where “figure out” comes from! your Conscious or your Unconscious Mind?

  23. JabbaPapa says:

    It’s taken me quite a few years to figure out that most people don’t believe in spite of things being preposterous, but because they are preposterous.

    This is an idiotic notion, not only because of sheer and utter incompatibility with the sciences of neurolinguistics, semiotics, and because there is no material difference whatsoever in material terms between anything you “believe” and anything you “know” ; but also quia quod scimus loquimur, et quod vidimus testamur, et testimonium nostrum non accipitis (John 3:11), so that you’re basically insulting people in here on the fatuous basis that your beliefs in atheist ideologies might somehow be less “preposterous” than our knowledge of God.

  24. Toad says:

    “The Our Father Prayer expressly deals with Conscious decisions based on Unconscious thoughts (Temptations).”
    Don’t be absurd, and preposterous, Robot. “Temptations” are never unconscious. How cold they be?
    When you are tempted by the fleshy whiles of Lady Gaga, you know it – don’t you?

    And, since you being the subject up, what’s the point in asking God not to “..lead us into temptation..”? Is He likely to do that? Not His job.
    Or is that another off those deals He makes with the Devil?

  25. JabbaPapa says:

    toad once again takes some time to demonstrate his continuing lack of understanding of everything related to the Original Sin.

    Temptation was taught by the snake, in the story of Eden, which is essentially an illustration of these problems in our nature and condition as human creatures, but all that can tempt us has been created by God, even the snake, and the devil, and also the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

    Without Original Sin you would not even be aware of evil, far less be capable of blaming the Creator for the sufferings from it that you so love to keep ranting on about, all the while ignoring every single attempt by anyone to give you any explanations, even the most honest and direct.

    You are happier to remain in your condition of rejection and pride, so that you can set yourself up as being somehow “above” what is “preposterous”, “absurd”, “childish”, “paranoid”, and all manner of epithets to characterise your imagined superiority to the things of God.

  26. Roger says:

    Jabba has written beautifully.

    Look its put far better than I could say and it relates directly to this Father’s locution . In mans eyes the Cross is Folly!

    1 Corinthians 1:18
    For the word of the cross, to them indeed that perish, is foolishness; but to them that are saved, that is, to us, it is the power of God.

    Now that locution again
    “My Church is being crucified. Will you leave her?”

    Do you not see that the Triumph of the Church is as always in the CROSS (Crucifixion). That the folly of God is Wisdom and is the opposite of Fallen Human Reasoning. Will you leave her when she is most like Our Lord? How else can the Immaculate Heart Triumph except through the foolishness of the Cross?

    Matthew 27:40
    And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God, and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.

    Mark 15:32
    Let Christ the king of Israel come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him.

  27. Tom Fisher says:

    Temptations” are never unconscious. How co[u]ld they be?

    Yes Toad, a good point. Unfortunately you gave Jabba conniptions again. But not to worry, so long as everyone’s enjoying themselves.

  28. Roger says:

    Jabba points out correctly “something created by god” that is sensed (through five sense) and known by the conscious mind.
    Senses the world, the flesh. But whence the Devil?

    New Scientist “..Much of our mental life happens in the unconscious: a place that Freud famously considered to be a cesspit of our most basic animalistic desires ..”
    The unconscious .. Freud’s cesspit?

    From where does a Temptation come? Not from God but the Tempter.

    James 1:13
    Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man.

    Matthew 4:3
    And the tempter coming said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

    Going back to what you haven’t understood “The Our Father Prayer expressly deals with Conscious decisions based on Unconscious thoughts (Temptations from the Tempter).”
    The conscious mind says Yes or No to that Temptation (thats our Free Will choice) .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s