06/01/2015 Historical Evidence of Jesus’ Miracles


Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D.
https://www.magiscenter.com/historical-evidence-of-jesus-miracles/
https://www.magiscenter.com/author/jmiller/

Introduction

Three historical events convinced the early Church that Jesus was not only the Messiah, but also who He said He was—the exclusive Son of the Father (whom the Church recognized as “the Son of God”):

1. His Resurrection—transformed in Divine Glory,
2. His gift of the Holy Spirit (through which the Apostles worked miracles in
3. His name), His miracles by His own authority during His ministry.

We have discussed the evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection in Glory in a previous article on this landing page (“contemporary evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection”). In this article we will discuss the other two events—Jesus’ miracles (Section I) and Jesus’ gift of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles and the Church (Section II).

I.
Jesus’ Miracles

For Jesus, miracles are not merely an indication of divine power; they are the initiation of God’s kingdom in the world. He performs miracles to vanquish evil and to bring the kingdom so that we may be saved. In this respect, Jesus’ ministry of exorcism, healing, and raising the dead is unique in the history of religions. In order to understand the significance of this unique ministry, we will consider four major areas of contemporary scholarship:

1. The Purpose and Distinctiveness of Jesus’ Miracles (Section I.A.).
2. A Brief Consideration of the Criteria of Historicity (Section I.B.).
3. The Historicity of Jesus’ Exorcisms and Healings (Section I.C.).
4. The Historicity of Jesus Raising the Dead (Section I.D.).

Why be so concerned with the historicity of Jesus’ miracles? As noted above, miracles (“deeds of power”) are the initiation of God’s Kingdom in the world, which entails vanquishing Satan and evil. This is clearly manifest in Jesus’ response to his critics’ accusations that he casts out demons by the Prince of demons: “If by the finger of God I cast out the demons, the Kingdom of God has come upon you.” (Luke 11:20). The establishment of this Kingdom is not only the entryway, but the passageway to our salvation – and when our journey is complete, it is the fullness of eternal life with the unconditionally loving God. Inasmuch as Jesus’ miracles initiate God’s Kingdom in the world, they initiate the pathway to our salvation – and so their historicity is of immense importance.

Jesus differentiates himself from all other Old Testament prophets by accomplishing his miracles through his own authority and power, meaning that he possesses this divine authority and power. (see below Section I.D.3). This possession of divine authority and power not only enables him to initiate the kingdom, it also validates his claim to be the exclusive beloved son of the Father during the time of his ministry. This is precisely the question we are attempting to answer in this volume – Making the historicity of the miracles integral to our quest to discover whether Jesus is Emmanuel.



Throughout the last century of New Testament scholarship, several objections have been raised against the historicity of Jesus’ miracles. 1

Some of these objections are quite superficial, manifesting almost complete ignorance of the historical biblical scholarship throughout the last six decades -- e.g. “the miracles are just a bunch of stories that Jesus’ friends and disciples invented.” These objections fly in the face of ancient non-Christian testimony to Jesus’ miracles, the Jewish polemic against his miracles (“it is by the power of Beelzebul”), and the basic application of historical criteria to the miracle narratives. The historical analysis given below will make this point abundantly clear.

Some objections focus on Jesus’ raising the dead – “perhaps Jesus did some healings and exorcisms, but raising the dead sounds like an early Christian contrivance to prove Jesus’ divinity during his ministry.” John P. Meier has made a 200-page rigorous investigation into the historicity of Jesus’ raising of the dead in the second volume of his series. A Marginal Jew. 2 This evidence is sufficiently strong to respond to the above objection (see below Section I.D.).

Other objections center on the conviction that ancient people were unable to identify a “real miracle” (violating a law of nature) because they were ignorant of both natural laws and natural science. This objection erroneously associates “recognition of miracle” with “understanding of natural science.” As most historians recognize, the people of first-century Palestine were quite capable of recognizing the super-ordinary and supernatural when they saw instantaneous cures of leprosy, withered limbs, deafness, and lifetime blindness (see below I.E).

In the forthcoming historical analysis, we will respond to these and other objections to the historicity of Jesus’ miracles, and in so doing, show the strong likelihood that Jesus exorcised, healed, and raised the dead by his own authority and power – indicating not only that.

1 Extreme naturalistic positions ruling out the possibility of miracles (such as the one advanced by David Hume and appropriated by late 19th and early 20th century liberal theologians), are unjustifiable, because natural laws are not inviolable in the sense that their violation implies logical impossibility. For example, a violation of E=Mc2 is not logically impossible (an intrinsic contradiction); it is a logical possibility which we assume will not occur. Now, inasmuch as natural laws are not inviolable, and inasmuch as “miracle” is defined as a supernatural intervention in the natural order, and inasmuch as a supernatural power is neither governed nor conditioned by the natural order (and therefore the natural order cannot prevent a supernatural power from affecting it), then “miracle,” as defined, is neither impossible in principle nor impossible in our natural order. Hence, any a priori denial of miracles must be a priori unjustified. Though 1st century Jewish thought did not have a formal conception of miracles similar to the one given above, its view of miracles was commensurate with it.
See N.T. Wright 1996, Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol 2. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press) p. 186 and see Anthony Ernest Harvey, 1982, Jesus and the Constraints of History: The Bampton Lectures, 1980. (London: Duckworth) pp. 101ff.
2 See John P. Meier 1994, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 2. Mentor, Message, and Miracles. (New York: Doubleday) pp. 623-840.

2

He had initiated God’s Kingdom in the world, but revealed himself to be the exclusive beloved Son of the Father.


I.A.
The Purpose and Distinctiveness of Jesus’ Miracles

There is considerable evidence for the historicity of Jesus’ miracles. They are mentioned in non-Christian polemical sources, 3 and by adversaries during His ministry (who did not challenge the fact that he worked miracles, but attributed them instead to the devil or sorcery 4). N.T. Wright notes in this regard:

...We must be clear that Jesus’ contemporaries, both those who became his followers and those who were determined not to become his followers, certainly regarded him as possessed of remarkable powers. The church did not invent the charge that Jesus was in league with Beelzebul; but charges like that are not advanced unless they are needed as an explanation for some quite remarkable phenomena. 5

The importance of this charge should not be underestimated, because it cannot be imagined that Mark (or the other Evangelists for that matter) would have dared to mention that Jesus was in league with the devil or was doing miracles by the power of the devil unless they believed it was absolutely necessary to respond to a charge which was really being leveled against Jesus (see below, Section I.B. on the criterion of embarrassment). It can hardly be thought that Jesus’ harshest critics would concede to His having supernatural power unless there was wide contemporaneous acknowledgement that Jesus was doing exorcisms and healings. Therefore, his “deeds of power” are almost certainly historical.

Furthermore, miracles are an integral part of every stratum of the New Testament. They are mentioned in the earliest kerygmas, in the writings of Paul and 1John, and are manifest in every tradition constituting the Gospel narratives. Whatever one might believe about the interpretation of miracles by the evangelists, it seems unreasonable to suspect that Jesus did not perform a large number of “extraordinary deeds of power” before multiple witnesses in multiple places throughout the course of His ministry.

Jesus’ gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost makes miracles almost commonplace in the apostolic Church -- so much so that they are openly discussed by Paul, Acts, and the Gospels

To view the Remaining article go to URL Link ( Note, The article is 38 pages long )
https://www.magiscenter.com/historical-evidence-of-jesus-miracles/
https://www.magiscenter.com/author/jmiller/

12/12/2018 The Science (or Lack Thereof) Behind Juan Diego’s Tilma

Fr. Robert Spitzer
https://www.magiscenter.com/the-science-or-lack-thereof-behind-juan-diegos-tilma/

https://www.magiscenter.com/author/frspitzer/


On December 12, 1531, an image of Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared on the tilma of native Aztec, Juan Diego. Since then, scientists have struggled to explain just how the image got there.


The image itself has many extraordinary attributes that border on the miraculous (and probably indicate it!.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, six attributes in particular have been scientifically examined.



1.The material of the tilma

The material of the tilma has maintained its chemical and structural integrity for almost 500 years.

This is quite remarkable considering that most replicas of tilmas with the same chemical and structural composition last only 15 years before analyzable decomposition.



2. How the tilma was displayed

For its first 115 years, the tilma was displayed without protective glass and subjected to soot, candle wax, incense, and touching.

There is currently no scientific explanation for its physical and chemical longevity.



3. Does not appear to be painted

Though there are several parts of the cloth which have been painted subsequent to the original image (e.g. the moon underneath the Virgin’s feet, the angel holding the cloth, and the rays coming from the image)

The original image of the Virgin herself does not appear to have been painted by an artist.

There is no sketch underneath it, no brush strokes, no corrections, and it appears to have been produced in a single step.

These features were identified by Dr. Philip Serna Callahan (biophysicist and NASA consultant) who photographed the image under infrared light.



4. The pigments used are unidentifiable


Nobel Prize winning biochemist, Richard Kuhn, analyzed a sample of the fabric and concluded that the pigments used were from no known natural source, whether animal, mineral, or vegetable.

Given that there were no synthetic pigments in 1531, this enigma remains inexplicable.



5. The Lack of Decay

Dr. Philip Callahan also noted that the original image on the tilma had not cracked, flaked, or decayed in over 500 years, while the paint and gold leaf had flaked or deteriorated considerably.

This phenomenon has still not yet been scientifically explained.



6. The Eyes on the Image

The eyes of the Virgin have three remarkable qualities that cannot be explained through known technology in 1531—
https://aleteia.org/2016/11/07/whats-to-be-seen-by-looking-into-our-lady-of-guadalupes-eyes/

And each would be difficult to replicate with today’s technology of computers, ophthalmologic knowledge, and digital photography:

Engineer, Jose Aste Tonsmann, has amplified an image of the pupils of the Blessed Virgin by 2500 times and can identify not only what appears to be the image of Bishop Zumarraga, but also several other witnesses of the miracle reflected there.
The images in the pupils also manifest the triple reflection called the Samson-Purkinje effect—which was completely unknown at the time of the image’s formation.
The image in the eyes of the Virgin follow the curvature of the cornea precisely in the way it occurs in a normal human eye.


A remarkable source of conversion

Displayed in the Cathedral atop Tepeyac Hill in Mexico, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Juan Diego’s tilma has been a remarkable source of conversion to Catholicism throughout Mexico.

It has also been a source of strength and grace for the Catholic religion as a whole, particularly in times of persecution and secularism.

The message of Our Lady to Juan Diego—filled with love and affection for the native people of the western hemisphere—has inspired tens of thousands of people.

So far has her message reached, that she is now considered the patroness of all the Americas.

The influence of this single devotion has been so great that, upon seeing the image for the first time in 1754, Pope Benedict XIV wept and uttered the words of Psalm 147,

“God has not dealt in like manner with any other nation.”

For Sources and to read more on our Lady of Guadalupe view Fr. Spitzer’s article,

Contemporary, Scientifically Validated Miracles Associated with the Blessed Mary, Saints, and the Holy Eucharist.  
https://www.magiscenter.com/contemporary-scientifically-validated-miracles-associated-with-blessed-mary-saints-and-the-holy-eucharist-2/

St. Albert Magnus: A 12th Century Dominican Who Helped Shape Western Civilization

Joel Fernandes

https://www.magiscenter.com/st-albert-magnus-a-12th-century-dominican-who-helped-shape-western-civilization/



St. Albert Magnus: A 12th Century Dominican Who Helped Shape Western Civilization

St. Albert Magnus was a great saint who used his gifts and talents in the service of God.

For centuries Saints, such as St. John Bosco, St. Teresa of Calcutta, St. Pio of Pietrelcina, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Benedict of Norcia, St. Dominic, St. Thomas Aquinas and others, contributed immensely to the development of Catholic schools, hospitals and Christian culture.

Some of these Saints earned widespread recognition and fame while others have been largely ignored or forgotten.

St. Albert Magnus is one of those Saints whose legacy is still at work today within the Catholic Church but whose contributions are largely forgotten.



St. Albert and Academia

St. Albert was born in Bavaria, Germany at the start of the 13th century and studied at the University of Padua where he received extensive academic formation in Aristotle. His devotion to his formation and faith led him to the priesthood where he was ordained as a Dominican Friar shortly after completing his studies.

St. Albert MagnusOver the next few years, St. Albert studied and lectured at numerous academic institutions,monastic communities and seminaries across Italy, France and Germany, where he attained mastery of a broad range of academic disciplines such as biblical theology, metaphysics, logic, botany, astronomy, physics, mathematics and anatomy.

The extent of St. Albert’s knowledge and reputation as a great lecturer merited him the position as Head of the Department of Theology at the University of Paris, the most prominent academic institution in the western world at the time where he rose to fame and prominence during the course of his career.

As a distinguished professor of theology, St. Albert published the Summa de bono, one of the finest commentaries on theology and metaphysics and was involved in the formation and instruction of St. Thomas Aquinas, one of his many students.

As a leading academic figure of the Catholic Church and academia, St. Albert helped develop the curriculum and formation programs for postulates entering into the Dominican Order.

He mandated the instruction and mastery of Aristotle as one of the key pillars of formation for Dominican Friars.

This requirement is still the basis of formation for most religious orders and seminaries today.



In 1265, St. Albert along with Pierre de Tarentaise, Bonushomo Britto, Florentius and his student St. Thomas Aquinas developed a program of studies for postulates in Rome (now the Angelicum) for formation.

Today, the Angelicum is considered one of the finest institutions for instruction, scholarship, and formation for religious and clergy within the Catholic Church with many great saints, scholars, and writers having passed through their doors across the centuries.

Towards the end of his academic career, numerous bishops and his superiors requested St. Albert to become Bishop of Regensburg, Germany which he humbly accepted.

As bishop, St. Albert chose to walk across his diocese on foot rather than horseback as an act of solidarity with his people.

In his book, On Union with God, St. Albert, said that one must “Spare no pains, no labour, to purify thy heart and to establish it in unbroken peace.”

As part of his pastoral ministry to his diocese, St. Albert helped further peace and better relationships between the Church, government and civil society, earning the admiration of all.




Apart from his immense contributions to the world of academia, his vocation as a Catholic priest, the formation of postulates in the Dominican Order, the development of academic institutions and the publication of excellent books, St. Albert set the standard of what it meant to be a disciple of Christ and a custodian of Truth.

His depth of knowledge, excellence of character and sense of magnanimity is an exemplar for all Catholics to aspire to.

The institutions he developed, along with his fellow friars set a very high standard of scholarship, stewardship, and fidelity to the Catholic Church.



St. Albert and the West Today

In the history of the West, the Catholic Church has played and continues to play a pivotal role in the formation of key institutions such as schools, universities and hospitals, while championing the cause of universal access to education, the concern for the poor and the rule of law.

However, within the Catholic Church and in academia today, we are facing divisions concerning the Church’s teaching on the dignity of the human person, the care for the unborn, and the sanctity of marriage.

In most academic institutions in the West and abroad, the study of Aristotle, sacred scripture, the cultivation of virtue, the principles of a liberal arts education and the impetus of self-discipline are either missing or non-existent in most universities.

Many students and instructors lack an understanding of the Church’s teachings rooted in theology, revelation, and philosophy.

In order to remedy our culture of this ignorance we need to go back to our roots.

The sad state of affairs within our Church with the sexual abuse crisis and the loss of the Catholic identity in our Catholic institutions is the outcome of this reality.

It is up to a new generation of Catholics rooted in their faith with a deep relationship with Christ, to rise up to the challenge and to defend the principles of Christian solidarity that have built and defined the West over the past two millennia.



The cultural excellences of our culture such as the production of great books, science, fine works of art, classical music and beautiful architecture owes its existence to the work of devout Catholics who had an encounter with the living God, were obedient to His will and were radically transformed by His presence.

In teaching and studying the lives of great saints such as St. Albert Magnus and others, we can bring about a cultural renewal within our Church that is so desperately needed.

St. Albert Magnus is an example of an obedient servant of the Lord who used his gifts and talents in the service of the Truth.

His submission to the will of God and his longing for union with Him transformed the life of his students and the history of the Church.

We should seek to do the same if we are truly concerned about the state of our culture and our church.

12/12/2018 Saint Peter said; ’Be Sober and Watch’ - Vigilance in Symbols

Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/f001rp.htm

Walking through one of those huge and terrible malls the other day, I noticed a shop filled with gargoyles, those strange misshapen creatures with their “astonishing and deformed appearance,” as St. Bernard of Clairvaux described them.

As a medievalist, my attention was caught. I entered the store and found a wide menagerie of creatures to place in your garden, set on your desk, adorn your fountain, and become your “little friend” or mascot.

This howling gargoyle is used as a gutter pipe
Saint-Etienne in Bourges, France

My first reaction was shock to find that these monstrous creatures were being sold as a kind of new pet for the home without any reaction of indignation.

A quite different mentality is nourishing the celebration of these figures, a mentality that reflects a modern spirit opposed to the Catholic spirit that gave birth to these bizarre beasts.

The first purpose of these creatures for the medieval man was didactic – to teach.

Unlike modern man, medieval man did not create their monsters to be the stuffed-animal companions or like extra-terrestrial friends for their children.

Instead, their express purpose was to frighten, to startle man amid his everyday life.

These fantastic beasts were destined to be a clear and constant reminder that the devil and original sin exist.

Alongside the beauty and splendor of the magnificent cathedral, the serpent lurks.

They were born from a mentality that understand the need for constant vigilance.

Just as the brilliant stained glass window was the Gospel in crystal, the gargoyle elucidated in stone those grave words of St. Peter:

“Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.”



This is also how the medieval artists would depict the torments of Hell, a topic modern Catholic artists avoid for fear of frightening children – and adults.

How horrible and barbarian, they shudder, contemplating images like the famous Trinity College Apocalypse scene, where an angel thrusts the beast into the Hell-Mouth while vultures feed on the corpses of kings, captains and even priests and bishops.

Such pictures encouraged viewers to think about the final consequences of their behavior. Hell, like sin, is a reality.

And figures like the gargoyles serve to remind man of the battle he must wage while he fights the good fight on this earth, which is a battleground, not a paradise or utopia.



Thus, the gargoyle reflects a mentality that understands God as the exemplary cause, the model of the universe.

Hell itself was created by God, and can reflect His justice in punishing.

So, in this sense, the ugly and horrible can be an expression of His just chastisement.

It is interesting to consider that in the cathedral, in addition to the indisputable symbols of the goodness of God, we can observe the harmonic contrary of this as the expression of His justice.

This expression of the contraries – justice and goodness – gives a broader understanding of Him.



Inferior symbols can help us to understand superior symbols, and in this hierarchy of symbols we have a mirror of God.

This creates a state of mind where we are constantly making relationships between all things, in which the model of everything is the Creator.

This sane way of thinking, when it exists as it existed in the Middle Ages and promises to exist in the days ahead, is reflected in the art, architecture, fashions, manners and customs of a people.

Modern man, like medieval man, needs transcendent values that become concrete in symbols.

And these symbols should serve to reflect God and to act as a constant reminder of the Creator.

12/15/2018 “How Can we Find a List of Infallible Catholic Doctrines?”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/12/how-can-we-find-a-list-of-infallible-catholic-doctrines.html?Dave Armstrong


This question about which Catholic doctrines are infallible, was asked in another forum. Since I’ve heard it asked many times, I thought it would be good to share my answer for public consumption:

All this talk about the infallible doctrines of the RC got me to wondering: where can I find the book or books in which these doctrines are set forth?

Is there some kind of list, like all the decisions of all the Councils plus all the Papal bulls, or something like that?

Is there an official set of agreed-upon infallible doctrines somewhere, and maybe a supplementary list of probably-true-but-not-definitely-true doctrines?

The best source I know (especially for laymen) is Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma,

by Ludwig Ott (4th edition published by TAN Books, Rockford, Illinois, 1974, and available online).
https://thavmapub.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/fundamentalsofcatholicdogma.pdf

He starts out by explaining the various levels of dogmatic certainty.

Many folks are unaware that the Catholic Church distinguishes between various levels of infallibility itself, with the famous ex cathedra being the very highest and the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium being an example of a lower-level infallibility.

I deal with this issue at length in the following paper:



Infallibility, Councils, and Levels of Church Authority: Explanation of the Subtleties of Church Teaching and Debate with Several Radical Catholic Reactionaries [7-30-99; terminology updated, and a few minor changes made on 7-31-18]
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/07/infallibility-councils-and-levels-of-church-authority.html

Catholics are bound to accept dogmas under any of these categories of infallibility (a thing which has been cynically, ruthlessly or ignorantly exploited — I should say, distorted — by liberal or dissenting Catholics who wish to reject certain Catholic dogmas that they don’t care for).

After explaining the different levels of authority, Ott then presents a systematic theology of various doctrines, by giving simple one-line propositions or doctrines and then classifying them (de fide dogma being the highest in the book). That allows one to see how authoritative or certain various Catholic doctrines are, according to the Catholic Church.

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma was revised by Dr. Ott himself in 1969, and a new English edition (2018) is now available: supervised by my good friend, Dr. Robert Fastiggi. It runs about $60 on Amazon.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/07/infallibility-councils-and-levels-of-church-authority.html

Then there is Joseph Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma (available online in its entirety: 1955 version) but it doesn’t make the helpful distinctions that Ott makes, and merely lists dogmatic documents.
https://archive.org/details/DenzingerTheSourcesOfCatholicDogma/page/n3


The 2012 43rd edition (again, translated and edited by Dr. Fastiggi), can be purchased for about $55.


The Catechism of the Catholic Church [I’ve linked to the online 2nd version] is also good to simply find out what Catholics believe and what they are bound to.

But in answer to the specific question above, I don’t know of any better source than Dr. Ott. He is very helpful.
https://archive.org/details/DenzingerTheSourcesOfCatholicDogma/page/n3

For excellent treatments of the fine-tuned distinctions of the Church, even within the category of “infallibility,” see:

“Four Levels of the Church’s Teaching” (Fr. William G. Most)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/4levels.txt

“The Hierarchy of Truths and the Truth” (Fr. William G. Most)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM

“A Discussion of Infallibility” (Fr. John Trigilio)
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/HIERARCH.TXT

Rose42,

You read it and you're a nobody, heretical Protestant . . .

To be deep in history, is to Cease to be Protestant.
Cardinal John Henry Newman, former Anglican Bishop converted over to Catholicism. . . .

Rose 42

Your KIV Bible is a man-Made Protestant heretic translation, you Heretics try to associate the word of God with your Heretical man-made bible and heretical man-Made doctrines.



Here is a metaphor rose42, try and understand it.


Your heretical Protestant faiths are 30,000 raft in a celestial ocean, next to a Christian Ship sailing to Heaven.

And you're not on board the celestial Christian ship going to heaven, your Protestant Heretical raft faith is adrift on the ocean and is going no where.

Thats because you do not Follow Jesus Christ and his instructions, sacramentally and you have jettisoned all Catholic reasoning.

To be deep in history, is to cease being Protestant . . .

Rose42,

In your Protestant pea-brain, all you are is a heretical Protestant, believing in a man-Made doctrine from Martin Luther and his man-Made KIV Bible.

What a lying crock of hog-wallop compost rose42 . . .

Please, . . . What a copy-cut-&-paste job from a notorious anti-Catholic website link, you don't say . . . more man-Made Protestant Heretical hog-wallop compost . . .



Look in your bible again, look where Jesus called Simon Bar Jonah in Aramaic, "Cephas," "Rock."

And I say to thee: That thou art "Caphas-Rock"; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:

Jesus Spoke Aramaic Jesus did not speak in Greek, and He said "Caphas-Peter" upon this rock I will build my church.


Jesus did not say upon myself I will build my church.

No Rose you can twist and turn, lie, convolute any argument you want.

You are absurd rose42.

All the Apostles spoke Aramaic

Paul spoke Aramaic.

The common Jewish person in the time of Jesus, in the Middle-east either spoke Aramaic, New Testament koine Greek, and not the Old Testament Septuagint Greek, Latin and only in the synagog or Temple, Hebrew was only spoken.

The book of Matthew and Mark was first written in the Aramaic then translated to the Greek and Hebrew languages

(For he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
And when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;
Galatians 2:8-9

Peter and Cephas are both said in two separate verses, Why ?

Thats because Paul also spoke in the common tongue of the day Aramaic . . .

He first found his brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated as Christ). 42Andrew brought him to Jesus, who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which is translated as Peter).
John 1:42

What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol′los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”
1 Corinthians 1:12

Whether Paul or Apol′los or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours;
1 Corinthians 3:22

Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?
1 Corinthians 9:5

And that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
1 Corinthians 15:5

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.
Galatians 1:18

And when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;
Galatians 2:9

Paul Rebukes Peter at Antioch, But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
Galatians 2:11

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
Galatians 2:14


Your Fundamentalist friend is wrong to assert there is no evidence to support the idea of an Aramaic original. In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary. Since we have no autographs of this or any other New Testament book, it's wise to look at what the early Church had to say on the subject. Catholic apologists, theologians, and Scripture scholars of the second through fifth centuries provide us with a wealth of information on this subject.

Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)
Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could" (Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 3:39]).

Sometime after 244 the Scripture scholar Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language" (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).

Eusebius himself declared that "Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" (History of the Church 3:24 [inter 300-325]).

https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-matthews-gospel-first-written-in-aramaic-or-hebrew

Rose42,

Here is the Problem with your Protestant man-Made heretical Faith.

1. Number one you are not Christian. You are a Heretical man-Mad faith from Martin Luther and other Reformists . . .

2. The Protestant faith is a heretical schismatic faith that is separated from Christianity in 1517 AD.

3. You believe in a Man-Made Bible i.e. the King James heretical version from the Christian Bible.

4. You have heretical theology, and heretical doctrines that are not found in the Bible.

5. You Heretic Protestants have a separate and different heretical man-Made liturgy at your heretical Sunday service.

6. You do not practice the 7 Sacramental graces that Jesus Christ instructed and preached to his Apostles and taught to the Early church Patristic Fathers.

7. We know this because of the early Church documents recorded before the Bible was codified in 397 AD at the Catholic Council of Nicaea.

8. We have the manuscript "The Didache" . . . “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles . . . The Early Church Patristic Fathers, 1st Century Manuscript Found in AD 1887
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

Where in the mid to late 1st century we have a document that clearly shows early Catholic Church Mass worship liturgical services of the Eucharist.

We also have the description and practices of the seven Sacramental graces and what Jesus instructed the Apostles, and to the Early Church Fathers and the Catholic Church Hierarchy. etc.

Thats why the heretical Protestant man-Made faith, is not Christian

balmer

Here is a ancient manuscript written in the mid to late 1st century, 60 AD to 100 AD.

It's the "The Didache".

Read the manuscript, compare your Protestant heretical Sunday services to the 1st century Catholic Church services of today.

The Catholic liturgical Mass services and the 7 sacramental services have not changed . . .


Your heretical Protestant man-made denomination is lackey to have one or two sacramental services, and are mostly symbolic affirmations.

And this is why your DEAD 30,000 denomination's is a man-Made Protestant faith that equals the Heretical Protestant Mormon faith.


12/12/2018 "The Didache" “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles The Early Church Patristic Fathers. (Part 1)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm


The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.


Chapter 1. The Two Ways; The First Commandment

There are two ways, one of life and one of death; but a great difference between the two ways.

The way of life, then, is this:



First, you shall love God who made you;

Second, your neighbour as yourself; and all things whatsoever you would should not occur to you, do not also do to another.

And of these sayings the teaching is this:
Bless those who curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those who persecute you.

For what reward is there, if you love those who love you?

Do not also the Gentiles do the same?

But love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy.

Abstain from fleshly and worldly lusts.

If someone gives you a blow upon your right cheek, turn to him the other also, and you shall be perfect.

If someone impresses you for one mile, go with him two.

If someone takes away your cloak, give him also your coat.

If someone takes from you what is yours, ask it not back, for indeed you are not able.

Give to every one that asks you, and ask it not back; for the Father wills that to all should be given of our own blessings (free gifts).

Happy is he that gives according to the commandment; for he is guiltless.

Woe to him that receives; for if one having need receives, he is guiltless; but he that receives not having need, shall pay the penalty, why he received and for what, and, coming into straits (confinement), he shall be examined concerning the things which he has done, and he shall not escape thence until he pay back the last farthing.
Matthew 5:26

But also now concerning this, it has been said, Let your alms sweat in your hands, until you know to whom you should give.



Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Gross Sin Forbidden

And the second commandment of the Teaching;

You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal,
Exodus 20:15

You shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.

You shall not covet the things of your neighbour, Exodus 20:17 you shall not forswear yourself,
Matthew 5:34

You shall not bear false witness,
Exodus 20:16

You shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge.

You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued; for to be double-tongued is a snare of death.

Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed.

You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty.

You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbour.

You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.



Chapter 3. Other Sins Forbidden

My child, flee from every evil thing, and from every likeness of it. Be not prone to anger, for anger leads the way to murder; neither jealous, nor quarrelsome, nor of hot temper; for out of all these murders are engendered.

My child, be not a lustful one; for lust leads the way to fornication; neither a filthy talker, nor of lofty eye; for out of all these adulteries are engendered.

My child, be not an observer of omens, since it leads the way to idolatry; neither an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, nor be willing to look at these things; for out of all these idolatry is engendered.

My child, be not a liar, since a lie leads the way to theft; neither money-loving, nor vainglorious, for out of all these thefts are engendered.

My child, be not a murmurer, since it leads the way to blasphemy; neither self-willed nor evil-minded, for out of all these blasphemies are engendered.

But be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth.
Matthew 5:5

Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always trembling at the words which you have heard.

You shall not exalt yourself, Luke 18:14 nor give over-confidence to your soul.

Your soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but with just and lowly ones shall it have its intercourse.

The workings that befall you receive as good, knowing that apart from God nothing comes to pass.



Chapter 4. Various Precepts

My child, him that speaks to you the word of God remember night and day; and you shall honour him as the Lord; for in the place whence lordly rule is uttered, there is the Lord.

And you shall seek out day by day the faces of the saints, in order that you may rest upon their words.

You shall not long for division, but shall bring those who contend to peace.

You shall judge righteously, you shall not respect persons in reproving for transgressions.

You shall not be undecided whether it shall be or no.

Be not a stretcher forth of the hands to receive and a drawer of them back to give.

If you have anything, through your hands you shall give ransom for your sins.

You shall not hesitate to give, nor murmur when you give; for you shall know who is the good repayer of the hire.

You shall not turn away from him that is in want, but you shall share all things with your brother, and shall not say that they are your own; for if you are partakers in that which is immortal, how much more in things which are mortal?

You shall not remove your hand from your son or from your daughter, but from their youth shall teach them the fear of God.
Ephesians 6:4

You shall not enjoin anything in your bitterness upon your bondman or maidservant, who hope in the same God, lest ever they shall fear not God who is over both; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1 for he comes not to call according to the outward appearance, but unto them whom the Spirit has prepared.

And you bondmen shall be subject to your masters as to a type of God, in modesty and fear. Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22

You shall hate all hypocrisy and everything which is not pleasing to the Lord.

Forsake in no way the commandments of the Lord; but you shall keep what you have received, neither adding thereto nor taking away therefrom. Deuteronomy 12:32

In the church you shall acknowledge your transgressions, and you shall not come near for your prayer with an evil conscience.

This is the way of life.



Chapter 5. The Way of Death

And the way of death is this: First of all it is evil and full of curse:

Murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magic arts, witchcrafts, rapines, false witnessings, hypocrisies, double-heartedness, deceit, haughtiness, depravity, self-will, greediness, filthy talking, jealousy, over-confidence, loftiness, boastfulness;

Persecutors of the good, hating truth, loving a lie, not knowing a reward for righteousness, not cleaving to good nor to righteous judgment, watching not for that which is good, but for that which is evil;

From whom meekness and endurance are far, loving vanities, pursuing requital, not pitying a poor man, not labouring for the afflicted, not knowing Him that made them, murderers of children, destroyers of the handiwork of God, turning away from him that is in want, afflicting him that is distressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, utter sinners.

Be delivered, children, from all these.

Rose42,


Everything you say is Protestant heretical compost


You Protestant heretics don't believe in Purgatory, or even the concept of Purgatory.

Just because Luther a Protestant heretic said "Once saved always saved."

Did not allow you to go straight to heaven . . .

There is this one little thing you Protestant Heretics keep on forgetting . . .

Mortal Sin's - or Grave Sin's . . .

Veinal Sins.

Martin Luther throughout those Biblical terms from the man-Made lutheranism theology and Lutheranism man-Made doctrine's

So you rose42 Have no concept that Christians understand of what sins are, confession by a Priest, and know any thing about Purgatory.

That's because Protestant are a heretical man-made church, not founded by Jesus Christ's teachings, instructions, taught by the Apostles and the Early Church and the Church Hierarchy ect.


Church tradition clearly shows before the Catholic bible was codified in AD 397 Catholic Council of Nicaea the early Church fathers spoke of Purgatory.

These Manuscripts are outside of the Bible.

Purgatory exists Rose.

And your Protestant heretical mind, body and soul cant accept the Religious and Historical realities of information and factual writings of the Early Church Fathers.


To be deep in history, is to cease being a Protestant heretic.

That believes in a man-Made Lutherism religion and a man-Made Protestant Heretic kin Janes Bible

You are a heretic Protestant and belong to a DEAD heretic Protestant Church, not Founded by Jesus Christ.

This is Historical Fact, try and disprove what all True Christians already know.


You Believe in Protestant Heretics, just like the Mormon Church you both have a man-Made invented Bible and man-Made theologies.

They are both one and the same, Heretic Protestant sectarian divisional Churches . . .


Read the "The Didache" . . . Martin Luther did not have this manuscript, for the Protestant Bible or for the man-Made doctrines of Lutherism.

"The Didache" was found in 1887 AD, lost in antiquity for almost 1,900 years.

Rose42,
This is how the Early Catholics Practiced the Mass and practiced the 7 Sacraments . . . and practiced the Liturgy.


You Protestant heretics have bastardized the Christian services.

The Protestant Church is a DEAD man-Made religion, with a invented man-Made theologies and man-made doctrines associated with the King James man-Made invented Bible . . .



LEARN SOMETHING FOR ONCE.

To be deep in history, is to cease being Protestant . . .



12/12/2018 The Didache “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles The Early Church Patristic Fathers. (Part 1)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-148097-1.html

The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.

04/14/2014 ‘The Sin of Sodom Was Inhospitality’ - A Response to This Lie (Part 3)

Gary L. Morella
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02jHomo&Clergy_Hospitality_Morella.html


A distortion of St. Thomas

The statements attributed to Aquinas in support of homosexuality show a complete distortion of his writings on nature and sexuality as the.
Summa Theologica
(I-II, q. 31, a. 7),

And the Summa contra Gentiles
(book 3, chap. 136)

State exactly the opposite.

Nowhere in the former does Aquinas approve homosexuality as natural for particular individuals in the context of "I'm OK, you're OK," as the entire point of this treatise is to underscore the evil of man taking pleasure in acts due to the "corruption of nature from evil temperament"

By means of cannibalism or "the unnatural intercourse of man and beast, or other such things, which are not in accord with human nature" as examples.

The latter gives the "plumbing argument" against homosexuality as Aquinas states, "Carnal union is the end of certain bodily organs."

Aquinas here is specifically addressing carnal acts which are natural for human beings only within the confines of marriage, saying such acts are perfectly acceptable.



An exaggeration of the rights of homosexuals

The following is an example of the obfuscation of Catholic teaching on homosexuality that I have continually observed in both the secular and dissident Catholic media.

When Cardinal Ratzinger's pastoral is referenced, it is always taken out of context in that the only paragraph quoted is that saying discrimination (meaning invidious discrimination) against homosexuals cannot be tolerated.

This gives the distinct impression that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had absolutely nothing to say about the inclination to homosexual behavior being objectively disordered, that the living out of this inclination to homosexual behavior is not an acceptable option, and that the behavior itself is ordered to an intrinsic moral evil.

These truths are conspicuously absent.

Nowhere is there any admonition to the faithful that sin can be justly discriminated against!


The Church talks about "objective disorders" for very good reason for that is exactly what we're dealing with here.

Most certainly the Church welcomes the sinner, but the Church hates the sin. You do not say to an alcoholic, we love you, and we also love your alcoholism that is killing you.

Moreover, you would not encourage this individual that is OK to be inclined to such a disorder leading only to misery.

You would do everything in your power to get him to see that the direction in which he is heading leads to nowhere.

And yet, this is exactly what we are being told in regard to homosexuality by totally ignoring the fact that the inclination to this lifestyle is objectively disordered.

There is no "nice" way to couch this phrase anymore then there is a substitute for partial birth infanticide, which some call "a form of late term abortion," or "dilation and extraction."

Catholics are entitled to authentic catechesis.

There are enough lies to go around in the secular world without adding to the problem.

And that is what is happening in many dioceses in the world.

Catholics are adding to the problem instead of witnessing to the Faith.

The bottom line regarding what has been happening in regard to the homosexual question, not just locally, but internationally, is that there is no conceivable right to behavior that is intrinsically ordered to a moral evil.

The important point that is continually being missed but that must be underscored in bold print and shouted from the rooftops is that not only is the behavior intrinsically ordered to a moral evil, i.e.,

The behavior is a grave sin, and the inclination to the behavior is an objective disorder because it can never lead to a morally licit act.

As such, the inclination to the behavior remains an occasion of sin that must be overcome, avoided at all costs;

Otherwise it becomes fertile ground for sins.



This is confirmed in.
Matthew 5:27-30:

"You have heard it said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'

But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

And if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away;

It is better that you lose one of your member than that your whole body be thrown into Hell.

And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away;

It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Hell.”

Our Lord is not talking literally about bodily dismemberment here, but rather about spiritual avoidance of occasions of sin.

His language is strong to show the severity of avoiding the occasions of sin to keep from damnation.

That is undeniable in this passage of Matthew.



Anyone making a blanket statement to the effect that thoughts are never sins is not speaking the truth.

Thoughts most certainly are an occasion of sin because they can be categorized as good or bad.

Thoughts that are temptations in and of themselves are certainly not sins if the temptation is resisted.

However, any book on Catholic Moral Theology,

if it is true to the teachings of the Church, will state that thoughts leading to willful desires of sinful acts are sins regardless of whether the act is physically committed or not.

This is what one finds, for example, about the sins of lust in Prummers’ Moral Theology – specifically the treatises on thoughts and the vices contrary to temperance and chastity.

The key here is the will.

We have free will to be with God or against Him.

This is what Our Lord is referring to in the aforementioned text in Matthew.



Accordingly, when the present day pastoral care for homosexual does not state publicly the correct doctrine, but says that there are healthy aspects of homosexuality, as was done by a former priest from the Penn State Catholic Community, it is stating a heresy!

It encourages an inclination (to a lifestyle) that is an occasion of serious sin. As Catholics, we were taught to avoid such occasions at all costs.

We need to be taught that again, especially by our Bishops.

We answer ultimately to God, Who is Perfect Truth that must be proclaimed uncompromisingly.

That and only that demonstrates genuine compassion for sinners.

To forgive them, certainly we must do, but also to remind them that any Act of Contrition, if it is meaningful, states that I firmly resolve with the help of Thy Grace to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life, Amen!



The last is an absolute requirement, to make the effort to amend our lives in answer to the forgotten admonishment of Jesus to the Magdalens of the world after they are forgiven, that they should "go and sin no more."



A tolerance that opens the door to sexual perversions

What we have to understand is that the door is opened to the acceptance of sexual perversion as a civil right by agreeing that there is nothing wrong with being inclined to these acts.

When you divorce the act itself from the inclination, you conveniently say that being inclined to aberrant behavior is all right, and we must leave all of those with these inclinations alone since that would be an offense to their dignity.


Do we apply the same illogic to those inclined to alcoholism, kleptomania, sadism, masochism, pedophilia, et al.? Sanity says otherwise, but of course we no longer live in a sane world, given Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, and the American Psychiatric Association telling us that homosexuality, sadism, masochism, and pedophilia are no longer disorders. This is what was actually stated in a tortured version of the APA's Diagnostic and Statistic's Manual.

This is the modus operandi of the militant homosexual movement: If it is given an inch, it will take a mile toward not only the promotion of homosexuality as a civil right, but also the making it a hate crime for anyone to say otherwise, in particular, that the inclination is objectively disordered.

When you ignore this fact, you're adding more fuel to a fire that is getting increasingly out of control.

Tolerance has led to the unimaginable abomination of so-called homosexual marriages

(End Part 3)

04/14/2014 ‘The Sin of Sodom Was Inhospitality’ - A Response to This Lie (Part 2)

Gary L. Morella
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02jHomo&Clergy_Hospitality_Morella.html


Wherefore sins against the specific nature are more grievous.

“Wherefore among sins against nature, the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed.

After this comes the sin of Sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed.
(ibid., II-II, q. 154, a. 12).

Thus spoke S. Thomas Aquinas.



A distortion of St. Thomas

The statements attributed to Aquinas in support of homosexuality show a complete distortion of his writings on nature and sexuality as the.
Summa Theologica
(I-II, q. 31, a. 7),

And the Summa contra Gentiles
(book 3, chap. 136)

State exactly the opposite.

Nowhere in the former does Aquinas approve homosexuality as natural for particular individuals in the context of "I'm OK, you're OK," as the entire point of this treatise is to underscore the evil of man taking pleasure in acts due to the "corruption of nature from evil temperament"

By means of cannibalism or "the unnatural intercourse of man and beast, or other such things, which are not in accord with human nature" as examples.

The latter gives the "plumbing argument" against homosexuality as Aquinas states, "Carnal union is the end of certain bodily organs."

Aquinas here is specifically addressing carnal acts which are natural for human beings only within the confines of marriage, saying such acts are perfectly acceptable.



An exaggeration of the rights of homosexuals

The following is an example of the obfuscation of Catholic teaching on homosexuality that I have continually observed in both the secular and dissident Catholic media.

When Cardinal Ratzinger's pastoral is referenced, it is always taken out of context in that the only paragraph quoted is that saying discrimination (meaning invidious discrimination) against homosexuals cannot be tolerated.

This gives the distinct impression that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had absolutely nothing to say about the inclination to homosexual behavior being objectively disordered, that the living out of this inclination to homosexual behavior is not an acceptable option, and that the behavior itself is ordered to an intrinsic moral evil.

These truths are conspicuously absent.

Nowhere is there any admonition to the faithful that sin can be justly discriminated against!


The Church talks about "objective disorders" for very good reason for that is exactly what we're dealing with here.

Most certainly the Church welcomes the sinner, but the Church hates the sin. You do not say to an alcoholic, we love you, and we also love your alcoholism that is killing you.

Moreover, you would not encourage this individual that is OK to be inclined to such a disorder leading only to misery.

You would do everything in your power to get him to see that the direction in which he is heading leads to nowhere.

And yet, this is exactly what we are being told in regard to homosexuality by totally ignoring the fact that the inclination to this lifestyle is objectively disordered.

There is no "nice" way to couch this phrase anymore then there is a substitute for partial birth infanticide, which some call "a form of late term abortion," or "dilation and extraction."

Catholics are entitled to authentic catechesis.

There are enough lies to go around in the secular world without adding to the problem.

And that is what is happening in many dioceses in the world.

Catholics are adding to the problem instead of witnessing to the Faith.

The bottom line regarding what has been happening in regard to the homosexual question, not just locally, but internationally, is that there is no conceivable right to behavior that is intrinsically ordered to a moral evil.

The important point that is continually being missed but that must be underscored in bold print and shouted from the rooftops is that not only is the behavior intrinsically ordered to a moral evil, i.e.,

The behavior is a grave sin, and the inclination to the behavior is an objective disorder because it can never lead to a morally licit act.

As such, the inclination to the behavior remains an occasion of sin that must be overcome, avoided at all costs;

Otherwise it becomes fertile ground for sins.



This is confirmed in.
Matthew 5:27-30:

"You have heard it said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'

But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

And if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away;

It is better that you lose one of your member than that your whole body be thrown into Hell.

And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away;

It is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Hell.”

Our Lord is not talking literally about bodily dismemberment here, but rather about spiritual avoidance of occasions of sin.

His language is strong to show the severity of avoiding the occasions of sin to keep from damnation.

That is undeniable in this passage of Matthew.



Anyone making a blanket statement to the effect that thoughts are never sins is not speaking the truth.

Thoughts most certainly are an occasion of sin because they can be categorized as good or bad.

Thoughts that are temptations in and of themselves are certainly not sins if the temptation is resisted.

However, any book on Catholic Moral Theology,

if it is true to the teachings of the Church, will state that thoughts leading to willful desires of sinful acts are sins regardless of whether the act is physically committed or not.

This is what one finds, for example, about the sins of lust in Prummers’ Moral Theology – specifically the treatises on thoughts and the vices contrary to temperance and chastity.

The key here is the will.

We have free will to be with God or against Him.

This is what Our Lord is referring to in the aforementioned text in Matthew.



Accordingly, when the present day pastoral care for homosexual does not state publicly the correct doctrine, but says that there are healthy aspects of homosexuality, as was done by a former priest from the Penn State Catholic Community, it is stating a heresy!

It encourages an inclination (to a lifestyle) that is an occasion of serious sin. As Catholics, we were taught to avoid such occasions at all costs.

We need to be taught that again, especially by our Bishops.

We answer ultimately to God, Who is Perfect Truth that must be proclaimed uncompromisingly.

That and only that demonstrates genuine compassion for sinners.

To forgive them, certainly we must do, but also to remind them that any Act of Contrition, if it is meaningful, states that I firmly resolve with the help of Thy Grace to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life, Amen!



The last is an absolute requirement, to make the effort to amend our lives in answer to the forgotten admonishment of Jesus to the Magdalens of the world after they are forgiven, that they should "go and sin no more."



A tolerance that opens the door to sexual perversions

What we have to understand is that the door is opened to the acceptance of sexual perversion as a civil right by agreeing that there is nothing wrong with being inclined to these acts.

When you divorce the act itself from the inclination, you conveniently say that being inclined to aberrant behavior is all right, and we must leave all of those with these inclinations alone since that would be an offense to their dignity.


Do we apply the same illogic to those inclined to alcoholism, kleptomania, sadism, masochism, pedophilia, et al.? Sanity says otherwise, but of course we no longer live in a sane world, given Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, and the American Psychiatric Association telling us that homosexuality, sadism, masochism, and pedophilia are no longer disorders. This is what was actually stated in a tortured version of the APA's Diagnostic and Statistic's Manual.

This is the modus operandi of the militant homosexual movement: If it is given an inch, it will take a mile toward not only the promotion of homosexuality as a civil right, but also the making it a hate crime for anyone to say otherwise, in particular, that the inclination is objectively disordered.

When you ignore this fact, you're adding more fuel to a fire that is getting increasingly out of control.

Tolerance has led to the unimaginable abomination of so-called homosexual marriages

(End Part 2)

04/14/2014 ‘The Sin of Sodom Was Inhospitality’ - A Response to This Lie (Part 1)

Gary L. Morella
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02jHomo&Clergy_Hospitality_Morella.html

Once at a School Board meeting I heard something that, as a Roman Catholic, I found to be so totally preposterous that I could not believe someone calling himself "Catholic" could be capable of making such a statement.

The person claiming to be a Catholic told the Board and the Community that “the sin of Sodom was inhospitality," that Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica

Challenged natural law arguments, and said that "homosexuality was natural, not unnatural” and that “homosexuality among animals is natural, not unnatural.”unnatural."

Doesn't it strike anyone as a little odd that God would nuke a city for a breach of manners?

Common sense dictates otherwise as God, in His mercy, would not destroy a city for inhospitality.

Throughout History, Jewish and Christian scholars of all persuasions have recognized that one of the chief sins that provoked God’s destruction of Sodom was its people's homosexual behavior.

But today certain homosexual activists advocate the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality.

Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism and prominence in the account of their city's destruction.

We must look to Scripture's own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust."



A public challenge

I would ask this psychologist to please give us the exact references in the Summa Theologica where Thomas Aquinas made the statements about homosexuality being "natural," as the kindest thing that Aquinas has to say about homosexuality is that it is the unnatural vice.

It should not be required to formally refute such outrageous, scandalous statements, but because of the confusion spawned by dissident theologians who would create their own heretical "magisterium" co-equal with that of Holy Mother Church, a response is in order.

I will let St. Thomas Aquinas respond directly through his own words in Summa Theologica (English translation of Christian Classics, 1948, Benzinger).

The clarity is unmistakable. First the Natural Law will be addressed, then homosexuality.



The teaching of St. Thomas on natural law

“Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit, and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance

“Because in man there is first of all an inclination to good in accordance with the nature which he has in common with all substances;

Inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation of its own being, according to its nature:

And by reason of this inclination, whatever is a means of preserving human life, and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the Natural Law.


"Secondly, there is in man an inclination to things that pertain to him more specially, according to that nature which he has in common with other animals:

And in virtue of this inclination, those things are said to belong to the Natural Law, which nature has taught to all animals, such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring and so forth.

“Thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God, and to live in society:

And in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the Natural Law.
(Summa Theologica, I-II, question 94, article 2).

St. Thomas categorically condemned the homosexual sin as contrary to nature


* “For it has been stated that to the Natural Law belongs everything to which a man is inclined according to his nature.

“Wherefore, since the rational soul is the proper form of man, there is in every man a natural inclination to act according to reason: and this is to act according to virtue.

“Temperance is about the natural concupiscences of food, drink, and sexual matters, which are indeed ordained to the natural common good, just as other matters of law are ordained to the moral common good.

“By human nature we may mean either that which is proper to man - and in this sense all sins, as being against reason, are also against nature, as Damascene states.
(De Fide Orthod. II. 30):

Or we may mean that nature which is common to man and other animals; and in this sense, certain special sins are said to be against nature;

Thus contrary to sexual intercourse, which is natural to all animals, is unisexual lust, which has received the special name of the unnatural crime (ibid., I-II, q. 94, a. 3).

“Consequently we must say that the Natural Law, as to general principles, is the same for all, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge.

As, in man, reason rules and commands the other powers, so all the natural inclinations belonging to the other powers must needs be directed according to reason.
(ibid., I-II, q. 94, a. 4).

“The Natural Law dates from the creation of the rational creature.

It does not vary according to time, but remains unchangeable.

The Natural Law was perverted in the hearts of some men, as to certain matters, so that they esteemed those things good which are naturally evil. (ibid., I-II, q. 94, a. 5).

“Thy law is written on the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not. But the law which is written in men's hearts is the Natural Law.

Therefore the Natural Law cannot be blotted out.

“There belong to the Natural Law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all;

And secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles.

As to those general principles, the Natural Law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men's hearts.
(ibid., I-II, q. 94, a. 6).



St. Thomas on homosexuality

“The unnatural vice is a species of lust. It is reckoned together with other species of lust.
(2 Cor 12:21)

Where we read: 'And have not done penance for the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness,' where a gloss says: 'Lasciviousness, i.e., unnatural lust.'

“The venereal act is rendered unbecoming through being contrary to right reason, and because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race:

And this is called the unnatural vice. This may happen by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rom 1:27):

And this is called the vice of sodomy.
(Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 154, a. 11).

* “Augustine says (De adult. conjug.) that 'of all these,' namely the sins belonging to lust, 'that which is against nature is the worst.'

“I answer that, in every genus, worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend.



Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting.

This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters.

Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature.

"Therefore, since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is the gravest of all.

After it comes incest, which is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

“Just as the ordering of right reason proceeds from man, so the order of nature is from God Himself:

Wherefore in sins contrary to nature, whereby the very order of nature is violated, an injury is done to God, the Author of nature.

"Hence, Augustine says (Conf. III, 8):

'Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the same crime, by the law of God, which hath not so made men that they should so abuse one another.

For even that very intercourse which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the author, is polluted by the perversity of lust.'

“Vices against nature are also against God, and are so much more grievous than the depravity of sacrilege, as the order impressed on human nature is prior to and more firm than any subsequently established order.

“The nature of the species is more intimately united to each individual, than any other individual is.

(End Part 1)