RELATIVISM AS RELIGION

TRACING ITS HISTORICAL ROOTS TO THE MODERN DAY CRISIS

By Roger LeBlanc

Foreword by Malachi Martin                            
Cover Art:  “Expulsion from the Garden of Eden”

By Thomas Cole.  Gift of Mrs. Maxim Karolik for the M. and M. Karolik Collection of America

Paintings, 1815 – 1865

Courtesy of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA

Copyright © 2015 by Roger Trudeau LeBlanc

Permission in writing must be obtained from the publisher before any part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system.

Printed in the United States of America

Originally printed by Simon @ Schuster Custom Publishing

Http://CatholicSeries.com

†

Dedication

This book is dedicated to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, One God who is

Absolute Truth in His Essence

Table of Contents

Introduction – 7

Foreword – 11

From the Author – 15

Relativism – 25

The Origin of Religious Relativism and its Consequences – 31

Out of Eden – 39

The Results are in – 51

Relativism, the Root of Secularism in Society and Politics – 69

Protestantism, the Ultimate Religious Relativism – 87

The Bible – 99

Reason or Feelings – 109

The True Rule of Faith – 123

The Bible or the Papacy – 141

No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church – 157

The Boston Globe – 169

----------------------------------------------------------

    Six months prior to the publication of the Encyclical "Fide et Ratio" (Faith and Reason) Mr. LeBlanc's book, "Relativism as Religion," was published by Simon and Schuster.  Mr. LeBlanc met with Fr. Walter Abbott who was one of the leading Scriptural scholars in the world.

     Fr. Abbott asked Mr. LeBlanc to bring with him two copies of the book he had written on Relativism to a meeting that had been arranged.  Before their meeting was over Fr. Abbott placed a call to his contact at the Office of the Secretary of State at the Vatican with the following request:

     "I am going to send you 2 books, and I would like you to personally take them to Pope John Paul II, and Cardinal Ratinger.  No one is to touch them, they must go directly into their hands."

     The books were delivered to the Holy Father and Cardinal Ratzinger as Fr. Abbott had requested. 

     Mr. LeBlanc had been working to expose the dangers of Relativism by helping to bring this issue into the light of day for which he received bitter opposition, including a death threat in a major Boston Newspaper where a Protestant Minister said, "Men like LeBlanc, and John Paul II, MUST be eliminated." Mr. LeBlanc received vindication with the publication of "Fide et Ratio."  

There are also endorsements at the end from:

Patrick Madrid, Fr. George Rutler (Frequently seen of EWTN), Fr. Scanlon (President of Stuebenville College), and Fr. Robert Fox of Fatima Family Apostolate.

----------------------------------------------------

†

Foreword

Those who read this book by Roger LeBlanc will begin to realize about half-way through their reading that the author has pulled off the almost impossible. He has handled and treated the most explosive (and for believers the most exasperating) element in Christianity today, but has done so with all the calm skill, technical accuracy and mental balance that we associate with those who have to work with nitroglycerine

The explosive element in question is religious relativism, the denial that there is one true religion and only one. The fecklessness, the saucy presumption, the suicidal ignorance displayed by our modern religious relativists evokes a great disgust and is an incitement to violent language. This relativism is subtle, inserting itself everywhere in religion and effectively introducing a blight into Christianity and, in particular, into the ranks of Roman Catholicism.

Yet, Roger LeBlanc conducts his examination of relativism without any heat or violence. He dissects and analyzes relativism in its origins and its destruction of Roman Catholic beliefs concerning marriage, sexuality, the family, the Papacy, the Sacraments, social and political relations, education and science.

All this in eleven highly readable chapters! He never once engages in "ad hominem" arguments nor savages those who are busy destroying Catholicism. Rather, in sheer, clear logic, he demolishes all the arguments used by the relativists. He reaches far back into our origins in the Garden of Eden, correctly citing the sinful relativism of Miriam, the sister of Moses. She was, in one quick instant, cursed by God and turned into a snow-white leper in order to pinpoint for all generations the innate perversion of relativism. But throughout LeBlanc's demolition of religious relativism, you will see no ranting abuse or denunciation. His monograph is a perfect example of what St. Anselm pithily defined as "fides quaerens intellectum" (the believer seeking to understand his beliefs).

For this reason this book will be a Godsend for all classes of people: for believers who must refurbish their religious acuity, for those whose faith went cold in a cold world, for teenage and college students who must decide what they believe, and for all those who realize that, if there is a true Revelation on this earth from God, it must be unique, monopolar and accessible to the genuine seeker.

Malachi Martin

†

From the Author

There is a rapidly progressing diabolical disorientation taking hold of people about what it means to be a "good person," and the destructive consequences are nearly incalculable.  We have to ask, "Who gets to define what makes a 'good person?'"

To answer that question we must first look at the plague of moral, philosophical, and theological relativism which is worse that any bubonic plague could ever be.  Relativism has brought about an abject failure to make a distinction between Natural Law Morality and an understanding of Morality based upon Revealed Truth.  It has gotten into the blood of many, many people, and it is wreaking havoc in reason, morality, and theology  in the secular world, and in the Church.

In former times when man had a lesser degree of explicit Revelation he was not without knowledge of what it means to live a decent life according to the moral norms of the Natural Law.  But a failure to understand the distinction between the Natural Law and Revelation has resulted in a false understanding of spirituality which is on the rise.  We now see that 1 in 6 people claim to be spiritual and non-denominational apart from, and against, the Church that Christ established.  They no longer consider themselves religious as they distance themselves from creed, doctrine, and denomination.

Once you abandon objective reality, and objective authority, your life will be distilled down to one common denominator which is Relativism.  We must be on guard not to be taken in by Relativism, and that requires we see where it is fast at work in all facets of life.  The stakes are high, and in fact, the salvation of souls is in the balance. 

From the outset we must have a clear and proper understanding of the distinction between the Natural Moral Law and Religious Morality which is dependent upon Revealed Truth.

Without exception all “religious moral principles” are contingent upon an authentic Revelation from God.  To have faith one must have the gift of grace to believe authentic Revelation, and this means religious moral principles are the “object of faith." So, we can say that authentic religious moral principles are anchored to authentic revelation as taught by the only Church established by Jesus Christ which is the Catholic Church.

All claims of religious morality outside of an authentic connection to Revealed Truth can be discerned as coming from the inventions of men.  However, as we explore this fact, we will see how salvation is open to all men and the means by which this is possible. 

Outside of religious moral principles there is only the Natural Law which is different in its nature, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of religious moral principles.  The Natural Law is inherent in our human nature, it is the way God made us; it is the parameter of our conscience by which we naturally distinguish right from wrong.

The Natural Law is also different in its nature than the 10 Commandments because the 10 commandments are an authentic Revelation from God. Although the Natural Law (inherent in our nature) and the 10 Commandments (authentic revelation) are different in their nature they compliment each other because they both come from God.  But we must never become confused and think they are the same thing.  The Natural Law comes from the creative hand of God in the way He made us, and the 10 Commandments come from the intervention of God in time and space when He spoke to Moses.

We also have to look at the flamboyant use of the so called "broad-minded" individuals who refer to anyone as a "good person" irrespective of how they live, or whether they accept or reject Church teaching.

Relativism has brought people to think it no longer matters if one lives a life according to Christ and what He teaches through His Church so long as they are doing “good deeds.” But that is tantamount to saying one can literally buy, or obtain salvation without the need to cooperate with the grace that flows from the redeeming act of Christ on Calvary.

And here is the danger. This lack of understanding, this lack of clarification between the Natural Law and Religious Morality serves Satan in his quest to bring into the world a view of religion that is one of utility, an understanding of religion which does not respect man and no longer serves God.  It is a place where “good deeds” are now defined as "religious acts" even if the acts themselves are evil and done by someone who is in the deepest, darkest mortal sin separated from all that is authentically religious. Such acts are now heralded by the world where all can be inverted so that these people can say with a wry smile "evil be my good." They use such things to silence their troubled conscience knowing in their heart they do not serve God.

How do we identify Relativism at work in these people? We hear them speak; they get to sound "religious" when in fact they do not believe in God. 

In an interview for the Mar. 27 issue of ‘Rolling Stone’, among many questions, Bill Gates was asked: “You’re a technologist, but a lot of your work now with the foundation has a moral dimension. Has your thinking about the value of religion changed over the years?”  Gates said, “The moral systems of religion, I think, are super important. We've raised our kids in a religious way; they've gone to the Catholic Church that Melinda goes to and I participate in. I've been very lucky, and therefore I owe it to try and reduce the inequity in the world. And that's kind of a religious belief. I mean, it's at least a moral belief.” 

Gate’s reference to “the moral systems (plural) of religion” is evidence he fails to see morality differs according to religion. What he actually appealed to is the Natural Law inherent in people of all religious belief and concludes the Natural Law is the same as a “religious” moral system.  And for men like Gates it does not matter to which Church you belong for a moral perspective, as long as you have one.  His response illustrates his failure to make the distinction between Natural Law morality and Religious Morality as taught by the Church in which he claims to participate. His understanding of morality not only fails to represent Natural Law and Religious Morality, but he crucifies them both. 

He is living a life according to a subjective view of “religious moral principles” which have nothing at all to do with religion to convince us, and himself, that he and his wife, Melinda, are doing “good” philanthropic things through the “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.” In fact, Gates and his wife are funding Planned Parenthood, sterilization, and abortion through their Foundation as they go about sounding like oracles of “religious moral principles.”  They are giving financial support to things and organizations that are diametrically opposed to authentic Church teaching. This is an attempt to elevate the Natural Law to that of Religious Morality resulting in full blown syncretism and religious relativism where no one Church has a voice of authority over all others either in morality or doctrine. The Gates’ have successfully blurred the distinction between the Natural Law and Religious Morality to justify what they are doing with their Foundation.  Given that the world offers adulation to the words and actions of its own Kings, all the more responsible will these Kings be at judgment when they have to answer for the rebellion they fostered by those who ate up their rebellion like candy.

‘Rolling Stone’ then asked, “Do you believe in God?” Gates said, “I agree with people like Richard Dawkins that mankind felt the need for creation myths. Before we really began to understand disease and the weather and things like that, we sought false explanations for them. Now science has filled in some of the realm – not all – that religion used to fill.”  “I think it makes sense to believe in God,” said Gates, “but exactly what decision in your life you make differently because of it, I don't know.”

Gate’s is also confused about the distinction between Natural Theology (the fact that God can be known by the light of reason alone) vs. the Knowledge of God which comes to us through Revelation. 

Yet, we have "Catholics" defending people such as Gates with his philanthropic endeavors just because he occasionally goes to Mass, in spite of the fact that he and his wife reject Church teaching as they go about doing evil in the name of “religious moral systems.”  And it is because of the prestige of his wealth and name recognition that the sycophants give ear to a man like Gates in matters of morality.  When Relativism and human respect mingle with motivation to support philanthropies that are evil you end up with a cauldron of evil. Certainly doing good things for others predisposes someone to greater things, but no deed can be considered a “good deed” when it takes souls from the state of grace.

Bill Gates is just one example of what we see happening in our day as attempts are made to elevate the Natural Law for the purpose of supplanting Revelation and the doctrines of the Church. It is an attempt to undermine an authentic understanding of Revealed Truth and authentic religious moral principles.  This is accomplished by masquerading the Natural Law with the veil of "spirituality" and "religiosity," as though it were authentic revelation from God.  The Natural Law has erroneously morphed into what people now refer to as "Religious Morality" lived out by alleged “good people” doing alleged “good things” which are actually “evil things.”  It is a deception.  Spirituality cannot be separated from the Catholic Church, and those who have been deceived and embraced the “appearance” of spirituality have embraced the fall of man rather than redemption.

The importance of why a clear distinction between the Natural Law and authentic Revelation has now come into view.  Natural Law Morality is not Religious Morality because it has nothing whatsoever to do with Revealed Truth.  This is where we find the nexus, the manner in which relativists are attempting to redefine all that is true in the Natural Law and Church Doctrine, and we must not let them do so. Even if we are hated for it, at all costs, we must not let them do so.

And what is the goal of the relativist in this regard? They put forward the great temptation in our day which is to be "broad-minded." The objective of that temptation is based upon the false idea that we can only go forward in every sphere of life by what we have in common with all peoples, and all religions.  We are told if we move forward by what we have in common we will obtain a proper understanding of what it means to “love one another.” But this gives birth to a false understanding of ecumenism because it excludes doctrine and dogma.  It is false because it excludes Revelation and God Himself.

The Natural Law, now redefined as Religious Morality, becomes the new mosaic where everything fits together.  It is the new face of God, an understanding of religious morality that defines us as a people without respect to religious creed.  It is claimed to be the fullest revelation of God so that anyone, or anything, that opposes this blueprint for peace is an idolater of doctrine and an enemy of peace worthy of scorn and rejection. Doctrine, it is said, brings about division and war. The deception of redefining the “Natural Law” to be “Religious Morality” became the full blown redefinition of authentic religion which has now become “Relativism as Religion.” This corrupted view of morality and religion is totally cut off from the Catholic Church and Revealed Truth.  It is a call for the Church to give up its doctrine, to give up its claim of authority vested by Christ himself.  It is a call to come down off the Cross in the midst of persecution.  The faithful must stand firm, it is our lot to suffer this, and we must not let the relativists cast that ignominious pall of shame over the Church.

Our brothers and sisters in the faith need support, and so called "broad-minded" Catholics need to be silent and sit down if they are not willing to look at fact and yield to what Christ teaches through His Church.  Let those willing to stay with the Church, those willing to defend the doctrine of the Church do so for the sake of others. Let real Catholics do what they must without hindrance from the constant barbs and harassment from those who are Catholic in name only, or those who refuse to do a scintilla of critical thinking.  The dilemma for faithful Catholics begs the question, how is it there are so many who do not see the need to set things straight?  This is what we need to explore.

It is very troubling to see the problem of relativism gaining steam day by day, and it does not portend well for the church.  It is a great difficulty that must be faced by those who adhere to what Christ has always taught through His Church.  The dilemma posed by relativism can hardly be over stated.

We have the startling comment made by Pope John Paul II when in 1976, as Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, he said,

"We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of divine providence. It is a trial which the whole Church . . . must take up."

We must take what he said seriously.  There have always been confrontations between the Church and Her Gospel, but notice Cardinal Wojtyla did not say "another confrontation.”  He said "the final confrontation."

Pope Benedict XVI astonishingly cautioned us about the world order called for by President Bush saying,

“…a similar unified civilization and its power to destroy the spirit. The anti-Christ is represented as the great carrier of peace in a similar new world order."

“We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.”

I, for one, will never yield to that demonic attempt to undermine the Church by raising the Natural Law to the equivalent of Revelation and Religious Moral Principles as the object of faith.  This is one of the greatest threats the Church, and mankind, will have ever faced because a corrupted understanding of the Natural Law will now be used as a means to persecute the Church.

Roger Trudeau LeBlanc

†

Relativism

J. R. Tolkien said, “All that wander are not lost.” This summarizes the entire purpose and hope of this work which is to free those imprisoned by Relativism.  It is an invitation to come home to the Catholic Church, the fullness of Christianity.

So, what is Relativism? It is the claim that it is “absolutely true” there is no “absolute truth.” Those who embrace Relativism are known as relativists who argue that everyone gets to determine or create their own subjective view of truth in philosophy, morality, and religion.  But any thinking person knows that claim is self contradicting and patently absurd. Why? Because they are claiming it is “absolutely true” for all people that there is “no absolute truth” for all people.  It is a self-contradicting proposition.

By extension the inherent contradiction in Relativism is evident when you hear people say there is no absolute “right” or “wrong” because, in fact, they are claiming to be “absolutely right” there is no “absolute right or wrong.”

They also claim there is no “absolute good or bad,” but in saying that they are claiming it is “absolutely good” to know there is “no absolute good or bad.” And when confronted with their contradictions they retreat into silence which they perceive as a “good” refuge to hide from being exposed in the contradictions they embrace.  They live in their mental constructs of confinement.

Going forward we need a working definition of Truth.  We can say that truth is “The conformity of the mind to reality.”  This is what is known as “Objective Truth.” So, when speaking of reality we are speaking about the world of facts, and in that world everything that “IS” in itself is an “Absolute Fact.”  In the world of reality it is impossible to deny what is real without first affirming the very thing you are attempting to deny, so it is absurd to deny what is real. 

To make this point in a rather stark way, suppose an elephant was sitting on your dining room table.  You do not say the “elephant” is “in fact” really a jar of “peanut butter” on the table.  Elephants do like peanuts, you may even like your peanut butter smooth or chunky, and your dining room table will likely have been destroyed, but the reality IS your claim the elephant is a jar of peanut butter is not connected to reality no matter how much you insist your claim is a fact.  The fact is, reality informs us of what it is in itself, and the existence of its reality does not need our permission to be what it is.  It is independent of our free will and exists as it is in itself.

In the world of Relativism, delusion forms the basis for all false claims of fact.  Anyone can make a claim about anything and claim it is a fact, but it does not mean their claim is in fact reality.  The fact that Relativism itself is delusion and deception, all claims that come from Relativism are delusion and deception.  And when relativists apply Relativism to philosophy or theology their claims are simply not in conformity with what is real.  Their claims cannot be considered facts.

It is a simple fact that it is an absolute contradiction to claim it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth.  Reason ferrets out the relativists who push a philosophy that implodes on itself every time it is put forward as a workable solution in any form.  It is perhaps the most mindless of any philosophy ever put forward in the history of mankind.

Tragically, Relativism is a horrible, dark and sad place to be. It is a place cut off from the world of meaning where men and women live in quiet desperation.  And there are so many unsuspecting people, often without any fault on their own, who have been tainted and deceived by Relativism without even realizing its effect on them.  Even the Church has not been left untainted from its destruction.

Worst of all, Relativism tears away innocence.  It targets the heart to fill it with guile and lewdness. It corrupts the mind to embrace absurdity and contradictions. It strikes fear in the soul when it takes its victim into isolation.  It takes up residence in the conscience and intuition to set up a struggle to embrace a love for sin in desperation to quiet a troubled conscience.  It corrupts every sphere of life with a false understanding of the individual, family life, politics, education, reason and faith.

Relativists do not enter into critical thinking without bringing with them a bias against reality itself, and therefore a bias against their fellow man.  When faced with choosing between reality and delusion they will either look for a way to escape from their delusion or they will plunge headlong into it with a masochistic view of reality.  Once they enter into that dark world they can even go so far as to delight in the torment of others, and that speaks of the demonic hatred of man working through such people.  Nothing is spared, so we need to look at its impact and the toll it takes on all things, but first we must look at its origin.

†

The Origin of Religious Relativism and its Consequences

As was the case for our first parents, intellectual objectivity and intellectual relativism, objective morality and moral relativism, Revealed Truth and religious relativism stood side by side waiting for them to make a choice between life and death.  And so it is for each of us, with our hearts and minds we face the same choice.

Every bit as much as scientific researchers have determined that mitochondrial DNA confirms the account of Genesis proving that all of mankind comes from a single woman (and therefore one man with whom she mated) the struggle with Relativism has been passed down in the DNA of sin. 

At this juncture some questions must be asked because many are quick to dismiss the account of Genesis as fable or myth.  The deepest cry of every human heart is to love and be loved.   Is it too remarkable to see that for a man to be capable of love, he must also be capable of turning away from love?  Is it incredulous to say that for a man to love he must be endowed with free will to make a choice to freely love?

Man is part of creation and it is only natural and fitting that God would use the creation He made for man to choose between life and death; between love and hate.  The last time I looked there are actually real fruit bearing trees that exist, and surprise, they have nothing to do with mythology, a fact you may want to consider the next time you eat an apple pie.  The notion that such an event is for the simple minded comes from the species of arrogance.  In fact, there are fruit bearing trees with people who actually stand about them picking fruit.  How uncanny! There is no reason a fruit bearing tree cannot be used to test a man every bit as much as telling him not to put his hand in the cookie jar.  

Furthermore, God has planted natural laws thick in the universe, and He will not bend them for the whim of man. One of those laws is that He does not create us as individuals out of thin air without parents for a good reason.  Each of us is made in the Image of God, and we must come into this world through a law in creation which is a reflection of the unity of persons in the Trinity itself. From the love between two proceeds the third.  And the attendant consequence for man’s sin is that in the procession of persons are the effects of Original Sin because we derive our fallen human nature from the fallen nature of our parents.  That is why we must struggle because of Adam’s sin even though we did not exist to commit his sin.  The consequence of his sin is a debt for that sin which is passed on through the procession of persons from his fallen nature.  Adam knew we would suffer if he chose to sin because God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply before he sinned.  So, we cannot blame God for what we suffer because Adam could have chosen to love God rather than go against him. 

Furthermore, each of us comes into this world endowed with a free will to make the same choice between good and evil, love and hate, life and death as our first parents.  Yes, it is more difficult because of the choice made by Adam and Eve, but “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound” (Romans 5:20).  The mercy of God actually provides us the opportunity to be at a much higher place in Heaven than was possible for Adam and Eve if we only cooperate with His grace.  It is that simple.

When man fell from grace he did violence to his own reason, his conscience, and the moral law to commit original sin which was in fact a rejection of Divine Revelation. This is where all intellectual, moral, and religious relativism joined together as one unholy trinity to attack the very nature of Revealed Truth that came from the Holy Trinity.  And now relativists are in the business of redefining the Natural Moral Law to be “spiritual or religious morality” in an attempt to divorce authentic religious morality from divine revelation.  They aim to replace divine revelation with the “Imposter Natural Law” that has nothing to do with divine revelation.  The result is a relativistic understanding of religion and religious moral principles.  Tragically, the relativists have been very successful in corrupting man with this demonic disorientation.

This goes beyond stating the nature of Relativism.  Once this corruption enters the heart and mind the door of Relativism springs wide open.  The result is a false understanding and proclamation of "religious morality" which has lost its anchor to the Church.  The added layer of political correctness steeped heavily in the tea of Relativism has entered the scene and is now demanding that we no longer appeal to the Church as the absolute in determining religious morality.

We must be mindful that even though Adam and Eve were in a perfect state of grace they were not yet confirmed in grace.  They were in an infused state of contemplation, yet they chose to sin. In so doing they lost the preternatural gifts, meaning beyond what is natural, to the fallen state of man.  The preternatural gifts established a perfect unity and harmony between body and soul, but they lost that harmony, as well as the marriage between the language of the heart and mind when they sinned.  The soul lost its mastery over the body resulting in a condition where the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. The natural appetites of the body became inordinate making demands to use legitimate goods in sinful ways, most often in lust.  Though it was pride by which man fell, Relativism was the agent Satan used to tempt man into sin.  And once the preternatural gifts were lost, once discord between body and soul began, the struggle of Relativism entered into the equation and would be passed down to all generations.  One can be certain that Relativism will be the platform of the anti-Christ at the consummation of the world as it was with the fall of man, like corrupted bookends of time put there by the hand of man as he yields to Satan.

Intellectual relativism began when man went against the truth he knew in his intellect before he fell.  In his God given gift of “reason” he knew as a fact that all things were good and made by God, and he knew this without the aid of Revealed Truth.  He also knew by way of “Divine Revelation” what God expected of him.  God said to Adam,

 “From every tree of the garden you may eat, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you must not eat for the day you eat of it you will surely die.”

We have just seen Scriptural evidence that Adam also knew that all things were good by way of a direct “Revelation” from God.

If Adam was to go against what he knew was good with his intellect he would be going against reason itself.  This was the beginning of intellectual relativism+ where sinners began calling “good evil” and “evil good.”  This is why, in the justice of God, man’s intellect was wounded for his sin.  For Adam to deny what he knew as a fact in his reason, and then to call a fact something other than what it is, sets up a delusion to make his choice against God where he became blinded by his own love for sin.

As was the case for Adam, and as it is now, the denial of reality with the intellect is the nature of Intellectual Relativism.

He also went against the Natural Law, and in so doing he went against every principle of Natural Law Morality.  His sin against the Natural Law gave birth to Moral Relativism.

God’s speech to our first parents was authentic Revelation.  They literally went against the Revealed Word of God when He said to them,

“Thou shall not eat …”  

When Adam refused to give God his due in the matter of Revealed Truth he turned instead to worship himself in his delusion that he would become God.  This was the beginning of Religious Relativism.

When man fell he attempted to define intellectual truth as relative rather than objective, morality as subjective rather than objective, and Revelation itself as subjective religious truth divorced from the nature of objective Revealed Truth. To violate his God given reason to the point he thought he could become God was a leap into the abyss.  To believe that all intellectual, moral, and religious truths would proceed from within himself as the author and dispenser of his own truth is the price he paid for grasping at divinity. 

Satan will use Relativism as a weapon in the battle for souls until the end of time, and we see the slashing whenever we see Relativism at work. In fact, to see Relativism at work is to see a direct line of tragedy back to Eden where it all began.

When our first parents chose to sin they broke the only “true rule of faith” which, in every case, is dependent upon an authentic Revealed Truth from God.  The authenticity of Revealed Truth is the means to objectively understand all matters of faith.  This is true from the beginning of man to the last man who will be born into this world. A true rule of faith is critical to understanding authentic religious morality and Revealed Truth.

As a rule of faith, Protestantism emulates the fall of our first parents at its core.  Just like our first parents, those who embrace Protestantism make a choice to invent a false rule of faith which is unfettered religious relativism.  It is a forgery, disguised and embedded in the concept of Sola Scriptura which is the belief that the Bible is the final authority.

A simple fact is this: man cannot make his way back to God by embracing the very thing which separated him from God to begin with.  There must be an objective way back to God according to the nature of Revealed Truth, and since the nature of Revealed Truth is the intervention of God in time and place it can only mean the objective path back to God cannot be established by man.  It must be established by God himself to sanctify us, and it must come down to us through the centuries without having anything to do with the nature of man’s reason or the Natural Law.  We see this in Matthew 16: 16 – 19 where Christ established His Church.  It is a call for all men and women to abandon relativism in any form.  Any refusal to do so is a plunge into relativism in all of its destructive forms.

To be clear, since all men and women are made in the Image of God, all men and women are bound to the law of love.  Man is therefore bound to be charitable to everyone regardless of what views a person may hold, but love and mercy without truth is cruelty on both counts.  It is neither love nor mercy.  It is essential for us to recognize the reality of objective truth in reason, morality, and one “true rule of faith” in religion if there is ever to be hope for unity among men.  

The nature of objective truth is such that where there is truth there is unity, and that means the true rule of faith is found only in the event when Christ gave the Keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter and his successors.  The Papacy is the ultimate anchor and sign of this unity between Heaven and earth among men.  This is another reason we have to explore the fact that Protestantism is religious relativism by nature. But first we have to look at what Relativism has done to the heart and mind of man in the secular order and how it affects his relationship with the Church.

†

Out of Eden

Every age since the fall of man there has been a struggle over the great questions of life.  But these questions became amplified as time passed and people dispersed over the earth. However, something very important must be understood. Even though man moved further away from the more explicit and direct line of revelation and salvation over time, he still retained some degree of revealed truth even after the fall of man.  There is also the fact that the degree of revealed truth he retained became more corrupted and over shadowed by pagan rituals and sinful lives as it was passed down to successive generations. Nevertheless, some degree of Revealed Truth remains present in the life of all people.  We will explore this later in greater detail, but for now the salient point is that man becomes more cut off from objective truth the deeper he enters into Relativism. 

The great questions such as, “Who am I? Why am I here?  Where did I come from? What comes after death? How am I to live with purpose?” must not be pushed to the side. The fact that we seek truth by asking these questions is itself evidence that our soul hungers for absolute truth.  And make no mistake about it, we are made to digest objective truth and internalize it in our soul every bit as much as hunger in the body move us to keep the body alive by taking in food.  The search for truth is innate in our very being, and we naturally seek goodness because truth is goodness.  Without truth our soul would whither up and die. 

We also seek love because the heart needs to love and be loved, and only “absolute goodness” can nourish this hunger.  We long for God to speak to us, and that longing opens us up to our need for God.  This is why authentic Revelation is most natural to the heart of a natural man.

Sadly, Relativism has brought about a great tragedy in the Church. Many who call themselves Catholic are, in fact, Catholic in name only.  They no longer seek out Church teaching when making moral decisions, and they have abandoned a life according to the precepts of the Church.  This fact shows up in the numbers of those who no longer keep the precepts of the Church, starting with our obligation to attend Sunday Mass and to confess our sins.  Fewer than 1 in 4 still attend Mass, and that number continues to drop, particularly among young adults.  And Relativism is right there as an ally to take them captive, to encourage them in their love of sin, all the while justifying their lifestyle with the false doctrine of Relativism.

The real tragedy for young adults is they have been poorly catechized and often turn away from the Church without fully realizing what they are leaving behind.  But there are also those who turn away from the Holy Mass in their heart, and we see the same in Judas who turned away from Christ when He said that we must consume his body and blood to have Eternal Life. That was when Judas broke.  It was afterwards that he turned away from the Eucharist at the last Supper.  Barring a special grace that will show the next generation they have been lied to by the evil of Relativism, and through our efforts to expose the evils and errors of Relativism, it will be extremely difficult for many people to find their way home to the Church.

We need to look at what happens if we do not confront the relativists. If men and women turn away from their need for objective truth two things will take place, and we need to see how the consequences of that decision unfold.

First – Man will conclude that he is the author of his own truth within himself, so that truth is relative to what each person determines the truth to be according to his own mind.  As we have seen, the nature of Relativism is delusion, so the more deluded he becomes, the more he cuts himself off from objective reality and he will close in on himself.

Second – When his intellectual dishonesty fails, and after he turns inward on himself, he will now turn towards what he “feels” rather than what he “thinks” which is very convenient when you love sin.  Feelings and emotions will take over and man will become a slave to his every whim, and his master will be his emotions.

As the world becomes more of man’s own making he will languish like he is in the desert without water.  And given the fact that society is made up of individuals whose deepest need is to love and be loved, society will turn from fraternity to isolationism.  In his desperation for meaning the relativist will look away from God for another solution due to his inability to answer the great questions of life.  In his heart which he has hollowed out he will cry out, “Somewhere, someone must know the answers to life.”  In his delusion, and very often due to love of sin and impenitence, man will take the attitude that when science speaks about anything it must be true.  He will often look to the scientific method as though it was God, and he will turn what is good in science into something of mythology.  This will become his playground where he can take the drug of the scientific method like an anesthesia in the hope he can find meaning in skepticism.  Not only is he quite blind to the fact that science does not speak with one voice, but he loses out on the fact that good science glorifies God, and that Relativism has cut him off from the answers he is looking for as he drowns in his skepticism.  If he had not been a relativist to begin with his false assumptions could have been avoided. 

Science is actually very limited.  It cannot prove anything about the meaning of life; nor can it speak to the needs of the human heart, the meaning of love, or the meaning of what the mind longs for in its need for truth.  In fact, the answer to “meaning” is found only in philosophy and theology.  Science cannot even tell us why anything exists because there is no necessity that things exist.  Everything had to be willed into existence.  And when faced with this fact the relativist will plunge into the absurd, a kind of illness develops and settles in the soul.  He will often turn to love of sin like a drug to temporarily forget his misery.  He tightens his grip on Relativism which will take him from depth to depth as he plunges into the absurd, ill equipped in matters of philosophy.  At his lowest point he will attempt to make the absurd into an absolute, and in his delusion he will proceed to make philosophical declarations where he truly is a like a fish out of water. He will go about flopping on the ground, desperate for the air of meaning. In his pride he will become militantly dogmatic as he goes about denying the reality of absolute truths as an absolute truth until the flopping eventually stops.

The depth of pride in Relativism can be nothing short of stunning. It is in fact deadly, and it continues to drive relativists into isolation where they prefer to wallow in a place where they cannot make sense of the world.  It is a place where they find no meaning, no real purpose or happiness in life as they live apart from objective purpose. 

This begs the question as to why someone would choose Relativism as a way to live.  In one way or another, and in varying degrees, it is a choice rooted in ignorance often accompanied with confusion and lack of education which is then made critical with pride and love of sin.  The Relativist, in principle, becomes an atheist seeing through the lens of their own delusion thinking they are the only real God just like Adam tried to do in his rebellion.  They live for self, and everything and everyone else is merely a function of self in their self constructed prison of desperation and isolation.  And they are doomed to a life of desperation unless they step back into the world of reality.  The longer they hold out on coming back to objective truth the more cynical they will become in their inability to answer the great questions of life.

Nevertheless, relativists have set up society for a fall, all the while promising a land of milk and honey in a pluralistic society if we would only get out of their way.  But to let them have their way would be the destruction of all that we know.  Unlimited pluralism rooted in reductionist relativism, which is reducing everything to Relativism, when applied to society makes for chaos.  It would be the equivalent of dropping a nuclear bomb on all the functions of a well ordered society, and the fallout would result in a pluralism that tears down society rather than building it up.  It would obliterate any possibility of honest dialogue and inquiry in the exchange of ideas, and it would mercilessly cut off people who are searching for meaning with complete sincerity and without guile.  Objective, honest inquiry as to why another person may feel what they feel, or think what they think, is shut down by Relativism which makes true fraternity impossible.

The corrosive nature of Relativism is producing a society clearly being overrun by illusion, delusion, and deception, all which serve at the altar of Relativism because in the end, Relativism is worship of self.  For all that has been lost in a languishing society the relativist now tries to put on the face of sophistication, but it is void of wisdom and right living.  We are advancing towards a cold, heartless society without substance because Relativism has no substance.

When dealing with relativists we are dealing with very small minded people who live only for self, their entire world view is about self, and in the end they can love only self.  That is what narcissism is all about. They have embraced nihilism which is the rejection of all religious and moral principles, and the belief that life is meaningless.  The effect of Relativism is trickle down isolation which we see in the explosion of cell phone “selfies” which is symptomatic of a society where people are more and more beginning to think they are the center of the universe.

There are some relativists who also develop a false belief of the afterlife in the hope of avoiding accountability for the way they lived their lives.  Their view of the afterlife is modeled after the way they have lived their lives of isolation on earth.  In so far as they are culpable, as they have lived apart from Christ they will be granted what they have chosen, unless there is contrition.  Otherwise, having made the choice to live oblivious to objective truth, their own death will be the final meaningless plunge into despair and oblivion until their delusion of oblivion is taken from them when they meet God.  And then the consequences will be too horrible to consider if they are facing the isolation of Hell at judgment. 

When we think of a crisis in our society today there is no greater crisis in meaning brought on by Relativism than the crisis of sexual identity.  There are now hospitals in New York City which are required to ask a mother who just gave birth to a child if she is male or female in order to avoid litigation from offending a woman if she feels she is a male trapped in a woman’s body.  This is just one example of the insanity brought on by moral relativism.  People are now refusing to acknowledge the objective reality that only a woman can give birth to a baby.  Reality has been turned away and in its place there is only delusion and deception touted as fact. Such is the nature of Relativism. People have been robbed of seeing they are made in the Image of God, and having been brought to such a sad state of affairs concerning their own self identity and worth they are indeed worthy of pity and prayers.

We must never forget that the fall of man brought on confusion laced with the drug of Relativism where man first turned to love of sin in his pride, and it was catastrophic to man’s self image.  Pride can become so deep in man that he will choose to remain blind for love of sin, as it was in the beginning.  This happened in the fall of man when Adam’s eyes were opened which resulted in a loss of vision. Think of it, his eyes were opened which resulted in a loss of vision.  This speaks of the blinding nature of sin, and it is a perfect way of understanding Relativism.  You lose your vision as you open your eyes to see through the delusion of Relativism.  It shuts down your vision of objective reality and the heart shrivels up and dies.

The problem of Relativism is compounded when there is contempt for all that is contemplative. The image of a cloistered Nun wearing a habit praying hours on end in some forsaken cloister practically unknown to the world seems like madness to the relativist.  And that is because Relativism has produced a culture where people can no longer be at peace within themselves in silence.  They have to silence the silence that is screaming at them from the emptiness within their own soul.   They have to turn on the radio or the television and crank it up because they are no longer comfortable in their own skin. The emptiness within becomes desperate to find meaning and acceptance which gives birth to the need of “affirmation” with the explosion of indulgence in all manner of body art and piercings.  Some are so extreme in their shock value one can only imagine these are people who are so wounded and confused that it might well be a defense mechanism which they think will keep people away from them so as not to be harmed.  The tragedy is Satan is wreaking havoc with them even if they are trying to convince themselves they are comfortable in their own skin.  In reality such things are a crying out for attention, needing to be affirmed in all the wrong things.

Relativists are socially cut off from the true meaning of living in fraternity with others, and they come together to bond in noise, chaos, revolution, indulging often in music which resembles the demonic laced with drugs.  The need for fraternity is strong, yes, but Relativism inflates their pride and confusion which locks them in the prison of isolation and self destruction.  In his denial of absolute truths the relativist cuts himself off from true joy found in fraternal participation in the great things of life that are filled with meaning and great purpose that are greater than themselves. And that hurts a man deeply because man is truly a social being.  Relativism cuts them off from what it means to be a community of persons which is a reflection of the community of persons in the Most Holy Trinity.

The moral deficiencies that have come from moral relativism make subjective morality as common place as buying clothes according to your personal taste.  One only needs to look at what has happened to the educational system to understand why teaching the Natural Moral Law and ethics have been abandoned.  In its place we now find raw Relativism in the classroom.  This has diminished the value of education so drastically that a need for cliques and fashion has taken over to a degree never seen before, and the result is a catastrophe by any standard of measure.

Students, and society at large, are being conditioned to believe there is no longer sin, only mistakes.  And if there is to be any acknowledgment of sin it will be understood and defined as being out of sync with your own relativistic, subjective view of morality.  If you think premarital sex is okay then you are sinning if you do not indulge in premarital sex because you are denying your true self.  Any consideration of Natural Law morality and ethics has been thrown out.  Your ego and your own subjective truth is now the papacy in your little deluded world view.

In the Papal Message for World Day of Peace 2012 from the Vatican Radio Pope Benedict XVI said,

"Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of educating is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires.  And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own self. With such a relativistic horizon, therefore, real education is not possible without the light of the truth; sooner or later, every person is in fact condemned to doubting the goodness of his or her own life and the relationships of which it consists, the validity of his or her commitment to build with others something in common”

And if you want to talk about hate crimes, Relativism in any form is a worse form of hate crime than all others because it is hatred against all that is true.  The great lie of Relativism is veiled under the guise of human respect which is no respect at all for others.  You cannot even see the objective nature of another person to give them the due respect they deserve.  Relationships are reduced to utility which most often sexually objectifies women.  Relativism reduces love of others to love of self at the expense of others.  Objective love between all men and women is destroyed. Countless souls are being educated and convinced they can justify anything under the banner of “choice” which appeals to a corrupt, relativistic understanding of freedom in any society.  Just one case to make the point is abortion. 

Mediocrity is incremental relativism where excellence is openly ridiculed and punished.  In fact, there is now celebration of mediocrity for those who wish to embrace a notion of no self worth to be comfortable with their laziness and theft.

If a Catholic man abandons moral objectivity, if he succumbs to a world that says you can no longer speak about morals in the public sphere, or matters pertaining to faith, what has become of his manliness?  If he yields to being emasculated by moral relativism he is denying the fact of objective morality in the Natural Law.  He is also saying the Catholic Church has no authority to speak about morality any more than a Protestant denomination.  If that is the lot you have chosen, why do you call yourself a Catholic?

There is a literal war taking place between relativists and those trying to bring sanity back to societies that are crumbling.  We are obliged to do our best to bring back hope to the heart and sound reason to the mind because the social structure itself is at risk.  We must be willing to take the risk and speak to a culture desperately in need because God made all of us with our deepest need which is to find and love God which gives meaning and joy to us in this life and in the next.  In the name of Charity we must struggle against a prevailing culture that is increasingly turning away from all that is moral and true for the sake of others.

If we saw a thief rob someone of their life earnings would we not at least call for help? Relativism is a thief like no other, robbing souls of all satisfaction in every day living, driving them into the world of sexuality and drugs to escape the lack of meaning in their life. Life itself becomes activity for the sake of activity as an end in itself, an escape from having no ultimate meaning and purpose.  But God did not abandon man in the way He made him.  The heart and conscience of the relativist, and their God given reason are beckoning them to abandon Relativism in all of its forms, if they would only abandon their pride and relax in objective truth.   But all too often the effects and love of sin have settled into a way of life where it becomes hard to die to self. If they turn to God He is waiting for them, and He will give them the grace to come home to a resurrection of hope in heart, mind, reason, morality, and in theology.

†

The Results Are In

The results of this bad experiment called Relativism are in, and the evidence for the toll it is taking is overwhelming.  The list is endless, but in particular we see the toll it is taking on the young who are giving into despair in greater numbers than ever before with suicides on the rise.  There are probably many parents who want to throw their remote control at the TV set when listening to liberal educators telling us how smart they are, and how parents have to give up their children to be educated by “the Village.”  Parents are being told, actually forced in many cases, they must forfeit their role as the primary educators of their children.  And worse, many parents are falling lock step into the trap of political correctness with such rapidity it is shocking.  They bow down to a maniacal system spawned by Relativism which encourages parents to praise their children for such things as having the courage to come out in the open about their sexual orientation.  

The family which is the bedrock of society has been devastated.  Once moral relativism broke down marriage between one man and one woman anything goes.  The following is but one example of three fathers proudly walking their daughters down the isle for a “throuple” lesbian marriage.  From the article,

“The idea for the ceremony, culminated when each of their fathers walked them down the aisle, came from Kitten. “Marriage had always been an important symbol of commitment for me,” she said.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-next-marriage-redefinition-massachusetts-lesbian-throuple-expecting-the

If you embrace reductionist relativism you cannot really live for others.  In order to live for others you have to be able to enter into a relationship with them, you have to be able to share your thoughts, your ideas, and truth with them. But, if you are cut off by relativism you end up frustrating the very nature of relationships because you have lost a proper understanding of “person.”

A decent man has to be able to share his very self with others.  He’s got to be able to share what is good, and he’s got to be able to tell others what he knows to be good without being shut down by political correctness and the concern of being charged with hate speech for holding to objective truths in reason, morality and in matters of faith.

One of the things you are taught in martial arts is to be aware of your surroundings.  When you look about it is nearly impossible not to notice the drama of “hate speech” that has taken deep root in your surroundings.  Ask any of your friends who are mindful of what is happening in society if they are careful about what they say in public these days, even in a restaurant.  There is concern that if you say something about your views on homosexuality the person in the next booth will be offended, and you risk having them register a complaint against you as a hate crime.  I was in a booth at a restaurant speaking about pro-life issues with a friend. In the next booth was a woman with her daughter who was probably about 7 years old.  The woman was apparently listening to everything I said in favor of pro-life, and when I got up to leave she followed me and said “When it is the right time I am going to teach my daughter that abortion is okay, even if the pregnancy is just an inconvenience.”  I turned to her and said “Really? How are you going to explain to your daughter that your love for her was unconditional when she realizes that if your pregnancy with her had been an inconvenience you would have aborted her by tearing her to pieces and then toss her into a bucket to be incinerated?”  The rage on that woman’s face was palpable as I walked out.

It is no longer the same country when you have to be concerned about saying non-threatening things that deal with morality in the objective order.  We are threatened if we call out sin and relativism for what they are.  The charge of “hate speech” is rooted in moral relativism and is an encroachment on free speech. It has no place in our legal system as envisioned by our founding fathers.  It was they who declared and defined the Natural Law as indispensible to objective jurisprudence. But Relativism has taken over the courts which no longer recognize the rights of free speech in many cases.  In fact, the Courts have violated the Separation of Church and State. They are legislating the tenets of the State Religion of Secular Humanism, thereby violating the rights of Conscience for Catholics and a host of others.  Catholics have an obligation to truth, in fact, all of us are bound to seek what is true and we will be judged for what we have done with that obligation. But any society that has turned away from objective truth can only produce a people that digress and are now looking for a way to claim they are a victim of one sort or another.  After all, it pays these days.  One can take in a great pay day with financial compensation from the most absurd settlements because their “feelings” were offended.  Such a society is doomed for collapse. 

If you look at the life of many people who claim to be a victim of hate speech you will find they are riddled with Relativism.  Hardly a thing that comes out of their mouths is untainted by Relativism.  And the curious thing which is those who are “offended” are now willing to impose their subjective view of morality and justice on someone else’s subjective view of morality and justice which offends the offender.  Such are the mental gymnastics of the relativist.  This is hardly a recipe for unity and fraternity in society.  The success of shows like Judge Judy comes about from people who see themselves as victims, imagining what they would do if they had a say in what they watch.  They live in the delusion of moral relativism and victimhood as though they find meaning in life screaming at the Television.  

If these people followed their own logic, which is the claim there is no absolute truth, they should not be able to claim they are offended by anything someone else says.  Why?  Because the other person’s subjective truth tells them they are free to offend you.  We can see that as Relativism advances the world is coming to a place where moral insanity is fashionable.  In fact, it is profitable.  It is becoming a place where objective truth is now considered hatred and contempt which is the same as calling good, evil.  But it is the relativists who say there is no right or wrong.  They are the ones causing the destruction of all societies.

Who among us cannot imagine a scene from an old black and white movie where a group of maniacal planners gathered around a table putting their overarching master plan into effect?  Do you think the spread of Relativism happened by accident?  We are not watching an old black and white movie anymore.  Relativism is spreading in full Technicolor.  Relativists are busy at work pumping Relativism into the veins of every facet of society to include education, media, the body politic, and our understanding of human rights. They have brought people to a place where they proudly say that we derive our rights not from God, but from the State.  They have embraced Socialism without even a whimper, failing to see if the State gives you your rights it can take them as well.  That is the recipe for genocide as we have seen time and again throughout history.

People are becoming sheeple, willing to bend the knee and raise a hand in a diabolical salute to a gathering storm just over the horizon.  It is a storm being paid for and driven by corrupt billionaires, organizations, and governments which are implementing Relativism through economics and political correctness.  The fact that “political correctness” was not in our lexicon not long ago, but is now a legal concern shows you the rapidity with which nations are collapsing.  Do you really think political correctness which has its roots in moral relativism came out of nowhere; that it just happened by chance? If it were by chance mere sanity would kick it to the curb, but the fact that it is now receiving legal protection shows us this is yet another form of relativism orchestrated by the social engineers.  It is being enshrined in society by the overlords in any way they wish, and the pride of the impenitent common man, ever trying to be erudite, is low hanging fruit for this trap.  We even have State Supreme Courts thwarting the will of the majority opposed to homosexual marriage.  Is that by chance as well?  No, they are the overlords shoving moral relativism down the throats of the populace.  And now we have the looming decision by the Supreme Court itself which may soon sanction homosexual marriage, as if abortion was not bad enough. All of these deviations from the Moral Law are due to Moral Relativism. 

We have the added concern that the United States Supreme Court just turned down an appeal from the State of Louisiana which may result in forcing a Catholic Priest to violate the Seal of Confession. The Priest may have to choose between breaking the Seal of Confession or go to prison.  Even if the penitent in this case says it is okay for the Priest to break the Seal, he cannot do so.  Nor is the penitent privy to everything the Priest may know about the matter.  This threat to the sanctity of the Seal of Confession is a result of secularism rooted in moral relativism. The State is taking the position that it can strip us of our God given and religious rights with its pseudo religious authority now veiled as the Religion of the State from which our rights come.  All of this originates from moral relativism.  Once the State can force open the seal of Confession for what it calls “an “exception” it can do so in the future for any reason.  What the State of Louisiana is doing is a clear violation of the separation of Church and State.  The war against the Church is on, and it is coming into full swing.

Even from a pragmatic point of view, the philosophy of Relativism has been debunked.  It is cruel, intellectually dishonest, hedonistic, patronizing, isolating and utilitarian in purpose at the hands of corrupt men responding to the instigation of Satan.  It breaks down people into 2 camps, the sycophants who love their sin, and the authentic victims who are robbed of human decency.

First, the sycophants – With Relativism as a weapon in hand they are as a possessed people with demonic purpose attempting to justify their sin with Machiavellian purpose. With their employment of cunning and duplicity which is their drug of addiction to love their sin and silence their own bad conscience, they are enslaving the world to all manner of sin.  Their own personal Hell has begun and misery loves company.  They are driving people over the brow of the hill of the absurd like a people possessed making them twofold sons of Hell more than themselves as they rush headlong into the sea in their madness, and they are legion in command.

As the Book of Proverbs says in  Chapter 4 vs. 14 – 19,

“The path of the wicked, enter not, walk not on the way of evil men; shun it, cross it not, turn aside from it, and pass on.”

“For they cannot rest unless they have done evil; to have made no one stumble steals away their sleep. For they eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence.

“The way of the wicked is like darkness; they know not on what they stumble.” 

Second, the authentic victims – There are those who simply do not understand the impact that Relativism will have in their lives, or that they have been tainted by it.  Growing up in a society where you absorb and assimilate Relativism a conflict is set up in your conscience and reason which produces a great struggle wherein people are trying to find out who they really are and what life is about.  It is these people who we must look upon with authentic sympathy and pity.  Often they are people who have been beaten down in life, hurting, looking for some way to find meaning and purpose and acceptance. 

In a very simple way they respond to the struggles of life and need for acceptance by attempting to be profound in polite conversation with platitudes that are anchored in Relativism.  Maturing is natural, but to see the maturing process assaulted by Relativism makes one’s heart break for them.  Much of what these people have to say comes from the recognition that something is wrong in the world, even if they cannot yet define it.  Their needs and concerns are real and alive because they know, even if only at the intuitive level, the light of faith and sound reason are being extinguished by Relativism.  It is hard for them to even know where to look to solve their problems, so it is our obligation to be unafraid and defend objective truth to help free them from the snare of Relativism.  And it does not matter what the world thinks of us, we simply have to redouble our efforts.

Perhaps the most difficult of all the consequences that flow from Relativism is its impact on the family.  Relativism is embedding into the thinking of children, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives and grand parents.  This is a particularly difficult dilemma because these are the people we love, and we must continue in that love, by all means.  But we must not be naïve about what is trying to take hold of them.  When Relativism shows up in things said by those we love, or in any conversation, we must not be afraid to speak up with as much love and concern as possible, but there must be no misunderstanding or retreat at the expense of what is true.  We must say NO to Relativism and confront it head on lancing it like an infection.  It must be cut out at the root otherwise its poison will rise up in the shoot and kill what was once alive.  And it serves us well to realize that relativists will label passion in defense of what is objective as fanaticism.

The consequence of Relativism does not stop with family.  Relativism is infecting friends, co-workers, those sitting in the pew next to you in Church, and even the Pulpit in the Sanctuary.  The danger is to everyone, without exception.  We even have to check ourselves to see if we have been tainted by Relativism.

For those to whom much is given much is expected, and Catholics in particular have an obligation to reach out to others, but they must clean their own house first.  There are far too many people who were raised as Catholics who are now Catholic in name only, steeped in Relativism like a tea bag that has been used up.  They are giving terrible examples and advice to other Catholics, to Protestants, and to non-believers, as well as to their own children.  They have abandoned their family and in so doing they have abandoned their children to the coming storm. 

How then are we to bring those who are Catholic in name only and the lukewarm back to a true understanding of the Church and Her doctrine?  In our approach we first have to consider whether they may have had some pretty bad experiences at the hands of those who represent the Church.  Many have fallen away because of things they have seen and heard, or experienced themselves, and Relativism is right there to take hold of them and lock them up where they are kept as if frozen in time.  Tragically, due to poor catechesis and a lack of formation in logic, they really know very little or nothing at all about the Catholic Church in which they were raised.  There is a common refrain among many Catholics who no longer abide by the teachings of the Church who say, “I went through 12 years of Parochial School, and I know better now, I do not need the Church.” When you ask these people questions about the most rudimentary things in Catholicism they are woefully ignorant of the Church and Her teachings.  In truth, one must be embarrassed for them because far too often they have been deceived by those within the Church who dissent from Church teaching.

There are many onlookers at what is happening in the Church who are not Catholic, and they know very little or nothing at all about Catholicism.  They too are being tempted by Relativism, and they are seeing it make its way into the ranks of the common Catholic.  Perhaps they are interested in the Church, perhaps their conscience is crying out for help realizing they are in a place that goes nowhere in life.  But they are being denied the light of Revelation by the darkness of Relativism which they see coming from those who call themselves Catholic, but are Catholic in name only.

It is without question that living an authentic Catholic life is an invitation for others to believe the Gospel.  The Catholic life is a testimony to the strength of a Sacramental life which fortifies us as we try to live out life in union with objective reality.  Relativism shuts all that down.  And if you present Relativism as the face of the Church you are a deceiver of the human heart, and those in rebellion will try to use your hypocrisy as an excuse to justify their own sin and rejection of the church.  You will make them lovers of sin like yourself because Relativism not rejected is a sin. 

Unless and until Churchmen and the faithful put their foot down and wage a war on Relativism the descent into darkness so manifest in society will continue, and people will become more cynical.  It is said that man is only nine meals away from becoming a savage.  If you apply the same to the spiritual life, if a man is intellectually and spiritually starved for moral and religious truth the picture is not pretty.  The truly faithful have the obligation to speak up with clarity and resolve, else-wise there is a great danger that many, many people will plunge headlong into the vortex of Relativism where they will experience the tornadic winds of doubt and skepticism.   We have heard that a piece of straw can be embedded into wood from the force of wind from a tornado.  That is a pretty accurate visual of what appears to be an otherwise harmless piece of straw with the poison of Relativism on its tip can do the heart and mind.  Once it is embedded the poison spreads in the system.  And once that happens the injured will be found trying to stagger our of the debris field that was once their home where they lived with objective truth.  They come from the destruction citing novel claims of “spirituality” that have nothing whatsoever to do with authentic Revelation, all in an attempt to find a new home as they search for meaning in life because Relativism makes you homeless.

There is no scaling it down, no obfuscating the problem of Relativism, there is no denying what it is, nor is there any excuse for it.  Sin is sin, and we have to be contrite for all sin, otherwise we become crippled.  Relativism will gladly assist in crippling us so that we do not even consider repentance. Once you think you are the arbiter of moral right and wrong you think there is no longer sin in your regard.  You sink into the delusion that there are only “mistakes” and you live out that delusion in your heart and mind.  When we consider the ultimate and most severe consequence of Relativism it is always related to pride which brings about death of the body and soul, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).  How is it we do not see the urgent need to help others turn away from Relativism in all of its forms?

Isaiah tells us “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear you.” (Isaiah 59:2). Relativism is becoming so deeply intertwined with iniquity and the ego it is adding layer upon layer to the hard shell of pride.  Yet, we must endure the consequence of man’s initial rebellion against God which continues to bring about a languishing society steeped in the philosophical and theological desolation of Relativism.

And we must remember that a failure to call sin a sin is to abandon people to hopelessness.  If we fail to show others the foolishness of Relativism we abandon them to confusion.  This cannot be overstated.  The world is becoming so confusing for people it is no wonder they are tiring of the struggle.  And if we do nothing, the world will soon enough paint Catholics as the only sinners on the planet, and the only sin will be global warming.  Remember, like all of us, those who are searching are sinners too, but they must be honest within themselves and stop making excuses for fashioning morality in such a way as to assuage their own bad conscience. If Catholics succumb to self-loathing because of hatred coming from those in rebellion against objective truth, they need to understand the relativist will despise them even more for caving in to their pressure. That is the nature of evil.  They will join in on our self-loathing with some demonic measure of instigation for the extra measure of sadistic pleasure.

And while it is true to say there are many calling out for hope in their need, if Catholics succumb to the relativistic notion that the Gospel, as understood by the Catholic Church, is just one more understanding of the Gospel that is no better or worse than other interpretations of Scripture, Relativism as Religion becomes enshrined.  The Catholic Church is not a denomination.  It is Christianity in its fullness, and if we let the relativists frame the argument by referring to the Catholic Church as a denomination we open the door for destruction to make its way into the Church. 

When Christian denominations broke from the Catholic Church they retained certain Christian elements, but they no longer have the fullness of Christianity.  In fact, Pope Benedict XVI declared Protestant denominations cannot be properly referred to as a “Church” because they lack a valid Bishopric and a valid Eucharist.  They are merely an ecclesial Christian community by virtue of Baptism. 

On July 10, 2007, Pope Benedict issued a statement clarifying the Catholic Church’s position on “the church.”  He stated the Catholic Church is the only true church and that the Protestant communities,

“Cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense,” because they lack apostolic succession, that is, the ability to trace their leadership back to Christ’s original disciples.”

That was a call for all denominational communities to get back in line with the only Church established by Jesus Christ himself.  This caused a significant uproar in the Protestant world, but the Pope is correct.  We will explore the role of Relativism in Protestantism in greater detail later, but, just as the Natural Law has taken on the “appearance” of “religion” in our day, so too has Protestantism has taken on the appearance of a “Church.”

The nature of the Catholic Church is a divine institution established by God himself when He walked the earth as the God/man.  The divine nature of the Catholic Church cannot be diminished by the sins of its members anymore than Christ could be stripped of his divinity by the lashes He received during his passion and crucifixion.  It is therefore futile for relativists to point out the sins of Catholics in their attempt to denounce the Church, or to redefine the Church as just one more denomination in a relativistic view of Christianity.

If those crying out with an authentic need for help from the Church are sincere of heart, they will not be so ready to cry out “hypocrite” when a Catholic fails by sinning.  They may have justifiable disappointment when Catholics fail, but none of them are as pure as the wind driven snow.  They will recognize the weakness of fallen human nature, even within themselves.

But the seemingly ever present relativist, who, out of hypocrisy and bad conscience which they have tried to silence, never fails to profusely “judge” any Catholic who sins.   A perfect example of this hypocrisy can be found in the person of Gandhi, in spite of the fact that there are endless Catholic apologists who refer to the virtues of Gandhi as though he were a saint.  One would think Catholics are to defer to the likes of that man and how he sees Christianity.   He is far from a saint they portray him to be.

It is reported that Gandhi was asked why he did not become a Christian given that he often read Scripture. Gandhi answered,

“If I had ever met one, I would have become one.”

Well, how about this? If Gandhi was not a hypocrite maybe he would have in fact had the courage to become a Christian.  But he did not have the courage, he did not want to die to himself and his own sin, he did not want to die to his own hypocrisy.  His answer was not only a back handed insult to all Christians, but he took a swipe at his own conscience which accused him of his own bad behavior.  He never met that kind of a man who would be a cause for his conversion to Christianity even in himself because he wanted his troubled conscience out of sight and out of mind.  So much for his excuse not to become a Christian! 

Gandhi was forced to admit to the evidence that he beat up his wife, and as a vegan he turned down a doctor’s request to give his dying son the only medicine known at that time which could save his life, beef soup.

The following is just one source that exposes the Hollywood sanitized life of Gandhi which was used to justify the hypocrisy of moral relativism in person of Gandhi.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-gandhi-nobody-knows

From the article we read, “Gandhi’s monstrous behavior to his own family is notorious. He denied his sons education—to which he was bitterly hostile. His wife remained illiterate. Once when she was very sick, hemorrhaging badly, and seemed to be dying, he wrote to her from jail icily: “My struggle is not merely political. It is religious and therefore quite pure. It does not matter much whether one dies in it or lives. I hope and expect that you will also think likewise and not be unhappy.” To die, that is. On another occasion he wrote, speaking about her: “I simply cannot bear to look at Ba’s face. The expression is often like that on the face of a meek cow and gives one the feeling, as a cow occasionally does, that in her own dumb manner she is saying something. I see, too, that there is selfishness in this suffering of hers. . . .” And in the end he let her die, as I have said, rather than allow British doctors to give her a shot of penicillin (while his inner voice told him that it would be all right for him to take quinine). He disowned his oldest son, Harilal, for wishing to marry. He banished his second son for giving his struggling older brother a small sum of money. Harilal grew quite wild with rage against his father, attacked him in print, converted to Islam, took to women, drink, and died an alcoholic in 1948. The Mahatma attacked him right back in his pious way, proclaiming modestly in an open letter in Young India, “Men may be good, not necessarily their children.”

He was also a Hindu who believed the primary spiritual goal is to break free from the Samsara Cycle and achieve a divine state known as Moksha. He looked within himself and claimed divinity that needed to be liberated.  The Christian, on the other hand, looks within himself and sees intrinsic goodness but does not grasp at divinity as did Gandhi.  As Saint Paul points out, we know the fact of God by what He has made, and therefore no one has any excuse to deny that fact.  Well, the reductionist relativism in Gandhi was enough to turn him away from acknowledging that he was created by God and is not divine in his essence, nor could he become divine.  Nevertheless, he grasped at divinity as did Adam.  You cannot turn from right reason to justify that depth of Relativism in reason or in morality in any way, shape, or manner no matter how much the world wants to crown its own like in the person of Gandhi.

No culture is free from some degree of Relativism which makes us consider what George Orwell said, “The further a society drifts from the truth the more it will hate those that speak it.”

We have to consider that if we want to be at peace with others we have to be honest within ourselves, we cannot be wrapped up inside ourselves in the cocoon of Relativism.  If you do, you will never be a butterfly.  You will only be cut off from the real world of contemplation rendering your contemplation objectively fruitless until honesty prevails and leads you out of the insane world of contemplating your belly button.  You will not be born again that way.

We have come to a place where it is not so much that people no longer want a god; it is just that THEY want to be god.  And in so doing they worship a false god, the god of self so they can love their sin rather than forsake sin. Relativism predisposes them to sin so they can fashion their golden calf of moral relativism with the hammer of subjectivity.

When man turns in on himself the very things he hoped for in abundance will now become his spiritual poverty.  And the more he grasps at Relativism the deeper the hunger in his heart will be, and so too his despair.  He moves away from being the person he was made to be, as St. Bernard said “In those ways we are unlike God, we are also unlike ourselves” because we are made in His image.  To embrace Relativism is to become something hellish that will be lived out for all eternity if there is no repentance.

Relativism also stifles our talents; it renders our ability to live in the moment with transcendent purpose null and void. The natural satisfaction and joy that comes from creativity is reduced to the time you have here on earth, and then the delusion of Relativism tells you it ends at death.  You will give no regard to last things and become unwilling to face the fact of mortality.

When Relativism becomes the dominant philosophy of any culture several things will take place, each of them contributing to the demise of that culture bringing with them a diabolical disorientation ending in a crisis of ethics.

Extreme self centeredness will cultivate the thought of people wanting to know what they get out of everything, rather than what they bring or give to anyone or anything.  More and more people are choosing to follow the path of Moral Relativism that says pleasure is the ultimate goal in life.  There is no anchor in moral relativism, so if it feels good relativists will do whatever they fancy without any thought of consequences.  This is the same seduction man has faced since the fall of man, and there is no doubt this is the precursor for the platform of Relativism that will be used to stage the final battle against all that is decent in humanity.

People are also being ensnared to serve up their allegiance for the exaltation of state control over their lives.  Moral Relativism is perhaps the greatest factor in the break up of the family, and now the Government has become the husband for women who have lost their marriage because the government gives out the money to provide for them in place of the husband.  Many women have become addicted to their relationship of government dependency in the form of handouts and assistance in swap for a vote.  In turn, the nanny State has taken over the role of handing out discipline when needed to keep them in place and dependent.  This enables the State to enact laws entrenched in Relativism because people do not want to resist and risk forfeiting their ability to milk the system for all they can get. 

†

Relativism, the Root of Secularism in Society and Politics

The Church tells us that Christ does not want us to judge the motives of the heart, or to play God by judging the eternal destiny of anyone.  Those things are known to God alone, absolutely.  But the Church also says we are to make judgments every day if we are to live a Catholic life.  We can and we must take an objective judgment on what people say and do. 

For example, we must say abortion is evil and that it is objectively wrong to kill a child.  Yes, that is a judgment we are obligated to make.  Can we then say someone who procured an abortion is going to Hell?  No, we cannot make that kind of judgment.  It is not our place to do so because repentance is possible till a person draws their last breath. 

The list of judgments that we have to make everyday in our lives is endless.  We could not even avoid sin without making the judgment of calling sin a sin.  But relativists are having a field day with the words of Christ as they go about telling Catholics not to judge them for what they say and do because in their mind everyone has their own truth.  They have literally turned Christ’s warning not to judge motives or the eternal destiny of someone into “everyone has their own truth,” and that corruption comes from Relativism.

When you get right down to it, every law on the book is based on whether or not something is right or wrong.  However, laws that protect evils such as abortion came into play because the legal system embraced moral relativism. In charity, without a scintilla of compromise, we must be mindful that some people find themselves in a truly frightening place. They see society is all but crumbling in front of our faces.  So, as citizens we have to look at how philosophical relativism is impacting society and politics regarding our rights and conscience as Catholics under the founding documents of the United States.  In principle, the same would apply to all men of all nations because our rights come from God, even if not recognized by various governments.

We are faced with a call of responsible citizenship, so how are we to go about being good citizens guided by the Natural Moral Law conscience inherent in us, and with a Catholic conscience at the same time?  How are Catholics to vote on major non-negotiable issues in Catholic teaching, issues such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriage, redefining marriage, and all those things on which we simply cannot negotiate as Catholics? 

We also have issues such as infant stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, and other forms of genetic experimentation that threatens human life that are being looked at through the lens of Relativism. There is simply no room for any compromise on these issues in the Catholic heart and mind, so we must first lay out the case as to how we are to live as good citizens and as Catholics where there is no conflict between the two.

A distorted understanding of individualism which used to mean self sufficiency has become the hallmark of a relativistic philosophy that legalizes theft of one man’s goods by decree.  Systems are in place where the government is extorting money to pay for things that are abhorrent to the Catholic conscience, such as abortion via organizations like Planned Parenthood, and that is just one instance.

So then, let us consider what we face.  We as Catholics have been confronted in our beliefs directly by various government policies that deal with the question of religious freedom.  This forces us to look at how we are to understand what is non negotiable in light of the pressure being exerted on the Catholic Church.

If you are Catholic, and I mean an authentic Catholic, it is this simple; if you see any politician who advocates positions that are contrary to Church teaching you must cast your vote against them.  You must vote against all that is non-negotiable.  Why?  To support them with your vote puts them into office where they implement policy opposed to church teaching.  This makes you as a voter party to the evil the elected official perpetrates in society and against the church.  You would be an accomplice to evil.  If there are two candidates who advocate something non-negotiable you must vote for the greater good, meaning you must vote for the one who advocates a more moral society and will perpetrate less evil.

We must also look at the question of religious freedom in light of Catholic teaching which means we have to consider whether a candidate or a political party threatens religious freedom.

Let us first go directly to Catholic teaching rather than the political considerations and all the attendant ramifications.

Consider two letters put out by the Bishop’s Council and committees that represent the National Bishop’s Council.

In light of the HHS mandate we have to ask what is behind these attacks on the Catholic Church, and where do these attacks come from?  What is the goal of these attacks on the Church?

The goal of political secular relativists is to make religion “private in practice,” not just in theory.  They have bombarded citizens of America with the mantra that religion should be kept private.  Those at war with the church want to make that “ipso facto,” and they will not rest until they succeed, if they can.  They want to convince us, indeed force us, to think that our religion is to be a private matter.  Pope Benedict XVI warned us about this.  In fact, he talked about grave threats that come from this pressure being put on the church.  Speaking to the Catholic Bishops, Pope Benedict said:

“It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threat to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.”

 He also said:

“The seriousness of these threats needs to be appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.”

Interestingly, the Holy Father wrote this the day before the current administration came out with the HHS mandate.

The Holy Father said:

“Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices.”

Catholics will now be forced to pay for intrinsically evil practices such as abortion, euthanasia, contraception (which often acts as an abortifacient), sterilization, and other forms of birth control.  To deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions is not only a terrible injustice, it is an attempt to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for the freedom of conscience.

This is a huge issue for Catholics.  Indeed, this is why the Holy Father, after speaking with the Bishops, turned to them and said,

“Get to work with your people.  You are not going to resolve this alone.”

The Holy Father also said this,

“Here once more we see the need for an engaged, articulate and well-formed Catholic laity endowed with a strong critical sense vis-à-vis the dominant culture and with the courage to counter a reductive secularism which would delegitimize the Church’s participation in public debate about the issues which are determining the future of American society.”

In other words, the real threat from the HHS mandate is for the government to deal with the Church in such a way as to make sure the Church and churchmen do not have a public voice.  In a very real sense the government would have us neutered and make us eunuchs for the kingdom of Hell on earth, i.e., Relativism.  The HHS mandate has made the Church ineffective in law to influence morals and standards of life in a country where Christianity represents the majority of the people.

We must therefore look at what is behind the present evil and we will find the culprit known as “reductive secularism.”  It means the church and religion have no place in society.  It is a movement with a root system of Relativism, and we have to be on guard against it creeping into our own lives.  In a real sense we Catholics are called to be the guardians of society at large.

So let us look closer at “reductive secularism.”  What does it mean?  Secular means “of the world,” by definition it is non-religious.  Those who buy into secularism want to live only by what is measurable according to the scientific method in life, only what can be gathered by our experience and nothing that has to do with faith, revelation, or God.  “Secular” is everything that belongs to us, everything that is man made, everything that we can control, see, and measure. We see that secular humanism which has been developing for many years is rooted in modernism. Secularism is an entire ideological movement that would replace God with man. No matter how you cut it, that is the bottom line, and it is rooted in Relativism.

In secularism man defines himself thinking he has no need for God. To his mind God is merely an artifact who gets in the way of man who is content in his self-sufficiency because in Relativism man thinks he is God.

What then is “Reductive secularism”? Everything is reduced to what is human and everything is a human construct. Societal function is reduced to a man made product at the hands of self made men.  Even faith and religion are to be reduced to a man made product which renders it utilitarian while gutting its essence.  One might want to read “Lord of the World” by Msgr. Hugh Benson recommended by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis to consider what “Utility of Religion” means.

To the secularist, religion is the invention of human imagination because man is the center, man explains everything; man is “all knowing.”  That is the implication of secular humanism. Leave God undefined so that man defines God, man is god. Anything that can be known, man knows.  To the secular man God cannot be known so faith and religion does not fit into his world view.  If you reduce something to only one element that one element is the dominant element. That element explains everything and everything comes from and finishes with that element.  In the end it is absolute relativism which is a full manifestation of Relativism as Religion at work in every strata of life in our society today.

For Catholicism, which is Christianity in its fullness, everything is reduced to the Word of God through whom God made the universe, and through whom God is saving mankind.  Our life, our faith can be reduced to the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in short, to the Apostles Creed.  The secular man tosses it all out, he will have none of it, and in fact, he reduces every man to the “ism” of secular humanism.

We need to look at a couple of other “isms” started by men such as Freud.  He reduced everything to sexual instincts where people have perverted sexual experiences early on in life that explain all psychological problems.

Marx brings about Marxism which reduced everything to collectivism claiming that man is a part of the state, and if you don’t think the objectives of Marx are at work in the United States consider this video from the Democratic National Convention where we are told “The government is the only thing we all belong to.”

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/05/dnc-video-government-is-the-only-thing-we-all-belong-to/

Considering that Marxism is alive and well and at work in many politicians we must remember it was Karl Marx who said the state is the ultimate reality.  That is why he said “religion is the opiate of the people.” Do you not hear that echo in politics today?  Are you listening? And behind the deceiving “gentle smiles” and the big, disrespectful sneering smiles of white iron teeth during a political debate you will find the attempt to reduce religion to utility by statesmen.  They retreat from their moral obligations and hide behind the “relativistic religion of the State” which is the religion of secular humanism claiming they cannot impose their moral views on others.  If their moral views were in line with reality, in line with the Declaration of Independence at a minimum, there would be no conflict.  We have an obligation by way of argument as responsible citizens to stop liberals from making the charge that we are bringing religion into the discussion when we maintain the laws of morality that are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence itself.

The basic point is to say that secularism comes from the philosophical rejection of something that we all know.  It is the rejection of the fact that you can know objective truth with certainty.  Secularists have decided that no one is allowed to say that man can know objective truth, except that “objective truth” of course.  They always love to allow exceptions for themselves which bespeaks their arrogance.  From the beginning of time until the day of the secularist it was universally known that knowledge of objective truth is natural to human understanding. As an example, we know the Greeks celebrated the discovery of an absolute in Math for up to two weeks.

Secularists, however, are merely men full of themselves.  They are small minded men who decided to push their ideas in a more serious way through modernism which came about from rejecting God.  This produced a wanting world steeped in sin and guilt, yet unwilling to repent.  Men like DesCarte, Kant, Hegel, and others developed the very destructive and quite insane view that truth originates within man, and not outside of man.  If you consider the modernistic re-evaluation of how we know things, if truth begins and ends in man subjectively, how can you know that your truth is the same as my truth?  The secularist, therefore, says we can no longer go about saying there is just “one truth.”

Modernists’ craft a society in which each man is to live in his own bubble, but this does not make for fraternal unity, it makes for a bludgeoning.  Consider what the societal prison they create really means for themselves and others.  If you are to live in your own little isolated world view and you want to know reality around you, reality itself becomes an obstacle for you in your own little mental prison you have constructed.  All reality outside of your delusion, and all the people outside of your “splendid isolation,” can be known to you only according to your “subjective truth.”  You are not willing to break outside of your little prison because your ego defines truth.  Outside of your ego prison someone else has their own little mental ego prison where they get to define truth, so you are cut off from each other.  The result is something we refer to as “solipsism” which is from two Latin words, “soli” and “psism,” it means “yourself” and “alone.”  That is the sad and sinister reality of Relativism, and that is what we have come to in this country and beyond.

Pope Benedict XVI said something in the homily he gave when all of the cardinals were going into the conclave just before he was elected pope which was an extraordinary statement.  He had no idea at this point that he was going to be elected pope.  He said:

“How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades?  How many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking?”

He was talking about all the “isms.”

“The small boat of thought, the thought of many Christians, has often been tossed about by these waves from one extreme to another, from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14).”

To summarize, all these “isms,” including “Protestant-ism,” are different ways to manipulate thought.  It is to manipulate peoples’ way of thinking to create new trends, new groups, and new religions.

The Holy Father goes on to say,

"Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a Fundamentalism, whereas relativism - is letting oneself be tossed and "swept along by every wind of teaching."

That is an outright condemnation of religious relativism found in the concept that the Bible is the only authority, namely, Sola Scriptura.

Consider what relativism is actually saying to you, “Your truth is relative to you, my truth is relative to me, and there is no absolute truth outside of us that we can know.” That is Relativism, and the Holy Father says by letting oneself be tossed here and there by every wind of doctrine, each person defines one understanding of “church” over here, another person another way over there. One person interprets scripture one way and the other person another way. That is in fact why we have over 40,000 different Christian denominations, and it goes further than that. 

As many people as there are in the tens of thousands of denominations, each person is potentially another denomination because what they hold themselves bound to in belief today they are free to reject tomorrow because they accept no authority outside of Scripture as the measure of “them.”  They are the ones who actually attack the Bible because they have embraced reductionist relativism at the core of their attempts to understand Scripture correctly, definitively, and with authority which they can never do.  

This is about authentic Christianity, and there has never been the debate we need to have about the influence of Relativism inherent in Protestantism in this country which has opened to door to Relativism in politics and in law.  This is why we never became a solid a Christian nation under God, and we are witnessing that fact because Christendom in the United States is had died.  There are Christians, of course, but the government has shut down all principles that recognize what comes from God.

The secular man rejects authority outside of himself which is directly related to Protestantism, and this has had great influence in the history of the United States.  The very nature of Protestantism is reductionist relativism at its core where “spirituality” based on the principle of Sola Scriptura ultimately reduces Christianity to agnosticism in which nothing of faith can be known with certainty. The proof for this fact is evidenced in the tens of thousands of Christian denominations bickering with each other over who is right using the very same text in Scripture.  For each and every claim any one of them makes as to why they are right, the other Protestant can make the same claim, but in the end division remains, all to the detriment of our culture and Christianity.  The problem of Protestantism will be examined in more detail when we consider a “true rule of faith,” but ultimately, Protestantism goes beyond agnosticism, and it is atheistic in its nature as noted by Pope St. Pius X in his famous encyclical “Pascendi Dominci Gregis.”

Speaking of modern man the Pope Benedict XVI said of Relativism,

“… Looks like the only attitude which is acceptable in today's standards.”

What an interesting statement!  Relativism is the only acceptable attitude in modern times, the only attitude that can cope with modern times.  So let us look at what that means for Catholics.

If you are not speaking, acting, and behaving according to Relativism which is now the only acceptable manner of “being accepted” you are not going to get along with many people in the world.  The secularists’ insist that everyone needs to be free to live according to their piccalillis, but Pope Benedict told us this:

“We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.”

Why is that?  Because if you are in your own little world what is your objective in life, what becomes of your life?  It is “only” and “lonely” to satisfy yourself.  In fact, the real genesis of this is much deeper, so let us see if we can capture it.

Our countrymen are telling us that we are individuals, and as such each one of us has to seek our own happiness and define for ourselves what happiness is for us.  So, the church is not about to impose the perfect idea of happiness on anyone, but what the church will do is reveal certain truths that will help us all find our own path (not our own subjective truth), but the right kind of path to happiness.  Isn’t it interesting that in the end it all comes down to authority?

The Holy Father is telling us to wake up and be careful because this secular world wants to cut us off from God.  Secularism cuts us off from authority and in so doing it cuts us off from each other.

The founding fathers would turn over in their graves if they saw that freedom of religion in the 1st amendment was now being used against basic family morals and decency in what was meant to be a moral civilization.  The fact is there is no such thing as private sin.  Whenever we sin everyone is affected because the sin and its effects are in fact communicated to others either directly or indirectly.  It’s the nature of sin.

Naturally speaking, man does not want to live alone, but in our day many men lack the courage to live according to dogma because dogma has a connection to revealed truth, and there is a cowardly and nefarious instigation that wants to redefine the Natural Law to be Religion so you have neither Natural Law nor Religion, but a forgery of both as a weapon of utility.

The Declaration of Independence states,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

We need to note something very important at this point.  The Declaration does not state: “We hold these truths to be self-evident according to a religious creed, an interpretation of a religious creed, or according to any claim of revealed truth.” Therefore, the Declaration does not establish our unalienable rights according to a particular religious creed.

In fact, the Declaration speaks of self-evident truths which stand on their own and inform us directly of what they are without the need of our free will to assent to their being to make them what they are, and they do so without respect to any religious creed.  Self-evident truths simply are what they are.  They are self-evident.

The Declaration also speaks of the ‘Creator’ as a self-evident fact through what has been created, and the rights that we are endowed with from the Creator without respect to any religious creed.

As long as there is no injection or projection of a religious association onto the use of the title “Creator” as stated in the Declaration itself, or the name of “God,”  it is impossible to make the charge that anyone who speaks of morality as enshrined in the Declaration is bringing religion into the discussion.  It is also true that God and the Creator are one and the same because only God can be the creator and only the creator can be God as a self-evident fact.  This simple self-evident fact is recognized in the Declaration of Independence, a fact that does not depend upon, and has no association to any particular religious creed.

Furthermore, the government has an obligation to recognize the Creator as does the Declaration without respect to Creed. If this were not the case the Declaration of Independence would itself be a violation of the establishment clause and the separation of church and state because it speaks of God as the Creator as a self-evident truth without appealing to any religious creed.  The goal of the Secularist is to convince people that to speak of the “Creator” or “God” is anathema to jurisprudence and our way of life.  To acknowledge the fact of God is not to speak about religion, so there is no violation of the separation of Church and State and the Establishment Clause.  The “fact” of God known by means of Natural Theology in the light of “reason” alone is acknowledged by the Declaration.  You would have to dispense of reason itself to satisfy the secularist, but that would be to yield to a lunatic for the sake of relativists who are trying to make “Natural Knowledge of the fact of God” to be that of authentic Revelation which it is not.

So when we hear groups like the ACLU lay out their straw man argument by claiming the recognition of the Creator or God in law and in public life is a violation of the separation of Church and State and the Establishment Clause do not be fooled. The motives, tactics, and agenda of the ACLU, atheists, and other such parasites leeching off the principle of free speech become evident when they try to associate religion with the use of the word “Creator.”  The anti-God crowd does this in an attempt to shut down free speech in public life and to prohibit the government from acknowledging its obligation in law to recognize the Creator. The secular relativists are plundering our rights as citizens of the United States, and they have contempt for the obligation of government to acknowledge the first principle of our Constitutional Republic which is to acknowledge God. Their straw man argument needs to be shut down once and for all because it is bitter to the soul of this nation.

What brought about the false argument which says to acknowledge God violates the Establishment Clause and the separation of Church and State? There are many reasons, but we can look at the primary cause which is a failure to recognize the distinction between the Natural Law conscience and a conscience formed by a religious creed.

As we have seen, the Natural Law defines the parameters of our conscience, and is enshrined in a fundamental way in the Declaration of Independence which are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This Natural Law morality is completely independent from any morality based upon a particular religious perspective or creed.  We simply must not let the relativists claim Natural Law morality is religious morality, because it is not dependent upon authentic revelation.

Man has an obligation to Natural Law morality which is the basis of our judicial system. The Natural Law conscience and the conscience formed by a religious perspective are as objectively different in nature as oil and water which do not mix, though one may confirm the other.  The failure to make this distinction has served the secularists well as the catalyst to put forward the prejudiced argument which says all morality is religious morality.  They argue that all morality must be kept out of politics if we are not to violate the establishment clause and the separation of Church and State, and we can demonstrate their tactic.

Take the issue of abortion.  A person cannot be accused of being pro-life because they are religious. The pro-life person can argue their position without appealing to their religious conscience by saying "No, I have a Natural Law conscience and a conscience formed by my faith, but I am appealing to my Natural Law conscience for my pro-life position.”  The pro-life person is appealing directly to the right to life expounded as a self-evident truth enshrined in the Declaration of Independence itself.  Therefore, no one can accuse the pro-life person of trying to impose a religious moral perspective regarding life issues on anyone.

By trying to identify all morality as being associated with some religious perspective, groups like the ACLU have been able to attack Natural Law Morality with impunity, all for the purpose of creating a vacuum of moral relativism which attacks Natural Law morality enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.  We hear the straw-man cry from groups like the ACLU, and the atheists, that the mere mention of God at events such as high school graduations is a violation of the Establishment Clause and the separation of church and state.

The Declaration of Independence gave birth to the Constitution and the States ratified the Declaration as the spirit of constitutional jurisprudence.  Groups like the ACLU should not be allowed to use the Constitution to shut down our unalienable rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence for the purpose of shutting down religion in this country. It is time the folly of the ACLU and the atheists be exposed for what it is.

By trying to identify all morality as being associated with some religious perspective they intend to achieve an absolute independence from Natural Moral Law as they reject God in all temporal affairs of societal life.  With their prejudiced reading of the Declaration of Independence they intend to take over God’s role for the purpose not so much of opposing religion, but to annihilate religion all together. They are the ones who fail to respect the proper boundaries of the Establishment Clause; they are the ones who fail to respect a proper understanding of the separation of Church and State which forbids the State from establishing the religion of Secular Humanism for jurisprudence. 

One could make a solid argument that a Catholic Monarchy would be better if led by a Saint.  For example, there is a debate over whether or not pornography is constitutionally protected as free speech.  Those of the “Enlightenment” (so-called) appeal to the silence of the Constitution which could appear to be ambiguous on the matter.  In one way that is an unfair assessment.  It is like saying a ladder manufacturer must have a safety label that warns of every conceivable danger known to man. One ladder manufacturer was in fact sued because a man put a ladder on frozen manure when he climbed atop his barn.  The sun softened the manure while he was on the roof and when he came down the ladder sunk into the manure and he fell and hurt himself.  He sued the ladder manufacturer and was awarded $350,000 because the ladder did not have a label warning against that danger. The Declaration and the Constitution spell out the fundamentals, like the ladder manufacturer, but every possible thing one could say about Natural Law Morality could not fit on a founding document.  Nor could the Founding Fathers ever think that man would be so reduced in morality that he would be able to bring litigation against the fundamental rights enshrined in our founding documents.  This is one of the reasons why abortion is protected by the law of relativists. 

This abuse is not limited to one party or another; they have essentially become the same in the Hegelian Dialectic, creating polarities which purpose is to get the masses to embrace the middle ground which was the incremental objective to begin with.  In the end that so-called middle ground becomes Relativism.   But we must deal the best we can to preserve what is good and decent in the society we were born into.

†

Protestantism, the Ultimate Form of Religious Relativism

The Inside and Outside of the Cup

Truth is its own reward.  If you are a lover of truth you would likely be without guile which means truth is not offensive to you.  St. John said,

“Then you will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

If, on the other hand, you find truth to be offensive and do not yield to it you will become a relativist and attempt to create a subjective philosophy for your own religion.  Authentic religion can only be authentic if it is united to authentic revelation and objective authority that springs from Christ.

There are only 2 possible views of Christianity; the Catholic Church and then all the rest. Outside of Catholicism you have Sola Scriptura (the Scripture alone) which is the Protestant belief that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.  Protestants believe they are guided in all truth by the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible.  So let us first look at the belief that the Bible is the sole authority.

In order to demonstrate the inherent contradiction within the concept of Sola Scriptura, imagine that a Catholic walks into a room where there are 12 Protestants sitting around a table.   The Catholic places a Bible on the table and says,

“Here is a Bible.  There is no Easy Bible Button on the cover to push where the Holy Spirit will come out from Bible like a genie and tell us what each verse in Scripture definitively means.  Nor are there any words coming from it that anyone can hear.  And unless someone opens it up to read it the text will not be known.”

The Catholic then puts down the gauntlet and says,

“The 12 of you believe Bible is the sole authority for doctrine and practice, and the 12 of you represent the literal tens of thousands of Christian denominations who believe there is no authority outside of the Bible just as you believe.  Now, it does not matter if you call yourself a Protestant or a non-denominationalist, you all believe in the concept of Sola Scriptura.  Furthermore, every one of you believes the Holy Spirit will guide you in all truth when you read and study the Bible.”

The Catholic would then select any text from Scripture and ask the first Protestant to read it out loud, and when done that person is to tell everyone in the room what the text definitively means.  It is now the turn of the person to his left to read the same verse, and in turn he gets to tell everyone in the room what the text definitively means, and so on down the line for every Protestant sitting at the table.

When each Protestant is done telling the other Protestants what the verse definitively means there will be arguments and tension, each telling the other they got it wrong. And the evidence for this fact is seen in the 10’s of thousands Christian denominations.

The Catholic then says to the Protestant who read first,

“You claim that you interpreted the text correctly, and that if everyone else would just agree with you then everything would be okay, there would be no arguments because you were guided by the Holy Spirit in your understanding of the text. But the person next to you makes the identical claim, that if you would just agree with him all would be okay because he was guided by the Holy Spirit for a correct understanding of the text.

“Then all the rest of you joined in with the same claim and start bickering over the same text and authority.  Since none of you can point to an authority “outside” of the Bible to confirm and ratify as “fact” that you are guided by the Holy Spirit, then you must allow those who disagree with you to make the same claim of authority because they too claim they were guided by the Holy Spirit in all truth.  Now stop and take a good look at what all of you are doing!  Look at the absurdity and insanity of Protestantism once and for all. Each of you believes the Bible is the sole authority, each of you believes you are guided in all truth by the Holy Spirit. Which of you has the truth about the text and the authority to say your view is absolute and final?” 

One can almost hear the fidgeting and toe tapping under the table at their dilemma.  The Catholic then says to them,

“In your debate and bickering each of you claimed that you have rightly divided the word of God, and that you have put on the mind of Christ, and that the Bible is clear and speaks for itself, that verse supports verse, that you used the proper hermeneutical tools, and so forth.  But for all the reasons and excuses each of you makes as to why you are right, the other Protestant can make the identical claim, and in the end none of you can point to an authority outside of the Bible to prove you are right, or that the Holy Spirit in fact guided you in your interpretation of the text.  You can go no further to support your claim that you are correct.  You will end up in the same place.”

The Catholic continues and says,

“Look closer at what you are doing! In claiming that you are guided by the Holy Spirit each of you are claiming, as a fact, that your interpretation of the text is not an opinion.  You just finished saying that you are guided in all “truth” by the Holy Spirit.  And since truth is objective in its nature and free from error, you are in fact claiming to speak infallibly as an oracle of the Holy Spirit the truths you claim are contained in Scripture.  But here is the fact.  Not only are you unable to point to an authority outside of the Bible to show you are right in your interpretation of the text, but your claim reveals the hypocrisy within you because that is the very thing you reject in the Papacy.  You reject the claim that one man can speak infallibly for everyone else when you speak of the Pope, but not when it comes to you.  You are in fact trying to be the Pope.

“Even the Pope would forthrightly admit not everything that he says is infallible.  He would, without hesitation, acknowledge there are certain conditions he must meet to be assured the Holy Spirit is infallibly guiding him in what he teaches.  But you Protestants think you can just pick up a Bible and you are infallible whenever you open your mouth.

“Not only that, lacking any objective authority outside of the Bible, and your subjective claim that you are correct in the way you understand Scripture, it is impossible for any of you to know if you are right or wrong about anything, or when you are right or wrong about anything.  Some of you even claim miracles as confirmation of your proclamations, but there are many of you who make the same claim of miracles who still bitterly disagree with each other over the same text.  So that does not resolve the question as to how you ever know when you are right or wrong about anything in Scripture.

“None of you has any certainty about anything. In fact, you have just reduced Christianity to Agnosticism in terms of an objective understanding of Scripture. Agnostics make no claim to know with any certainty whether or not God exists.  Protestants make claims for God, but you can never know with any certainty if what you interpret Scripture to mean actually comes from God.   You can never know if you are objectively correct in your reading of the text.  And that is because Sola Scriptura denies an objective authority exists outside of the Bible to have a definitive and proper understanding of Scripture in relation to God.”

Continuing, the Catholic says,

“St. Peter talks about the “gift of reason” when he says “Be ready with a reason for the hope within you” (1st Peter 3:15), so here is the simple fact.  The gift of “reason” and our ability to recognize the principle of non-contradiction is evidence for the FACT that you cannot all be right!  Reason now tells you that you have an obligation in conscience and before God to reject Sola Scriptura because the principle of Sola Scriptura refuses to recognize the principle of non-contradiction which says you all cannot be right.

 “Nor can you make the claim that all Christians believe the same thing when it comes to the essentials.  You differ even when it comes to the Person of Jesus Christ over who and what He is.  There are Protestants who read Scripture and say Jesus is the Son of God; others say He is the Son of God but not God by nature. Others say He is the first Son of God, but we are all sons of God.  Some say He is a perfect human person, others say He is not a human person.  Others say He is a human person and a divine person, and others say He is a divine person and his body is a phantasm, and so forth, and they all claim they are guided by the Holy Spirit in all “truth” when they read Scripture.”

So, the Problem for Protestants is that they turn away from the fact that they cannot all be correct in their differences.  Nor can they make an objective case as to why they are right, and why all who disagree with them are wrong.  If you turn away from a fact and pretend you have no obligation to the truth contained in the fact you have turned away from reality, and this is precisely where Relativism enters into Protestantism as a delusion about how to properly understand Scripture.

Protestants first turn from reason and become an intellectual relativist which creates a delusion by which they now live.  They take their delusion and turn it into a subjective philosophy and apply it to “faith” which adds to their delusion.  And because there is no way for them to objectively interpret Scripture their delusion shows up in the claim that they are guided by the Holy Spirit in all truth when they read Scripture.  And when they battle over interpreting Scripture it all becomes very tiresome because they will not hear or see the contradiction inherent in Sola Scriptura that brought all of them to such a dilemma.  So what is their solution? Start your own denomination where you can play a Pastor Pope. They have carried their delusion which is rooted in Relativism into religion which gives birth to “Relativism as Religion.”   Satan has a field day with pride and Protestantism just like he had with Adam and Eve when they protested in their pride rooted in Relativism.  Protestantism is a replication of the fall of man.

There are also those who make the assumption that since Protestants make some of the same claims about Christianity that are made by Catholics that Sola Scriptura, therefore, must have some validity.  While it is true that the Grace of God is operating to move Protestants to the fullness of Christianity found in the Catholic Church, the light they have proceeds from the Grace of the Church, not from Sola Scriptura.  But there is an interior difference in disposition between Protestantism and Catholicism even when the same claims are made externally.  The difference can be seen in the Scriptural verse which says,

“"You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?” (Luke 11:40)

A Catholic has an interior disposition, like the inside of the cup, which assents to the cup being filled up with the definitive teachings of the Church because it is Christ himself teaching through HIS Church (Matthew 16:18).  Protestants lack that interior disposition so what they hold by way of belief today is subject to change tomorrow, and they “Church hop” just like they “Bible pop” which shows the constant state of flux in their belief lacks certainty.  So, even though a Protestant may say the same thing on the outside of the cup, it does not spring from the necessary internal disposition of assent to Christ through His Church.

We can even see “Protestant”ism in the Jewish camp.  Moses had to deal with religious relativists in his day when his own brother and sister, Miriam and Aaron, rose up in rebellion against him, the one man chosen by God to lead his people.  Moses was a typology of the Papacy, but Miriam cried out against him saying,

“Who is Moses that he speaks for us all, don’t we all have a voice?”

God would deal with her for that, but look first at what she tried to do.  She claimed she could speak for God not only with authority, but authority equal to Moses even though she was not commissioned by God to do so.  She claimed the Spirit of God to speak for God because Moses spoke with the Spirit of God, and she claimed Revelation from God, and the ability to interpret what God said equal to Moses.

Furthermore, Miriam tried to inject religious relativism into the Jewish Camp by saying “don’t we all have a voice?”  What becomes of that?  The next person in rebellion says, “Who are Miriam and Moses to speak for us all, I have a voice of authority and the spirit is guiding me too, and I disagree with Moses and Miriam when the Holy Spirit tells me they are wrong.”  And so it continues that way throughout the entire Jewish camp.  We see that same rebellion in the 12 Protestants sitting around a table fighting and bickering with each other over what the Bible definitively teaches.

What did God say to Miriam for her rebellion?  He summoned Moses, Aaron, and Miriam out in front of the meeting tent.  From the pillar of cloud God said to Miriam, “To Moses I speak face to face.  I do not speak face to face to you.  I have chosen Moses, one man to lead my people.  Just who do you think you are?”

Well, there was a consequence for her Protestantism anchored in religious relativism. When God lifted up in the cloud He punished Miriam for attempting to introduce Protestantism into the Jewish Camp.  He left her standing there as a snow white leper, and Moses had to intercede with God that He remove it from her.  And that, by the way, is another Catholic thing; Moses interceded to God in behalf of his sister.

Set us look at what the punishment of Miriam indicates.   Leprosy was the dreaded disease of the time that eats away at the body until death takes place.  By making the entire body of Miriam as a snow white leper it was a sign and a warning of how God sees Protestantism.  He sees it as religious relativism inherent in the nature of Protestantism which gushed forth from Miriam as she invited the entire “body of the Jewish people” in the camp to join her in rebellion.

Sola Scriptura is identical to the cry of Miriam in the desert that would turn the mystical body of Christ into snow white leprosy.  The Miriam cry of rebellion in our day is, “Who is the Pope that he speaks for us all? Don’t we all have a Bible? Do we not all have the Spirit of God to guide us as we speak for him?  Do we not all have the authority and the ability to definitively interpret the Word of God like the Pope?”

God stopped Miriam cold in her tracks to strike fear into the hearts of the people in the Jewish camp as a warning to all generations about the corrupting nature of Religious Relativism.  But the Protestants of our day will not listen, and that is precisely why there are now tens of thousands of Protestant denominations bickering with each other over the identical text in Scripture. The simple, bare faced fact of Sola Scriptura is that it has never worked. It cannot be found anywhere in Scripture as a principle of authority, nor was it ever taught by the Church.  Centuries after the reformation Protestants stand in need of repentance for the damage they have done to the Mystical Body of Christ.

Consider their need for repentance. You can thank Protestantism for abortion that came to this country via the gateway of birth control.

In 1931, the Committee on Home and Marriage of the Federal Council of Churches (an ecumenical body that embraced Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Church of the Brethren denominations) issued a statement defending birth control to allow limiting the size of a family through artificial means, and they urged for the repeal of any law prohibiting contraceptive education and the sale of birth control products.  They were now aligned with Margaret Sanger. 

And on February 23, 1961, The National Council of Churches representing the major Protestant religious denominations came out supporting birth control.  And since then many have been “coming out.”

When we think of freedom we think of Patriots who fought in the cause of Liberty at great expense, but Relativism has squandered all that.  When we think of Catholics we think of those faithful to Church teaching.  Since when did freedom become license to do whatever you wish, whenever you want, regardless of what you want? It was moral relativism that brought about birth control, followed by abortion which became the gateway for all the evils that have flooded our culture.  None of this is freedom, it is enslavement.

†

The Bible

Protestants are fond of speaking about the King James Bible, but King James was no authority of the Church to determine a valid Canon of Scripture, or to interpret it any more than Bill Clinton.  You may as well say you have a Bill Clinton Bible, at least that way you are out in the open admitting you think you get to determine the meaning of whatever IS, IS when interpreting Scripture, so in keeping with Relativism. 

The Bible did not drop down out of the sky on a golden parachute with a booming voice from above that said “This is my beloved Bible; he who reads it and believes will interpret it correctly and be saved.”  Here is a simple fact of reality.  No book can compile itself, let alone declare itself to be inspired text.  It is therefore an indisputable truth that there had to be an authority “outside of the Bible” to compile it to begin with. And if the men who compiled the Bible were not commissioned and infallible in their declaration that the Bible is inspired, it is impossible to know if they included the right Gospels, Letters, and Epistles in the Bible that you hold and claim to be the Word of God.  In short, we are dependent upon men commissioned by God to even know the text is inspired to begin with, and the historical fact is that the Bible came from the Catholic Church.  If you reject the Catholic Church you have rejected the Bible itself because the Bible is a Catholic book.  It is an indisputable fact that the same authority “outside of the Bible” that gave us the Bible to begin with is the Catholic Church.

It was the Catholic Church that compiled only what it deemed inspired and necessary for the Bible.  And this took place at the Council of Rome in the year 382 AD where Pope St. Damasus 1^st decreed the definitive Canon of Scripture for the entire Church which remained intact for over 11 centuries until the age of the Reformation.  The Pope gave us the definitive Canon of Scripture to have an accurate account of Christ’s life and teaching.  And the authority of the Church that gave us the Bible is the only authority on earth that can definitively interpret Scripture as the custodian of Scripture, a fact that is supported in Scripture itself.

In 1440, German inventor Johannes Gutenberg invented a process to print books that would allow for refinements and increased mechanization in the printing process.   He invented a printing press that had movable typeset. The first printed Bible from this type of printing press was named after him, so it is referred to as the “Gutenberg Bible.”  Most Protestants are not aware that the Gutenberg Bible contained all 73 books of the Catholic canon of Scripture. 

It was printed at Mainz and required several years to finish the process which began in 1452 and was completed by 1455. There were about 180 copies printed in the 1st edition.  It was printed in Latin and it was the standard for printing until modern technology and the age of computers.

What many Protestants fail to realize is that before the Gutenberg printing press Scripture had to be hand written on plain parchment or ornate material by Rabbis and Monks.  But in each case the task was very slow and laborious, and it was very costly to have one made. Protestants nowadays go about telling people the Church did not want the average man to have a copy of the Bible.  The fact is the average man could not afford a Bible.  It is simple economics.  Furthermore, the clergy were the only ones who had enough training and education suited to the task.  But Protestants would soon enough turn this into a conspiracy of opportunity for the Church to manipulate Scripture.

Protestantism is an incredible insult to all the loving care and zeal of these Monks who dedicated their lives to this work.  We are indebted to these Monks, and no one should be excoriating them.  They were holy men doing a holy work for God and His Church, and their work was tedious and very slow.  And given the nature of the task, one can understand that errors did creep in at different times.

Once the Reformation (more properly a deformation) took place, the Reformers, and all Protestants who follow them, are like common thieves on the street robbing someone of their property, and afterwards they go about selling what they stole.  And they capitalized on this with the invention of the Gutenberg press.  With this new invention they could mass produce subjective versions of Scripture in which they could corrupt the text to justify their bad theology.  Even worse than that, they tossed out entire Books from the Bible in spite of the fact that you often hear them say not a word in Scripture can be added, removed, or changed.  There is little attention paid to the fact that relativists do not even have to change or remove a word from the text.  All they have to do is change the meaning of the words in the text and they have done even worse than removing it.

Consider what they do with the Book of Revelation which Televangelists capitalize on to build financial empires selling prophecy and all manner of corruption.  The Book of Revelation would not have been in the Bible to begin with if Pope Damasus did not insist it was the inspired Word of God. How many Protestants are aware of that fact? How many Protestants are aware that Martin Luther rejected the Book of Revelation for 15 years?

Many would be shocked to know that Luther originally rejected four books from the New Testament in 1522.  From Martin Luther’s Bible, in his preface to the Book of Revelation which he translated, he writes,

“About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic …… I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. (Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932, copyrighted by the United Lutheran Church in America, tr. C.M. Jacobs, 488-489).

This is truly amazing. If a person in our day anonymously penned what Luther wrote and presented it to Protestants they would call such a person an anti-Christ and in league with Satan. They might even call such a person Satan himself.  How shocking it would be for them to realize these are the words of Luther, the father of the reformation.

Here is another fact about Martin Luther and Scripture.  In 1522 he wrote the preface to the book of James.  Luther held that it contradicts “the truth” because it teaches falsehood about the merit of Works.  He held it could not be inspired nor Apostolic.

Here is what he said,

“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow in the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son … This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.” (Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932, copyrighted by the United Lutheran Church in America, tr. C.M. Jacobs).

Luther’s reference to the ancients must also be considered in light of the fact that he aligned himself with the Rabbis of Jamnia to toss out seven books from the Canon of Scripture as did the Rabbis who rejected books in the Septuagint because they proved the Divinity of Christ.  Not only does Luther reject what James said, he is clearly saying the Apostle was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Where does this leave Protestants who are unaware of facts such as these? There are Protestants who follow the tenets of Luther without knowing the history of what he did to the Bible and the errors in his theology. They are simply unaware of these matters, and it drives many Protestants to reject the Catholic Church without reason.

No excuse can do away with the fact that Luther removed these Books.  Nor can any excuse can do away with the implications of what Luther’s actions meant.  He was in great error when he removed the books, and it is evidence that Martin Luther was not infallible.  And the claim that the Reformation was needed to correct how many books should be in the Bible is without foundation.  He wanted to change theology, period. And his error inherent in the concept of “Sola Scriptura” flows into the Reformation itself.

Then consider that there are 200,000 variations of Scripture in available Manuscripts, and that there are over 35,000 verses in Scripture.  Is anyone surprised that errors would creep in?  Consider all the possible ways that various corruptions, unintentional and otherwise, could have been introduced into the many variations of Scripture.  We know that Martin Luther introduced changes, but he is not alone.  Once he started, others changed Scripture to suit their own perfidious doctrines.

And you have the misguided scribe with good intentions who felt he was improving an older version by leaving out, or adding a word here and there, to make a verse more understandable. 

For the most part, variations were unintended, and many things can account for this.   You have the human element of someone being sleepy and simply missing a word, even an entire sentence.  Something or someone might have interrupted his work, or maybe the Monk did not have good eyesight.  He may not have known the proper way to make divisions in what he was copying, especially if he was working with the old Uncials that had no stops, divisions, or pauses between words and sentences.  He may have been scribing for someone who was dictating and misunderstood what was said, thereby introducing an incorrect word or phrase.

And then you have the “glosses” which were notes written on the margins of the parchment by a previous scribe who had intended to provide explanations of verses. Without doubt, some of these crept into variations of Scripture and corrupted them. 

Many people assume that the scribes were translating from an English version of Scripture to make a new English version of Scripture, but the translations had to be made from the Greek and Hebrew into English for us to understand it in our own tongue.  Consider how impossible all of this is without the Church.  If it were not for the Church there would be no such thing as a Canon of Scripture for both the Old and New Testament.  It is indisputable that there are thousands upon thousands of old Biblical manuscripts written before the days of the printing press that have multiple errors in them.

God never promised every scribe who copied Scripture to be inerrant.  There is no guarantee that the scribe was not heretical, or inadequate for the task at hand.  Which version among these many thousands is the one free from error?  Can a Protestant be certain that what they profess as the Bible contains only the exact words which came from the original text?  Are they certain that no error crept into their version?  Can the Protestants point to a Hebrew, Greek, or Latin version of Scripture that is not tainted with errors since we know the same problems crept into versions written in these languages as well?  Without the Catholic Church there is no correct version or understanding of Scripture.

As one example of many, according to the manuscripts (copies) which still exist, the Gospel of Mark has four different endings. 

1^st – The short ending includes verses 1-8 of Chapter 16.

2^nd – The intermediate ending has between 2 and 3 lines of text between verse 8.

3^rd – The longer ending which includes 1-8 and in addition it has verses 9-20.

4^th – The longest ending has several verses after verse 14.

Since we don’t have the originals, let the Protestants attempt to determine which one is the authentic, inspired ending to Marks’ Gospel. They will not be able to determine where Marks’ Gospel authentically ends from the Bible itself.  And this means anytime a publisher prints a Bible he is violating the principle of Sola Scriptura because the printer will never know if they are adding to, or subtracting from, the original text of Marks’s manuscript which no longer exists to confirm.  Since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura depends in its entirety upon having the entire Word of God present in the Bible this renders Sola Scriptura an impossible concept.  In fact, any attempt to determine the correct ending must be done by an authority “outside” of the Bible, so now the Protestant must go against their own claim that the Bible is the Sole Authority in all matters Christian.  An authority outside of Scripture is the very thing that Protestants reject in Catholicism.

Furthermore, Protestants cannot claim the explanatory notes for each possible ending are inspired because they are not part of the Word of God.  They are simply commentary that comes from outside the Bible which Sola Scriptura does not allow.

Only the official Canon of Scripture of the Catholic Church is free from error because the Catholic Church is the very authority that put the Bible together. 

It is difficult to imagine anything more ludicrous than the Protestant position on Scripture.  We are indebted and able to proclaim what the Church preached yesterday is the same as it is today and tomorrow. In fact, Scripture is a cause of division without the Catholic Church.  It is to the Church alone that we are indebted for having clear and definitive teaching in matters doctrines, dogmas, and morals.

Another curious problem for Protestants which is so ironic is that Protestants make the claim if something is not clearly supported by Scripture it cannot be true or infallible.  According to that logic, if they cannot produce a single verse in Scripture that shows us the inspired table of contents for the books that were supposed to go into the Bible to begin with, they cannot know or claim the Bible has the right books.  Therefore, they must reject the Bible because there is nothing in the Bible which tells us which books were supposed to be included in the Bible.

In short, it does not matter what version of Scripture to which anyone refers, because in the end Relativists always want to subjectively interpret Scripture to their own end.  When they are faced with the facts about the necessity of the Catholic Church to understand Scripture correctly they seek to digress into the world of “feelings” which is the “modernist’s” way of doing things. So in this regard the names Protestant and Modernist are one and the same, and their efforts have taken us to a new low in Relativism that goes beyond the borders of Christianity.

†

Reason or Feelings

When faced with the absurdity of contradiction, Modern Relativists (Protestants) conclude that every “religious experience,” every “religious feeling” in any religion becomes a “valid religious experience” simply because man is alive.  And he concludes that all “religious experiences and feelings” are valid “living religions” in spite of the fact that living men reject God and the Catholic Church. 

And due to the fact that feelings are always changing, the Modernist/Protestant will conclude that “faith” is always changing and therefore, forever evolving, as we shall see.  This is religious relativism with the face of “feelings.”

The Modernist will then tell us that a “necessary ray of light” should be shined upon the “feeling of Religious Sentimentality.” Religious relativism now appeals to the sentiment so that “God may be discovered in the midst of the religious feelings” and that “God” is revealing himself to them in their feelings, apart from the intellect where they shut down the facts about the Catholic Church.  And they tell us the task of the intellect is to make the distinction that only after God reveals himself through our feelings and sentiment that the “office” of the intellect is to reflect upon the “religious feeling” and analyze it.

So, in the mind of the Protestant, these formulas (interpretations) therefore unite the believer to his faith.  But in reality, when it comes to the matter of “faith,” his interpretations of his own “religious feelings” are “inadequate expressions” about the “object of his faith” which traps him in Relativism.  He cannot define an objective view of faith in reality.  All he can say is that he has “religious feelings.”  And the reason his interpretations are inadequate is because when he goes to write down his formulas on the chalkboard of “his conscious intellect” he finds out the chalkboard is not solid, but instead is a “vapor” and his hand sinks through it into his “subconscious” where nothing can be written.  And the religious feeling that comes from that vapor cannot write anything on the chalkboard that he can read.  He can only “feel what is written.”

In the end, the Protestant ends up calling the results of his own interpretations “symbols” which are mere instruments he uses to express his own interpretation of his own “religious feelings.”  It is all about him.  Surely, such a person is a most pitiful creature, puffed up in the insecurity that comes from open rebellion to make such foolish claims.

Since the Protestant maintains that is impossible for “symbols” to express absolute truth he then turns and refers to his “symbols” as “images of truth,” and he requires these “images of truth” to conform to his own “Religious Feelings.”  Serving now as “instruments,” these “images of truth” become “vehicles of truth.”  And these “vehicles of truth” in like manner must conform to his “Religious Feelings” which form yet another basis of Religious Relativism.

Now understand, there is one thing the Modernist will embrace as an “absolute,” and that absolute would be “his religious feelings.”  In reality, he has embraced a vapor that cannot serve him.  And that is because the “nature of feelings” is such that they are always changing, from moment to moment, almost in an infinite way.  And this means there is nothing absolute in his belief because there are an infinite amount of different religious feelings that he may have as he passes through different phases of life.  And as a result, this means his “beliefs” change according to the “formula” (interpretation of his feeling) that he chooses to interpret his “religious feeling.”

So, the Modernist concludes that the “formula” which the Church calls Dogmas must therefore be subject to change just like the “Modernist’s formula of religious feelings” allows for change.  Consequently, the formula too, which the Catholic Church calls dogmas, must be subject to these unexpected changes, and everything is to be determined by “Religious Feelings” which are always in a state of flux and change in the wave of Relativism.

And this is the method that many Protestants use to attack the authentic Dogma of the Catholic Church.  They want to make way for what they refer to as “the intrinsic evolution of dogma.” And when we examine the “dogma” and “doctrine” of the Modernists we see an immense collection of clever arguments known as sophisms, but they are always flawed.  They would use “sophisms” as a means to ruin and destroy all religion.

And as a result of this, simply because they are living individuals subject to change, their “religious formulas” (interpretations) must also be subject to change if they are to be “truly religious” and not “mere theological speculation.”  For them, “religious interpretation” must be living and follow “Religious Feelings.”

But the Modernists will then tell us that “formulas” were “made for religious feelings,” especially if they are merely imaginations.

What they are claiming is this: a proper understanding of “formulas” has more to do with where the formula came from rather than the number or the quality of the formulas that Modernists use to interpret their “Religious Feelings.”  For them, the necessary thing to understand is that “religious formulas” should conform to “religious feelings.”  In other words, religious formula should be Religious Relativism.

And this means whenever a Modernist embraces “original religious formulas” to interpret his “religious feelings” he has sanctioned that particular formula in his heart, for the time being. And this means that “secondary formulas of interpretation,” and everything that comes from them, must also proceed under the guidance of whatever the Modernist believer may “feel” within their own heart. So, Relativism begets Relativism.

The Protestant holds the view that “religious formula” must adapt to the “personal faith” of the “believer” because they regard “religious formulas” to be alive in a living person who changes.  This is an absurdity.  It is like saying we cannot objectively know what “fatherhood’ is because we all have different experiences with our father.  But that is to say the subjective experience determines the nature of fatherhood.  Not so!  A man is not a father by virtue of being a man.  There are many men who are not fathers because they do not have children.  The nature of fatherhood is the procession of distinct persons having the same nature.  So, it is erroneous to say that subjective experiences between father and child determine the nature of fatherhood itself.

But Protestants will argue that if the “religious formula” is not allowed to “adapt” (made relative) to the subjective “personal faith” of the “believer” because they regard “religious formulas” to be alive in a living person who changes, then “religious formulas” have lost the value of their “power to interpret religious feelings,” and therefore the believer must change their “original formula” and embrace a new one to interpret the next “religious feeling” they have.  Such is the world of the religious relativists.  Such is the world of Sola Scriptura and the explanation as to why there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations.  This exposes the Relativism present in their subjective interpretation of Scripture yet again.

And since the lot and character of the “religious formulas” that Protestants embrace is so convoluted, it is no wonder that their understanding of “dogmatic formulas” is so corrupted and precarious.  And because they view dogmatic formulas in such a corrupt way it should come to us as no surprise that Protestants regard the Authentic Dogmas of the Catholic Church with such contempt and open disrespect.

But Protestants have the audacity to accuse the Church of taking the wrong road in the matter of Dogma. They accuse the Church of failing to have a proper understanding that distinguishes between what is “religious” and what is “moral.”  And they make this claim accusing the Church of holding to its formula for Dogma while they would have religion fall into ruin.

And anyone who disagrees with the Modernists will be told that any person or religion that holds to false things in any religion is due to the fact there was an “incorrect interpretation of religious feelings” that came about from an “incorrect formula” produced by the “conscious intellect.”

Protestants cannot have it both ways. If religion is determined by the “interpretation” (formula) of “Religious Feelings” that come from the “subconscious” within a person to meet the “conscious intellect” that is waiting to analyze the feeling which is done by producing a formula by which they may interpret the “feeling” that can never be an “absolute,” what, then, gives a Protestant the right to come along at any point and accuse someone of falsely interpreting anything in Scripture when they are using the very tools the Protestant supplied them with to interpret their “feelings”?

Protestants will also try to make excuses for the differences of opinion that exist in their own ranks.  They will tell us that “Religious Feelings” may be more or less perfect, more or less intense, but nevertheless they are all the same in that they are all “Religious Feelings.”  And if the “intellectual formula” is to be true it must respond to and obey the “Religious Feelings” according to the intellectual capacity of the believer.  But Protestants fail to see this does nothing to eliminate the relativism which is inherent in their concept of Religion and what it means to have faith.  Relativism cuts them off from objective faith.

The Modernist views the “Tradition” of the Church as a communication of an original religious experience that occurred within Jesus Christ Himself which then came down to us and evolved over the centuries through “preaching an intellectual formula.”  And Modernists maintain that in addition to the value this “experience represents” there comes a kind of fruitfulness, a kind of suggestion within the “believer” to produce or stimulate “religious feeling” within themselves. They will do this when their “religious feelings” grow sluggish so they can renew their “feeling” they once had to bring it back.  Relativism always disappoints.

They also believe that a person who does not yet believe can become a believer by suggesting, or producing a “religious feeling” within themselves.  And they will, from that point on, be a believer because they know what it is to have a “religious experience,” and that they now know how to keep it alive from that point on once having tasted it.  The “religious experience” is now Relativism in action based on feelings that can be produced.

Modernists will argue that what we know of Christ falls within the category of “phenomena,” but any kind of faith put in Christ would be rooted in fabrications about His life and His person which came about from historical accounts that “transfigured” and “disfigured” what we know of Him.  Therefore, Modernists use “science” to remove anything that would speak of Christ as being divine in His person so that “Religious Feelings” are not connected to any belief in Christ as divine.

This results in people questioning whether or not Jesus Christ actually performed miracles, or that He made real prophecies, or whether He truly rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.  Cardinal Kasper is one such material heretic.  This is what he said,

“The result of all this is that we must describe many of the gospel miracle stories as legendary. Legends of this sort should be examined less for their historical than for their theological content. They say something, not about individual facts of saving history, but about the single saving event which is Jesus Christ. To show that certain miracles cannot be ascribed to the earthly Jesus does not mean that they have no theological or kerygmatic significance…The probability is that we need not take the so-called ‘nature miracles’ as historical.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 90-91)

Tragically, this kind of thinking is not limited to Cardinal Kasper.  Many are beginning to think this way, but this is a reductionist hermeneutic that is underway to undermine the literal miracles of Our Lord.  They are attempting to eliminate the literal in all the miraculous to be understood only as spiritual events.  And there are others alongside of Kasper who even cast doubt on the physical resurrection of Jesus, relegating it to a spiritual event rather than bodily resurrection.

Kasper goes on to say,

 “[Mark 16] begins with a definite improbability. The wish to anoint a dead body, which has already been put in its shroud in the tomb, three days later, is not given any explanation, such as being a custom of the time, and is unintelligible in the climatic conditions of Palestine. The fact that the women do not realize until they are already on the way that they would need help to roll back the stone and enter the tomb betrays a degree of thoughtlessness which is not easy to explain. we must assume therefore that we are faced not with historical details but with stylistic devices intended to attract the attention and raise excitement in the minds of those listening….” (Jesus the Christ, p. 127)

And it is because Modernists have split science and faith in this manner, thereby making them incompatible.  Using this method of Modernists, the agnostic scientist will then say, “No. There were no miracles and prophecies about Christ, they are all myths.”  So then, when it comes to “faith,” Modernists will say there is no conflict between faith and science because they cannot conflict.  This is reductionist relativism as work.

Therefore, God now becomes made in the image of someone’s “Religious Feelings” and He exists only within the realm of what a man can conjure up in his imagination.  Nevertheless, the Modernist adheres to the concept of “Immanence” which is the idea that there is an invisible spiritual or cosmic principle that is not measurable empirical data or phenomena, but is present within the natural universe itself.  And here we see the double standard in the Protestant and where a proper understanding of the Natural Law and the nature of Revealed Truth becomes confused. 

Consider “symbolism” according to Protestant thinking. Since symbols are but symbols that correspond to their objects they are merely instruments in the hands of the believer that he uses to paint a view of religion in terms of how he wants to interpret his “religious feelings.”  But the Modernist will tell the believer not to stress over the “formula” that he uses to interpret his “religious feelings.”

The believer is then told the only purpose of a formula is to seek “absolute truth” which is not admissible, and here is the temptation to the claim that everyone has their own subjective truth when it comes to religion.  Whether or not they wish to admit the fact, Protestants can never arrive at absolute truth based on the principle of Sola Scriptura. Nevertheless, the Protestant hopes he can be united to “some truth,” and this is where he gets cozy with his own “subjective truth.”

After having corrupted religious truths with a formula devised by Protestants, they tell us the formula itself reveals and conceals at the same time, that is to say, the formula is a means to express something without ever being able to express what it is.  And this is directly related to the false formula of Protestantism.  As we have seen, and will see further, this corrupted formula is given birth by the supposition that objective reality can never be found because man, in his “conscious intellect” meets his “religious feelings” which are ever changing, and he tries to interpret them which results in a “symbolism” of what he feels.  He has closed his eyes to objective reality outside of himself, and enters into a land of Religious Relativism in all that he considers religious.

Protestants go on to deceive people and tell them that the phrases used in the Sacraments are to impress the populace by creating “Religious Feelings,” but nothing more. They tell us the sacraments have been instituted for the sole purpose of fostering faith according to “religious feelings” rather than to receive grace “by the action of God.” This view is held by Protestants and it has been condemned by the Council of Trent which says,

“If anyone says that these sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith, let him be anathema.”

The Catholic Church is accused of abusing its authority by assuming for itself the right to prevent any individual who, in conscience, wishes to freely and openly reveal the “religious impulses,” or their “religious feelings” in public. These religious feelings, in the mind of the Modernist, are what constitute the “evolution of Dogma,” and are therefore necessary for the survival of their model of the Church. Therefore, to suppress these “religious impulses” in any individual without due process would be an abuse of power in the Catholic Magisterium which Protestants claim attacks the supremacy of the “individual conscience.” But Protestants forget to mention the “obligations of conscience” in relation to our obligation to objective truth in all things religious, and the inherent Natural Law which is the parameter of the conscience.  This is where Relativism goes on the attack against a proper understanding of the Natural Conscience because there is an attempt to relativise the conscience.

And, in effect, they go even further in telling us that in the “evolution of doctrine” an “external source” (God) is not allowed because they know this crushes the notion that doctrine and dogma evolves. They will tell us that a proper understanding of the “evolution of doctrine” rests in an ever increasing perfusion of “religious feelings” experienced in the “conscience of the body of believers.”  Not only are Modernists wrong about how they understand the “evolution of Dogma,” they are wrong in saying that “Dogma evolves.”  Neither doctrine nor dogma evolves.  What was in the Church from the beginning is the same as it is now.  We have the benefit of deeper insights about dogma and doctrine which come from the Church, but the insights rest on what has always been.

Protestants end up believing they are “refined” in their intellectual and moral being by this evolution of doctrine which is Relativism applied to doctrine.  And by means of this “refining,” man comes to see in a clearer and a more full way what is truly divine in the “form of ideas.”  And as a result, “Religious Feelings” in man will become more acute, meaning they will be heightened so he can “feel more religious.”

And since Modernists deny the divinity of Christ, they tell us that the evolution of Doctrine and Dogma began after Jesus initially perceived a “Religious Feeling” within Himself.  And through the course of history, believers slowly and gradually projected and added their own “religious feelings and ideas” onto “His religious experience” until finally the body of believers created a belief that Jesus is in fact God. 

And furthermore, they use the praises they give to each other to offset and compensate for their “hurt feelings” when they are reprimanded by the Church.  They think nothing of the insults they hurl at God and the Church.  And to the one who is a real Catholic and faithful to the Church that Jesus Christ established, the prizes and the words of praise that these Modernists have for each other only provokes disgust.

Sola Scriptura advocates a path to agnosticism which would shut down every intellectual path to God, as though man can be barred from what is most natural to him, namely, objective truth and his need for God who is truth in his very essence.  Tragically, in their hope to shut down every intellectual path to God in the self-contradicting proposition of Sola Scriptura, the agnostics serve up as though it were food on a menu a “better way” to understand God. They claim it is through what man finds in himself according to his “religious feelings” and in his “religious sense.”  For after all, they tell us, what is “Religious feeling” but the reaction of the soul to the action of intelligence and the senses.  But, if you take away the intelligence in man who is already inclined to follow his senses he becomes their slave.

And the “religious feeling” they have is liable to deception when the intelligence of man is removed from the equation and is no longer allowed to guide man in his “feelings.”  They would have a man believe that he is on the right path according to the intensity of the “religious feelings” he can produce. The more intense the religious feeling the more sentimental it is to him, and the more certain he is convinced that he is on the right path.  This is a system that locks him in his error.

This gives birth to “Vital Phenomenon” which is the Modernists notion that any “religious experience,” regardless of what religion we consider, falls into the category of “religious immanence” which we just spoke of.  And they conclude this because “all men are alive.” Therefore, in the mind of the Modernist, every “religious experience,” every “religious feeling” in any religion becomes a “valid religious experience” simply because man is alive.  And he concludes, therefore, that all “religious experiences and feelings” are valid “living religions” in spite of the fact that living men reject God and the Catholic Church.  This forms the basis for a false understanding of “ecumenism” which is now to be understood as meaning all religions are of equal value.

To be clear, the Modernist defines religion as “nothing more than what makes a man feel religious.”  That is the bottom line criteria.  This is what the Modernists claim gives rise to religion.

They go within themselves after taking with them what they have seen in the world with their senses, and then they shut their eyes to outside reality.  And they let the “forms, shapes, and colors” of what they have seen mingle with what comes from their “subconscious.”  And from this mingling comes their “religious feelings” which they now call a “religious experience.”

At this very point the Modernist will “subjectively interpret” what they have seen “according to what they feel,” and whatever they interpret this “religious experience” to mean they will now regard it to be a “religious revelation.”  And this “revelation” becomes their subjective object of faith which is to reject faith in what is objective.    It is by this means that the Modernist system regards man to be the “author of faith,” and therefore “the object of his own faith” as determined by whatever religious “experience” he can produce, as we shall see in more detail.

But let us consider something else.  Since “religious truths” are “internal” and therefore “subjective” in the Modernist, and are not allowed to be present in the “conscious intellect” in any objective intellectual manner, the Modernist completely removes himself from Natural Theology and Religious Theology.  Since for him there can be nothing “objective” in the religious experience which resides in the “conscious intellect,” it means that “religious truths” are forever tied to the “subconscious” for the Modernist/Protestant.  And this is the dilemma within the Modernist that forces him to conclude that “religious truths” can only be “symbolic” because if he reaches out to hold it as something solid and objective in “religious truth” it eludes him as it sinks into his subconscious.  Therefore, the religious experience for him can only be measured by what he feels his “religious experience means.” And this is what gives birth to the Modernists’ view of “symbolic faith.”  And due to the fact that feelings are always changing, the Modernist will conclude that “faith” is always changing and therefore, forever evolving, as we shall see.  And this is why modernism must be cut off at the root before it reaps much damage.

The primary work of the Apostles, and their successors, was to give personal testimony for the Gospel.  The Church was, and is, an oral teaching Church with authority, just exactly as Christ commissioned it to be.  In Luke 10:16 Jesus said,

“He that hears you hears Me; and he that despises you despises Me; and he that despises Me despises him that sent Me.”

To reject the Catholic Church is to reject Christ and Scripture.  Sola Scriptura is none other than a blueprint for anarchy.  Without the Church the Bible would not even exist.  And along comes Protestantism creating an ocean of religious relativism.

Christ promised us He would never leave us orphans.  The Catholic Church which He personally established is the only infallible interpreter of Scripture, and the only authoritative teacher and guide given to us by God Himself.  

†

The True Rule of Faith

In His eternal wisdom Christ gifted the world with the Catholic Church, the companion of sound reason.  Our God given reason tells us that true faith must be true for all people at all times and place or it cannot be a true rule of faith.  Religious Relativism is the denial there is one true rule of faith that is valid for all of mankind.   

Those opposed to Catholicism do not want to hear that Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church as His Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven.  How, then, are we to discern the Catholic Church, with the Papacy at its head, as the true rule of faith and then follow it?  How are we to see religious relativism present in false religions so that it may be ferreted out?

Words have meaning, and according to the Webster Dictionary the word “Magisterium” means, “To teach with authority, especially of the Roman Catholic Church.” So the question is, “Does Scripture tell us Jesus established such a Magisterium in His Church”? Yes, in fact, it does.

In Matthew 10:40 Jesus said, “He who receives you receives me, and He who receives me receives him who sent Me.”

Jesus is clearly saying if you follow the Apostles, who were the first Bishops of His Church, you follow Him, and if you reject them you reject Him, and He who sent Him.  So, where is your Bishop that has Apostolic Succession in communion with the Pope?

In Luke 22:29-30 Jesus said,

“And I bestow upon you a Kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me. That you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

In Matthew 19:28 Jesus said to them,

“Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

So, it is clear and indisputable that Jesus Christ established His Kingdom on earth, and that He conferred on His Apostles, and their successors, a Royal Kingdom with the authority to judge.  And He did so by establishing one specific church that can be identified as His Kingdom on earth. It is therefore folly to disobey the Judges in His Kingdom. 

In Luke 10:16 Jesus said,

“He who hears you, hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects him who sent Me.”

And in Matthew 16:18 we see that Jesus clearly stated He established “A” Church, not tens of thousands of churches,

 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church (singular), and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

The Kingdom of God on earth, as it is in Heaven, is the household of God that Christ himself built upon the Apostles in union with St. Peter, not the Bible.  And all those who dwell in the House of the Lord are dwelling in His Church which is built upon Peter the “Rock.”

In Matthew 7:25 we read,

25: “and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.”  Relativism cannot conquer his Church.

In Ephesians 2:19-20 read,

19: “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.”

20: “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.”

All those who reject His Church have built their house on sand and do not enter into His house. 

In Matthew 27:26 we read,

26:  “And every one who hears these words of Mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand.”

 So then, why would Christ bring the Apostles to Caesarea Philippi, a place wrought with an incredibly pagan history to establish His Church?

Caesarea Philippi is a beautiful area of Israel with a mountain overlooking a fertile valley nearly 1200 feet above sea level.  This location served well as a place to worship pagan gods because of its elevation.  On one side of the mountain there is a cliff about 100 feet high and 500 feet long, and at the base is a cave from which flowed water that was one of the sources of the Jordan River.

The terrain in the area reminded Greek travelers of their homeland, so they named it “Panias” in honor of their pagan god, Pan, around 300 B.C.  “Pan” was the equivalent of Baal, the Canaanite pagan god whose image was much like the golden calf that was condemned by Moses.  A cleft had been cut into the rock which held a statue of Pan who was depicted as a man with horns, ears, and the legs of a goat.  Pan was as a “god” who liked to frighten unsuspecting travelers, and this is where the word “panic” came from.

In front of his statue was an open air platform to accommodate the numbers of devotees who came to worship, many of whom were shepherds who lived in the area.  They would gather and pray that their flocks would be fertile.  If the flocks were not fertile, they would flog the statue of Pan in an attempt to make him bless their flocks with fertility.

The pagan priests and priestesses of Pan would perform orgies in front of thousands who came to worship, and in turn, they would indulge and the place turned into a massive orgy with every vile manner of sexuality including homosexuality, and bestiality with their goats.

On the face of the cliff there are five niches cut into the rock that held statues of the Greek gods which became known as the “Rock of the Gods.”  Two of these pagan gods were “Echo” and “Hermes.”   According to Greek mythology, Pan tore the wood nymph “Echo” into pieces because she refused his sexual advances.

The only thing left of “Echo” was her voice which could be heard in the cave, and this is where we get the word “echo.”  Pan’s father, Hermes, was believed to carry the “word of the gods.”  But Hermes had another task which was to escort souls into Hades, and this is why the cave was referred to as the “Gate of Hades.”

Archaeologists have also found 14 temples in this area that were used by the Ancient Syrians to worship Baal.  During the time of Israel’s judges, God punished the Jews because they refused to destroy the altars used in the pagan worship of Baal.

The Romans had an impact on this place as well.   Herod the Great built a massive temple out of white marble in honor of the “Divine Caesar.”   Herod’s son, Philip, rebuilt the city that was located here, and named it “Caesarea” in honor of Augustus.  Philip’s name was added to this city in order to distinguish it from the great city of Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast, and that is how this place became known as Caesarea Philippi.

In the grand scheme of things, Caesarea Philippi had become so evil that the Jews would not go anywhere near the place.   So we have to ask ourselves, “Why on earth Jesus would take His apostles to this place, of all places, to establish His Church?” Why would it be here that Peter would tell us that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?

We can only conjecture, but it was at this mountain of rock in Caesarea Philippi that men thought they could find divinity by cutting false gods out of “rock.”

What is most interesting is that God Himself had established precedence for what Jesus was about to do at Caesarea Philippi. 

Isaiah 51:1-2 tell us,

“Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him and made him many.”

God Himself calls abraham “the rock,” yet Protestants mock Catholics for saying if you want to find the Lord you must find him through the “papacy rock.” This was a remedy for Relativism even in the day of Abraham, but it was God Himself who presented Abraham as the Rock for those who seek the lord as the way to find Him.  It was God who set the precedent, the typology, the prophetic foreshadowing of the Papacy in what we just read from Isaiah.  Certainly, the “Abraham Rock” is not the Lord anymore than the “Peter Rock” is the Lord, but in each case it is the only Rock by which the people could find the Lord.  And there is also a relationship between the “Abraham Rock” and this quarry which is a massive place of rock; otherwise God would not have told us where the “Abraham Rock” came from.  So why do we now find ourselves at another place of massive rock in Caesarea Philippi? God Himself, the stone cutter, is standing there with His Apostles, and He is about to hewn a stone from a massive place of rock and tell us if we hope to find Him, if we objectively hope to find the Lord in matters of faith and morals, look to the “Papacy Rock.”

Remember, in the days of the Patriarchs God would change someone’s name to designate an office, or a function, in view of their destiny in His plan. God changed Abram’s name to Abraham in Genesis 17:5, and in Isaiah we have just seen that Abraham is called the “Rock” by God Himself.

So here we are at Caesarea Philippi and we see God Himself in the world now, walking among men, bringing the prophetic typology He established with Abraham to completion in the person of Peter.  It is here that Jesus will give Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.  It is here Peter was to lead men away from the world of sin and error so indicative of Caesarea Philippi.  Man would be led to worship God with certainty in matters reason, morals, and faith by means of the Keys that Christ would give to Peter.

Unlike the pagan gods in the wall of the cliff, standing in front of false divinities rooted in paganism and relativism where people were led astray, Jesus, true Divinity in this world as God and man, will is about to cut a Rock from this place and call it the “Peter Rock.”  And He will then tell us “Upon this Rock” He will build His Church.  It is here that Jesus will take us through three possible views of faith.  Two of these views will be ruled out because they did not come from Him. They would be rooted in Relativism and would terminate in Religious Relativism. Jesus will then go on to show us that only one rule of faith is commissioned directly from his own hand.

The First view – “Scripture Alone”

With His first question to the Apostles we will see Our Lord bring into focus the issue of religious relativism that comes from private interpretation of the people about who He is. 

Keep in mind that Jesus IS the literal Word of God now walking among men, and there were many who followed Him. They heard Him speak, they saw Him perform miracles; they even saw him raise people from the dead.  They thought they knew who He was; they thought they could subjectively interpret the word of God in the same vein of Sola Scriptura. They privately interpreted the Word of God Himself.  And Jesus specifically referred to these people.

In Matthew 16:13-14 we read,

“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He asked his disciples, who do men say that the Son of man is?  And they said, some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

The apostles tell him of the conflicting views among the people who, for any reason, thought they know who Jesus was, but none of them knew.  Some thought He was John the Baptist, some thought He was Elijah, and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. Lacking a single objective authority to determine who is right we find the components of reductionist religious relativism.  Their answers were from flesh and blood, they were not commissioned to speak for Christ, they had no authority to do so, and they were consigned to a never ending world of guessing and opinion lacking any certainty as is the case with Sola Scriptura.  Once Christ establishes a Papacy there is no longer any excuse.  Those who do not yield and subjectively interpret Scripture apart from and against the Church create what St. Paul condemned as the vain precepts of men taught as doctrine.

The Second View - The second view is the Orthodox Church

The Orthodox hold the view that authority in the Church is seen when all the Bishops come together in a Council. They reject the supremacy of the Papacy and a number of other doctrines taught by the Catholic Church.  They regard the Papacy to be a spokesman for all the Bishops at best, with the honorary title of “first among equals” stripped of his authority over them.

But Jesus would have none of this arrogance in His Bishops.  He takes the focus off of the many voices of “the people” now, and put the question directly to the men who will be His Bishops, the Apostles.  This brings into focus the question of “Collegial infallibility.”

Matthew 16:15 tells us,

“He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

Here is the simple fact. As a group, the Apostles had nothing to say in response to Christ’s question as to who He was.  Divine revelation from the Father was not given to them, and this is why they could not identify Jesus. There would have been differing answers from the Apostles just as there had been differing answers from the many voices of the people.  Nor were there any tongues of flames that came down to rest over their heads when Christ asked them who He is.  It must have been a very difficult moment for them, but there was silence from the eleven.  Any response from them would have been flesh and blood. 

So, if you are Orthodox, here is a question for you to consider.  What do you think the Lord would have done if the other Apostles turned on Peter when they saw Christ give him the Keys to the Kingdom?  Do you really think Christ would suffer them if they said, “No way, Jesus. He does not have authority over me as a Bishop. You better not say Peter trumps us as a group of Bishops over the entire earth.”  What do you think you would have seen in the eyes of the Lord if you were one of the Apostles and tried to pull that one off?

You would have to be unreasonable to say the supremacy of the Papacy was not present in the beginning of the Church.

The very question to the Apostles, and their lack of response, means they did not know for sure who or what Jesus was. Our Lord could have come right out and told them who He was, so why didn’t He just do that?  What was He getting at?  He has divine purpose, and if He had told them, one individual would not have been commissioned at the head of his church to guide it for Him in His absence.  He would have given us a Church divided against itself.  There would be endless disputes not only among the people, but among the Bishops as well, and we see this division in the Orthodox Church even to this day.  The Orthodox are divided in theology and morality, and they are revisionists of history just as we see with Protestant Revisionism.

Before the great split between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church took place the Patriarch of Constantinople explains and defends the Supremacy of Papal authority in all matters.  He explicitly says they “obey” the Pope.  In 536 AD Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople said,

"Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic ... we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns."

Many of the Orthodox in our day are unaware of what Patriarch St. Menas said, and that is but one example of revisionism in the Orthodox Church of today.  Christ would have none of it.  When it comes to the question of authority He would not leave His church to the capricious whims of relativists like Miriam, or Bishops, or Councils not in Communion with Peter and his successors. There would be problems without one man commissioned with authority that comes from God to speak in His behalf. Without an authoritative, final decision, and definition in matters of faith and morals in His absence He would have condemned His own Church to the quagmire of Religious Relativism.

This is why the 2nd Vatican Council states:

“The college or body of Bishops has for all that no authority unless it is united to the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff by reason of his office as the Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole church, a power he can always exercise unhindered.”  The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, not the Vicar of Peter.  He is the successor of St. Peter.

The Orthodox view of Christianity is a high level form of relativistic Protestantism, but with valid Sacraments and Bishops.  But it also is a false rule of faith that cannot save.  As St. Augustine said, “You can have everything outside of the Catholic Church, including valid Sacraments, but you cannot have Salvation if you reject the Catholic Church.”

The Third View – The True Rule of faith

The answer to Christ’s question about who He is came from one man only, St. Peter.  And it is here, in Scripture, that we are going to see the evidence of Papal Infallibility spoken by a sinful man which proves the capacity of infallibility does not depend on his impeccability.

St. Matthew is telling us what St. Peter and the other Apostles would have understood when Christ spoke to Peter alone, and that what he (Matthew) was writing and telling us about would be handed down to us by the Apostolic Church as part of the deposit of faith. 

Jesus was about to distinguish Peter from the rest of the Apostles, so we need to understand that in hermeneutics, the science of translating and interpreting Scripture, the literal meaning of the text is the principle of first priority, meaning it comes first.  When we consider the distinction between Peter and the other Apostles we have to consider the literal meaning of what Matthew was conveying.  He was telling us about what Christ was conveying to Peter alone after Peter’s response.

In order for a Pope to speak infallibly three conditions must be met, and we are about to see their origin as the true rule of faith in Scripture.

The First Requirement

The 1st requirement for Papal Infallibility is that a Pope must be speaking about something that is a matter of faith and is essential for us to believe.  The question that Christ posed to the Apostles has to do specifically with faith, namely, what are we to believe about Christ. This means the things we are to believe in matters of faith must come from a source that is commissioned and authoritative if we are to trust the objects of faith presented to us as infallible with absolute certainty.  Christ says to His Apostles, “Who do you say that I Am?”

Peter steps forward not as one among equals prodded by the other Bishops to speak, but as one who is given something the others did not receive.

Our Lord knew He is the Christ; He was not in need of Peter to tell him who He was, and Christ does nothing without purpose.

Christ’s question opens the door for the action of the Most Holy Trinity to establish the Papacy, vividly demonstrating for us the evidence for the capacity of infallibility in action in the response and person of St. Peter.  The Father sends the Holy Spirit into Peter to give him a “Direct Revelation” about Christ, and Peter gushes forth,

“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

Do we fully realize the implication of what this means?

Once Peter responds, Jesus Christ, the Son of God not only ratifies Peter’s response, but as god himself, he declares to people all over the “Earth” that peter’s response was a direct revelation from god the father.  And He goes on to explain to the world the nature of Peter’s response, that is was not from flesh and blood. Consider the importance of what is happening here!   The Eternal Father speaks through the very mouth of a sinner, St. Peter, who gushes forward with commissioned, infallible, religious, objective truth,

“You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

The breath of Christ will now sear a man of mud and clay into a Rock. 

In Matthew 16:17 Christ says this,

“For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in Heaven.”

Understand, Peter’s response had nothing whatsoever to do with guess, reason, human insight, chance, or anything other than a direct revelation God the Father.

We are witnessing the capacity of infallibility at work in St. Peter who was about to receive an exclusive commission for his Bishopric, and for those who succeed him in his office.  We are witnessing the fact that all definitive Church teaching must be in union with this event because it is the measure of what determines whether or not a person is of good faith.

What is happening between Christ and Peter is a first hand account from St. Matthew of “Oral Infallibility in the Papacy” for the entire world to see, and Christ Himself ratified the fact of the infallibility in Peter’s response for everyone on earth to see.  So, in this moment we are cemented in the words of Christ when He said, “He who hears you, hears me.”

The fact that Christ reveals to us that Peter’s response was a Divine Revelation given directly to Peter by God the Father is evidence there is absolutely zero possibility for any error in Peter’s response.  His answer is black and white, and the nature of Peter’s answer crushes Religious Relativism on the spot as we shall see in more detail.

When Christ ratifies infallibility in Peter’s response we see that He was providing the first component in the framework for infallibility in His Church.  Immediately after Peter’s infallible response, in the name of the Trinity, Christ crowns his own work by commissioning the Bishopric of St. Peter with not only the capacity of infallibility, but also with authority so that He can guide His Church through Peter and his successors.

The Second Requirement

The 2nd requirement for Papal infallibility is the Pope must appeal to his Petrine office in some manner.

In Matthew 16:19 Christ said,

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

Jesus did not give the Keys to Himself, He gave them to St. Peter when He commissioned the office of Peter’s Bishopric.  And in so doing Christ shows us where the “Second Condition” required for Papal infallibility originates.  Jesus unites Peter’s capacity of infallibility to authority in the Bishopric of his office by giving him the Keys to the Kingdom of His Church.  This is how God Himself speaks to us through His Church which is His Kingdom on earth. We just saw first hand evidence of this very fact when God the Father gave a direct Revelation to Peter for everyone in the world to see. 

Peter and his successors can appeal to their Petrine office to meet the 2^nd condition required for Papal infallibility by saying, “In virtue of my office as the Successor to St. Peter, or as … The Vicar of Christ, or as … called to confirm his Brethren in the faith, etc.”

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, while He was personally present here on earth, lays down the gauntlet against relativism in His Church, regardless of what form it would take, by what He just conferred on Peter.  Without reservation “Christ declared” that whatever “Peter declared” would be “bound on earth is bound in Heaven.” Peter was authoritatively commissioned to speak infallibly for God about what we are to believe. 

Let us look again at Matthew 16:19 to be clear about something.  Jesus said,

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

As you read the words of Jesus Christ Himself, do you realize there is nothing in Heaven with defect?  Everything in Heaven is perfect and absolutely true.  When Jesus declared to Peter “Whatever you declare bound on earth is bound in Heaven” Jesus declared it to be the same reality on earth as it is in Heaven.  When a Pope meets the capacity of infallibility, whatever Peter and his successors bind and loose on earth is the same reality in Heaven as it is on earth.  It is without defect in Heaven and therefore it is without defect on earth because it is the same reality, just as we saw with Peter’s response, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

Jesus is the Son of God in Heaven and on earth, and the Most Holy Trinity chose Peter to infallibly proclaim that fact to the world.  This evidence for Papal infallibility strikes a crushing blow to Religious Relativism like someone took 100 lb sledge hammer to a walnut sitting on a cold, thick, hard steel surface, and with one forceful blow shattered the nut to pieces.

The power of binding and loosing that is given to Peter must be free from error because it is immutably tied to what is bound in Heaven in all matters of faith, and by extension religious morals.

This leads us to the “third and final condition” necessary for Papal infallibility.

The Third Requirement

The 3rd requirement for Papal Infallibility is when Jesus said,

“…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven.” 

The Pope must bind his teaching on the entire Church all over the earth.

Jesus did not say to Peter,

“Whatever you bind in East Oshkosh is bound there and nowhere else.” 

Nor did He say the Apostle James gets to decide anything in Jerusalem with his own infallibility about what people are to believe, or to any other Apostle.  Christ’s words to Peter show us the authority of the Papacy trumps James, the Orthodox Church, Sola Scriptura, and any Bishop or group of Bishops. 

Jesus said to Peter, “Whatever you declare bound on earth.”

The Greek roots of the term “catholic” means “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.”  Note the use of the word “earth” by Jesus.  Christ’s selection of the word “earth” designates “universal authority.”    By selecting the word “Earth” Christ designates the office of peter’s bishopric as having “universal authority.”  And since the word “Catholic” means “Universal,” the authority Christ just gave to Peter is Catholic authority over the entire church.  And since His Church is Universal, the Church Christ just established is the Catholic Church (Singular).  The Catholic Church is the only Church established by Jesus Christ. 

By giving Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of His Church,   Christ Himself vested Catholic (Universal) authority in the Bishopric of Peter and his successors.  This, in itself, identifies the only Church established by Jesus Christ Himself is the Catholic Church which is One, Holy, and Apostolic.

You have just seen the “Three Conditions” necessary for Papal infallibility, and whenever they come together in any order when a Pope teaches, Papal infallibility has taken place in exactly the same manner as when Peter said to Christ, “You are the Son of the Living God.”

Remember, Christ Himself spoke about the “Chair of Moses” which came with authority, and that Chair with authority continued into the New Covenant from the hand of Christ Himself.  This is the reason why the Catholic Church refers to the “Chair of Peter.”  Just as Moses and his successors held the position of Prime Minister in the Mosaic Covenant in the Old Testament, anyone who sits in the Chair of Peter becomes the Prime Minister of Christ in the New Testament.  They become “The Vicar of Christ” with all the authority that goes with it.

Now we need to look closer at who Jesus was referring to when He used the word “Rock.”  St. Matthew tells us the literal core meaning of “Rock” refers to Peter on which Christ would build His Church.

Matthew tells us that what Christ made clear had to be intelligible, and that it was meant for everyone to understand down through the centuries until the return of Christ.  It would have been fundamental and necessary in the early Church when people had a more simple approach and view of their faith. 

What Christ said to Peter did not need interpretation from Sola Scriptura.  It did not need more demanding and extensive hermeneutics to satisfy the demands of the rebellious Protestants who want to live by Sola Scriptura.  It had to be clear to them that there was a final authority in all matters of faith and morals, and that the definitive answers would be found in Peter and his successors alone.

†

The Bible or the Papacy

Protestants are fond of claiming that Jesus referred to Himself as the “Rock” because they want to deny the authority He gave Peter when He gave him the Keys to the Kingdom. That is their big fight with the Church.  They just cannot stand the fact that Jesus would do such a thing, and that is the bottom line.

The Protestant assertion that Christ was referring to himself when He used the word “Rock” is an attempt to shift the focus away from the fact that Jesus gave the Keys to the Bishopric of Peter, that He endowed it with the Capacity of infallibility, and then commissioned it with authority.

So, we are going to translate Matthew 16:18 into the Greek without first considering the “gender” of Peter,

“You are Petra and upon this Petra I will build My Church.”

We know the Greek word for “Rock” is “Petra” and we also know that the Aramaic word “Kepha” can only mean “Rock.”

Now let us look at the words that Jesus said to Peter,

“You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build My Church”

There is a reason you cannot translate Peter to Petra, and that is because you must respect the gender of Peter in the Greek and translate his name to “Petros.”  If you leave Peter’s name as “Petra” you would be referring to him in the feminine gender which is the equivalent of calling him a female rock.  So, the Greek referred to Peter as “Petros.”

Since “Kepha” in the Aramaic only means “Rock” the literal translation from the Aramaic to the Greek would have to be “You are Petra, and upon this Petra I will build My Church.”

The burden is now on the Protestant to provide evidence that Jesus referred to Peter in the Aramaic as a “stone” by which the Greek translators knew they should make the distinction between Jesus being the “rock” and Peter being the “stone.”  Like it or not, Jesus did not choose a word in the Aramaic that would tell the translators to make any such distinction.

If Christ had wanted to refer to Peter as a “stone” and himself as the “rock” in the Aramaic, He would have used the word “evna” which means “little pebble” or “little stone.”  And the translators who went from the Aramaic to the Greek would have been able to point to the word “evna” to render Peter as “little stone.” But Jesus did not use the word “evna,” He used the word “Kepha” which is rendered only as “Rock.”  And since Petros also respects the gender of Peter, we see the wisdom of Christ in naming Peter as the “Rock.” 

The Protestant assertion that Christ referred to himself as the Rock is impossible because the two instances of the word “Rock” are linked by the Greek words “te taute/tautee tee” which means “this very same,” in this case “this very same rock” when speaking to Peter.  This is a demonstrable construction in the Greek which points to Peter alone, and he, the person of Peter, is the subject of the sentence (not his confession of faith in Christ) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church.  And the demonstrative “tautee” refers to the closest antecedent which is “Petros” and this connects the 2 times Christ used the word “Rock” to Peter alone. 

Christ can only be saying you (Peter/Petros) are Rock, and on this very same rock I will build my Church.

Furthermore, if the translators wanted us to believe that Jesus referred to Himself as “the Rock” the Greek would have used the word “lithos” to designate Peter as the “little pebble” or “small stone.” But they did not do that.

We can also look to the Lexicon and the interlinear format in the Peshitta Syriac New Testament at the Greek word for “Petra.” “Petra” is translated by the Aramaic word “SHU`A'” as found in Matthew 7:24-25.  It means a “massive rock or a boulder.”

We also see that whenever the Apostle Paul refers to Peter it is always “Kepha.”  Paul learned of “Kepha” in reference to Peter from the other Apostles and from Peter himself.  Above all, he knew it was the name that Christ gave to Peter.

Anyone who wants to argue (without actually saying it) that Paul suggested Jesus was saying to Peter “you are kepha” and then of Himself “and on this shu`a I will build my Church” is adding to Scripture. And the same would apply when respecting the gender of Peter’s name as it flows into the Greek.  This is why “petros” and “petra” were both used in the Greek instead of “Petros” 2 times or “Petra” 2 times.  You are still required to respect the gender.

In the Greek New Testament we find “Petra” is used 16 times, and of these times it is translated as:

• “SHU`A',” 9 times in the Peshitta Syriac

• 6 times by the word “Kepha”

• And 1 time by the Hebrew root word “Abena”

Of the ten times “Petra” is used in the Gospels it is translated:

• 7 times by the word “SHU`A”

• 3 times by the word “Kepha”

Since Jesus did not use the word “evna” in the Aramaic, and the Greek does not use the word “lithos” to designate Peter as the “little pebble” or “little stone,” it is impossible that the translators who translated from the original Aramaic to the Greek meant anything other that what we see in the text.  It is impossible they were confused about who Jesus referred to as “the Rock.”  Jesus said in Aramaic,

“I tell you that YOU are rock (kepha) and on this rock (kepha) I will build My Church.”

Furthermore, the Aramaic word for “Rock,” transliterated into the English can be written as “Cephas.”  This also supports the Catholic position of Christ’s usage of the word “rock” for Peter.  He is “Kepha” and only “Kepha” in Scripture regardless of whether we refer to the Codex mostly in Greek or the Peshitta which is rooted in Aramaic, and the Aramaic itself.

And the fact is this:  “Petra” was never applied to Jesus as a proper name nor as the result of a name change for Jesus.  And this is different than saying that proper nouns do not have to match gender nouns.

Now consider what you are calling Jesus when you refer to Him as “Petra” in the Greek.  Jesus is male, and you must also respect his gender in the Greek, just as you must with Peter.  In their blindness, Protestants are referring to Jesus in the “feminine” which is the same as calling Jesus a female rock.  That is not a good plan.  And this shows that when Christ used the word “Rock” the association can flow only to Peter because a rock (Petra) is gender neutral. Jesus is neither a thing nor a woman.

Protestant scholars are also finally conceding to the fact that Jesus referred to Peter as the “Rock” and not Himself.  And you do not find many serious Protestants who are not up to speed on this issue.

The following is from various Protestant scholars who agree that Jesus referred to Peter as the “Rock.”

The first is from J. Knox Chamblin.  He’s Presbyterian and a New Testament Professor at the “Reformed Theological Seminary.”  He writes,

“By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peters confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which He builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. Petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)

The next is from Donald A. Carson III. He is a Baptist and Professor of the New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary.  He writes,

 “The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine Petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.” (The Expositor”s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)

“The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus” follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”  (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)

And the next is from John A. Broadus.  He’s a Baptist author and writes,

“Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word, instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.   

“But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)

John Peter Lange.  He is a German Protestant scholar.  Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)

Craig L. Blomberg, is a Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary. The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)

David Hill is a Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England “The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972, 261.)

Suzanne de Dietrich is a Presbyterian theologian.  (The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)

Donald A. Hagner is at Fuller Theological Seminary (“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)

Gerhard Maier is an Evangelical Lutheran.   “The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)

William Hendriksen is at the Reformed Christian Church, and Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary.  (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)

We see the Keys that Christ gave to Peter and the successors in his office signify his power and authority to govern the entire Church, to declare and define dogma and doctrine, to legislate, to dispense, to enact or loose laws, and all matters pertaining to the governance of His Church. Christ gave to the office of Peter and his successors uncontested universal authority in His Church.

And let us not forget that the writers of the New Testament made it clear Christ that when Christ gave the Keys to Peter He did it right in front of the eyes of the other Apostles so they understood that the power and scope of these unique Keys was vested in the office of Peter alone.  This defined the relationship of all Bishops and their successors to the office of Peter and his successors.

This leads us to the question of “apostolic succession.” Is there evidence of apostolic succession in Scripture?  Yes, there is!

After Judas had been lost the Apostles numbered only 11.  But they clearly understood their Office was an Office of Succession that must be passed down to those who came after them.  We know this because they are the ones who said they had to select another to fill the Office of Bishopric left vacant by the suicide of Judas.

In Acts Of Apostles 20:28 we see,

“Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed you Bishops, to rule the Church of God, which He has purchased with His own blood.”

We have just seen that the Holy Spirit rules and guides His Church through the Bishops. 

And in John 14:16-18 we read,

16: “And I will pray to the Father, and He will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever”

17: “even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for He dwells with you, and will be in you”

18: “I will not leave you desolate; I will come to you.”

Jesus is telling the apostles that the Counselor will be given to them that they may have the Spirit of Truth.  If everything that Christ gave to the apostles died with them, then the truth of Jesus Christ and what He promised died with them as well, and we know such assertions come from Satan.  The Great Commission to teach the Gospel to all nations through the ages in itself requires Apostolic Succession.

Furthermore, we have Scriptural evidence that succession of their Bishoprics had been prophesized in the Old Testament, and that the office of Judas would be left vacant.

We read in Acts 1:20,

20: “For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.”

The apostles themselves actually quoted from Psalms 109:8 about the succession of Office in the Bishopric which reads,

8: “May his days be few: and his Bishopric let another take.”

We also see how the Apostles selected the successor to the Office of Judas.

In Acts 1:26 we read,

26: “And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

Furthermore, Paul speaks about the office of Bishop when he defines the qualities that should be in those who would seek to be Bishop.

1st Timothy 3:1 reads,

1: “The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task.”

In Ephesians 3:10 Paul said,

10: “that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the Heavenly places.”

Paul is declaring it is only through the Catholic Church that we find the Truth and Wisdom of God.

We see this in 1st Timothy 3:14 -15,

14: “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, not the Bible.  The Church is a bulwark, a defensive wall like structure to keep the errors out.  And the Bishops are supposed to give protection and support to the Church, and that is precisely why Jesus built the Church upon Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.

What has come down to us through the ages must be regarded as the “deposit of truth” which is the same as the “deposit of faith” found in the Catholic Church alone. And that comes to us through the Apostolic Magisterium. This is the “bulwark” that protects the faithful from doctrinal error.  And we can see this at work in the life of the Catholic Church for over two thousand years.

We read in “Lumen Gentium” that the Church “Subsists” in the Catholic Church.  The Church needs no other Church to be complete.  Elements of sanctification can be found outside the visible confines of the Church, but the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church alone as we read in Lumen Gentium.

Lumen Gentium

Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 21 November, 1964. Sections 5-8

CHAPTER I: THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

“This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, (emphasis added) which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.”

So then, the purpose of the gifts outside the visible confines is to draw people into the Catholic Church. 

In 2nd Peter 3:16 we read,

16: “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”

We also read in 2nd Peter 1:20-21,

20: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.”

21: “because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”

We have seen evidence that no one can claim they are moved by the Holy Spirit and speak apart from the Church.

Here is what Protestantism offers to us if we will only come their way.  Take your pick among thousands of denominations that reject the Catholic Church with one voice.

Protestantism individually, or in the aggregate, is a “body of rejection,” or a “collection” that breathes against the Church, but they fail to explain why they are divided amongst themselves. Their understanding of the word “catholic” produces universal chaos. All the Protestant denominations in the aggregate cannot represent Christianity because you cannot determine which one of them has objective religious truth and authority that is true for all people.  None of them has universal (catholic) authority that was commissioned by Christ, so they usurp the title of “Catholic.”

We can go back in time and see the Church was referred to as the “Catholic Church” only 10 years after the death of the Apostle John who died in Ephesus around the year 100 A.D.

In a letter from Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans we see the words “Catholic” and “Church” which is evidence that the Christians already referred to the Church founded by Jesus Christ as the Catholic Church. 

His letter reads,

“Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the Catholic Church.”

It had been held there was only a 10 year gap between the death of the Apostle John and this letter, but scholars now believe the Church was referred to as Catholic even before the death of John the Apostle.  In either case, the Catholic Church had to be understood as the Church that Jesus Christ founded, or what Ignatius said would have made no sense to the early Church.  And this Church, the Catholic Church, has remained the same Church to the present day.

Furthermore, there had to be a time when the successors to the Apostles referred to the Church as “Catholic” for instructional purposes.

This identifies the Church that Jesus Christ founded as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.  It is one, visible communion of the faithful founded upon the Apostles and distinct from all those who would break away from it.

And from Ignatius again we have his Epistle which was also written in the year 110 A.D. 

It is entitled,

“Beware of false doctrines” Chapter 17,

17: “For this end did the Lord allow the ointment to be poured upon His head, that He might breathe immortality into His Church. Be not anointed with the bad odour of the doctrine of the prince of this world; let him not lead you away captive from the life which is set before you. And why are we not all prudent, since we have received the knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ? Why do we foolishly perish, not recognizing the gift which the Lord has of a truth sent to us.”

And again from Ignatius in his Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110) we read,

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

There is a plethora of writings from the Church Fathers that confirm the supremacy of Peter and his successors.  Suffice it to say that private interpretation of the Bible is anti-Christ in its nature because it is set against the Church that was established by Jesus. And if you are against His Church you are against Jesus Christ Himself.

Satan is the enemy who blinds Protestants; he wishes to keep them separated from the Catholic Church. He is the divider, and he uses the concept of “Scripture alone” as a device to do just that.

And we must never think that Christ called His Church to sit idly by on the defensive in the battle between Truth and Relativism.  Quite the opposite is true.

There is no doubt the Church has been assaulted from its earliest days in numerous ways that have caused much suffering, beginning with the blood of the martyrs.  And those who strive to maintain their faith in a very relativistic world also suffer a kind of white martyrdom where they die for the faith without shedding blood.  But it is important that we do not look at all the suffering in the history of the Church and end up thinking the Lord said his Church is on the defensive when He said,

“The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

If we end up with an image of Satan and the powers of Hell smashing against the Church we have not understood what Christ actually said.  We would have changed his words and the meaning of his words.

It is a fact the Our Lord said nothing whatsoever about the “powers of Hell.” Nor did He say anything at all about “the gates of the Church.” When Our Lord used the word “gates” He was in fact speaking only about the “gates of Hell.”

Consider this question.  When was the last time you saw a set of gates, perhaps at the end of your own driveway, go off and wage a war against anyone?  It is ludicrous to even suggest such a thing, yes?  Gates are stationary objects.  It follows, then, that the “gates” that are being rammed are the “gates of Hell.”  Those are the gates Christ spoke about.

Our Lord also used the word “prevail” when speaking about the “gates of Hell” which means they do not have the power to withstand the blows leveled against them. So there is a battle going on here, and this can only mean there is something with active power that is in fact on the offensive. And this means the active thing going out to wage war is the Catholic Church as it does battle against all forms of Relativism and evil. And there will be one final, thundering, smashing assault that will flatten out the “gates of Hell” like a bulldozer in demolition mode going through balsa wood.

†

No Salvation Outside of the Catholic Church

We know there have been many declarations by the Church that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, but the Church also teaches that salvation is open to all.  Is there a solution to these two seemingly different positions that will not compromise the fact that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation?  Yes, there is.

We must first must go back to the fall of man and then follow the generations that came down through the ages to our day.  We will discover several things that apply to every individual who has ever lived.

First, if we try to understand man’s nature in relation to the fall of man, rather than his creation, we tend to think his nature became intrinsically evil when he fell.  To think of anyone as being evil in their nature as a result of the fall would be a failure to understand man.  It would also be to say that man lost his created state when he fell.  Man did not fall out of existence and then recreate himself intrinsically evil because man does not have the power to create himself.  That would be to say man is God because only God can create from nothing. 

Second, sin does not have the power to create.  To say otherwise would be to say that sin is equal to God with the power to create from nothing. 

Third, Satan does not have the power to return man to nothingness from which he came and then recreate man evil because of his sin.  Satan is not equal to God, so he does not have the power to create anything.  Nor is Satan the opposite of God.  There is nothing opposite to God.

Only God can create, and God did not take man out of existence and then recreate him evil in his nature because God does not create anything with an intrinsically evil nature. Man continued to be intrinsically good in his nature, but after the Fall, he now had evil tendencies. The sin is not his nature any more than an infection is the nature of the body.  And the Natural Law remained inherent in the nature of man even though he sinned.  His human nature remained intrinsically good, but the preternatural gifts were lost, and now there is a conflict between body and soul over who is going to be the boss.

The promise of salvation fell on the real ears of our first parents, long before the Scriptures were written.  Some read the account of the fall of man as though our first parents were not there when it happened and treat this matter as though the promise of salvation did not begin until it was written down many centuries later.  And the failure to recognize this affects our understanding of who can be saved, and why.

From the very beginning of salvation history we see the establishment of sacrificial offerings after man fell, evidenced by the fact that our first parents knew salvation would be accomplished through suffering.

In Hebrews 11:4 we read,

4: “By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts; he died, but through his faith he is still speaking.”

This simple fact of sacrificial offering accounts for the reason that all civilizations have an understanding that sin must be atoned for by some kind of ritual sacrifice.  And this points to “Oral Tradition” that came down to us from the ancient days since Abel offered that first sacrifice.  This also refutes Protestant opposition to Oral Tradition, even in the Old Testament.

Even though our first parents fell from grace they remained solicitous to pass on to their children the promise of salvation.  But this knowledge of salvation became more and more diluted over time as people dispersed over the planet and nations began to form.  The further away people moved from the direct and more explicit line of salvation the more difficult it became to identify what remained of authentic revelation in the oral transmission of the promise of salvation.  Nevertheless, all of mankind came form Adam, without exception, which means there is some degree of authentic revelation which they received in their lives, and this is where we have to look.

We often hear people say no one will be damned simply because they never heard of the Church.  We are told these people can still be saved if they live a good and decent life.  It is true that no one will be damned for something that is not their fault, but it is not true a person will be saved by living according to the Natural Law if they knowingly reject whatever degree of Revealed Truth is present in their lives.  There has been a failure to understand, a failure to communicate the fact that every person ever born must live according to the degree of Revealed Truth present in their lives which they received through Oral Tradition.

Even though some people are not in the “visible confines” of the Catholic Church, they are not totally cut off from Revealed Truth which comes to them through Oral Tradition.  And this Revealed Truth which they possess by means of Oral Tradition is, for them, the object of faith by which they must live to the best of their ability.  But the degree of Revealed Truth which they have is not the same thing as the Natural Law. 

At the same time it is also true these people may be properly predisposed to embrace Revealed Truth more readily when it is presented to them if they have lived by the Natural Law to the best of their ability.  However, the necessity of the Church for salvation is not removed.  These people must live according to the degree of Revealed Truth present in their lives.  Only then will grace flow from the Church to meet these people in their desire to live faithfully according to the degree of Revealed Truth they possess.

So then, what does it mean when the Church speaks of “Invincible ignorance?” The term “invincible ignorance” simply means it is not a person’s fault if they never heard of the Church or the Gospel.  But something needs to be made clear.  There are three types of ignorance possible in relation to Revealed Truth, but only one is not sinful.

They are,

1) Invincible ignorance – is when a person is simply not aware of an explicit religious truth that has been revealed due to no fault of their own.

2) Antecedent ignorance – is when truth presents itself to the intellect saying there is a deeper truth which will be shown if the first truth is not rejected.  At this point reason and the conscience kick in.  Truth appeals to the intellect and beckons the individual to take the next step along the path of truth. If a person refuses to embrace where that truth is trying to lead them, there is an unwillingness to die to self and they end up rejecting truth.  Such people have sinned and are now guilty of rejecting the deeper truth that would have been made known to them had they not rejected the first truth which beckoned them.  This also is where intellectual relativism enters leading to love of sin. 

3) Consequent ignorance – is when you ask questions and do not listen for the answers because you refused first principles of truth, and then you try to form subjective truth (relativism) because you do not want the real answer.  As a consequence you have chosen to be willfully blind which hardens the heart.  And in the end an attitude of hostility towards objective truth is embraced which results in deeper blindness. This gets closer and closer to the original blindness that came from the fall of man. 

Looking closer, Invincible Ignorance would not apply to a Protestant the way it would to someone who never heard of the Gospel and the Catholic Church.  Reason alone tells Protestants there is something wrong with the fact that there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations bickering over the correct interpretation of Scripture.  They are not invincibly ignorant of this problem and what it means. They know this division is the fruit of “Sola Scriptura,” yet, they still refuse the Catholic Church, so there is no excuse for that.  There are circumstances such as childhood abuse, or prejudice instilled during youth that factor into the motives behind many Protestants for the decisions they make.  But everyone will be responsible for the rejection of truth if they did not respond to the degree of truth which presented itself to them.  They will be judged according to the way they lived with the Revealed Truth known to them.

We cannot see what is in the heart and mind of a person.  Only God can see that, but this is why the Church must state the unchanging truth about the necessity of the Catholic Church to be saved.  If the Church ceased to exist, so too would all the grace that flows to those who never heard of the Church.  Grace would simply not be there to meet them in their desire to live according to the degree of authentic revelation they received from Oral Tradition.

Those who speak about the necessity of being within the visible confines of the Church to be saved must “see” what is before them.  And those who reject the necessity of the Church to be saved must also “see” what is before them.   It is only through Oral Tradition that we are connected in faith to those who never heard of the Church, so let us take a closer look at this.

Can we say the Jewish people, the direct line of salvation, had the same first parents as Catholics, and those who never heard of the Gospel? The answer to that would have to be a definitive Yes! And it is important to understand that the Jewish people did not have the fullness of Revealed Truth that Catholics now have until Christ came into this world.

Are the Jewish people at fault because they did not have the fullness of revelation? No!

Are the Jewish people of the same identifiable faith held by the Catholic Church?  Yes, salvation history came through them.

 Do we say that the Jews had no connection to the visible confines of the Catholic Church? There would have to be a connection.

Is that connection invalid because they possessed a lesser degree of Revealed Truth due to no fault of their own?  No.  That is impossible.  The connection would have to remain valid and sufficient for salvation.

Do we say they could not be saved because they possessed a lesser degree of Revealed Truth?  Clearly they could be saved.  They had hope and faith in the same Lord. And we had best be able to say they are of the same faith because at Mass we hear the Priest say “Abraham … our Father in faith.” If we were to say the Jews were not of the same faith we would be condemning everyone in the Old Testament, including the prophets who did not have the fullness of Revelation.

An important distinction must be made between a “lesser degree of Revelation” and “the gray area” of relativism.  They are not the same.   Are there gray areas in Revelation?  No! There is nothing “gray” in the nature of Revealed Truth.  There are only different degrees of black and white Revealed truth.  There is never a point that relativism and a lesser degree of Revealed Truth merge into one reality to become a “gray area.”

If there is a gray area in the lives of those who never heard of the Gospel, it comes from the rejection of right reason, the Natural Law, and the degree of Revealed Truth they received through Oral Tradition known to them.  They are responsible for that rejection.

So then, we are not speaking about those who possess a lesser degree of Revealed Truth when we read,

“Do not give to the dogs what is Holy; neither cast your pearls before swine.”

That Scriptural verse refers to those who reject any degree of Revealed Truth that is knocking on their door.   And when that happens there is no faith, and faith is necessary for salvation. The degree of Revealed Truth present in anyone’s life is the pearl of great price.

The degree of Revealed Truth in every life establishes a connection to Adam through “Oral Tradition.”  The varying degrees of Revealed Truth operating in the lives of people all over the world would be the elements of sanctification that are at work outside the visible confines of the Church which Lumen Gentium speaks about.

This is no less true about those of who may have been born in the sub-Saharan lands, or any other place on the planet.  Everything said that is valid for the more direct line of salvation through Judaism that came down to us through the centuries is also true for those we never think of who were born in some far away land.  The degree of Revelation which they possess, however large of small it may be, links them, according to that degree, to the fullness of the gospel and the church which makes the degree of Revealed Truth they possess identifiably Catholic. 

The mere fact that every culture known to man makes some offering of sacrifice for sins committed in their culture shows a direct connection to the firstling offered up by the just man Abel in atonement for sin according to the degree of Revealed Truth they possess.  The degree of Revealed Truth they possess connects them to Authentic Revelation and the promise of Salvation which our first parents heard with their own ears.

To be clear, the degree of Revelation they possess is not a Gray Area, it is only a lesser degree of Revealed Truth.  The difference between lesser and fuller degrees of Revealed Truth never makes the lesser degree Gray.  Nothing of revelation is ever Gray. 

If any understanding of Revealed truth turns Gray you can be certain that Relativism has done its dirty work.  There is no value in differences that are rooted in sin.

The Holy Spirit does not work at all through religious relativism, but He supplies what is lacking to those who desire to live in accordance with the degree of Revelation they possess in their lives, along with their right reason, and with the Natural Law.  Their desire for repentance is satisfied in accordance to what is known to them because the effect of Grace that comes from the Sacraments flows to meet them where they are in their desire to repent.  A Catholic could be stranded on an island in need of confession before he dies.  A person who never heard of the Church could be stranded on the same island and die wanting to repent according to what they know of Revealed Truth.  The effects of the grace from the Sacrament of confession would flow to them both and meet them in their need before they died.

Lacking a sacramental structure the desire of anyone in any culture who has never heard of the Church is satisfied only through the Church.  So, even though salvation is open to all people, there is no Salvation without the grace of the Catholic Church, or another way of saying it, there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. 

From the Documents of Vatican II we read,

“Hence, they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.” 

Anyone who knowingly rejects the Catholic Church as necessary; yet professes the name of Christ in an attempt to get other people to enter their denomination, are like the Scribes and Pharisees that Jesus confronted.  He said of them,

“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, all!  Because you traverse the sea and land to make one convert; and when he has become one, you make him twofold more a son of Hell than yourselves.”

He also said,

“This people honors me with their lips, but their hear is far from me; and in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.”

While it is true to say man can do nothing to save himself, it is also true to say that if man does not cooperate with the Grace that flows from Calvary, he will not benefit from the Grace and he will be lost. 

Nor does any of this mean that all religions are of equal value! Christ established only one church, so all value in any religion must flow from this fact.  A false religion is a false religion, and all the false elements in that religion are simply false.  There is no value in what is false.

As an example of what is false and corrupts authentic Revelation we can look at what happens in pagan rituals. 

When a pagan ritual goes beyond what came from Adam through Oral Tradition, that very ritual becomes pagan and those involved are guilty of rejecting the degree of Revealed Truth that was present to them. When an animal sacrifice turns into worshipping the animal, the sacrificial ritual becomes entirely pagan and demonic.  Satan got hold of what they had as a remnant of Revealed Truth from Adam and twisted it to their own destruction.

It would mean that the pagans had rejected the right use of their own reason.

In Romans 1:20-26 we read,

20: “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

21: “for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.”

22: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools,”

23: “and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.”

24: “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves.”

25: “because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.”

26: “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions”

The Holy Spirit does not sanctify through what is pagan, and He does not save through the Natural Law.  He saves only through His Church.

In closing, true spirituality cannot be separated from the nature of true worship. True spirituality cannot be reduced to a code of ethics by which we live. We cannot reject the obligation to worship God according to what He has revealed and established.  To live only according to a code of ethics rather than what God has revealed is to elevate the Natural Law above God Himself. Truth has a source which leads us to the author of truth, and with the acknowledgment of truth we come to meet the reality of authority.  God not only gives us truth, but He is truth in his very essence, therefore He gives us Himself. And He does communicate truth to us through Revelation as to how we are to live our lives.  We must confront Relativism in all of its forms because Relativism is to truth as abortion is to a baby.

†

The Boston Globe

The week after the article below appeared in the Boston Globe a Protestant Pastor was quoted in a follow up article in which he called for the “elimination of men like LeBlanc from this world.” We must be prepared to expect such hostility in a world that has turned away from God.

The Boston Globe

CATHOLIC AUTHOR WARNS OF THE      DANGERS OF RELIGIOUS RELATIVISM.

By: Diego Ribadeneira, Globe Staff

August 8, 1998 Edition: Third

Section: Metro

Page: B2

Thirty years ago Pope Paul VI's encyclical condemning artificial birth control sent shock waves through the Roman Catholic world. 

Humanae Vitae dashed the hopes of many Catholics who believed church fathers might be willing to amend religious teachings on certain thorny contemporary issues. Instead, the pope stood firm. The repercussions of Paul's encyclical still reverberate. Fundamentally, Humanae Vitae made the question of authority the root of all tensions in Roman Catholicism today.

In a new book, local author Roger LeBlanc argues that the spread of dissent throughout the church on issues ranging from the role of women to human sexuality is eroding papal authority and endangering the church's future. 

LeBlanc, who holds a Pontifical Certificate to teach Catholic catechism, believes the single biggest threat to the papacy is the rise of religious relativism -- the rejection that there is one true set of beliefs that emanate from the Holy See, whose authority can be traced directly to Jesus. 

"Religious relativism is a denial that there is one true faith that is valid, the same for all people at all times and places," LeBlanc writes in "Relativism As Religion: Tracing its Historical Roots to the Modern Day Crisis (First published by Simon & Schuster)." 

"It is in fact the very cause of religious division in the world," he writes. "In His eternal wisdom, Christ left something among us by which we can say: `This is indeed the true faith.' He left us a guide, a true rule of faith. It is the papacy, the companion of sound reason." 

LeBlanc's book is sure to raise the hackles of non-Roman Catholic Christians who bristle at any suggestion that the Vatican possesses the sole copyright on how to be a proper Christian. After all, it was fierce disagreements over the role of the pope that led to the many schisms in Christianity over the centuries. And it is questions over the papacy that presents some of the biggest stumbling blocks to Christian unity. 

Sitting under a statue of the Virgin Mary ... LeBlanc said he doesn't want to antagonize other Christians. 

"This book is not a call to arms," he said. "I'm not raising the swords. I would simply ask people to look at the question of what gave birth to thousands of Christian denominations. And look at the reason for the Catholic Church's claim to absolute truth and the pope's claim to absolute authority. These are things that need to be discussed." 

LeBlanc said a main motivation behind the book is to lay down a challenge to all Catholics to examine what it is that makes them Catholics. 

Despite various polls suggesting that most American Catholics oppose the Vatican on numerous controversial topics ranging from homosexuality to a married clergy, LeBlanc said there is a growing cadre of younger Catholics whose views are more in line with Rome.

"If you choose not to be Catholic, you've made your decision, but you if you are going to call yourself Catholic then at least accept what that means," LeBlanc says. "If you look at the story of Adam and Eve, you realize that religious relativism is what caused man to lose grace with God to begin with. How do people expect to embrace religious relativism and find their way to God? Christ gave back to man what he lost in Eden by giving him the Papacy." 

LeBlanc's book comes at a crucial moment for the church. Vatican officials say Pope John Paul II is expected to release a major encyclical attacking relativism in the fall. Angered by what he sees as unjustified assaults on church teaching and authority, John Paul has issued edicts that attempt

Recent pronouncements have been aimed at curbing theologians who challenge church dogma, and limiting the role of lay people in local churches.

"It's not like the pope is afraid of losing his authority," LeBlanc says. "He's trying to defend the faith. If you don't have ultimate authority rest in the papacy, you reduce religion to something of man's own invention -- and then there is no more reason to discuss matters of faith because it's all purely subjective." 

(LeBlanc holds Pontifical Certification from the Holy See in Rome) 

(Author's note - Diego Ribadeneira, from the Globe Staff states LeBlanc said, "You don't have to be a Catholic, but you if you are going to call yourself Catholic then at least accept what that means. " 

What LeBlanc indicated that one cannot be forced to enter the church, but he did not imply there s no obligation to enter the church. 

Religion Notes

Caption: Author Roger LeBlanc believes that the "denial that there is one true faith that is valid for all" is the biggest threat to the papacy. / GLOBE STAFF PHOTO/BILL GREENE Memo: THE SPIRITUAL LIFE Copyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company Record Number: 9808111231to dampen dissent and increase the power of the clergy. 

Endorsements of the book are as follows:

Patrick Madrid

"The root problem here is relativism.  It’s a rejection of the concept of objective, unchanging truth in favor of multiple “truths.”  It breeds the all too familiar “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me” mentality.  This thinking, of course, enables people to commit all manner of crimes and annoyances because it sedates the consciences and whispers reassurances that their “truth” is being safeguarded,  even though they know deep down that what they’re doing is contrary to objective truth.  Relativism is also, commonly, a denial that there is One True Church.  This type of Relativism seeks to impose the notion that the Catholic Church is merely one option among many.  And for many, perhaps most, Catholics, relativism in either form – moral or religious – can be a temptation as well as a vexing obstacle when dealing with others who deny absolute truths.”

"Now there is a helpful tool to clear away the relativist’s clutter that besets us everywhere.  “Relativism as Religion” is a straightforward examination of how we and those around us can become enmeshed in fuzzy thinking about morality, religion, and even our own families.  The book sets forth a clear diagnosis of the problem and offers practical insights for combating it.  I particularly appreciated the author’s attention to grounding his arguments in the wisdom of the Church and his reminders that we must recognize the authority of the Pope.  Relativism as Religion will take its rightful place among those excellent books that help us to see reality the way it really is."

Fr. George Rutler (Frequently seen of ETWN)

"This is a helpful analysis of the deep sickness in "attempts" to think in our day.  The author gives straightforward advice on how the sickness can be cured by Christ, the good physician, and His one, true Church."

Bishop John Elya (Eparch, Melkite Catholic)

"Commendable work.  May the light of Christ enlighten us all.  Thank you very much, Roger Leblanc, for a job very well done."

Fr. Michael Scanlon (President of Stubenville)

"Timely and important.  This book links the pervasive manifestation of relativism throughout Church life today and compares them with the historic role of the Catholic Church as Teach of Truth."

Fr. Robert Fox (Fatima Family Apostolate)

Published an article on this book in "The Fatima Family Apostolate."