Monday, July 29, 2013

Dare We Compare The Masses? Part 3: What is Worship?

Thus far we have identified the question of comparing the Masses, and we have defined what The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is in its essence. Now we will define the meaning worship. As we continue to define terms and ideas concerning The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it will ultimately lead us to a place where we can objectively compare the two Masses side by side to see which better serves the Church. This is important because if we can identify which of the two Masses better serves the worship of almighty God, than it would be an obligation to try and educate others so that this form of worship is made more widely available to the faithful.

If we first look at worship from a natural law perspective, we can define what worship is in general. The word worship comes from worth-ship, and is defined as "worthiness." Similar words have been used to address Kings, Queens and other royalty, such as 'Your Honor', or 'Your Excellency', etc. Its truest form is when used in a religious context. It refers to formally acknowledging a divine being or deity. Divine worship is traditionally understood to made up of three components. Fr. Augustine Fagothey defines them as follows.

1. Adoration- Defined as being an explicit and formal acknowledgement of God's infinite greatness.
2. Prayer- Defined as the raising of the mind and heart to God, as well as a petitioning of or asking of something of God.
3. Sacrifice- Defined as the offering of some precious object or thing to God, and its immolation or destruction to signify that we give back to God. It is usually accompanied by prayer.

There are two secondary acts which compose worship which are a vow, which is a promise made to God to do something pleasing, and an oath which calls God to witness the truth of what we say.

Man is obligated to worship God since man by his intellect is capable of knowing that God exists. Since man is able to understand his dependence on God for his existence it would be an act of injustice to God for man to neglect this worship. If he is bound to worship he is also obligated to perform the three components of worship as perfect as he can according to his knowledge.

Man is composed of body and spirit, and is obliged to worship interiorly and exteriorly. We can all pray from the heart, and yet we must also worship in an external form and structure that is pleasing to God. It is important that we must first be concerned with what is pleasing to God, and not our own concerns and ideas. We must give to God what is most just in reference to our worship of Him. Although man can himself never be perfect in his worship, man must be sure to take every care to do what is most perfect. This is important when it comes to Catholic worship. Although we have the perfect Sacrifice being offered in the Mass, Christ Himself, the prayers and other components of the liturgy must also be as perfect as possible to reflect the reality of this perfect Sacrifice.

When we examine all of these components we begin to see an image or a tapestry appear which can give us an idea of where our focus needs to be when it comes to The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It surely must first be focused on God, not man. It must be focused on what is owed to God in justice, because of His infinite greatness. It must acknowledge and promote the realities of the Catholic faith when it comes to worship. For this reason we have defined what worship is in the context of what the Mass is in its essence, as defined by the Catholic faith. By doing so we can use our intellect to examine what a virtuous ritual would be in relation to these realities. Unfortunately those who adopted new philosophical ideas, which were openly condemned for more than 100 years by a succession of Roman Pontiffs, radically opposed this traditional understanding of "worship."

Traditionally man's intellect comes into conformity with the reality of the existence of God and his duty to worship God. Furthermore, man through his intellect acknowledged the truth God had revealed about Himself through the Church by Divine Revelation. Man then rightfully acted in accordance to this reality. Liturgy was developed in accordance with these principles of worship and Divine Revelation. However, many in recent history have adopted the polluted philosophical ideas of Hegal, Kierkegaard, Blondel, and Kant, who stood reality on its head. They integrated this thinking into their theology. For example, Kierkegaard denied man's rational ability to understand true worship, essentially separating faith from reason. Maurice Blondel was concerned with the human mind as being the central axis of which everything revolved, rather than the mind conforming to reality. Kant was the foundation for the errors of the many brands of Personalism, which over emphasized communitarianism, subjectivism, and ultimately upset the applecart when it came to epistemology, or how human beings come to know things. Kant could be said to be an anti-Thomist philosopher. For Kant, man is the center of everything, while for Aquinas, man's center is serving God.

We thus have two different views of man and man's relation to God. These two opposing views, one where God is the prime focus of worship, the other which puts the focus towards man, allow us to begin comparing different models of worship. Should The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass exhibit more characteristics which can be identified with these new philosophies, where community, emotion, subjectivism and personal judgement begin to hold sway over worship? Is it better for worship to move away from being more focused on Christ and His Sacrifice to being more focused on human concerns, wants and desires? Should the prayers be more focused on community than on God? It seems that if the structure of The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass were to move in a direction away from being focused on God, to being more focused on man, it would be objectively less virtuous in its nature as true worship.

To be more specific. If one ritual better teaches or demonstrates these realities of how we relate to God, then that ritual would be objectively superior to the other. This could entail prayer composition, external gestures, music, or posture. A removal or change of wording in prayers or a removal of important gestures for example, could constitute a decline in worship, since certain critical realities identified with worship and the essence of the Mass could be made more obscure by doing so. If prayers, gestures, postures, etc, were to move in a direction where Christ's Sacrifice, His Real Presence, and the right worship of God were less exalted, this ritual would then be objectively less congruent with the Catholic faith, thus making it objectively less pleasing to God, and thus an inferior ritual of worship.

On the other hand, if a ritual were to organically develop and gradually add or change prayers or gestures to better convey these realities, we could say that the ritual becomes more rich, or objectively more virtuous over time. Take for example the prayers at the foot of the altar which were at one time prayed by the priest in the sacristy, then later said optionally on the way to the altar, then later made obligatory as part of the ritual itself. This organic development objectively made the ritual more virtuous since that prayer being said at the foot of the altar, makes the reality of the Mass more readily understood by the faithful. It makes the ritual richer in its focus on the realities of a perfect God and the fallen nature of man. It tells the faithful where they are and where they are going in the worship of almighty God, being led to the foot of the cross for a true and perfect Sacrifice. So far we have not begun our formal comparison of the two rituals at this point. Let us not be hasty in making our comparison. There is still more groundwork to be laid out before we can begin.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

Dare We Compare the Masses? Part 2: The Essence of the Mass

Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is...

If we are going to compare the Tridentine Mass to the Novus Ordo Mass we must first properly define what the Mass is in its essence. What exactly takes place during the Mass? Once we can define the essence of the Mass properly, then we can examine the prayers and composition of each Mass and see which best presents this reality to the faithful. This is very important since when we are referring to what the Mass is, it stands to reason that we should do everything possible to present its essence as best we can in the structure of the Mass. Pope Pius XII wrote that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is, "the fountain-head of genuine Christian devotion." We will see why this is the case.

The Mass in the West has been traditionally referred to as 'The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.' Unfortunately this term has become somewhat obscured over the past 50 years or so. Most theologians refer to it now just as 'The Mass.' Although it may be acceptable not to have to write out the name in long form throughout an entire article or writing, it is very unfortunate that this full explanatory term is rarely used at all today. Essence is simply the definition of a thing, what it is. One of the most extreme travesties caused by many modern theologians is that they no longer define anything. They often use terms loosely not wanting to be pinned down by dogmatic language, and as a result their theology mimics an amoebic form rather than a structured form. When we explain the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in concrete terms it is only then that the intellect can properly comprehend what is truly is.

Saint Thomas Aquinas gives an explanation as to the essence of the Mass in the Summa Theologica, "...the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ's Passion, which is His true sacrifice. Accordingly the celebration of this sacrament is called Christ's sacrifice...As the celebration of this sacrament is an image representing Christ's Passion, so the altar is representative of the cross itself, upon which Christ was sacrificed in His proper species." There are many who now say that the Mass is a meal, in which Christ offers Himself as He did at the Last Supper. Yet they fail to realize that the Last Supper itself is His Sacrifice in a real and proper sense. In other words the Last Supper is in reality Christ's very sacrifice on the cross, they cannot be separated. The Body which we receive is truly that Body which Jesus Christ offered up on the cross, as well as being present at The Last Supper. To refer to the Holy sacrifice of the Mass as a meal as its essence would be incorrect. It is only a meal in the context of the whole sacrifice, which is why when modernists refer to the Mass as a meal in relation to the Last Supper and the Mass, they are completely missing the point.

All of the apostolic Churches understand The Last Supper in a sacrificial manner including the Eastern Orthodox. For example, in Heiromonk Gregorios' commentary on the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom he writes, "At the Last Supper, Christ celebrates sacramentally His sacrifice on the cross." As Cardinal Journet explained, Saint Cyprian of Carthage illustrated this point in his Letter LXIII to Cecil where he clearly spoke of the Mass as being the very same sacrifice as that of the Last Supper, and that of Christ's passion. The meal or "Supper" aspect of eating Christ's flesh cannot be separated from His sacrifice, and henceforth the sacrifice is the essence of the Mass. It is what the Mass is. To call the Mass a meal would be like calling a Holy Icon of the Virgin Mary a wooden board. The Holy Icon may be composed of a wooden board, but it is in its essence, a Holy Icon. Likewise the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass may have elements of a meal by our eating of His Body and Blood, but it is in its essence a sacrifice, or THE sacrifice.

We must realize that the sacrifice that is taking place on the altar is the exact same sacrifice that happened in Jerusalem 2000 years ago, given under the mysterious veil of the Sacrament. Father John Hardon once wrote, "Trent tells us that the sacrifice of the Mass is not only a liturgical ceremony, or merely a celebration or merely a remembrance of the sacrifice on Calvary. No, the Mass is a sacrifice. The Mass is the sacrifice, which St. Paul tells us wiped out all the other sacrifices that had been offered until the coming of Christ. Christ’s death on the cross originally merited the graces to redeem the world, but Christ now actually confers those graces." Can this be any clearer? Christ being high priest and victim, presents Himself in the same manner of sacrifice, that of the cross, wherever the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is taking place here now on earth. It must be understood that not only is Christ present in His full substance, but His very sacrifice and passion is also truly present. So we must take care not to equate the essence of the Mass to a meal, as if Christ is only giving Himself to be eaten or consumed.

If we are not careful we may ignorantly fall into the condemnation of Trent, "If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat, let him be anathema." Notice this condemnation is not related to one denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Mass, but the manner which He is present. If one were to believe that Christ was substantially present in the Mass in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and yet deny the essential manner in which He is present, which is that of sacrifice, one would be a heretic. Once we come to understand this reality it should give us pause as to how we must view the prayers, rubrics and setting of the Mass that surrounds the consecration, and to how they relate to the manner in which Christ is present in the consecration. 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Dare We Compare the Masses? Part I: Introduction

It seems to be increasingly unpopular today to be a Catholic and compare the age old Latin Mass and the ad-hoc, composed by committee Novus Ordo Mass. Many pop-apologists today are not likely to discuss such controversial topics as the theologians of old once did. They consider these matters to be below them. However, provided that Catholics acknowledge the obvious fact that the Church cannot give us an invalid Mass, it is no sin to study and compare the New Order Mass to the Tridentine Mass. In fact, I would argue that if done properly and with prudence, it is a great help to the Church to examine the two liturgies to see which, if either of the two Masses better serve the faithful. For those who wish to take the easy way out and assume the two as being equal, this series of articles is probably not for you. For those who like to dig into the liturgies and examine their structure, celebration, and historical context, you may enjoy them.

The Latin Rite today finds itself in an odd state where two liturgies are essentially now competing for the same real estate. We find both Masses being increasingly offered in the same parishes often drawing people usually to one or the other. It is interesting to note that rarely do you find Catholics who straddle the line between the two, even if they claim that they believe they are both essentially the same. Despite many Catholics claiming to see them as equals, or else claiming each to be special in their own way, most Catholics will strongly favor one or the other for various reasons. In past ages the West has had different liturgies being celebrated by different communities at the same time, but we really have not seen an identical situation which have today, where the Latin Rite has two liturgies, one which was for all practical purposes, for a time abolished. 

As we know, the Latin Rite Mass was for the most part completely replaced by the New Order Mass by Pope Paul VI in 1969. In hindsight it is easy for people to say that the old Tridentine Mass was never replaced, but just ask any priest who was ordained just before the Council, and they will all tell you they were forbidden to say the old Tridentine Mass. So for all intents and purposes, although it was not really abrogated by a solemn formal papal decree, the Latin Mass was for a time abolished to the point where ordinary priests were not allowed to say the old Mass. Pope Paul VI did decree that the old Missal was to be a replaced for ordinary use by the New Order. Priests were commanded to use only the New Order for that time forward. Then for a time, the old Mass was allowed only by Indult, which was put into place by John Paul II. That however never really took hold since the vast majority of the world's bishops would never grant permission. Then of course after the 2007 motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum" everything changed, and we now see a true resurgence of the Latin Mass. This progression of events was surely an oddity for the Church. 

Since 2007 there has been growing friction between proponents of the New Order Mass and those of the Tridentine Mass. We should ask a few questions about this state of affairs. Is there a harmonious balance to be struck between the two? Many theologians claim there is. Do they mutually enrich each other as many have also claimed? Is one of them truly better suited to serve the Church, as many others argue? In this short series of posts I will examine each of these claims and see which proposal makes the most sense. Can both of these liturgies remain as siblings in the life of the Latin Church for an extended period of time? Will one or the other eventually be officially abrogated, or will one of them simply die out? Will changes be made to both liturgies until they eventually merge into one another, making yet another type of hybrid Mass? 

I think these are all valid questions to ponder. Although we may not know the future of what will happen, we can examine each of the liturgical structures and the theology that underpins their compositions. We can also examine the observed effects that each Mass has had on the faithful, and wether or not one solution seems to be better than another. Since the Mass is such a crucial element of the Catholic faith, should we not dare to compare these two Masses? To be sure, this series is not for the faint of heart! 

Sunday, July 21, 2013

The Promise of Embyronic Stem Cells- A World Class Idiot VS A Scholar

If you want to understand the problems we have in society today we must often compare ill-reason with right reason. In the first link below we see a world class buffoon explaining how he is about to sign an executive order allowing the use of embryonic stem cell research. We hear applause from the roomful of useful idiots who think he is a hero. In the link below that, we have a real scholar who tells us exactly how useful embryonic stem cells are, or are not. One person is a charlatan with a big mouth, the other a seeker of truth and goodness. One has no idea what he is talking about, the other has spent their entire career in this field. Who are you going to listen to? Unfortunately there are few who seek out the truth and find it! I find it alarming that so many people think that embryonic stem cells have advanced medicine, when in fact it is the adult stem cells that are advancing medicine. Isn't it funny that when a moral means is used to treat people we actually have positive results, and the immoral means generate negative results? Trust me, it is no coincidence. Case in point, don't be a useful idiot!

World Class Idiot Signs Executive Order

World Class Scholar Explains Stem Cells

The Commoditization of Human Beings For Vaccines and Other Products

I highly recommend watching this 37 minute video regarding how human beings are being exploited to manufacture vaccines and other products. It is amazing that people are actually putting skin creams on their faces, and receiving vaccines into their bodies that are made using aborted fetal cells. These vaccines are clearly made using immoral means and many are also largely considered to be ineffective. Medical experts have identified these vaccines as being "dirty." That is they often cause harm to those who receive them. For example, there is no question that the rise of autism in our youth is directly linked to the use of these "dirty" vaccines. Many global medical companies are clearly engaged in immoral practices to build their cash coffers upon. What makes all of this even worse is that our tax dollars are also being used to further this industry. Dr. Deischer gives an engaging presentation, and is one of the foremost experts in this field. She has is also currently developing alternatives to these "dirty" vaccines. Pass this video on!

Visit her websites.

Dr. Deisher testifies on the connection between vaccines and autism

Friday, July 19, 2013

What Can The Old Rite Teaches Us?

The traditional Latin Mass has made huge gains in the Church over the past six years or so, since the release of Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio. Why are so many Catholics now being drawn into the Latin Mass? I have been reading Father Chad Ripperger's latest E-book called 'Topics on Tradition.' In it he gives some great insight into the Latin Mass, how it draws us into God and essentially teaches us more about God. I have been going to the Latin Mass now for about seven years, occasionally also going to the Ukrainian Rite. After consistently attending the Latin Mass over this extended period, I have no desire to return to a Novus Ordo parish. Below are some excerpts from the book that illustrate why this is the case.

Frequently, the laity who come to the old rite for the first time find an appetitive revulsion to the ritual because of the silence. They do not express it exactly that way, of course, but as they talk it becomes clear that they do not like the fact that they are not being talked at and not doing some of the talking themselves. St. John of the Cross used to say that before he would enter into mystical contemplation his “house,” as he called himself, became all quiet; and by this he meant that all of his appetites and faculties had quieted down. This is a sign to us that we must be quiet, we must be stripped of self in order to ascend the heights of perfection, and the old Mass aids that understanding.... of the most notable failings in modern times: a desire to determine for ourselves how we will worship God. It is erroneous because it is up to God to tell us the type of worship that pleases or displeases Him and, therefore, only He should be the one to determine the ritual. It was mentioned earlier that God had fashioned the liturgy over the course of time through the saints, who were filled with love of God – everything they did came from Him and led back to Him. The old rite teaches us the important spiritual lesson that if we are going to be holy and pleasing to God, then our task is to conform to the liturgy and not make the liturgy something of our own doing or make it conform to us. Furthermore, since it is God who must determine the ritual, we learn that the Mass is not about us but about God. We are only a secondary aspect of the rite . This is made clear in the ancient ritual in that control over the liturgy is taken away from us, and we thereby recognize that it is not about us. While our desire is to benefit from the Mass, our benefit ultimately must be referred back to God; that is to say, we become holy because it gives God greater glory. So even the aspects that affect us are ultimately about God...
The old ritual also fosters a sense of detachment on the side of the priest and the people because the ritual is completely determined by Holy Mother the Church....The Mass is not about the priest; it does not have to be sustained by his personality...Since he says Mass facing God and not the people, his own personality, or lack thereof, is not what sustains the ritual. He is able to let his own personality fade into the background so that he can concentrate fully on attending to God...
Lack of options teaches the priest detachment and it also teaches the laity self-denial because they know they cannot try to manipulate the priest to do in the liturgy what they want, since it is out of his hands. Detachment is key to any discussion of the liturgy and any sound spiritual life. Modern man has lost all detachment regarding the liturgy and he is constantly subjecting it to his appetites...
The ancient liturgy also provides a depth to one’s spiritual life for three reasons. The first is that it takes us out of ourselves and brings us to God; if we remain in ourselves and if we fashion a liturgy that is at our whim and ultimately about us, then we are doomed to shallowness and superficiality. Rather, insofar as the liturgy is out of our hands, we recognize that it is beyond us, it is mysterious, and insofar as it is about God, it can forever be contemplated. 
The second is that it is founded on tradition. Tradition provides a mechanism in which man can abandon himself to God who fashions the tradition rather than taking control of it himself and jettisoning the tradition. In other words, tradition provides a mechanism by which the spiritual and liturgical patrimony of the saints can be given to each generation, who can use it to their spiritual benefit. Like someone who does not know his historical roots and therefore does not know himself, modern man has chosen to reject liturgical tradition and replace it with himself, only to be lost in self and never truly to understand himself. Tradition provides a way for the young to ground themselves in the wisdom of the past. This applies not only to cultural things but to the liturgy and the spiritual life as well. 
The third thing that the ancient liturgy provides is repetition. Now modern man has rejected repetition because he has a fixation on novelty. Novelty, of course, gives our appetites delight but does not necessarily indicate depth. To enter into something in depth requires time and repeated considerations of a thing. Repetitio mater discendi, as we say in Latin: repetition is the mother of learning. This principle applies not only to learning but to our spiritual lives as well. By repeating a prayer, its meaning becomes more known to us and therefore is able to be entered into more perfectly and with greater depth. Since the ancient rite allows not for novelty but repetition, it provides a way in which people can focus on the mysteries present rather than the new things that are constantly popping up. With the silence quieting our faculties and the repetition that characterize each Mass, we are able to participate in and enter more perfectly into the mysteries of the Mass.
Ripperger, Chad (2013-03-26). Topics on Tradition. Kindle Edition. 

Thoughts on the Trayvon Martin Case

While growing nauseated at the hate filled rants going on by hustlers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the like, concerning the Martin/Zimmerman case, I was compelled to write an article on it. Before getting too far however I ran across Carl Olson's article on The Catholic World Report. Carl's article 'Still arguing over the Zimmerman case? Then you're being played' hit the nail on the head. The media and the politicians are playing the American public for fools. The truth is most of these bombastic loudmouths on television could care less for the life of Martin or anyone else. Sadly the death of this kid is being used as a political tool to further the agendas of the heartless left, who feed on tragedies like these. The longer these mountebanks keep people divided on this case the more they can divide, and that is really what they want. The fact is, the morals of this country are going down a bad road to ruin. Check out the article.

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Church and Science: Common Historical Lies and Blunders

If you have not read any of James Hannam's books, an English scholar, you may want to check him out. He has written two books concerning science and the Church, 'God's Philosophers' and the 'Genesis of Science'.  I have the first book and it is a great read. The second one is on my growing wish list! There is also an excellent 45 minute lecture on the 'Faith and Life' podcast website. Scroll down for his talk 'Faith and Science.' He goes through some historical blunders and lies that have been passed off as "history" in today's mal-educated society. His main point of course is that the Church has never been against science, and has in fact been its largest promoter.

It is truly amazing what the average person buys into today, especially when it comes to medieval history, science and the Church. Hannam has also written several excellent articles including one on the flat earth myth that many gullible people buy into today, and one on the inquisitions of the Church. What I find so appalling today is the Janus faced anti-Christian bigots who cry out against the supposed great atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition, which by the way can be held accountable for maybe 5000 executions by trial over a period of about 300 years, and then ignore modern irreligious atrocities who murdered millions without the benefit of trial! In fact between the years of 1540 and 1700 almost 50,000 people received trials in Spain, 700 were actually executed. Fast forward to the godless Stalin, who murdered an estimated minimum of 20 million with no benefit of a trial! More accurate data from recent investigations prove it to be more like 35 to 50 million murdered in the name of the State. Yes, Janus is alive and well.

Fr Giertych on Contraception and the Coming Violence

This is a very good interview concerning the Church's teaching on contraception, and the consequences we are seeing a result of its acceptance in today's society.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider on Vatican II

Redeeming Economics

A recommended book on economics. 'Redeeming Economics: Rediscovering the Missing Element' Here is a review of it from 'First Things.'

Logical Consequences of Agnosticism

I was doing some reading online and ran across a Jesuit scholar named Bernard Boedder SJ. The title of his book written in 1902 is 'Natural Theology.' One of the sections of the book deals with the logical consequences of an agnostic mindset. Many in our nation are turning away from Christianity and instead worshiping themselves and the State, thinking falsely that their government will save the planet and make them a utopia. Instead see the decline of morality leading the nation towards a barbaric anti-life mentality. We know the consequences when man makes himself the object of worship, and its not pretty. Just remember the Bolshevik and French Revolutions, where they made themselves and their States "gods". That mentality really worked out well. This section of the book gives a good explanation of what we see happening today in our own country. You can find the entire book here. I have quoted a few things from that chapter (Chapter II Section 5) that I found to be most illuminating.

We maintain that in the great mass of mankind, were agnosticism ever universally accepted, its effects, moral and social, would be most pernicious. Individuals of the average human type cannot lose the belief in an all-seeing and infinitely holy and just God without being exposed to commit many crimes, which they would not have committed if they had persevered in that belief. If God does not exist, no one is able to point out any sufficient principle of morality, which he can prove that man is absolutely bound to abide by. Of course certain actions will be more becoming than others, because more suited to rational nature. If a man is a man of good taste he will so far forth abide by these actions and abstain from their opposites. But suppose he does not care to be a man of taste, what is to oblige him to it? On that supposition, no one has a right to blame his fellow-man for enjoying life as he thinks fit. What is man, if you take God away? What else but a machine made of matter, held together by material forces? What shall oblige me to have more respect for that machine called man, than for another called ox or sheep or monkey, which anatomy proves to be constructed on quite a similar plan and to be made of the same organic elements? Why is it a greater crime to destroy a man-machine than to destroy a monkey-machine? Unless there is an immaterial Divine Spirit, there cannot possibly be an immaterial human soul, and if there is not an immaterial human soul, our so-called freedom of will is an illusion. But if our freedom is an illusion, moral responsibility is an empty name, and if that is an empty name, nobody is to be blamed, however erroneous may be the misdeeds by which, in the opinion of men, he sins against the dignity, as it is called, of man. These and the like are the practical lessons which logically follow from agnosticism. How can they be put into practice without giving free rein to the most revolting vices in the mass of men?

Again, if agnosticism with these moral consequences, which objectively are implied in it, were universally prevalent, all social relations would sooner or later be in hopeless confusion. The good order of a commonwealth rests above all upon a healthy family life. Where domestic relations, domestic authority, domestic virtues are not respected, civil relations will constitute a very frail machinery: civil authority will only rest upon changeable party-passions; civil virtues will degenerate into hypocritical egotism. But if in the family God is not acknowledged, if His fear does not check the impetuosity of vicious cravings, the most sacred bonds of family life will soon be broken. A nation of agnostics soon would suffer from so many evils that, to quote the saying of the Roman historian, Sallust, "neither the evils nor their remedies would be bearable."...
Centuries of recognition of the Christian sanctions of the moral law have bequeathed a strong hereditary bias in favour of morality which will hold out for awhile against the adverse forces. But this bias must abate, if the world continues to drift away from the only sound form of theism, which is Christianity. Mr. Spencer, we know, anticipates a blissful age when the feeling of moral constraint, of the "ought," will die of atrophy, because the path of right and the path of pleasure will, under the influence of more suitable education, have been made to coincide. We can only say that the present outlook, if we go by observation, not by questionable a priori inferences, offers no anticipations of any such eventual coincidence.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Worshipping the State

I encourage you to watch this interview and then go out and buy this book. As I have argued many times before, there is not much difference between Republican or Democrat today. They are both actively pushing a secular liberal religion upon the American people. Here is the history behind it, and what we can do to change it. Visit Dr. Wiker's web page here for more info.