Thursday, July 14, 2016

There is only one Holocaust and it has aught to do with World War Two



The Holocaust was the Pluperfect Salvific Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary in which His burning love substituted for the material fire of the Old Testament holocausts, all of which sacrifices were instituted to prepare the once chosen people to accept the Messias as their Saviour.

But the majority of Messias-Deniers, then and now, rejected/reject Jesus as the Messias and one of the consequences of that denial is their once true religion has devolved into anthropomorphic racial supremacism to such an extent that they have substituted their own sufferings in place of the Salvific Sacrifice of Jesus Christ and, to add spiritual insult to material injury, the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church has aided and abetted this superstitious supersessionism with the sad result that if the reader were to ask any of his Catholic friends - "What is the holocaust?" - 99.999% of them would respond with the answer guaranteed to please the Messias-Deniers while the 0.001% of Catholics answering correctly - "The Holocaust was the pluperfect Salvific Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary and it is also the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" - would be looked upon as atavistic anti semites.

Let's leave the Church's politically inspired prudential choice in this matter aside and focus on the Messias-Deniers and their captious claim.

Let's do something a little different here when it comes to opposing the Messias-Deniers and their supersessionism of the One True Holocaust. Let's accept that their claims of what happened to them, and them alone, during the second world war can be called a holocaust and let's base our response to that claim upon italicised excerpts from "The Sacrifice of the Mass" by Rev. Herbert Lucas, S.J

http://tinyurl.com/h63udnn

If the Messias-Deniers are correct that the world war two war crimes committed against them - and them alone - was a holocaust then that idea has these inescapable and insane consequences they must accept:

...the idea which lies at the root of all sacrifice is that of an offering, of an offering which affords a means of access to God, of an offering which is in some sense vicarious, as symbolical of the self-oblation of the offerer 

If the sufferings of the Jews was a holocaust; then the Nazis were sacrificing Jews as a means to access God and their sacrifice was the Jews self-oblation.

 It might be a simple—albeit most solemn—acknowledgment of the supreme dominion of God ; and this would seem to have been the true inward significance of the holocaust or whole-burnt offering. Or it might be in the nature of a thank-offering or peace offering, terms which sufficiently explain themselves. Or again it might have for its specific purpose the removal of an obstacle in the form of a sin or trespass, which impeded the approach of the offender to God ; in which case the sacrifice would be in the strict sense propitiatory.

If the sufferings of the Jews was a holocaust, then The Nazis were killing the Jews as a peace offering to God or they were killing Jews as a way to have their sins forgiven and all of the Jews they killed were killed as an act of propitiation.

Morbidly Insane, but this is what the Messias-Deniers are insisting upon, so, let's continue:

That in the holocaust or whole-bumt offering the entire victim was consumed by fire on the altar is sufficiently indicated by the terms employed in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate and English versions, Catholic and Anglican. It is less clearly implied in the original Hebrew word Wan, which means a " sending-up " or "causing to ascend.

If the sufferings of the Jews was a holocaust, The Nazis were sacrificing the Jews on an altar. 

Now in a sentence which has been embodied in one of the prayers in the Roman Missal (the Secreta of the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost), St. Leo tells us that in His one sacrifice Our Lord has united and consummated the ancient rites with all their diversities. And indeed it is easy to see that His offering of Himself was a holocaust by reason of its completeness ; a propitiatory offering for sin by reason of its atoning efficacy and purpose, and finally a peace-offering whereby the atonement was not only made but sealed by a sacrificial meal. 

Ok, stay with me for this insanity is about to go galactic in its profound and monumental insipidity: 

Now in a sentence which has been embodied in one of the prayers in the Roman Missal (the Secreta of the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost), St. Leo tells us that in His one sacrifice Our Lord has united and consummated the ancient rites with all their diversities. And indeed it is easy to see that His offering of Himself was a holocaust by reason of its completeness ; a propitiatory offering for sin by reason of its atoning efficacy and purpose, and finally a peace-offering whereby the atonement was not only made but sealed by a sacrificial meal. 

The Jews are telling the world what happened to them was a holocaust and insisting the world obey them and use the word holocaust to describe what is clearly not a holocaust and so let's just set aside the principle of non-contradiction and re-read that paragraph and understand what are the consequences of that insane idea.

If the sufferings of the Jews was a holocaust, The Messias-Deniers must think the Nazis killing them was a fulfillment of their Old Testament Judaism.

And then, after the Nazi's killed the Jews, they ate them.

Fine, but it is the preposterous insanity of the Messias-Deniers who own that idea and its ineluctable consequences and if y'all want to do what they order - call a holocaust what is clearly not a holocaust - then, have at it, but ABS will never use the word Holocaust to describe the war crimes committed against the Jews.

Let's soldier on in confronting the insanity for it grows increasingly larger:

Hence it is explicitly noted, as an element in the perfection of the sacrifice of Christ, that in this case Priest and Victim were one and the same. And yet even here the idea of substitution was not wanting, for here the all-perfect Victim was self-offered for His people. In the divine tragedy of Calvary it is plain that it was not the act of slaying Our Lord that constituted the sacrifice, but Our Lord's acceptance of the death inflicted on Him.

If the sufferings of the Jews was a holocaust, the Messias-Deniers must think the Jews in the second world war were willing victims and the Jews sacrificed themselves to God via the nazis.

Those are the consequences of the insane idea that what happened in world war two was a holocaust and the Messias-Deniers must accept all of the consequences.

Now, the Messias-Deniers have free will and they can claim whatever they want to claim but are you, dear reader, going to be obedient to them when they insist you call what happened to them a holocaust?

You won't if you retrain a modicum of sanity in your soul for there is only one Holocaust - The Holocaust is the pluperfect Salvific Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary and it is also the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Friday, July 1, 2016

The Martin Luther Mall (Always open. Always free).

There are plans for Pope Francis to go to Lund, Sweden this October to bless the protestant revolution and try to bathe in glory the Heresiarch.

This Mall will remain open so that men may intellectually shop here at any time and pick-up what they require to protect their own selves against this most ill-advised progressive project.












Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. The Three Ages of Interior Life

At the beginning of a treatise on the interior life, it is important to get a high idea of sanctifying grace; Protestantism, following several nominalists of the fourteenth century, has lost the conception of it. In Luther's opinion, man is justified not by a new infused life, but by the exterior imputation of the merits of Christ, in such a way that he is not interiorly changed and that it is not necessary for his salvation that he observe the precept of the love of God above all else. Such an opinion is a radical misconception of the interior life spoken of in the Gospel. This lamentable doctrine was prepared by that of the nominalists, who said that grace is a gift which is not essentially supernatural, but which morally gives a right to eternal life, like paper money which, though only paper, gives a right, by reason of a legal institution, to receive money. This doctrine constituted the negation of the essentially supernatural life; it was a failure to recognize the very essence of grace and of the theological virtues.



Thursday, June 30, 2016

Salvation and Sanctification

John 3: 16 *For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

This is said by way of anticipation, lest Nicodemus should object, “If thou art the Son of God, how will God suffer Thee to be suspended and exalted upon the cross?”

Christ meets this by implying that God will permit it in order to show forth His burning love to men, which was typified by the serpent of brass, which is called in Hebrew saraph, which means fiery, and setting on fire. So S. Chrysostom and Theophylact.

Observe that every word of Christ in this sentence has a great and special emphasis, in order to magnify to the utmost the love of God. For (i.) He says, So, with such vehemence, such excess of love. 2. Not a king, or an angel, loved, but God. 3. Loved, i e., first and as it were gratuitously; without merit, yea, even without desire on our part. 4. The world, His enemy, and under the sentence of damnation. 5. Gave not another man, not a. angel, not another world, but His Son; and that not an adopted Son, but His own Son; and again not one Son of many, but His only Son, His Only Begotten Son. 6. He did not sell, or lend, but gave freely; and not to a kingdom and triumphs, but to death and the Cross. 7. Christ did not do it for Himself, to gain any advantage for Himself, but that He, the Creator, might give life to us His creatures by His own death, that by His humility He might exalt us, that by His emptying Himself He might heap upon us eternal glory, and an infinite weight of wealth and goodness. This is the love of God towards man, which the Apostle celebrates (Titus iii. 5).

You may say, it would have been greater love if God the Father had given Himself for us, and taken our flesh, than that He sent His Son. For he gives more who gives himself than he who sends another.

But I reply that this is true of those who are of a different essence, but not of God: for the Father and the Son have the same Divine Essence, and are consubstantial. Wherefore the Father, in giving us His Son, with Him gave us His own Essence, than which nothing greater can exist, or be given. This gift of the Father was therefore the greatest possible, and infinite. So S. Cyril on this passage.
You may further urge, God gave not His own Person, but His Essence only: and that He would have given more if He had given His Person also. I answer by denying the conclusion. 1. Because Person is God is in reality the same as Essence; for it adds nothing to His Essence except relatively, and the idea of distinction from the other Persons: also because the Person of the Son is as worthy a the Person of the Father. For all the three Divine Persons are co-equal in all things, as the Athanasian Creed saith. Besides, the Father in giving the Person of His Son, gave us also His own Person, as well as the Person of the Holy Ghost. Because the Father is in the Son, and both are in the Holy Ghost. And again the Son is in the Father, and the Holy Ghost in the Father and the Son, of which I will speak more fully on chapter xiv. 10.

Moreover S. Thomas (3 part, qu. 3) gives several reasons why God the Father gave not proximately His own Person, but the Person of His Son; or why the Son alone took upon Him our flesh. Among which the primary is, because the Father willed to adopt us and our nature, and to make us His sons, and so heirs. For He made His Son to be our brother, that by Him we might become sons of God, and so heirs, as Christ here intimates.

Ver. 17.—For God sent not, &c. He confirms and intensifies the assertion of the infinite love of God to men, as proved by Christ’s being crucified. For God might justly have sent His Son into the world to destroy it for its great wickedness. For this was what His justice demanded, but the infinite love of God overcame justice in that it bestowed the highest blessing upon the world, which deserved the utmost extremity of punishment, in giving it salvation through Him.

Observe: the expression judge the world, as it is in the Vulgate, means to condemn, and destroy it in hell. It is opposed to the word saved. Hence S. Augustine observes that this was the end of Christ’s Incarnation, that all men might be saved, and that He earnestly desired and willed this. Wherefore it is of themselves, through their own fault, and not Christ’s, that many of them will be damned.


1 Cor. 1
30 But of him you are in Christ Jesus, who is made to us wisdom from God, *and justice, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, as it is written: *He that glorieth, may glory in the Lord.

This righteousness, say our modern innovators, is imputed, because it is ours, not substantially and inherently, but is merely the external righteousness of Christ imputed to us; before God we seem righteous. But I reply: If this be true, then in the same way the active redemption wrought by Christ, which S. Paul here joins with righteousness, will be imputed to us, and consequently we shell be redeemers of ourselves, which is absurd. In the second place, wisdom is infused into us, and so is faith, and so therefore is righteousness; for the Apostle classes together the righteousness and wisdom of Christ as both alike ours. I say, then, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Anselm, Ambrose, and S. Thomas, that the sense of this passage is this: Christ is made unto us the author and cause of real Christian wisdom, redemption, sanctification, and righteousness.

1. By way of satisfaction and meritoriously; and this is what the Apostle specially has in his mind here: because Christ paid man’s debt with the most precious price of His own Blood, and so made sanctification for man, and merited for us righteousness, wisdom, and sanctification. In this way He was made for us righteousness, because the righteousness, i.e., the satisfaction of Christ, is ours, just as much as if we had ourselves made satisfaction to God. And hence it is that theologians teach that the satisfaction of Christ is applied to us in justification through the Sacraments, as if naturally first, and that then as a natural consequence our sins are forgiven through that satisfaction, and grace is infused. This condemns the error of Peter Abélard, in which he is followed by the Socinians, who teach that Christ was the teacher of the world, not its redeemer—nay more, that He was sent by the Father to give to man an example of perfect virtue, but not to free him from sin or to redeem him. S. Bernard refutes this in Ep. 190, to Pope Innocent, where he says: “Christ is the end of the law to every one that believeth. In short, S. Paul says that He was made to us righteousness by God the Father. Is not then that righteousness mine which was made for me? If my guilt is brought against me, why am I not given the benefit of my righteousness? And indeed what is given me is safer than what is innate. For this has whereof it may glory, but not before God. But the former, since it is effectual to salvation, has no ground of glorying, except in the Lord. ‘For if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head,’ says Job, lest the answer come, ‘What hast thou that thou didst not receive? But if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hast not received it?’ This is the righteousness of man in the blood of his Redeemer, which Abélard, that man of perdition, scoffs and sneers at, and so tries to empty of its force, that he holds and argues that all that the Lord of Glory did in emptying Himself . . . in suffering indignities . . . is to be reduced to this, that it was all done that He might by His life and teaching give to man a rule of life, and by His suffering and death set up a goal of charity.” Abélard’s argument was fallacious and frivolous: the devil, he said, had no right over man; therefore man needed no liberator. The premiss is doubtless true when understood of lawful right, but not of usurped right, under which man through sin by his own free will had submitted himself to the power of the devil, of sin, and of hell.

2. By way of example; because the righteousness of Christ is the most perfect example, to which all our righteousness ought to be conformed. In this sense S. Paul’s meaning is, Christ is an example and mirror of righteousness.

3. Efficiently; because Christ effects and produces this righteousness in us through His Sacraments, and because He teaches the Saints true wisdom and understanding; as, e.g., how to live a good and Christian life, by what road to attain to heaven, and how we must strive after bliss.

4. As our end; because Christ Himself and His glory are the end of our righteousness and sanctification. S. Bernard, in his 22nd Sermon on the Canticles, deals with these four, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption, symbolically. In the first place, he adapts them to the four works of Christ. He says, “Christ was made for us wisdom in His preaching, righteousness in the forgiveness of our sins, sanctification in the life that He spent with sinners, redemption in the sufferings that He bore for sinners.” And again further on he says, “Christ was made for us by God wisdom by teaching prudence, righteousness by forgiving our trespasses, sanctification by the example He set of temperance and of chaste life, redemption by the example He left of patience and of fortitude in dying. Where, I ask, is true wisdom, except in the teaching of Christ? Whence comes true righteousness but from the mercy of Christ? Where is there true temperance but in the life of Christ? Where true fortitude save in the Passion of Christ?” 

In the second place, S. Bernard naturally adapts these four to the four virtues, prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, which Christ imparts to us. He goes in to say: “Only those, then, who have been imbued with His doctrine are to be called prudent; only those, who by His mercy have obtained forgiveness of their sins, are to be called righteous; only those are to be called temperate who strive to imitate His life; only those are to be called brave who bravely bear adversity and show patience like His. In vain surely does any one strive to acquire virtues, if he thinks that they are to be obtained from any other source but the Lord of virtues, whose teaching is the school of prudence, whose mercy the working of righteousness, whose life the mirror of temperance, whose death the pattern of fortitude.” 

Ver. 31.—That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. He is quoting not the words but the sense of Jeremiah ix. 23. So Ambrose, Theophylact, Anselm, St, Thomas. In Jeremiah the passage runs: “Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches, but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth Me.” This it is to glory in the Lord. Jeremiah is speaking of liberation from the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and from the slaughter of the Chaldeans, which were then threatening the Jews. In other words, then, he says: The Jews glory in counsels of their wise men, in the strength of their soldiers, in the riches of Jerusalem, as though these would make them secure against the Chaldeans; but they err, for their true glory is to know and understand God, that is, His Providence, an that it is He alone who worketh mercy, and mercifully sets free whom He will, and not the wisdom, might, or riches of man. 

Moreover, He alone inflicts just punishment on whom He will, and no wise, mighty, or rich man can set free from this—even as, O Jews, He will inflict it on you, and will bring it to pass, that death (that is, the Chaldeans, shall bring death upon you) shall climb up into your houses, though your windows, and slay all your little ones.
The Apostles rightly adapts this passage to those who were calling others, or who had been called to Christianity, that no one may attribute the grace of Christ to himself, his virtues, or the gifts of nature, but only to Christ, and consequently his tacit exhortation is: “Do not, O Corinthians, glory in yourselves, or in Paul, or in Apollos, your teachers, but in the Lord alone.” For this is what in the beginning he proposed to prove, and therefore all that is here said must be referred to it. Anselm says: “That man glories in the Lord only who knows that it is not of himself, but of Him, not only that he is, but also that it is well with him.” Again that glories in the Lord who, if he has anything which makes him pleasing to God, holds that he has received it, not because of his own wisdom, power, good works, talent, or merits, but merely through the grace of God. Thirdly, he who in all that he does seeks not his own glory, but that of the Lord.

S. Bernard wrote a noteworthy sermon on these words of the Apostle; see also Sermon 25 on Canticles. He says: “Moreover, the whole glorying of the Saints is within and not without, that is, not in the flower of grass, or the mouth of the vulgar, but in the Lord; for God alone is the sole judge of their conscience, Him alone they desire to please, and to please Him is their only real and chief glory.” And Sermon 13 on Canticles: “Brothers, let none of you desire to be praised in this life. For whatever favour you gain for yourselves here which you do not refer to Him, you steal from Him. For whence, thou dust that perishest, whence comes thy glory?” And in his Sentences: “The Apostles knew that glory properly belongs to the Creator, and not to the creature. But he also knew that the rational creature so seeks after glory that it can scarcely or perhaps never overcome this desire, just because it was made in the image of the Creator. Therefore he gave the most wholesome advice when he said: ‘Since you cannot be persuaded not to glory, let him that glorieth glory in the Lord.’” Let us, too, say in company with the Psalmist, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy name give the praise,” and with the four and twenty elders who cast their crowns before the throne, “Blessing and honour and glory and power be unto Him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever” (Rev. v. 13).
+++++++++++++++++++


Text from Douay and commentary, of course, from Cornelius a Lapide.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ABS has gone far off the path Our Triune God has lovingly prepared for him and he has busied his own self with captious controversies and has applied his very limited intellectual ability to matters of grave and great concern- such as, Is Pope Franciscus the Pope?

ABS says, yes, he is the Pope. Period. ABS apologies to all that he has repeatedly said otherwise in here and at other blogs/sites.

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

ABS will drag his sorry ass to Confession Saturday and he will not be seen or heard from for awhile - hopefully ever.

ABS is supposed to be concerned with Salvation and Sanctification and even though he has always known the answer to every single problem in the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church is for each member to maintain order in his own bailiwick and become a Saint, ABS long ago left the path of perfection prepared for him by Our Loving Saviour and he fell into the chaos where he has been flummoxed and floundering, angry, combative, sarcastic, churlish, rebarbative, and caustic.

Is that the way to Sanctification?  It is the way ABS has chosen up until the very last few days when Jesus sent the Holy Ghost upon ABS to lift him out of the sewer and to place him on the right path.

Will ABS stay on it?  He will try but it is highly unlikely because ABS specialises in failure.

The last thing ABS will do is to post a Martin Luther Mall - a one-stop shopping place for those who oppose having the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church bathe him in glory this October.



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

Dies Irae/Day of Wrath

   DIES irae, dies illa,
   solvet saeculum in favilla,
   teste David cum Sibylla.

   Day of wrath and doom impending,
   David’s word with Sibyl’s blending,
   Heaven and earth in ashes ending.

   Quantus tremor est futurus,
   quando iudex est venturus,
   cuncta stricte discussurus!

   O what fear man’s bosom rendeth,
   When from heaven the Judge descendeth,
   On whose sentence all dependeth.

   Tuba mirum spargens sonum
   per sepulcra regionum,
   coget omnes ante thronum.

   Wondrous sound the trumpet flingeth,
   Through earth’s sepulchers it ringeth,
   All before the throne it bringeth.

   Mors stupebit et natura,
   cum resurget creatura,
   iudicanti responsura.

   Death is struck, and nature quaking,
   All creation is awaking,
   To its Judge an answer making.

   Liber scriptus proferetur,
   in quo totum continetur,
   unde mundus iudicetur.

   Lo, the book exactly worded,
   Wherein all hath been recorded,
   Thence shall judgment be awarded.

   Iudex ergo cum sedebit,
   quidquid latet apparebit:
   nil inultum remanebit.

   When the Judge His seat attaineth,
   And each hidden deed arraigneth,
   Nothing unavenged remaineth.

   Quid sum miser tunc dicturus?
   quem patronum rogaturus?
   cum vix iustus sit securus.

   What shall I, frail man, be pleading?
   Who for me be interceding
   When the just are mercy needing?

   Rex tremendae maiestatis,
   qui salvandos salvas gratis,
   salva me, fons pietatis.

   King of majesty tremendous,
   Who dost free salvation send us,
   Fount of pity, then befriend us.

   Recordare Iesu pie,
   quod sum causa tuae viae:
   ne me perdas illa die.

   Think, kind Jesus, my salvation
   Caused Thy wondrous Incarnation,
   Leave me not to reprobation.
   
   Quarens me, sedisti lassus:
   redemisti crucem passus:
   tantus labor non sit cassus.

   Faint and weary Thou hast sought me,
   On the Cross of suffering bought me,
   Shall such grace be vainly brought me?

   Iuste iudex ultionis,
   donum fac remissionis,
   ante diem rationis.

   Righteous Judge, for sin’s pollution
   Grant Thy gift of absolution,
   Ere that day of retribution.

   Ingemisco, tamquam reus:
   culpa rubet vultus meus:
   supplicanti parce Deus.

   Guilty now I pour my moaning,
   All my shame with anguish owning,
   Spare, O God, Thy suppliant groaning.

   Qui Mariam absolvisti,
   et latronem exaudisti,
   mihi quoque spem dedisti.

   Through the sinful woman shriven,
   Through the dying thief forgiven,
   Thou to me a hope hast given.

   Preces meae non sunt dignae:
   sed tu bonus fac benigne,
   ne perenni cremer igne.

   Worthless are my prayers and sighing,
   Yet, good Lord, in grace complying,
   Rescue me from fires undying.

   Inter oves locum praesta,
   et ab haedis me sequestra,
   statuens in parte dextera.

   With Thy sheep a place provide me,
   From the goats afar divide me,
   To Thy right hand do Thou guide me.

   Confutatis maledictis,
   flammis acribus addictis.
   voca me cum benedictis.

   When the wicked are confounded,
   Doomed to flames of woe unbounded,
   Call me with Thy Saints surrounded.

   Oro supplex et acclinis,
   cor contritum quasi cinis:
   gere curam mei finis.

   Low I kneel with heart’s submission,
   See, like ashes, my contrition,
   Help me in my last condition.

   Lacrimosa dies illa,
   qua resurget ex favilla.
   iudicandus homo reus:
   huic ergo parce Deus.

   Ah! That day of tears and mourning,
   From the dust of earth returning,
   Man for judgment must prepare him,
   Spare, O God, in mercy spare him.

   Pie Iesu Domine,
   dona eis requiem. Amen.

   Lord, all-pitying, Jesus blest,
   Grant them Thine eternal rest.  Amen.


Wednesday, June 29, 2016

ABS is in the midst of a covey of quail who love to grouse

When men ask ABS why he is always complaining about Jorge Bergoglio instead of just silently picking up his cross and bearing it, ABS replies that even Jesus prayed the cup pass Him by and even Jesus asked the soldier why he struck Him?

(Quotes and commentary from Catena Aurea)

42. Saying, Father, if you be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but yours, be done.

CHRYS. Now every art is set forth by the words and works of him who teaches it. Because then our Lord had come to teach no ordinary virtue, therefore He speaks and does the same things. And so having in words commanded to pray, lest they enter into temptation, He does the same likewise in work, saying, Father, if you be willing, remove this cup from me. He said not the words, If you will, as if ignorant whether it was pleasing to the Father. For such knowledge was not more difficult than the knowledge of His Father’s substance, which He alone clearly knew, according to John, As the Father knows me, even so have I known the Father. Nor says He this, as refusing His Passion. For He who rebuked a disciple, who wished to prevent His Passion, so as even after many commendations, to call him Satan, how should He be unwilling to be crucified? Consider then why it was so said. How great a thing was it to hear that the unspeakable God, who passes all understanding, was content to enter the virgin’s womb, to suck her milk, and to undergo every thing human. Since then that was almost incredible which was about to happen, He sent first indeed Prophets to announce it, afterwards He Himself comes clothed in the flesh, so that you could not suppose Him to be a phantom. He permits His flesh to endure all natural infirmities, to hunger, to thirst, to sleep, to labor, to be afflicted, to be tormented; on this account likewise He refuses not death, that He might manifest thereby His true humanity. 

AMBROSE; He says, then, If you will, remove this cup from me, as man refusing death, as God maintaining His own decree.

BEDE; Or He begs the cup to be removed from Him, not indeed from fear of suffering, but from His compassion for the first people, lest they should have to drink the cup first drunk by Him. Therefore He says expressly, not, Remove from Me the cup, but this cup, that is, the cup of the Jewish people, who can have no excuse for their ignorance in slaying Me, having the Law and the Prophets daily prophesying of Me.

DION. ALEX. Or when He says, Let this cup pass from me, it is not, let it not come to Me, for unless it had come it could not pass away. It was therefore when He perceived it already present that He began to be afflicted and sorrowful, and as it was close at hand, He says, let this cup pass, for as that which has passed can neither be said not to have come nor yet to remain, so also the Savior asks first that the temptation slightly assailing Him may pass away. And this is the not entering into temptation which He counsels to pray for. But the most perfect way? of avoiding temptation is manifested, when he says, Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done. For God is not a tempter to evil, but He wishes to grant us good things above what we either desire or understand. Therefore He seeks that the perfect will of His Father which He Himself had known, should dispose of the event, which is the same will as His own, as respects the Divine nature. But He shrinks to fulfill the human will, which He calls His own, and which is inferior to His Father’s will.

ATHAN. For here He manifests a double will. One indeed human, which is of the flesh, the other divine. For our human nature, because of the weakness of the flesh, refuses the Passion, but His divine will eagerly embraced it, for that it was not possible that He should be holden of death. 

GREG NYSS. Now Apollinaris asserts that Christ had not His own will according to His earthly nature, but that in Christ exists only the will of God who descends from heaven. Let him then say what will is it which God would have by no means to be fulfilled? And the Divine nature does not remove His own will.

BEDE; When He drew near His Passion, the Savior also took upon Him the words of weak man; as when something threatens us which we do not wish to come to pass, we then through weakness seek that it may not be, to the end that we also may be prepared by fortitude to find the will of our Creator contrary to our own will.

23. Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smite you me?


THEOPHYL. When Jesus had appealed to the testimony of the people by, an officer, wishing to clear himself, and show that he was not one of those who admired our Lord, struck Him: And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answer you the high priest so? 

AUG. This shows that Annas was the high priest, for this was before He was sent to Caiaphas. And Luke in the beginning of his Gospel says, that Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests. 

ALCUIN. Here is fulfilled the prophecy, I gave my cheek to the smiters. Jesus, though struck unjustly, replied gently: Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smite you Me? 

THEOPHYL. As if to say, If you have any fault to find with what I have said, show it; if you have not, why do you rage? Or thus: If I taught any thing unadvisedly, when I taught in the synagogues, give proof of it to the high priest I but if taught aright, so that even you officers admired, why smite you Me, Whom before you admired? 

AUG. What can be truer, gentler, kinder, than this answer? He Who received the blow on the face neither wished for him who struck it that fire from heaven should consume him, or the earth open its month and swallow him; or a devil seize him; or any other yet more horrible kind of punishment. Yet had not He, by Whom the world was made, power to cause any one of these things to take place, but that He preferred teaching us that patience why which the world is overcome? Some one will ask here, why He did not do what He Himself commanded, i.e. not make this answer, but give the other cheek to the smiter? But what if He did both, both answered gently, and gave, not His check only to the smiter, but His whole body to be nailed to the Cross? And herein He shows, that those precepts of patience are to be performed not by posture of the body, but by preparation of the heart: for it is possible that a man might give his cheek outwardly, and yet be angry at the same time. How much better is it to answer truly, yet gently, and be ready to bear even harder usage patiently.




The plain and simple truth is that as a soi disant traditionalist, ABS is in the midst of a covey of quail who love to grouse.