The scholarship is cited in a June 18, 2013 article in the jewishjournal.com Web site by Lia Mandelbaum entitled “Hitler’s Inspiration and Guide: The Native American Holocaust.” Citing the books Adolf Hitler by John Toland and Hitler’s Rise to Power by David A. Meier, Mandelbaum writes that “it shook me to my core” when she “learned that the genocidal mentality and actions of the U.S. policymakers [from 1862 to 1890] would find similar expression years later when the Nazis, under Hitler, studied the plans of [“The Long Walk of the Navajo”] to design the concentration camps for Jews.”
Camping while Catholic used to be illegal in Saint Sauveur (renamed, Bar Harbor, by proddies) on Mt Desert Island.
ABS often thinks of Fr Biard and Fr Massa and Fr Quentin when he is up at the top of Valley Peak, Flying Mountain, or Acadia Mountain, and looking down at Fernald Point beside Sommes Sound for that is where the French Jebbies settled and named their settlement, Saint Sauveur, Holy Saviour.
ABS is sure the renamed town, Bar Harbor, is evocative of many splendid things - such as, well, the sand and the gravel bar that forms part of the harbor and from which the town took its popular name - but ABS prefers Saint Sauveur as a name because it is evocative of, well, Our Holy Saviour.
Saint Sauveur or Bar Harbor; you decide? SAINT SAUVEUR
Saturday, June 8, 2013
400th Anniversary of Mount Desert Island's First European Settlement and Introduction to Christianity
A bronze memorial
outside St. Ignatius
Church in Northeast
Harbor, ME
summarizes an event
whose 400th
anniversary on Mount
Desert Island occurs
this summer. It
states:
FIRST RECORDED LANDING OF WHITE PERSONS ON MT. DESERT ISLAND, MAINE 1613
FRENCH EXPEDITION, UNDER SIEUR DE LA SAUSSAYE, INCLUDING THREE JESUIT PRIESTS, FATHERS PIERRE BIARD, ENNAMOND MASSA, JACQUES QUENTIN AND JESUIT BROTHER GILBERT DU THET, LANDED ON WEST SIDE OF SOMES SOUND AT WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS FERNALD’S POINT. THEY NAMED THEIR SETTLEMENT SAINT SAUVEUR. SEVERAL MONTHS LATER, A BRITISH FORCE (Proddies) ATTACKED THE COLONY, KILLED BROTHER DU THET AND DISPERSED THE COLONY. BROTHER DU THET’S BODY IS BURIED SOMEWHERE ON THE SHORE OF WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS THE JESUIT MEADOW.
Saint Sauveur/Fernald Point from Flying Mountain
Aerial view of Saint Sauveur or "Jesuit Field" now Fernald Point
It was while camping Catholic (near the mouth of Somme's Sound, down on the right) and catechising the Injuns that Father Peter Biard was captured by the Judaised protestants and taken to Virginia. The reason? Catholics thought the only good Injun was a catechised Injun whereas the puritan protestants thought the only good Injun was a dead Injun. https://tinyurl.com/y8stu9dq
The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents
Travels and Explorations
of the Jesuit Missionaries
in New France
1610—1791
INTRODUCTION
by Reuben Gold Thwaites
Doubtless Norse Vikings, venturing far southward from outlying colonies in Iceland and Greenland, first coasted New France, and beached their sturdy ships on the shores of New England. But five centuries passed without result, and we cannot properly call them pioneers of American civilization. Columbus it was, who unlocked the eastern door of the new world. Five years later, John Cabot, in behalf of England, was sighting the gloomy headlands of Cape Breton. Cortereal appeared in the neighborhood, in 1501, seeking lands for the Portuguese crown. About this time, at intervals, there came to Newfoundland certain Norman, Breton, and Basque fishers, who, erecting little huts and drying-scaffolds along the rocky shore, sowed the first seed of that polyglot settlement of French, Portuguese, Spanish, and English which has come down to our day almost uninterruptedly. By 1520, these fishermen appear to have known the mainland to the west; for on the map of Sylvanus, in his edition of Ptolemy, that year, we find a delineation of the "square gulf," which answers to the gulf of St. Lawrence in 1520, Fagundus visited these waters for the [page 1] Portuguese, and four years later Verrazano was making for the French an exploration of the coast between North Carolina and Newfoundland. Whether or not Cartier (1535) was the first to sail up the St. Lawrence "until land could be seen on either side," no man can now tell; apparently, he was the first to leave a record of doing so. Progress up the river was checked by Lachine Rapids, and he spent the winter on Montréal island.
France and Spain were just then engaged in one of their periodical quarrels, and adventurers were needed to fight battles at home, so that it was six years before any attempts were made to colonize the river-lands to which Cartier had led the way. In 1541, a Picard seigneur named Roberval, enjoying the friendship of Francis 1st, was commissioned as viceroy of the new country beyond the Atlantic, with Cartier as his chief pilot and captain-general, and a choice selection of jail-birds for colonists. Cartier started off before his chief, built a fort at Québec, and, after a long and miserable winter, picked up a quantity of glittering stones which he took to be gold and diamonds, and gladly, set sail for home. Tradition has it that Roberval met him near the mouth of the river, but was unable to induce him to return to his cheerless task of founding a state in an inhospitable wilderness, with convicts for citizens. Roberval, however, proceeded to Québec with his consignment of prison dregs, and throughout another protracted winter the flag of France floated from the little intrenched camp which Cartier had planted on the summit of the cliff. Roberval's principal occupation appears to have been the disciplining of his unruly followers, a work in which the Gibbet and [page 2] the lash were freely employed. He also essayed explorations up the river; but the rude task was not to his liking, and, with what remained of his battered band, he followed Cartier to France.
It is commonly said that Canada was abandoned by the French between the going of Roberval and the coming of Champlain. But, though little was done toward colonizing on the St. Lawrence, Newfoundland was by no means neglected. Its fishing industry grew apace. The rules of the church, prescribing a fish diet on certain holy days, led to a large use of salted fish throughout catholic Europe; and, by 1578, full a hundred and fifty French vessels alone, chiefly Breton, were employed in the Newfoundland fisheries, while a good trade with the mainland Indians, as far south as the Potomac, had now sprung up. The island colony proved valuable as a supply and repair station for traders and explorers, and thus served as a nucleus of both French and English settlement in America.
It is difficult for us of to-day to realize that, at any time in the world's history, enlightened folk should have thought good colonists could be made out of the sweepings of the jails and gutters of the old world. But in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that delusion was quite generally entertained by would-be founders of states across sea; it required the lessons of more than a hundred years of disastrous experiments to teach discerning men that only the best of the middle class and the masses, can successfully plant a new community in the wilderness. The experiences of Cartier and Roberval on the St. Lawrence, and of Laudonnière in Florida (1564), were of no avail in influencing governmental policy [page 3] at Paris. In 1590, the Marquis de la Roche was sent out with the usual dissolute crew to succeed Roberval as the king's agent on the banks of the St. Lawrence. Leaving part of his ill -favored gang on the desert Sable Isle, off Nova Scotia (where early in the century Baron de Léry had vainly attempted to plant a colony), La Roche set forth to explore the mainland for a site. A wild storm blew his vessels to France, and the wretched skin-clad survivors of the band which he had left behind were not rescued until thirteen years had elapsed. Their tale of horror long rang in the ears of France.
In 1600-1603, Chauvin and Pontgravé made successful trading voyages to the St. Lawrence. Samuel de Champlain was one of the: party which, in the latter year, followed in Cartier's track to Montréal. The same season, a Calvinist, named De Monts, was given the vice-royalty and fur-trade monopoly of Acadia, and in 1604 he landed a strangely-assorted company of vagabonds and gentlemen on St. Croix Island, near the present boundary between Maine and New Brunswick; but in the spring following they settled at Port Royal, near where is now Annapolis, Nova Scotia, thus planting the first French agricultural settlement in America. Five years later, Champlain reared a permanent post on the rock of Québec, and New France was a last, after a century-of experiments, fairly under way.
Various motives influenced he men who sought to establish French colonization in America. The ill-fated agricultural colony of the Huguenots in Florida (1562-68), was avowedly an attempt of Admiral Coligny to found an enduring asylum for French Protestants. The enterprise of New France, [page 4] on the other hand, was the outgrowth of interests more or less conflicting. Doubtless the court had deepest at heart the kingly passion for' territorial aggrandizement; next uppermost, was the pious wish to convert heathen nations to the catholic faith, explorers like Cartier being authorized to discover new lands "in order the better to do what is pleasing to God, our Creator and Redeemer, and what may be for the increase of his holy and sacred name, and of our holy mother, the Church;" the desire for pelf, through the agency of the fur trade and the possibility of the discovery of precious metals, gave commercial zest to the undertaking, and to many was the raison d'être of the colony; and lastly, was the almost universal yearning for adventure, among a people who in the seventeenth century were still imbued with that chivalric temper which among Englishmen is assigned to the Middle Ages. The inner life of New France, throughout its century and a half of existence, was largely a warring between these several interests.
Missionaries came early upon the scene. With the Calvinist De Monts were Huguenot ministers for the benefit of the settlers, and Catholic priests to open a mission among the savages, or the court had stipulated with him that the latter were to be instructed only in the faith of Rome. But no missionary work was done, for the colony was through several years on the verge of dissolution, and the priests became victims of scurvy. Poutrincourt, who held under De Monts the patent for Port Royal, did nothing to further the purposes of the court in this regard, until 1610, when, admonished for his neglect, he brought out with him a secular priest, Messire [page 5] Jesse Fléché, of Langres, who on June 24, " apparently in some haste," baptized twenty-one Abenakis, including the district sagamore, or chief. The account of this affair, which Poutrincourt sent in triumph to France, is the initial document in the present series.
On the twelfth of June, 1611 there arrived at Port Royal, at the instance of King Henry IV, two Jesuit fathers, Pierre Biard and Ennemond Massé. They were, however, not favorably received by Poutrincourt and his followers; they found great practical difficulties in acquiring the Indian languages, and made slight progress in the Herculean task to which they hod been set. To them came, the following year, a lay brother, Gilbert du Thet, who was soon dispatched to the head of the order, in France, with an account of the situation. In the spring of 1613, he returned, in company with Father Quentin. The little band of missionaries had no sooner established themselves at the new French colony on Mt. Desert Island, than the latter was attacked and dispersed by the Virginian Argall. Du Thet was killed in the fight, Massé was, with other colonists, set adrift in a boat, and Biard and Quentin were taken to Virginia, to be eventually shipped to England, and thence allowed to return into France. Several of the earlier documents of our series have to do with this first: and apparently unfruitful mission of the Jesuits to Acadia.
Every once in a while, standing at the top of Acadia of Flying Mountain, ABS loves to scream The Puritans can go to hell for what they did to Father Biard and the other French Jebbies and then he wonders how the other hikers react to hearing him.
Therefore, the reference to being in the area of Caesarea Philippi makes a strong case that Jesus was making a huge contrast. On the one hand there was this huge wall of rock and the city built on top of it that was dedicated to false gods. On the other hand there was Simon, now made the real Rock, Peter, upon whom Jesus would build His Church that would give glory and honor to the One, True God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Peter became the Rock because it was the Rockness of Christ that worked through him. The importance of Caesarea Philippi and why Jesus would have wanted to make an analogy here is made more apparent in Part IV.
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/ca/rock1.html Fr. William Most Daniel: Chapter 2: During the second year of the reign of Nabuchodonosor, the king had a dream (Problem of second year explained above). He called all the wise men, including the "Chaldeans". The word has two meanings 1) members of that nation 2) a special class of astrologer-soothsayers.
The king demands that they tell him what dream he had and then interpret it. They were unable, and said no king had ever asked such a thing. If they had the picture of the dream, they could devise something, and the king knew it.
Being a real tyrant, the king said he would have them torn apart - no metaphor - In the most literal way of understanding the expression 'You shall be made into limbs", the arms and legs would be tied to four trees near each other, with the tops of the trees roped together. When the upper rope would be released, the trees would spring back literally tearing the victim to pieces. Or, they might be hacked to pieces with swords and axes. So the king ordered that it be done to them, including Daniel and associates. The reason: they had claimed special powers, but now were proved to be fakes.
When Daniel heard of it he asked to see Arioch, the king's captain, and got him to beg a bit of time from the king. Daniel and his friends then prayed. Then he went to the king and said he could interpret the dream, not by his own power, but by the power and wisdom of God.
Daniel told the king that he, the king, had begun to think of "days to come".- this expression first appears in Gen 49.1 at the start of the prophecy made by Jacob. It also occurs in Dt. 4.30, in 31.39, in Is 2.2, Ezek 38.16 and in Dan 10.14.
In his dream, the king had seen a giant statue, terrible to behold. The head was gold, standing for the power of Nabuchodonosor. Obviously, the first king, the golden head, is the Babylonian kingdom.
Then other kingdoms: breast and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, and legs of iron with its feet part iron, part clay.
The mixture foretells a mixed people which would not hold up because of the mixture of iron and clay- which do not blend. Perhaps there would be an alliance by marriage, which would not last.
After that would come another kingdom that will never be destroyed. For a rock cut out of a mountain, without human hands, would break the previous kingdoms to pieces, the gold, silver, and bronze and iron. The stone that was cut out without hands would stand forever.
And we know who is the rock and who established His Church on the rock, Peter.
And how can you tell if you are a member of His One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church?
Hear St. Robert Bellarmine:The Church is the visible society of the validly baptised faithful, united in one organic body by the profession of the same Christian faith, by participation of the same Sacrifice, and the same seven sacraments, under the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in common with him. Thus, our sedevacantist friends are not in the Church and we must pray they return before they die and stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ to answer for their perfidy.
The great commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: Verse 18- And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. “And I,” in Greek, “κα̉γὼ” i.e., but I, or now I, give back to thee as a reward, and I in turn say and promise: for as S. Jerome saith. “Christ pays back the testimony of the Apostle concerning Himself.” Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ—the Son of the living God:” this true confession received a reward, namely, “Thou art Peter.” I therefore who am the very Son of God as thou hast confessed, I the Son of God tell and assure thee, and by saying it, I make and constitute thee, Peter, so that after Me thou mayest become the rock of the Church. Christ had promised this name to Simon (S. John i. 42), Saying, “Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter:” but in this place He fulfils the promise, and gives him the name of Peter in fact. S. Leo (Ser. III, Anniver. Ascens.) thus expounds: “And I say unto thee, that even as My Father hath made known to thee My excellence, so do I also make known to thee that thou art Peter, i.e., inasmuch as I am the inviolable Rock, &c., so likewise thou art a rock, because thou art strengthened by My strength, and the things which are Mine by My own power are thine by participation with Me.” Thou are Peter, and upon this role I will build My Church. The meaning is, thou art Peter; that is, the rock of the Church: for upon thee as upon a most solid rock I will build My Church: for the WORD declares and gives the reason why he is Peter, that is to say, “Thou art Peter, because upon thee as upon a rock I will build My Church.” S. Augustine (Tract 27, upon John, and.B. 1 Retract, C. 1) says, “Upon this Rock, that is upon Myself, because the rock was Christ,” 1 Cor. x. 4. Calvin, (B. 4, Inst. c. 6), and the heretics eagerly follow this interpretation, that they may overthrow the authority and the primacy of Peter and the Pope. But that Peter himself is here called the rock, the rest of the Fathers almost universally agree. Maldonatus and Bellarmine (B. 1, concerning the Roman Pontiff, e. 10) quote them at large. The meaning then is this, thou art “Kepha,” or “Cephas,” i.e., a rock or a very hard and very firm stone, for this is the signification of the Hebrew “Keph,” and of the Chaldee and Syriac “Kepha,” marked out and ordained by Me, that after My death, and the gift of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, having been entirely solidified and made strong, thou mayest become the foundation of the Church which I will build upon thee. For before the coming of the Holy Ghost, Peter was very far from being the rock of the Church; yea through fear he denied Christ in His Passion. So then the word “Peter,” and “Petra,” denotes the firmness of S. Peter as a prince of the Church, and of his successors the Pontiffs, and their constancy in the faith and religion of Christ. Thus among others, Angelus Caninius on the Hebrew names of the New Testament c. xu 1. Moreover, that Peter is here called the Rock, is proved first, by the pronoun “this,” upon “this rock;” for since “this” is demonstrative it ought thus to be understood, viz.:—this rock of which I have spoken, and to whom I speak, i.e., thou art Peter the rock of the Church, and upon thee as upon a rock I will build My Church. For there had been no mention made of any other rock to which the pronoun “this” could refer, except Peter. It is otherwise in 1 Cor. x., for there it is said “they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.” Here the word rock precedes, which he explains by saying, that it was so, typically, that is to say, represented Christ: as if Christ had spoken in French He would have said “Tu es Pierre, et sur cest pierre je bastiray mon eglise.” You may say, Christ said not thou art petra, but thou art Petrus, and so deny that the pronoun this refers to Peter. I answer, that Christ is said to have spoken in Syriac, thou art kepha, and upon this kepha I will build, &c. For kepha means a rock, and hence Peter in Syriac was called kepha. But the Greek translator, who is followed by the Latin, gave the masculine form of the noun—namely petrus rather than petra, which is feminine: but πέτρος and πέτρα in Greek equally signify a rock or a stone. Peter therefore is the same word as petra, but the translator made a variation for the sake of elegance, and rendered it thou art Peter and upon this petra, not upon this Petros, as in a true and proper sense he might have done, both because petra in Greek is more frequently used for a rock or a stone than petros, and because houses are properly built upon stones, not upon men. Beza allows this when he says “the Lord speaking in Syriac did not make use of a surname, but said cepha in both places, as in the vernacular the word pierr is used both as a proper and a common noun. In Greek, likewise, πέτρος and πέτρα differ only in their termination, not in their meaning.” Thus far correctly, but mistakenly he adds, “Matthew, or whoever was his translator, seems by this difference of interpretation to have intended that Peter, who is a part of the building, should be distinguished from the rock itself on which the building stands, that is from Christ; likewise that Peter himself should be distinguished from the promise of the faith which is common to the whole Church, as ancient writers also clearly prove, in order that Antichrist (so the heretics calls the Roman Pontiff) may become most ridiculous when his followers endeavour to establish his tyranny from this passage.” How petulantly and falsely Beza writes may be seen and learnt from the original passages of the Fathers which Bellarmine and Maldonatus cite, as I have already said. Besides, the text of Scripture itself is to be preferred to the translator: nor had the Greek translator a meaning different from the Syriac text, as I have previously said. I omit many other proofs, which either from what has been said, or from what will be said, will show the falsity of Beza’s conclusion. Secondly—The same thing is plain from this, that there would be a want of connection to say thou art Peter and upon Myself the Rock I will build My church. In this indeed there would be a lessening of the speech, and an overthrow of the benefit bestowed. For Peter might say to Christ, “I am Peter, that is the rock of the Church, how then dost thou build Thy Church not upon me but upon Thyself?” Thirdly—Because all that goes before and that follows refer to Peter alone: “and I,” he saith, “say to thee, 0 Peter, that is, I give and assign to thee as the reward and prerogative of thy great faith and confession, that after Myself, and after My death and resurrection, I will make thee the rock and foundation of the Church;” for this is the meaning of I will build My Church. Fourthly—Because the original oriental versions agree together in this, that petrus is the very same word as petra, and petra as petrus, whence they give the same name Kepha to Petrus and Petra. Christ therefore as Angelus Caninius says, spoke thus in Syriac: ant kepha, veal kepha hadden ebne iat tsibbuti; or as the Syriac Gospel has it, ant hu kipha, veal hada kipha ebne leidti, that is, thou art Cepha, that is a rock, and upon this Cepha, that is petra, meaning upon thee, who art Peter or a rock, “I will build my Church.” Moreover, the Hebrew Gospel, which Sebastian Munster has edited as authentic, and as written by S. Matthew himself, has in like manner atta kepha, veal kepha hazzot ebne eth macpeli. So also the Armenian Gospel: Is bim, he saith e vera ais bim, that is, thou art a rank, and upon this rock I will build, &c.; and the Arabic Gospel, ant alsachra va ala hada, alsachra abni baidti, thou art a rock, and upon that rock I will build my Church. The Æthiopic Gospel has Anta quoqueh va dibazati, quoqh annesa lebeita Christianei, that is, thou are a rock and upon this rock I will build the Christian house—that is the Church. The Coptic also has, but I say unto thee that thou art this Peter, I will found my Church upon this rock, which is none else than this Peter, otherwise there would be no connection, for he gives the reason, the because, why he will build the Church upon a rock, because indeed Peter will be a solid rock on which the whole Church being founded may rest securely as upon a strong foundation. The Persian is, “I say unto thee that thou art sanac,” i.e., a rock, “and upon this sanac,” that is, rock, “I will build my Church.” Moreover, the Persian paraphrase explains sanac as a rock, adding, thou art the rock, that is, foundation and judge. (Vide Peter Victor in Annotat. ad N. T. pp. 105, 102, where he gives at length all these versions.) To S. Augustine it is replied that he was misled by his ignorance of the Hebrew and Syriac languages, and therefore thought that petrus was something different from petra, and that Peter was as it were called appellatively from it Petreius, although it appears from the Syriac that Petrus and Petra are the same. Again, S. Augustine admits as probable the explanation of those who say that Peter is the rock of the Church; and in this respect he is at issue with Calvin, who is of opinion that such an explanation is blasphemy against Christ. Listen to S. Augustine in his sermon on the Chair of Peter. “Lastly, for strengthening the devotion of the churches he is called the rock; as saith the Lord, ‘thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church;’ for he is called the rock because he first laid the foundations of the faith for the nations, and like an immovable rock he holds the joints and the superstructure of the entire Christian edifice. Peter then is called a rock on account of devotion, and the Lord is called a rock on account of strength; as saith the Apostle, ‘they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ.’ Rightly does he deserve an association in name who had obtained an association in work. Peter lays the foundation, Peter plants; the Lord gives the increase, the Lord waters.” The same Augustine (Serm. 16 de Sanctis) says, “Worthy was Peter to be a foundation for building up the people of God, to be a pillar for support, a key to the kingdom.” In fine, even if that exposition of S. Augustine were allowed, although it is not the true one, still it may thence be proved that Peter, after Christ, who is the Rock and Corner Stone of the Church, is still the next foundation, rock, or stone of the Church. For then the sense would be, I am the Rock upon which I will build the Church; but thou, 0 Peter, art next unto Me, and the next rock of the Church, upon whom immediately after Myself I will build My Church, and therefore thee only I call Peter, who before wast called Simon. By the same arguments the Magdeburg Centuriators (l. 1. cent. 1, chap. 4.) are refuted, and the Genevan ministers who in their Bibles expound thus—“upon this rock, that is, upon this confession or faith—viz.: that I am the Son of God.” For nowhere previously has this confession been called a rock, as Peter immediately before was called Cephas, that is, a rock. You may say, some of the Fathers, by the rock, understand the faith which Peter confessed and set forth. So S. Chrysostom, S. Hilary (l. 6 de Trinit.), S. Cyril. (l. 4 de Trinit.), S. Ambrose (l. 6 in Luc. c. 9). I answer, these Fathers do not mean the faith abstractedly, but the faith as it was in Peter, and consequently they take Peter himself to be the rock of the Church, as they themselves afterwards fully explain. They hold that Peter, for the merit of his faith received the dignity of a rock in the Church. As SS. Hilary and Chrysostom say expressly; for on account of that faith he had deserved to be himself the foundation of the Church, and that his faith should never fail, but that he should confirm and strengthen others in the faith. (S. Luke xxii. 32.) For the Church is fashioned and renewed not of faith, but of faithful men, who are as it were its parts (for the Church is nothing else than the company of the faithful), wherefore, likewise, in order that the head of the Church may be of the same nature as the body, that head must be a faithful man—that is to say, Peter and the Pontiff. The faith then is the reason of the founding, but the foundation is Peter himself. So S. Chrysostom, Cyril (l. 4 de Trinit.) and S. Ambrose, Bellarmine (l. 1 de Pont. c. 10) where he refutes both Erasmus and Chytræus, who follow Origen, who allegorizes after his custom, and understands by the rock all the faithful. In this way indeed the whole Church would be the rock, for the whole Church consists of none other than the faithful; but where then would be the walls, the floors, and the roof of the Church? Of what then shall these be built? (See also Gretser in defence of Bellarm, l. 3. c. 5.) Lastly, Christ bestowed this gift upon Peter as the future Pontiff of the Church; wherefore He gave the same gift to all the other Pontiffs, his successors, and that for the good of the Church, that it might be strengthened by them as by a rock, in the faith and religion of Christ. Wherefore, S. Bernard (l. 2, de Consid.) saith to Pope Eugenius, “Who art thou? A great priest—the chief Pontiff. Thou art the prince of bishops, thou art the heir of the Apostles, thou art Abel in primacy, Noah in government, Abraham in the patriarchate; in order, thou art Melchisedeck, in dignity Aaron, in authority Moses, in judgeship Samuel, in power Peter, in unction a Christ. To thee the keys have been delivered, the sheep entrusted.” And upon this rock. From hence it is plain that like as Cephas is derived from cepha, so is Peter from petra, indeed that he is the same as petra, as I have already shown. Wherefore, when Optatus Milevit. (l. 2, against Parmen.) and others derive Cephas from the Greek κεφαλή, that is, a head—they do it by a congruous allusion, not by a real etymology. By a similar allusion, S. Gregory Nazianzen (Orat. on the Passover) derives Phase or Pascha—which is a Hebrew word, as everybody knows (Exod. xii.), from the Greek πάσχειν, that is, to suffer. For in the Passover happened the Passion of Christ, and His immolation as the Paschal Lamb. Moreover, Christ gave this name of rock, rather than other names (such as pillar, tower, anchor, foundation, &c.), because this name of rock is given in Scripture to Christ Himself (Isaiah xxviii. 16; Psalm cxviii. 22; Matthew xxi 42.) He communicated, therefore, a share in His own name, together with His dignity and office. Thus S. Jerome; and S. Gregory (On the Seven Penitential Psalms) says: “Christ is the rock, from which rock Peter received his name, and upon which He said that He would build.” Listen to S. Leo (Serm. 3, On the Anniversary of his Accession), where he introduces Christ as speaking thus to Peter: “Since I am the rock, I the cornerstone, who make of both one; I the foundation, besides which no one can lay any other; nevertheless thou art a rock likewise, because thou art strengthened by My strength in order that what things are Mine by Mine own power, may be thine also through participation with Me: and upon this rock I will build My Church; upon this strength He says, I will construct an eternal temple, &c.” I will build My Church. That is to say, I therefore call thee Peter and the rock, because as a house is built upon a rock that it may rest firm and immovable upon it against every blast of the winds, so will I build upon thee, 0 Peter, as upon a most solid rock, My Church; that resting upon thee, it may abide firm against all the attacks of heretics and wicked men, and that thou mayest keep and sustain it in the true faith and worship of God, in like manner as a rocky foundation sustains and holds together the entire house which is built upon it. Thus S. Ambrose (Serm. 4) saith: “Peter is called the rock, because—like an immovable rock—he sustains the joints and the mass of the whole Christian edifice.” You may say all the Apostles are the foundation of the Church, as is plain from Eph. ii. 20, and Apoc. xxi. 20; so then Peter only is not the rock of the Church. I answer, that Peter is the rock and the foundation of the whole Church and of the entire body of the faithful, and therefore of the Apostles themselves. For the office of Peter—who is primate and chief—was to retain, direct, and strengthen the Apostles in faith, religion, and duty, and if at any time they should err, to correct them. Whence S. Jerome (l. 1, contra Jovin.) says: “Wherefore among twelve one is chosen, that by the appointment of a head, occasion of schism might be taken away.” And S. Cyprian (Tract on the Unity of the Church) says, “the primacy is given to Peter that it might be shown there is one Church of Christ and one Chair.” Observe, Christ in this place promises by two metaphors, as S. Jerome says, that after His death and resurrection He will give to Peter the principality of the Church. The first metaphor is that of a foundation or foundation rock. For that thing, which in a building is the rock and foundation, in a body is the head, in a state the ruler, in a kingdom the king, in a church the pontiff. The second metaphor is that of the keys: for keys are only given to kings and rulers. Observe, secondly: to build the Church upon this rock, signifies two things. First, that upon this reasonable stone—namely, Peter, as the head of all the Apostles—the care and government of the whole Church devolve next after Christ. Thus S. Chrysostom (Hom. 55), S. Ambrose (Serm. 57), S. Gregory (l. 4, Epist. 32). Secondly, that the Church rests upon and is strengthened by Peter as a foundation, as the Vicar of Christ, so that it cannot err in matters of faith. Whence Peter, on account of his lofty confession of faith, received grace from Christ to become and to be appointed this foundation rock. And this is the meaning of SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, Cyril—and Nyssen, in the end of his book (Contra Judæos)—when they say that the Church was built by Christ upon the faith and confession of Peter, as I have explained above. Moreover, S. Chrysostom in this place lays stress upon the words I will build, and says: “They are similar to those words ‘God said,’ in the first chapter of Genesis, by which words all things were created and subsist.” In like manner he says: “I will build, hath wrought all, even though tyrants oppose, soldiers fight, the people rage, custom struggles. For the word of God coming like a vehement fire, hath burnt up the thorns, hath cleansed the fields, hath prepared the ground, hath raised the building on high, &c.” S. Jerome also (Epist. 57), consulting Pope Damasus whether we may say there are three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity or only one—thus addresses him: “I am speaking with the successor of the fisherman, and the disciple of the Cross. I, following none first, except Christ, am united to your Blessedness; that is, in communion with the See of Peter. I know that upon that rock the Church is built. Whosoever eateth the Lamb outside of this house is profane; if any man be not in the ark of Noah, he shall perish in the swelling of the deluge.” And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Namely, against the Church, because it has been founded upon Peter and his successors, as upon a most solid rock. The gates of hell, i.e., the infernal city, meaning all hell, with its entire army of demons, and with the whole power of Lucifer its king. For hell and the city of God, i.e., the Church, are here put in opposition. When S. Augustine wrote his work de Civitate Dei, in the beginning of which he speaks of the two opposite cities; the one of God which is the Church; the other of the devil, i.e., of demons and wicked men: he takes the gates of hell to mean heresies, and heresiarchs; for they fight against the faith of Peter and the Church, and they proceed from hell and are stirred up by the devil. So S. Epiphanius (in Ancoratu), not far from the beginning. There are here the two figures of speech—synecdoche and metonymy; for by the gates he means the whole city, both because the gate is the entrance into a city, and because the chief defences and strength of a city are wont to be at the gates, because if they and the adjoining walls are safe, the city is safe, if they are taken, the city is taken. Shall not prevail. Heb. lo juchelu la, i.e., shall not be able to stand against it—namely, the Church. So S. Hilary and Maldonatus. More simply, shall not prevail, i.e., shall not conquer or overcome, or pull down the Church. For this is the meaning of the original Greek. We have here the figure of speech, miosis: for little is said but much is meant; not only that the Church shall not be conquered, but that she shall conquer and subdue under her all heretics, tyrants, and every other enemy, as she overcame Arians, Nestorians, Pelagians, Nero, Decius, Diocletian, &c. Therefore by this word Christ first animates his Church that she should not be faint hearted when she sees herself attacked by all the power of Satan and wicked men. In the second place, He as it were sounds a trumpet for her, that she may always watch with her armour on against so many enemies, who attack her with extreme hatred. Thirdly, He promises to her, as well as to her head, Peter, i.e., the Pontiff—victory and triumph over them all. Again, Christ and the Holy Ghost assist with special guidance her head, the Roman Pontiff, that he should not err in matters of faith, but that he may be firm as an adamant, says S. Chrysostom, and that he may rightly administer and rule the Church, and guide it in the path of safety, as Noah also directed the ark that it should not be overwhelmed in the deluge. Wherefore S. Chrysostom (Hom. de Verb. Isaiah) says: “It were more easy for the sun to be extinguished than for the Church to fail;” and again, “what can be more powerful than the Church of God: the barbarians destroy fortifications, but not even the devils overcome the Church. When it is attacked openly, it conquers; when it is attacked by treachery, it overcomes.” S. Augustine on the Psalms against the Donatists, says: “Reckon up the Bishops even from the very Pontificate of Peter. That is the very rock which the proud gates of hell conquer not.” This has been made especially plain in the conversion of all nations, specially of Rome and the Romans. For Rome being the head, both of the world and of idolatry, where the idols of all nations were worshipped, has been converted from them by S. Peter and his successors, and has bowed down her proud head to the cross of Christ, which thing is of all miracles the greatest.
He will be in Maine eating the best lobster and crab meat in the world because clear icy cold water and he will be drinking copious amounts of quality cabernet and Sam Adams Summer Ale and hiking on Mt. Desert Island and renewing old friendships and reading some great books. O, and ABS will be giving the camp gas stove a serious workout as he puts the old cast iron pan through its paces (the inside of the pan is as smooth as Tennessee whiskey) and he'll be demonstrating to his male friends who is still the master of the range. O sure, he fully expects you will run oft to your favorite blogs just as soon as he turns his back but
In a stunning new development today, citizens of Tradistan began rioting and burning thousands of old copies of Mediator Dei when the news reached them that, according to the famous sedevacantist brothers, Tom and Dick Verbo, Pope Pius XII was not the last real Pope because, it has been shown with prolly 52% moral certitude, that the so-called Pope Pius XII was part of a sinister plot to turn the active part of the Papacy over to the American Stunt man, Evel Kneival because, The Dude knows how to grab the spotlight and make scads of dough while Pius XII kept the contemplative part of the Papacy * in which he just chilled and hid out, remaining a recluse inside the Vatican as he quietly brooded, but after breakfast he'd perk up and begin mischievously making shadow puppets of Kaiser Wilhelm II falling off a horse and getting crushed by a clown riding a motorcycle much to the amusement of curial officials who had a reputation for drinking very early in the day.
The Double Secret Pope chose the Latin name, Evel Kneival (EK), which means Evangelical Knight, and he braved all to capture the hearts and minds of AmCatholics who like flashing things and dashing heroes but the great man was brought low when he crashed trying to jump back over Vatican Two and restore the good old days when, as EK put it; priests didn't talk like fags and kneeling was King.
After the crash, the double secret Pope's popularity waned and even though he never actually officially promulgated anything of note, he was famous for saying, Watch this sedes, this is what will happen to you just when you think you are clearing the insurmountable hurdle of The Four Marks of the visible Church while soaring like an eagle...
NEW ORLEANS (WGNO) - On this Easter Sunday, we take a look at some very rare religious treasures in New Orleans at MS Rau Antiques on Royal Street.
News with a Twist Reporter Kenny Lopez went to MS Rau Antiques to check out these magnificent items! These rare religious treasures were once worn by Pope Paul VI, and the cross originally belonged to Pope Pius XII. When Pope Paul VI visited the United States in 1965 he gave the cross and ring to the United Nations to auction off with all the money going to help people in poverty. They raised 64-thousand dollars, and now the jewels are worth 1.9 million dollars!
POPE PAUL VI's CROSS
The piece was a gift to the United Nations in 1965 from Pope Paul VI
He hoped that the proceeds from the sale of the cross would contribute to the UN's work
The cross originally belonged to Pope Pius XII ** and was a gift to Paul VI
Once owned by Pope Pius XII, Pope VI, United Nations, and daredevil Evel Kneival
Circa 1890-1900 7 long x 4 wide
4" wide x 7" length, 18 carat gold with Colombian emeralds, 60 carats in gems, with Old European cut white diamonds including an 1.88 carat, a 7.75 carat, four 5-6 carat stones and numerous 3-4 carat stones.
POPE PAUL VI'S RING
A stunning 13.50-carat European cut diamond centers the opulent ring
The piece was a gift to the United Nations in 1965 from Pope Paul VI
The ring originally belonged to Pope Pius XII and was a gift to Paul VI
The ring features an exquisite Chi Ro engraving as well as inlaid diamonds and rubies on the shank
Once owned by Pope Pius XII, Pope Paul VI, the UN, and Evel Kneival
Circa 1920
Peter Hernandez, the Jewelry Sales Manager at MS Rau Antiques said they feel blessed to have this bling. "People are just amazed to be able to see it, and touch it. You're not going to find this unless you go to a museum or the Vatican itself, Historically, this is a very important piece," he said. http://wgno.com/2016/03/27/million-dollar-rare-pope-bling/
*Pope Pius XII never had any intention of leaving the Papacy which is why his ring was never destroyed. The acting Prime Minister of Tradistan, the French Traditionalist, D'Artagnan "Foie gras" DuBois, said today in response to the news: I can't believe it, Pius XII a fake Pope too? Man, we wuz Jewed....So that means that Pope Pius XI was the last real Pope which means we have been headless since 1939. Damn...I gotta bust out the Chartreuse. I don't care that it is only 6:00 AM. ** Silvestriano Sinistre "Inky" Incavaglia believes that Pope Pius XII may still be alive and in support of that belief he cites the work of the well-known Vaticanologist and conspiratorialist, Giuseppe "Tiny Toes" Ferrarese who, although not at the time under oath, mysteriously said, I ain't ever seen his dead body, capiche?
