| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 305 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 302 Guest(s)
Bing, Google, Jules
|
| Latest Threads |
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
7 hours ago
» Replies: 20
» Views: 1,880
|
Christmas Novena of St. A...
Forum: Novenas
Last Post: Stone
8 hours ago
» Replies: 3
» Views: 6,938
|
Oratory Conference: Fr. H...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 08:52 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 33
|
Livestream: First Sunday ...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 64
|
Fr. Hewko's Mass: Thanksg...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 07:41 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 71
|
Heaven Opened by the Prac...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:33 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 94
|
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 05:57 AM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 2,317
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: St....
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-28-2024, 08:24 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 209
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Bis...
Forum: True vs. False Resistance
Last Post: Stone
11-28-2024, 08:24 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 131
|
The Editor of The Recusan...
Forum: Introduction to the Resistance
Last Post: Sacrificium
11-27-2024, 01:34 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 205
|
|
|
| mRNA inventor stands with Abp. Viganò’s call for alliance against ‘fundamentally evil’ COVID tyranny |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-04-2021, 09:43 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
 |
mRNA inventor stands with Abp. Viganò’s call for alliance against ‘fundamentally evil’ COVID tyranny
'It is impossible to make sense out of what is transpiring in the world right now just as an explanation of public health and in vaccine policy or antiviral policy,
and I have become convinced that we're in a situation in which we're all having our rights eroded and that there is a larger force beyond this.'
MaikeHickson
Fri Dec 3, 2021
(LifeSiteNews) — Speaking on November 27 with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Robert Malone, the original inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology 40 years ago, praised the recent call by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò to build an anti-globalist alliance. Speaking about this appeal, Dr. Malone said, “I think he nailed it right on the head. I think he called it correctly. And I think it showed great bravery and foresight.”
Archbishop Viganò had proposed on November 18 to “free humanity from a totalitarian regime that brings together in itself the horrors of the worst dictatorships of all time,” and he challenged “rulers, political and religious leaders, intellectuals and all people of good will, inviting them to unite in an alliance that launches an anti-globalist manifesto, refuting point by point the errors and deviations of the dystopia of the New World Order and proposing concrete alternatives for a political program inspired by the common good, the moral principles of Christianity, traditional values, the protection of life and the natural family, the protection of business and work, the promotion of education and research, and respect for creation.”
LifeSiteNews sat down with Dr. Malone for an interview at his home and horse farm in Virginia. The interview was conducted as a joint venture for LifeSiteNews and the Austrian Catholic newspaper Der Dreizehnte. In the interview, Dr. Malone showed himself a strong opponent to the currently debated and planned vaccine mandates, lockdown policies, and mask mandates, all of which are, according to his study and research, ineffective and potentially harmful to human health.
Listen to the full interview.
In light of the lockdown policies that are strongly impeding the human liberty of movement, of travel, and of social gatherings as a whole, LifeSiteNews asked Dr. Malone whether he could explain the recent statements he made on Steve Bannon’s War Room show about the danger of “global totalitarianism,” as it is being played out right now in countries such as Austria and Australia.
The vaccine expert compared the lockdowns with the “camel’s nose” metaphor: “Once the camel’s nose gets in the tent, pretty soon the whole camel is in the tent,” Dr. Malone said.
“We have this tendency in western democracies — frankly, I think Great Britain is particularly susceptible — to this idea that we’re doing it for the common good that we can do social engineering, we can have these interventions.”
While these democracies claim that these measures are “limited, just for one thing,” we see “this incrementalism” taking place, Dr. Malone continued. As an example of this phenomenon, he referred to Great Britain’s Trusted News Initiative. Originally aimed at “resisting incursion into our political system from offshore political interests,” it has now been “weaponized against vaccine dissent. Really, it’s what it comes down to: It’s dissent about interpretation of facts and information.”
Dr. Malone expounded on his thoughts:
“And now … we’re going to do the same thing with climate change. And who knows what the next social engineering objective is going to be? It just seems to be this chronic erosion of civil rights and liberties in the logic that countries and governments [use to argue] that it’s OK to do social engineering through these various interventions. And I think that that is really worrisome.”
It is in this context that LifeSite asked Dr. Malone to comment on the fact that he recently retweeted the video statement of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò calling for an “anti-globalist alliance.”
“I’ve become convinced, as he [Archbishop Viganò] has, that there’s something here that goes beyond just vaccines and public health,” Dr. Malone responded. “It is impossible to make sense out of what is transpiring in the world right now just as an explanation of public health and in vaccine policy or antiviral policy, and I have become convinced that we’re in a situation in which we’re all having our rights eroded and that there is a larger force beyond this.”
“I have colleagues who speak at length about evil,” the medical expert and researcher went on to say. “There is a growing sense by many people that there’s something fundamentally evil going on here (…) I’ve become convinced that we do have a situation that is essentially the growth and expansion of global tyranny that is harmonized, that is managed, that is aligned across nation states, and it appears to be aligned with the economic interests of a small cluster of investment funds that represents the bulk of global western capital.”
It is here, too, that Dr. Malone sees parallels between his own thoughts and those of Archbishop Viganò: “What I’m particularly alarmed about — I and many others, and apparently also the archbishop — is that this pool of capital is so large now that it has more power than individual nation states do.”
The Italian prelate had described the current situation as follows, and it is quite similar to what Dr. Malone says:
“For two years now we have been witnessing a global coup d’état, in which a financial and ideological elite has succeeded in seizing control of part of national governments, public and private institutions, the media, the judiciary, politicians, and religious leaders. All of these, without distinction, have become enslaved to these new masters who ensure power, money, and social affirmation to their accomplices. Fundamental rights, which up until yesterday were presented as inviolable, have been trampled underfoot in the name of an emergency: today a health emergency, tomorrow an ecological emergency, and after that an internet emergency.”
In speaking with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Malone also bemoaned the “rise of transnationalism in the New World Order back two decades ago. We now seem to be seeing it play out.” He is convinced that “one of the fundamental problems that’s resulted in this disassociation within our society, this fragmentation of our society, the sense that things don’t make sense, that we are no longer connected, is that we have elected to use the language of economics to describe the human condition.”
Language matters, Dr. Malone added, for “by our very language, we have reduced the human condition down to economic units, and that makes us all basically economic pawns in a process of growing wealth.”
“We’ve substituted the language of good and bad and evil and good works in this kind of thinking for the language of profit,” the medical doctor added. There is now a “large block of capital, which is decoupled from nation states.” This capital “will move wherever it wants to, and it moves in response to one primary driver, which is return on investment. It has no moral compass. It has no moral component. It only responds to the opportunity to seek additional return on investment.”
The problem with this sort of capital is, according to Dr. Malone, that it is now “so large that it can dictate policy, economic policy and national policy in different nation states. And that capital has acquired all of the main media, all of the Big Tech, and all of the major vaccine and pharmaceutical companies. And … this is why it’s acting globally in an integrated fashion.” This “fusion of corporate and state interests” is “global,” and that is why he calls it “global totalitarianism.”
What makes this development so evil is that, in Malone’s eyes, this capital “has no intrinsic morality.”
He told LifeSiteNews: “This is why I originally went to try, with your assistance, to reach out to the Vatican.” Dr. Malone explained that he has no contacts with the Muslim community, “but at least I have some grounding in Christianity. That’s my core culture and in my view, in the western world, if there is a remaining moral authority in the world, it is the Catholic Church as the dominant moral authority.”
Dr. Malone had hoped, when trying to reach out to the Vatican, that the Church would speak up against this global totalitarianism. “And I was hoping that the Catholic Church would take a principled stand here and take a position that this is wrong, that this is fundamentally contrary to humanity,” he said.
“This is why I supported the Archbishop [Viganò] because the Archbishop took this, seems to also believe in these core concepts, and used extraordinarily strong language. I was very struck by the bravery of the Archbishop [in speaking] so freely about these things. And also, I felt it a little bit validating that here’s somebody coming independently from a different discipline in a different frame of reference, a different tradition, and yet had come to the same conclusions that I was coming to.”
Speaking about the insights of Mattias Desmet, a professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University in the Netherlands, Dr. Malone mentioned the professor’s “mass formation psychosis argument.” Desmet argues “that they [the people] are truly hypnotized and that a large fraction of the population has become hypnotized.” Dr. Malone then compared our current situation with what “happened to the German people during the 1930s and 1920s, and it has similar psychological roots.”
This theory, Dr. Malone explained, seems “to explain a lot of behaviors that are otherwise inexplicable, like this extreme level of aggression and venom that is vented against anyone who’s expressing anything such as you do at LifeSiteNews. Anything that is contrary to the dominant narrative. They attack this in the most personal terms. It is their venomous aggressive attacks that are not based in any data or information.”
Further summing up the thoughts of Professor Desmet, Dr. Malone said that this thinker expects that “this period of global totalitarianism will sweep over us.” In this context, it is important to promote the “idea of building local community.”
So Dr. Malone stresses, as a remedy for whatever is coming down on us, the importance to “build connections within your local community.” Building such communities, he expounded, means “building contact lists, particularly for the elderly, within your community. Whether your community is a church or a town hall, whatever your political and social structure is, try to build community, try to build contact lists, call lists, stay in touch with each other and, in particular, try to stay in touch with the high risk groups, the elders, etc.” He also recommended printing out documents with early treatment protocols, such as the ones proposed by the FLCCC (Front Line Covid Critical Care Alliance).
“That is the way we break free of the mass psychosis, and this is Mattias’ point: We can get people to realize that global totalitarianism is a bigger threat than the virus. (…) It’s the cure. It is the real cure. It’s the cure of the disease that Mattias Desmet has diagnosed for us, which is this mass formation psychosis, the madness of crowds,” Malone concluded.
In this context of the need of building communities, LifeSiteNews pointed out that “we would, in a literal sense and philosophically, form an anti-globalist alliance, as Archbishop Vigano proposed it.”
|
|
|
| Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Had 3 COVID-19 Vaccine Doses |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-03-2021, 05:45 PM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Spiritual]
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Had 3 COVID-19 Vaccine Doses ‘Out of Conviction’
“One must not force anyone to vaccinate, that is quite clear. But one should appeal to the conscience,” Archbishop Gänswein commented.
CNA | December 3, 2021
VATICAN CITY — Archbishop Georg Gänswein has said that both he and Benedict XVI have received three COVID-19 vaccine doses “out of conviction.”
The Pope emeritus’ private secretary made the remark in a nine-page interview in the December edition of the German publication Vatican-magazin.
The Vatican began administering doses of the Pfizer-BioNtech vaccine in January and confirmed in February that the pope emeritus had received the second dose of the vaccine. It began to administer the third dose in October.
Archbishop Gänswein was asked about Catholic opposition to coronavirus vaccines, some of which were produced using cell lines from aborted fetuses.
His interviewer said that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the controversial former apostolic nuncio to the United States, had criticized the Vatican for promoting a vaccination campaign.
Archbishop Gänswein said that he could not understand the criticisms.
“One cannot raise the question of vaccination to the level of faith. Nor can one speak of Pope Francis having launched a media campaign for vaccination. But he did call for it and also had himself vaccinated at an early stage. That is correct,” the 65-year-old archbishop said.
“By the way, Pope Benedict and I have already been vaccinated for the third time. And we did so out of conviction.”
Pope Francis recorded a public service announcement supporting vaccination that was released in August in collaboration with the Ad Council.
Archbishop Gänswein acknowledged that “every vaccination has advantages and disadvantages.” But he recalled that Cardinal Gualtiero Bassetti, the president of the Italian bishops’ conference, became seriously ill after contracting COVID-19 and afterward cautioned “against any form of ideological crusade against vaccination.”
“One must not force anyone to vaccinate, that is quite clear. But one should appeal to the conscience,” Archbishop Gänswein commented.
Asked if Benedict XVI saw the issue the same way, he answered in the affirmative, saying: “Otherwise he would not have had himself vaccinated three times.”
But Archbishop Gänswein, who is from the Black Forest region of Germany, also criticized the Church’s response to the virus in his homeland.
“As far as Germany is concerned, I have never understood why Church authorities have sometimes even exceeded state guidelines and have been so excessively loyal to the state during the crisis,” he said.
“I understand the concern for safety and security. But when the welfare of the body is placed above the salvation of the soul, and that was not just my impression, then something is awry.”
CNA Deutsch, CNA’s German-language news partner, reported that the archbishop described Benedict XVI as “stable in his physical frailty and, thank God, crystal clear in his head.”
“But it is also understandable that at 94 and after the death of his brother, which took its toll on him, his physical strength continued to decline. It is similar with his voice. The best medicine for him is humor and a steady daily rhythm,” the archbishop said.
Archbishop Gänswein became personal secretary to the future Pope Benedict XVI in 2003.
He was appointed prefect of the Papal Household in 2012, continuing in the role after the resignation of Benedict XVI and the election of Pope Francis a year later.
But he was placed on leave from his duties as prefect in 2020 to be able to dedicate his time exclusively to the former Pope.
He said that the decision had troubled him, but he had been able to discuss it with Pope Francis.
“The good thing is that you can talk to him openly and directly,” he said.
|
|
|
|
| Vatican source: Pope to attack Ecclesia Dei communities in February |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-03-2021, 02:03 PM - Forum: Pope Francis
- Replies (1)
|
|
Vatican source: Pope to attack Ecclesia Dei communities in February
This development must be seen in light of the attempts by Rome to steer the traditional contemplative orders,
such as the Carmelite nuns in Fairfield, Pennsylvania, away from their original and stricter charisms.
Maike Hickson
Fri Dec 3, 2021
(LifeSiteNews) — A German Catholic website has reported that, according to its own sources, the Vatican is planning a crackdown soon on the traditional Ecclesia Dei communities, going so far as to implement “papal delegates” for them and suppressing the use of the traditional Roman missal and its sacraments. LifeSiteNews was able to find a source who confirms that Rome is preparing for visitations of the three largest of these communities to take place in February of 2022. These are the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, and the Institute of the Good Shepherd.
This development must be seen in light of the attempts by Rome to steer the traditional contemplative orders, such as the Carmelite nuns in Fairfield, Pennsylvania, away from their original and stricter charisms.
On November 30, the German website Summorum Pontificum posted an article (English translation on Rorate Caeli) which gives us concerning news. Informed sources, they wrote, “expect the initiation of measures before the end of this year, which should lead these priestly communities ‘back to the only way of celebrating the Roman rite.’” According to this report, it seems that the people behind Pope Francis’ motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, which essentially aims at abolishing the traditional Roman rite, realized that they first need to crack down on these traditional orders before setting up a new law. The report continues by saying:
Apparently, Rome is of the opinion that the status of the communities as “societies of pontifical right” opens up immediate possibilities of access. For this purpose, “papal delegates” could be appointed who, although they would not replace the existing superior as would a commissioner appointed by the Congregation for Religious Orders, would nevertheless be superior to him. These papal delegates would instruct superiors to take all necessary measures to “reconcile their communities with the spirit of the Council” and, as a fundamental first step toward this, to order the general celebration of the reformed liturgy. On this basis, plans for its inclusion in pastoral care could then be developed in collaboration with local bishops.
Such papal delegates and commissioners are intimately related to visitations, as we know from the experience of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and more recently of the traditional Carmelite nuns of Fairfield, where such a commission might be pending. LifeSiteNews reported in August that sources in Rome were convinced that Pope Francis and his collaborators aim at suppressing the traditional Roman rite and its liturgical life and that they will use spies in order to find out who is not in compliance with the new reform.
As LifeSiteNews was able to learn from a source in Rome, the visitation of the major Ecclesia Dei (ED) communities is being already prepared. Our source told us that people are already being interviewed by members of the visitation team headed by Archbishop José Rodríguez Carballo. The visitations of the three major ED communities are to start in February of next year. Carballo, according to our source, is heading all the visitation commissions for the ED communities. Carballo guided the visitation of the Fairfield nuns that took place at the end of September. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has commented on Carballo in a recent statement.
The Ecclesia Dei communities are those orders who, originally having been associated with the Society of St. Pius X, at some point separated and received official approval from Rome to use the traditional Roman rite and live out a traditional Catholic life of faith. They are still called Ecclesia Dei communities, even though Pope Francis suppressed with the Ecclesia Dei Commission itself in January of 2019. They now fall under the guidance of the Congregation for Religious Life. Among these communities are the Fraternity of St. Peter, the Institute of Christ the King, the Institute of the Good Shepherd, and numerous other orders and institutes throughout the world. Since they are exclusively dedicated to the traditional faith and liturgy, they are now especially targeted thanks to the pope’s new July 16 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes.
One senior source in the Vatican told LifeSite: “The goal is the destruction of the Ecclesia Dei communities and of the contemplative orders.”
This morning Father Andrzej Komorowski, the general superior of the FSSP, told LifeSiteNews that “up to today, no one from Rome has contacted us,” and he added that “I have not received any other information, neither concerning the planned visitation, nor concerning other measures related to the motu proprio and the Ecclesia Dei communities.”
LifeSiteNews has repeatedly reported on the fact that Rome is currently trying to align the female traditional contemplative orders – such as the Carmelites in Fairfield, Pennsylvania and Valparaiso, Nebraska – with the Vatican’s new 2018 instruction Cor Orans, asking these orders to become organized under larger umbrella organizations, and thus to give up their independence and autonomy. The overall tone of these reforms is to urge these contemplative nuns to abandon their strict rule of life and seclusion and become more open to the world. Father Maximilian Dean, a hermit and chaplain to the Fairfield nuns, recently stated that the Vatican is out to “destroy” the contemplative orders.
Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, the editor of the newly published book Traditionis Custodes – From Benedict’s Peace to Francis’s War, commented for LifeSiteNews on the impending measures taken by Rome against the Ecclesia Dei communities. He wrote:
If the people in charge of implementing the motu proprio actually dare to attack the constitutions of these institutes and their principled commitment to the liturgical tradition of perennial worth (which, as Benedict XVI reminded us, is a matter of doctrine, not merely of discipline), then it is fair to say that their efforts will significantly backfire. They may, at worst, blow these institutes into smithereens, but the various ‘fragments’ will remain committed to tradition, and will be even harder to regulate or moderate going forward.
Giving us further insight into how such harsh measure will backfire on Rome, Kwasniewski added that from his “wide experience of the priests and religious of the former Ecclesia Dei groups, they are by no means prepared to just give up the tradition and to ‘transition,’ whether quickly or slowly, to the new liturgical books; rather they will find clever ways to continue, even going underground if necessary.”
“In short,” the liturgy expert concluded, “the campaign against tradition will lose whether it happens slowly or quickly. I am pretty convinced that the authorities in Rome do not know what they are dealing with and feel that by an exercise of brute power they can uproot this ‘difficulty’ in the life of the post-conciliar Church. No doubt they can do a lot of damage, but uprooting a traditional movement that, at this point, numbers thousands of clergy and millions of faithful will prove to be mission impossible. The long-term consequence, however, will be positive: it will be impossible to doubt any more that the modernists hate tradition and hate even the working of the Holy Spirit in the obvious good fruits of traditional parishes, chapels, monasteries, convents, and so forth. So the efforts of the modernists will poison all the more the entire program of ‘reform’ that they stand for, signing its death warrant.”
Another source in Rome gave LifeSiteNews a similar assessment. He said that Pope Francis, at the end of his pontificate and in light of his growing physical weakness, is desperate to destroy tradition within the Church, but that he will lose this battle. “The Enlightenment and Vatican II are gone in the Church,” he stated. He is observing that, even since the publication of Traditionis Custodes, many more Catholics have found their way to the traditional liturgy, some of them even out of protest against Pope Francis’ harsh document. First the COVID lockdowns and then the restrictions on the Latin Mass, both have effected the opposite of what might have been intended, the source said. Tradition is growing in the Church, and a future pope will have to deal with that fact.
Several prominent voices so far have urged the ED communities as well as the traditional contemplative orders to stay strong and to remain loyal to their original traditional charisms and life of faith, among them Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and the German author Martin Mosebach. Cardinal Gerhard Müller recently criticized the Congregation for Religious Life – which is responsible for these visitations – with the words: “The danger that I see is this: that in the Congregation for the Religious Life, there are people who have no understanding [of] the vita contemplativa.” These people think that the contemplative life “has no practical sense,” Cardinal Müller told LifeSiteNews in October. “But the sense [purpose] of our human, Christian existence is the adoration of God without our own interests.” He added that it makes “no sense to destroy [it], to suppress [it],” and then he added: “No Pope has the right to define the ecclesiastical life of this discipline once and forever.”
Martin Mosebach, a famous German Catholic author, in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews, supported the idea of resisting at all costs such unjust decisions of Rome against tradition, even if it means that such orders would have to live for a few years in “legitimate illegality.” The contemplative nuns, he added, would have to make sure they protect their properties. All these tradition-oriented groups and individual Catholics might have a difficult time ahead of them, he added, saying:
Canon law does not know positivism in essential questions — no “Hoc volo, sic iubeo [What I wish, I command]!” Only whoever resists [Traditionis Custodes] must expect that the church building will be taken away from the parish and that the priests will be suspended. It may also happen that some parishioners, for whom the Pope’s threatening gesture is still of spiritual significance, no longer dare to attend a ‘forbidden’ Mass. Whoever wants to resist must be prepared to pay a price for it. In my estimation, the price will not be too high — the left wing of the Church has long since stopped following instructions from Rome without having to fear even the slightest sanction. This does not apply to Tradition, however, but the weapons have become blunt — who takes the Church’s penal code seriously anymore?
But let us also remember that times of persecution were always times of many graces, and it is a true honor to be able to give witness to Christ’s Truth and Tradition. I am convinced that this time of trial is also a time of great honor and holy adventure. Let us remember here the great example that Bishop Athanasius Schneider has given us through his own experiences in the Soviet Union as a child.
LifeSiteNews has also reached out to the Institute of Christ the King, asking them for comment. We will update this report should we receive an answer.
|
|
|
|
| FDA Expedites Review Process For Omicron Vaccines And Drugs |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-03-2021, 09:44 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
FDA Expedites Review Process For Omicron Vaccines And Drugs
![[Image: COVID6_0.jpg?itok=_YCL2J1A]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/COVID6_0.jpg?itok=_YCL2J1A)
ZH | DEC 03, 2021
It's been one week since the omicron variant first rattled markets and prompted the Federal Reserve's latest rethink of its plans for rolling back its monetary stimulus. And in that time, vaccine-makers have talked their book by sharing plans to produce new omicron-targeted vaccines, while others claim that there are no data suggesting the Pfizer-BioNTech jab is less effective against omicron.
Assuming the world still does care about omicron three months from now (the first cases of the variant have only just been confirmed in the US in recent days), the FDA and its advisors are reportedly working on an expedited approval process that will allow "tweaked" versions of extant vaccines and remedies to be sheperded through in a matter of weeks.
WSJ reports that the FDA has been quietly meeting with drug makers to establish guidelines for expedited approval of the next generation of vaccines, if they're needed (and that's still a big "if"). According to the new rules the FDA is adopting, drugmakers are working on new vaccines and would be expected to meet standards similar to those required for authorization of boosters.
This means vaccine-makers would be spared the effort of conducting massive, time-consuming trials where they monitor a vaccine test group and a placebo group and wait to see which group reports fewer COVID casualties.
Instead, vaccine-makers could study the "immune response" elicited by the new jabs. Companies like Pfizer would have 3 months to create and test the jabs, with two or three weeks for the FDA to approve them.
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said this week that the company and its partner BioNTech could have the vaccines ready in 100 days, while Moderna has said the company can advance new candidates to clinical testing in 60 to 90 days.
Only three cases of omicron have been confirmed in the US, and fewer than 300 have been confirmed globally. Scientists are still trying to figure out whether new treatments are necessary to protect people from the variant, especially since South African scientists at the institute that first identified the new variant are saying that it produces milder infections than delta, especially in patients who have already been vaccinated.
A WHO spokesman said Friday that the agency hasn't seen any deaths linked to the omicron variant just yet - a good sign.
Bottom line: while the FDA is doing everything in its power to make sure it's prepared for omicron, at this point it's not yet clear whether the world will still care about this latest "variant of concern" three months from now.
|
|
|
|
| Divine Intimacy: Meditations on the Interior Life for Everyday of the Year |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-03-2021, 06:56 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- Replies (55)
|
|
Translated from the seventh Italian edition by the Discalced Carmelite Nuns of Boston
TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC.
Rockford, Illinois 61105
IMPRIMI POTEST:
Fr. CHRISTOPHORUS A SS. SACRAMENTO, O.C.D.
Provincialis
July 19, 1963
NIHIL OBSTAT:
FR. CHRISTOPHORUS A SS. SACRAMENTO, O.C.D.
Fr. JOANNES A JESU Maria, O.C.D.
Censores Ordinis
July 19, 1963
IMPRIMATUR:
* RICHARD CARDINAL CUSHING
Archbishop of Boston
July 16, 1964
|
|
|
|
| Over 42,000 Adverse Reaction Reports Revealed In First Batch Of Pfizer Vax Docs |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-03-2021, 06:47 AM - Forum: COVID Vaccines
- No Replies
|
|
Over 42,000 Adverse Reaction Reports Revealed In First Batch Of Pfizer Vax Docs
ZH | DEC 02, 2021
The FDA's excruciatingly slow release of data related to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has already borne fruit, and it's damning despite a trickle of just 500 pages per month out of 329,000 pages - which will take until 2076 to complete.
As first reported by Kyle Becker, there were a total of 42,086 case reports for adverse reactions (25,379 medically confirmed, 16,707 non-medically confirmed), spanning 158,893 total events.
More than 25,000 of the events were classified as "Nervous system disorders."
Since the vaccine has been publicly administered, there have been over 913,000 reports of adverse events in the OpenVAERS global database.
And that's just what's been reported.
Meanwhile, Twitter has suspended the account of @iGNORANTCHiMP - who brought much of this to light, and corrected minor inaccuracies within his thread.
|
|
|
|
| Italy Holds “March of the Vaccine Dead” to Commemorate those Who Died from The COVID-19 Vaccines |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-03-2021, 06:42 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Italy Holds “March of the Vaccine Dead” to Commemorate those Who Died from The COVID-19 Vaccines
![[Image: 629D738B-38B2-4105-B6F6-7D1E1DFFFCFF-scaled.jpeg]](https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/629D738B-38B2-4105-B6F6-7D1E1DFFFCFF-scaled.jpeg)
GP | December 2, 2021
Hundreds of people in Parma, Italy attended the “March of the Vaccine Dead” last week to remember those people who died from the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.
Protesters were marching on the street with photos of their loved ones who were killed by the COVID-19 vaccines. It looks like hundreds were killed after vaccination, which is mandatory for working Italians.
The Covid World reported:
Last weekend, a group numbering in the hundreds staged a mourning march in Parma, Italy to commemorate those who have died as a result of the COVID-19 vaccine. The marchers held up pictures of the dead as they moved in solemn procession through central Parma, chanting the names of those lost to the experimental vaccines.
This kind of vigil seems to be spreading across the world. On November 20th, relatives of the vaccine dead held a vigil in South Korea where they shaved their heads in mourning for their lost loved ones and begged for answers from government officials.
Read more here.
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that the official European Union database of suspected drug reaction website is now reporting 30,551 fatalities and 1,163,356 adverse drug reactions from COVID vaccines Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and AztraZeneca through November 13, 2021 based on the data submitted to its system.
|
|
|
|
| Germany Imposes Strict Curbs On Unvaccinated, Limits Gatherings, Will Mandate Covid Shots |
|
Posted by: Stone - 12-02-2021, 11:11 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- No Replies
|
|
Germany Imposes Strict Curbs On Unvaccinated, Limits Gatherings, Will Mandate Covid Shots
ZH | DEC 02, 2021
Confirming several days of rumors and speculation, moments ago Germany imposed stringent nationwide restrictions on people who aren’t vaccinated against Covid-19 and limited attendance at soccer games and other public events to check the latest surge in infections which naturally should not be happening as most of Germany is vaccinated and wearning masks. But let's just keep doing more of what hasn't worked.
According to Bloomberg, in one of her final acts as chancellor, Angela Merkel held talks with her incoming successor, Olaf Scholz, and Germany’s 16 regional premiers on Thursday, where they agreed on new curbs including allowing only people who are vaccinated or recovered into restaurants, theaters and non-essential stores.
“We are seeing something of an easing but at a level that’s far too high,” Merkel said in Berlin. “That’s why we needed to agree these measures today.”
The politicians also backed a plan to make Covid shots compulsory, saying that the lower house of parliament would vote on it soon.
A vaccine mandate is merely the latest flipflop from those in control and marks a major departure after Merkel and other officials insisted shots would be a personal choice. The soft tone may have contributed to Germany’s relatively tepid uptake, with less than 70% of the population fully inoculated. As a reminder, just a few months ago 60% was viewed as the herd immunity threshold. But with government drunks with power and desperate to extend their control, numbers are changing day by day.
The bulletin below summarizes the latest pandemic responses in Germany
New Curbs
- Access to restaurants, theaters only for vaccinated, recovered
- Access to non-essential stores only for vaccinated, recovered
- Tighter contact restrictions for non-vaccinated people
- Nightclubs closed in places with high infection rates
- Limits on number of spectators at large public events
Vaccine Push
- Parliament to vote on general vaccine mandate
- Covid shots to be required for hospital and care-home employees
- Increase pool of people who can administer vaccines
- As many as 30 million shots to be administered by the end of the year
Merkel's replacement and current vice chancellor, Olaf Scholz, is expected to be sworn in on Wednesday after more than two months of coalition negotiations, and the change in power has slowed Germany’s response to a resurgence in the pandemic.
Despite the growing urgency as hospitals fill up, authorities were keen to avoid blanket curbs and close schools. The new measures include tighter contact restrictions for non-vaccinated people, shutting nightclubs in places with high infection rates and strict limits on the number of spectators at large public events.
The agreement makes the guidelines national. Some regions with high infection rates like Bavaria and Saxony had already tightened restrictions, and states continue to have the authority to clamp down harder locally.
Curiously the escalation comes amid some recent good news, with Germany’s infection rate slipping for a third straight day, however medical officials have warned that the situation remains serious.
The head of the DIVI intensive-care lobby predicted on Wednesday that the number of Covid patients in ICUs will reach 6,000 by Christmas, exceeding the previous record. Thursday’s level of 439.2 cases per 100,000 people over the past seven days is still more than double the peak in the spring.
To protect more people, authorities want to administer as many as 30 million vaccine doses by the end of the year, including boosters. Officials also want to significantly expand the pool of people who can give shots, including using qualified workers in drug stores and care facilities.
|
|
|
|
| Catholic Encyclopedia: The Four Gospels |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-30-2021, 07:38 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- Replies (3)
|
|
Gospel of St. Matthew
Canonicity
The earliest Christian communities looked upon the books of the Old Testament as Sacred Scripture, and read them at their religious assemblies. That the Gospels, which contained the words of Christ and the narrative of His life, soon enjoyed the same authority as the Old Testament, is made clear by Hegesippus (Eusebius, Church History IV.22.3), who tells us that in every city the Christians were faithful to the teachings of the law, the prophets, and the Lord. A book was acknowledged as canonical when the Church regarded it as Apostolic, and had it read at her assemblies. Hence, to establish the canonicity of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we must investigate primitive Christian tradition for the use that was made of this document, and for indications proving that it was regarded as Scripture in the same manner as the Books of the Old Testament.
The first traces that we find of it are not indubitable, because post-Apostolic writers quoted the texts with a certain freedom, and principally because it is difficult to say whether the passages thus quoted were taken from oral tradition or from a written Gospel. The first Christian document whose date can be fixed with comparative certainty (95-98), is the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians. It contains sayings of the Lord which closely resemble those recorded in the First Gospel (Clement, 16:17 = Matthew 11:29; Clem., 24:5 = Matthew 13:3), but it is possible that they are derived from Apostolic preaching, as, in chapter xiii, 2, we find a mixture of sentences from Matthew, Luke, and an unknown source. Again, we note a similar commingling of Evangelical texts elsewhere in the same Epistle of Clement, in the Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, in the Epistle of Polycarp, and in Clement of Alexandria. Whether these these texts were thus combined in oral tradition or emanated from a collection of Christ's utterances, we are unable to say.
- The Epistles of St. Ignatius (martyred 110-17) contain no literal quotation from the Holy Books; nevertheless, St. Ignatius borrowed expressions and some sentences from Matthew ("Ad Polyc.", 2:2 = Matthew 10:16; "Ephesians", 14:2 = Matthew 12:33, etc.). In his "Epistle to the Philadelphians" (v, 12), he speaks of the Gospel in which he takes refuge as in the Flesh of Jesus; consequently, he had an evangelical collection which he regarded as Sacred Writ, and we cannot doubt that the Gospel of St. Matthew formed part of it.
- In the Epistle of Polycarp (110-17), we find various passages from St. Matthew quoted literally (12:3 = Matthew 5:44; 7:2 = Matthew 26:41, etc.).
- The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles (Didache) contains sixty-six passages that recall the Gospel of Matthew; some of them are literal quotations (8:2 = Matthew 6:7-13; 7:1 = Matthew 28:19; 11:7 = Matthew 12:31, etc.).
- In the so-called Epistle of Barnabas (117-30), we find a passage from St. Matthew (xxii, 14), introduced by the scriptural formula, os gegraptai, which proves that the author considered the Gospel of Matthew equal in point of authority to the writings of the Old Testament.
- The "Shepherd of Hermas" has several passages which bear close resemblance to passages of Matthew, but not a single literal quotation from it.
- In his "Dialogue" (xcix, 8), St. Justin quotes, almost literally, the prayer of Christ in the Garden of Olives, in Matthew 26:39-40.
- A great number of passages in the writings of St. Justin recall the Gospel of Matthew, and prove that he ranked it among the Memoirs of the Apostles which, he said, were called Gospels (I Apol., lxvi), were read in the services of the Church (ibid., i), and were consequently regarded as Scripture.
- In his Plea for the Christians 12.11, Athenagoras (177) quotes almost literally sentences taken from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:44).
- Theophilus of Antioch (Ad Autol., III, xiii-xiv) quotes a passage from Matthew (v, 28, 32), and, according to St. Jerome (In Matt. Prol.), wrote a commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew.
- We find in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs--drawn up, according to some critics, about the middle of the second century--numerous passages that closely resemble the Gospel of Matthew (Test. Gad, 5:3; 6:6; 5:7 = Matthew 18:15, 35; Test. Joshua 1:5, 6 = Matthew 25:35-36, etc.), but Dr. Charles maintains that the Testaments were written in Hebrew in the first century before Jesus Christ, and translated into Greek towards the middle of the same century. In this event, the Gospel of Matthew would depend upon the Testaments and not the Testaments upon the Gospel. The question is not yet settled, but it seems to us that there is a greater probability that the Testaments, at least in their Greek version, are of later date than the Gospel of Matthew, they certainly received numerous Christian additions.
- The Greek text of the Clementine Homilies contains some quotations from Matthew (Hom. 3:52 = Matthew 15:13); in Hom. xviii, 15, the quotation from Matthew 13:35, is literal.
- Passages which suggest the Gospel of Matthew might be quoted from heretical writings of the second century and from apocryphal gospels--the Gospel of Peter, the Protoevangelium of James, etc., in which the narratives, to a considerable extent, are derived from the Gospel of Matthew.
- Tatian incorporated the Gospel of Matthew in his "Diatesseron"; we shall quote below the testimonies of Papias and St. Irenæus. For the latter, the Gospel of Matthew, from which he quotes numerous passages, was one of the four that constituted the quadriform Gospel dominated by a single spirit.
- Tertullian (Adv. Marc., IV, ii) asserts, that the "Instrumentum evangelicum" was composed by the Apostles, and mentions Matthew as the author of a Gospel (De carne Christi, xii).
- Clement of Alexandria (Stromata III.13) speaks of the four Gospels that have been transmitted, and quotes over three hundred passages from the Gospel of Matthew, which he introduces by the formula, en de to kata Matthaion euangelio or by phesin ho kurios.
It is unnecessary to pursue our inquiry further. About the middle of the third century, the Gospel of Matthew was received by the whole Christian Church as a Divinely inspired document, and consequently as canonical. The testimony of Origen ("In Matt.", quoted by Eusebius, Church History III.25.4), of Eusebius (op. cit., III, xxiv, 5; xxv, 1), and of St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", iii, "Prolog. in Matt.,") are explicit in this respect. It might be added that this Gospel is found in the most ancient versions: Old Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian. Finally, it stands at the head of the Books of the New Testament in the Canon of the Council of Laodicea (363) and in that of St. Athanasius (326-73), and very probably it was in the last part of the Muratorian Canon. Furthermore, the canonicity of the Gospel of St. Matthew is accepted by the entire Christian world.
Authenticity of the First Gospel
The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. What connection is there between this Hebrew Gospel and this Greek Gospel, both of which tradition ascribes to St. Matthew? Such is the problem that presents itself for solution. Let us first examine the facts.
Testimony of Tradition
According to Eusebius (Church History III.39.16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could.
Three questions arise in regard to this testimony of Papias on Matthew: (1) What does the word logia signify? Does it mean only detached sentences or sentences incorporated in a narrative, that is to say, a Gospel such as that of St. Matthew? Among classical writers, logion, the diminutive of logos, signifies the "answer of oracles", a "prophecy"; in the Septuagint and in Philo, "oracles of God" (ta deka logia, the Ten Commandments). It sometimes has a broader meaning and seems to include both facts and sayings. In the New Testament the signification of the word logion is doubtful, and if, strictly speaking, it may be claimed to indicate teachings and narratives, the meaning "oracles" is the more natural. However, writers contemporary with Papias--e.g. St. Clement of Rome (Ad Cor., liii), St. Irenæus (Against Heresies I.8.2), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I) and Origen (De Principiis IV.11)--have used it to designate facts and sayings. The work of Papias was entitled "Exposition of the Oracles" [logion] of the Lord", and it also contained narratives (Eusebius, Church History III.39.9). On the other hand, speaking of the Gospel of Mark, Papias says that this Evangelist wrote all that Christ had said and done, but adds that he established no connection between the Lord's sayings (suntaxin ton kuriakon logion). We may believe that here logion comprises all that Christ said and did. Nevertheless, it would seem that, if the two passages on Mark and Matthew followed each other in Papias as in Eusebius, the author intended to emphasize a difference between them, by implying that Mark recorded the Lord's words and deeds and Matthew chronicled His discourses. The question is still unsolved; it is, however, possible that, in Papias, the term logia means deeds and teachings.
(2) Second, does Papias refer to oral or written translations of Matthew, when he says that each one translated the sayings "as best he could"? As there is nowhere any allusion to numerous Greek translations of the Logia of Matthew, it is probable that Papias speaks here of the oral translations made at Christian meetings, similar to the extemporaneous translations of the Old Testament made in the synagogues. This would explain why Papias mentions that each one (each reader) translated "as best he could".
(3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew. Besides, as they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching. To be understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated thence into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover, Eusebius (Church History III.24.6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be borne in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.
Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Church History V.10.3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in Church History VI.25.3-4, Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Church History III.24.6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel.
Examination of the Greek Gospel of St. Matthew
Our chief object is to ascertain whether the characteristics of the Greek Gospel indicate that it is a translation from the Aramaic, or that it is an original document; but, that we may not have to revert to the peculiarities of the Gospel of Matthew, we shall here treat them in full.
The Language of the Gospel
St. Matthew used about 1475 words, 137 of which are apax legomena (words used by him alone of all the New Testament writers). Of these latter 76 are classical; 21 are found in the Septuagint; 15 (battologein biastes, eunouchizein etc.) were introduced for the first time by Matthew, or at least he was the first writer in whom they were discovered; 8 words (aphedon, gamizein, etc.) were employed for the first time by Matthew and Mark, and 15 others (ekchunesthai, epiousios, etc.) by Matthew and another New Testament writer. It is probable that, at the time of the Evangelist, all these words were in current use. Matthew's Gospel contains many peculiar expressions which help to give decided colour to his style. Thus, he employs thirty-four times the expression basileia ton ouranon; this is never found in Mark and Luke, who, in parallel passages, replace it by basileia tou theou, which also occurs four times in Matthew. We must likewise note the expressions: ho pater ho epouranions, ho en tois ouranois, sunteleia tou alonos, sunairein logon, eipein ti kata tinos, mechri tes semeron, poiesai os, osper, en ekeino to kairo, egeiresthai apo, etc. The same terms often recur: tote (90 times), apo tote, kai idou etc. He adopts the Greek form Ierisiluma for Jerusalem, and not Ierousaleu, which he uses but once. He has a predilection for the preposition apo, using it even when Mark and Luke use ek, and for the expression uios David. Moreover, Matthew is fond of repeating a phrase or a special construction several times within quite a short interval (cf. ii, 1, 13, and 19; iv, 12, 18, and v, 2; viii, 2-3 and 28; ix, 26 and 31; xiii, 44, 4.5, and 47, etc.). Quotations from the Old Testament are variously introduced, as: outos, kathos gegraptai, ina, or opos, plerothe to rethen uto Kuriou dia tou prophetou, etc. These peculiarities of language, especially the repetition of the same words and expressions, would indicate that the Greek Gospel was an original rather than a translation, and this is confirmed by the paronomasiæ (battologein, polulogia; kophontai kai ophontai, etc.), which ought not to have been found in the Aramaic, by the employment of the genitive absolute, and, above all, by the linking of clauses through the use of men . . . oe, a construction that is peculiarly Greek. However, let us observe that these various characteristics prove merely that the writer was thoroughly conversant with his language, and that he translated his text rather freely. Besides, these same characteristics are noticeable in Christ's sayings, as well as in the narratives, and, as these utterances were made in Aramaic, they were consequently translated; thus, the construction men . . . de (except in one instance) and all the examples of paronomasia occur in discourses of Christ. The fact that the genitive absolute is used mainly in the narrative portions, only denotes that the latter were more freely translated; besides, Hebrew possesses an analogous grammatical construction. On the other hand, a fair number of Hebraisms are noticed in Matthew's Gospel (ouk eginosken auten, omologesei en emoi, el exestin, ti emin kai soi, etc.), which favour the belief that the original was Aramaic. Still, it remains to be proved that these Hebraisms are not colloquial Greek expressions.
General character of the Gospel
Distinct unity of plan, an artificial arrangement of subject-matter, and a simple, easy style--much purer than that of Mark--suggest an original rather than a translation. When the First Gospel is compared with books translated from the Hebrew, such as those of the Septuagint, a marked difference is at once apparent. The original Hebrew shines through every line of the latter, whereas, in the First Gospel Hebraisms are comparatively rare, and are merely such as might be looked for in a book written by a Jew and reproducing Jewish teaching. However, these observations are not conclusive in favour of a Greek original. In the first place, the unity of style that prevails throughout the book, would rather prove that we have a translation. It is certain that a good portion of the matter existed first in Aramaic--at all events, the sayings of Christ, and thus almost three-quarters of the Gospel. Consequently, these at least the Greek writer has translated. And, since no difference in language and style can be detected between the sayings of Christ and the narratives that are claimed to have been composed in Greek, it would seem that these latter are also translated from the Aramaic. This conclusion is based on the fact that they are of the same origin as the discourses. The unity of plan and the artificial arrangement of subject-matter could as well have been made in Matthew's Aramaic as in the Greek document; the fine Greek construction, the lapidary style, the elegance and good order claimed as characteristic of the Gospel, are largely a matter of opinion, the proof being that critics do not agree on this question. Although the phraseology is not more Hebraic than in the other Gospels, still it not much less so. To sum up, from the literary examination of the Greek Gospel no certain conclusion can be drawn against the existence of a Hebrew Gospel of which our First Gospel would be a translation; and inversely, this examination does not prove the Greek Gospel to be a translation of an Aramaic original.
Quotations from the Old Testament
It is claimed that most of the quotations from the Old Testament are borrowed from the Septuagint, and that this fact proves that the Gospel of Matthew was composed in Greek. The first proposition is not accurate, and, even if it were, it would not necessitate this conclusion. Let us examine the facts. As established by Stanton ("The Gospels as Historical Documents", II, Cambridge, 1909, p. 342), the quotations from the Old Testament in the First Gospel are divided into two classes. In the first are ranged all those quotations the object of which is to show that the prophecies have been realized in the events of the life of Jesus. They are introduced by the words: "Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet," or other similar expressions. The quotations of this class do not in general correspond exactly with any particular text. Three among them (ii, 15; viii, 17; xxvii, 9, 10) are borrowed from the Hebrew; five (ii, 18; iv, 15, 16; xii, 18-21; xiii, 35; xxi, 4, 5) bear points of resemblance to the Septuagint, but were not borrowed from that version. In the answer of the chief priests and scribes to Herod (ii, 6), the text of the Old Testament is slightly modified, without, however, conforming either to the Hebrew or the Septuagint. The Prophet Micheas writes (5:2): "And thou Bethlehem, Ephrata, art a little one among the thousands of Juda"; whereas Matthew says (ii, 6): "And thou Bethlehem the land of Juda art not the least among the princes of Juda". A single quotation of this first class (iii, 3) conforms to the Septuagint, and another (i, 23) is almost conformable. These quotations are to be referred to the first Evangelist himself, and relate to facts, principally to the birth of Jesus (i, ii), then to the mission of John the Baptist, the preaching of the Gospel by Jesus in Galilee, the miracles of Jesus, etc. It is surprising that the narratives of the Passion and the Resurrection of Our Lord, the fulfilment of the very clear and numerous prophecies of the Old Testament, should never be brought into relation with these prophecies. Many critics, e.g. Burkitt and Stanton, think that the quotations of the first class are borrowed from a collection of Messianic passages, Stanton being of opinion that they were accompanied by the event that constituted their realization. This "catena of fulfilments of prophecy", as he calls it, existed originally in Aramaic, but whether the author of the First Gospel had a Greek translation of it is uncertain. The second class of quotations from the Old Testament is chiefly composed of those repeated either by the Lord or by His interrogators. Except in two passages, they are introduced by one of the formula: "It is written"; "As it is written"; "Have you not read?" "Moses said". Where Matthew alone quotes the Lord's words, the quotation is sometimes borrowed from the Septuagint (v, 21 a, 27, 38), or, again, it is a free translation which we are unable to refer to any definite text (v, 21 b, 23, 43). In those Passages where Matthew runs parallel with Mark and Luke or with either of them, all the quotations save one (xi, 10) are taken almost literally from the Septuagint.
Analogy to the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke
From a first comparison of the Gospel of Matthew with the two other Synoptic Gospels we find
- that 330 verses are peculiar to it alone; that it has between 330 and 370 in common with both the others, from 170 to 180 with Mark's, and from 230 to 240 with Luke's;
- that in like parts the same ideas are expressed sometimes in identical and sometimes in different terms; that Matthew and Mark most frequently use the same expressions, Matthew seldom agreeing with Luke against Mark. The divergence in their use of the same expressions is in the number of a noun or the use of two different tenses of the same verb. The construction of sentences is at times identical and at others different.
- That the order of narrative is, with certain exceptions which we shall later indicate, almost the same in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
These facts indicate that the three Synoptists are not independent of one another. They borrow their subject-matter from the same oral source or else from the same written documents. To declare oneself upon this alternative, it would be necessary to treat the synoptic question, and on this critics have not vet agreed. We shall, therefore, restrict ourselves to what concerns the Gospel of St. Matthew. From a second comparison of this Gospel with Mark and Luke we ascertain:- that Mark is to be found almost complete in Matthew, with certain divergences which we shall note;
- that Matthew records many of our Lord's discourses in common with Luke;
- that Matthew has special passages which are unknown to Mark and Luke.
Let us examine these three points in detail, in an endeavour to learn how the Gospel of Matthew was composed.
(a) Analogy to Mark
- Mark is found complete in Matthew, with the exception of numerous slight omissions and the following pericopes: Mark 1:23-28, 35-39; 4:26-29; 7:32-36; 8:22-26; 9:39-40; 12:41-44. In all, 31 verses are omitted.
- The general order is identical except that, in chapters 5-13, Matthew groups facts of the same nature and sayings conveying the same ideas. Thus, in Matthew 8:1-15, we have three miracles that are separated in Mark; in Matthew 8:23-9:9, there are gathered together incidents otherwise arranged in Mark, etc. Matthew places sentences in a different environment from that given them by Mark. For instance, in 5:15, Matthew inserts a verse occurring in Mark 4:21, that should have been placed after 13:23, etc.
- In Matthew the narrative is usually shorter because he suppresses a great number of details. Thus, in Mark, we read: "And the wind ceased: and there was made a great calm", whereas in Matthew the first part of the sentence is omitted. All unnecessary particulars are dispensed with, such as the numerous picturesque features and indications of time, place, and number, in which Mark's narrative abounds.
- Sometimes, however, Matthew is the more detailed. Thus, in 12:22-45, he gives more of Christ's discourse than we find in Mark 3:20-30, and has in addition a dialogue between Jesus and the scribes. In chapter 13, Matthew dwells at greater length than Mark 4 upon the object of the parables, and introduces those of the cockle and the leaven, neither of which Mark records. Moreover, Our Lord's apocalyptic discourse is much longer in Matthew 24-25 (97 verses), than in Mark 13 (37 verses).
- Changes of terms or divergences in the mode of expression are extremely frequent. Thus, Matthew often uses eutheos, when Mark has euthus; men . . . de, instead of kai, as in Mark, etc.; the aorist instead of the imperfect employed by Mark. He avoids double negatives and the construction of the participle with eimi; his style is more correct and less harsh than that of Mark; he resolves Mark's compound verbs, and replaces by terms in current use the rather unusual expressions introduced by Mark, etc.
- He is free from the lack of precision which, to a slight extent, characterizes Mark. Thus, Matthew says "the tetrarch" and not "the king" as Mark does, in speaking of Herod Antipas; "on the third day" instead.of "in three days". At times the changes are more important. Instead of "Levi, son of Alpheus," he says: "a man named Matthew"; he mentions two demoniacs and two blind persons, whereas Mark mentions only one of each, etc.
- Matthew extenuates or omits everything which, in Mark, might be construed in a sense derogatory to the Person of Christ or unfavourable to the disciples. Thus, in speaking of Jesus, he suppresses the following phrases: "And looking round about on them with anger" (Mark 3:5); "And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is beside himself" (Mark 3:21), etc. Speaking of the disciples, he does not say, like Mark, that "they understood not the word, and they were afraid to ask him" (ix, 3 1; cf. viii, 17, 18); or that the disciples were in a state of profound amazement, because "they understood not concerning the loaves; for their heart was blinded" (vi, 52), etc. He likewise omits whatever might shock his readers, as the saying of the Lord recorded by Mark: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (ii, 27). Omissions or alterations of this kind are very numerous. It must, however, be remarked that between Matthew and Mark there are many points of resemblance in the construction of sentences (Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:10; Matthew 26:47 = Mark 14:43, etc.); in their mode of expression, often unusual. and in short phrases (Matthew 9:16 = Mark 2:21; Matthew 16:28 = Mark 9:1; Matthew 20:25 = Mark 10:42); in some pericopes, narratives, or discourses, where the greater part of the terms are identical (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Matthew 26:36-38 = Mark 14:32-34; Matthew 9:5-6 = Mark 2:9-11), etc.
(b) Analogy to Luke
A comparison of Matthew and Luke reveals that they have but one narrative in common, viz., the cure of the centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13 = Luke 7:1-10). The additional matter common to these Evangelists, consists of the discourses and sayings of Christ. In Matthew His discourses are usually gathered together, whereas in Luke they are more frequently scattered. Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke have in common the following discourses: the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7, the Sermon in the Plain, Luke 6); the Lord's exhortation to His disciples whom He sends forth on a mission (Matthew 10:19-20, 26-33 = Luke 12:11-12, 2-9); the discourse on John the Baptist (Matthew 11 = Luke 7); the discourse on the Last Judgment (Matthew 24; Luke 17). Moreover, these two Evangelists possess in common a large number of detached sentences, e.g., Matthew 3:7b-19:12 = Luke 3:7b-9, 17; Matthew 4:3-11 = Luke 4:3-13; Matthew 9:37-38 = Luke 10:2; Matthew 12:43-45 = Luke 11:24-26 etc. (cf. Rushbrooke, "Synopticon", pp. 134-70). However, in these parallel passages of Matthew and Luke there are numerous differences of expression, and even some divergences in ideas or in the manner of their presentation. It is only necessary to recall the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12 = Luke 6:20b-25): in Matthew there are eight beatitudes, whereas in Luke there are only four, which, while approximating to Matthew's In point of conception, differ from them in general form and expression. In addition to having in common parts that Mark has not, Matthew and Luke sometimes agree against Mark in parallel narratives. There have been counted 240 passages wherein Matthew and Luke harmonize with each other, but disagree with Mark in the way of presenting events, and particularly in the use of the same terms and the same grammatical emendations. Matthew and Luke omit the very pericopes that occur in Mark.
( c) Parts peculiar to Matthew
These are numerous, as Matthew has 330 verses that are distinctly his own. Sometimes long passages occur, such as those recording the Nativity and early Childhood (i, ii), the cure of the two blind men and one dumb man (ix, 27-34), the death of Judas (xxvii, 3-10), the guard placed at the Sepulchre (xxvii, 62-66), the imposture of the chief priests (xxviii, 11-15), the apparition of Jesus in Galilee (xxviii, 16-20), a great portion of the Sermon on the Mount (v, 17-37; vi, 1-8; vii, 12-23), parables (xiii, 24-30; 35-53; xxv, 1-13), the Last Judgment (xxv, 31-46), etc., and sometimes detached sentences, as in xxiii, 3, 28, 33; xxvii, 25, etc. (cf. Rushbrooke, "Synopticon", pp.171-97). Those passages in which Matthew reminds us that facts in the life of Jesus are the fulfilment of the prophecies, are likewise noted as peculiar to him, but of this we have already spoken.
These various considerations have given rise to a great number of hypotheses, varying in detail, but agreeing fundamentally. According to the majority of present critics--H. Holtzmann, Wendt, Jülicher, Wernle, von Soden, Wellhausen, Harnack, B. Weiss, Nicolardot, W. Allen, Montefiore, Plummer, and Stanton--the author of the First Gospel used two documents: the Gospel of Mark in its present or in an earlier form, and a collection of discourses or sayings, which is designated by the letter Q. The repetitions occurring in Matthew (v, 29, 30 = xviii, 8, 9; v, 32 xix, 9; x, 22a = xxiv, 9b; xii, 39b = xvi, 4a, etc.) may be explained by the fact that two sources furnished the writer with material for his Gospel. Furthermore, Matthew used documents of his own. In this hypothesis the Greek Gospel is supposed to be original. and not the translation of a complete Aramaic Gospel. It is admitted that the collection of sayings was originally Aramaic, but it is disputed whether the Evangelist had it in this form or in that of a Greek translation. Critics also differ regarding the manner in which Matthew used the sources. Some would have it that Matthew the Apostle was not the author of the First Gospel, but merely the collector of the sayings of Christ mentioned by Papias. "However", says Jülicher, "the author's individuality is so strikingly evident in his style and tendencies that it is impossible to consider the Gospel a mere compilation". Most critics are of a like opinion. Endeavours have been made to reconcile the information furnished by tradition with the facts resulting from the study of the Gospel as follows: Matthew was known to have collected in Aramaic the sayings of Christ, and, on the other hand, there existed at the beginning of the second century a Gospel containing the narratives found in Mark and the sayings gathered by Matthew in Aramaic. It is held that the Greek Gospel ascribed to Matthew is a translation of it, made by him or by other translators whose names it was later attempted to ascertain.
To safeguard tradition further, while taking into consideration the facts we have already noted, it might be supposed that the three Synoptists worked upon the same catechesis, either oral or written and originally in Aramaic, and that they had detached portions of this catechesis, varying in literary condition. The divergences may be explained first by this latter fact, and then by the hypothesis of different translations and by each Evangelist's peculiar method of treating the subject-matter, Matthew and Luke especially having adapted it to the purpose of their Gospel. There is nothing to prevent the supposition that Matthew worked on the Aramaic catechesis; the literary emendations of Mark's text by Matthew may have been due to the translator, who was more conversant with Greek than was the popular preacher who furnished the catechesis reproduced by Mark. In reality, the only difficulty lies in explaining the similarity of style between Matthew and Mark. First of all, we may observe that the points of resemblance are less numerous than they are said to be. As we have seen, they are very rare in the narratives at all events, much more so than in the discourses of Christ. Why, then, should we not suppose that the three Synoptists, depending upon the same Aramaic catechesis, sometimes agreed in rendering similar Aramaic expressions in the same Greek words? It is also possible to suppose that sayings of Christ, which in the three Synoptic Gospels (or in two of them) differed only in a few expressions, were unified by copyists or other persons. To us it seems probable that Matthew's Greek translator used Mark's Greek Gospel, especially for Christ's discourses. Luke, also, may have similarly utilized Matthew's Greek Gospel in rendering the discourses of Christ. Finally, even though we should suppose that Matthew were the author only of the Logia, the full scope of which we do not know, and that a part of his Greek Gospel is derived from that of Mark, we would still have a right to ascribe this First Gospel to Matthew as its principal author.
Other hypotheses have been put forth. In Zahn's opinion, Matthew wrote a complete Gospel in Aramaic; Mark was familiar with this document, which he used while abridging it. Matthew's Greek translator utilized Mark, but only for form, whereas Luke depended upon Mark and secondary sources, but was not acquainted with Matthew. According to Belser, Matthew first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, a Greek translation of it being made in 59-60, and Mark depended on Matthew's Aramaic document and Peter's preaching. Luke made use of Mark, of Matthew (both in Aramaic and Greek), and also of oral tradition. According to Camerlynck and Coppieters, the First Gospel in its present form was composed either by Matthew or some other Apostolic writer long before the end of the first century, by combining the Aramaic work of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
Plan and contents of the First Gospel
The author did not wish to compose a biography of Christ, but to demonstrate, by recording His words and the deeds of His life, that He was the Messias, the Head and Founder of the Kingdom of God, and the promulgator of its laws. One can scarcely fail to recognize that, except in a few parts (e.g. the Childhood and the Passion), the arrangement of events and of discourses is artificial. Matthew usually combines facts and precepts of a like nature. Whatever the reason, he favours groups of three (thirty-eight of which may be counted)--three divisions in the genealogy of Jesus (i, 17), three temptations (iv, 1-11), three examples of justice (vi, 1-18), three cures (viii, 1-15), three parables of the seed (xiii, 1-32), three denials of Peter (xxvi, 69-75), etc.; of five (these are less numerous)--five long discourses (v-vii, 27; x; xiii, 1-52; xviii; xxiv-xxv), ending with the same formula (Kai egeneto, ote etelesen ho Iesous), five examples of the fulfilment of the law (v, 21-48), etc.; and of seven--seven parables (xiii), seven maledictions (xxiii), seven brethren (xxii, 25), etc. The First Gospel can be very naturally divided as follows:-
Introduction (1-2)
The genealogy of Jesus, the prediction of His Birth, the Magi, the Flight into Egypt, the Massacre of the Innocents, the return to Nazareth, and the life there.
The public ministry of Jesus (3-25)
This may be divided into three parts, according to the place where He exercised it.
In Galilee (3-18)
(a) Preparation for the public ministry of Jesus (3:1 to 4:11)
John the Baptist, the Baptism of Jesus, the Temptation, the return to Galilee.
(b) The preaching of the Kingdom of God (4:17 to 18:35)
(1) the preparation of the Kingdom by the preaching of penance, the call of the disciples, and numerous cures (iv, 17-25), the promulgation of the code of the Kingdom of God in the Sermon on the Mount (v, I-vii, 29);
(2) the propagation of the Kingdom in Galilee (viii, I-xviii, 35). He groups together:
- the deeds by which Jesus established that He was the Messias and the King of the Kingdom: various cures, the calming of the tempest, missionary journeys through the land, the calling of the Twelve Apostles, the principles that should guide them in their missionary travels (viii, 1-x, 42);
- various teachings of Jesus called forth by circumstances: John's message and the Lord's answer, Christ's confutation of the false charges of the Pharisees, the departure and return of the unclean spirit (xi, 1-xii, 50);
- finally, the parables of the Kingdom, of which Jesus makes known and explains the end (xiii, 3-52).
(3) Matthew then relates the different events that terminate the preaching in Galilee: Christ's visit to Nazareth (xiii, 53-58), the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on the lake, discussions with the Pharisees concerning legal purifications, the confession of Peter at Cæsarea, the Transfiguration of Jesus, prophecy regarding the Passion and Resurrection, and teachings on scandal, fraternal correction, and the forgiveness of injuries (xiv, 1-xviii, 35).
Outside Galilee or the way to Jerusalem (19-20)
Jesus leaves Galilee and goes beyond the Jordan; He discusses divorce with the Pharisees; answers the rich young man, and teaches self-denial and the danger of wealth; explains by the parable of the labourers how the elect will be called; replies to the indiscreet question of the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and cures two blind men of Jericho.
In Jerusalem (21-25)
Jesus makes a triumphal entry into Jerusalem; He curses the barren fig tree and enters into a dispute with the chief priests and the Pharisees who ask Him by what authority He has banished the sellers from the Temple, and answers them by the parables of the two sons, the murderous husbandmen, and the marriage of the king's son. New questions are put to Jesus concerning the tribute, the resurrection of the dead, and the greatest commandment. Jesus anathematizes the scribes and Pharisees and foretells the events that will precede and accompany the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world.
The Passion and the Resurrection of Jesus (26-28)
The Passion (26-27)
Events are now hurrying to a close. The Sanhedrin plots for the death of Jesus, a woman anoints the feet of the Lord, and Judas betrays his Master. Jesus eats the pasch with His disciples and institutes the Eucharist. In the Garden of Olives, He enters upon His agony and offers up the sacrifice of His life. He is arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. Peter denies Christ; Judas hangs himself. Jesus is condemned to death by Pilate and crucified; He is buried, and a guard is placed at the Sepulchre (xxvi, 1-xxvii, 66).
The Resurrection (28)
Jesus rises the third day and appears first to the holy women at Jerusalem, then in Galilee to His disciples, whom He sends forth to propagate throughout the world the Kingdom of God.
Object and doctrinal teaching of the First Gospel
Immediately after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles, Peter preached that Jesus, crucified and risen, was the Messias, the Saviour of the World, and proved this assertion by relating the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord. This was the first Apostolic teaching, and was repeated by the other preachers of the Gospel, of whom tradition tells us that Matthew was one. This Evangelist proclaimed the Gospel to the Hebrews and, before his departure from Jerusalem, wrote in his mother tongue the Gospel that he had preached. Hence the aim of the Evangelist was primarily apologetic. He wished to demonstrate to his readers, whether these were converts or still unbelieving Jews, that in Jesus the ancient prophecies had been realized in their entirety. This thesis includes three principal ideas:
- Jesus is the Messias, and the kingdom He inaugurates is the Messianic kingdom foretold by the prophets;
- because of their sins, the Jews, as a nation, shall have no part in this kingdom
- the Gospel will be announced to all nations, and all are called to salvation.
Jesus as Messias
St. Matthew has shown that in Jesus all the ancient prophesies on the Messias were fulfilled. He was the Emmanuel, born of a Virgin Mother (1:22-23), announced by Isaias (7:14); He was born at Bethlehem (ii, 6), as had been predicted by Micheas (v, 2), He went to Egypt and was recalled thence (ii, 15) as foretold by Osee (11:1). According to the prediction of Isaias (40:3), He was heralded by a precursor, John the Baptist (iii, 1 sqq.); He cured all the sick (viii, 16 so.), that the Prophecy of Isaias (53:4) might be fulfilled; and in all His actions He was indeed the same of whom this prophet had spoken (xiii, 1). His teaching in parables (13:3) was conformable to what Isaias had said (6:9). Finally, He suffered, and the entire drama of His Passion and Death was a fulfilment of the prophecies of Scripture (Isaiah 53:3-12; Psalm 21:13-22). Jesus proclaimed Himself the Messias by His approbation of Peter's confession (16:16-17) and by His answer to the high priest (26:63-64). St. Matthew also endeavours to show that the Kingdom inaugurated by Jesus Christ is the Messianic Kingdom. From the beginning of His public life, Jesus proclaims that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand (4:17); in the Sermon on the Mount He promulgates the charter of this kingdom, and in parables He speaks of its nature and conditions. In His answer to the envoys of John the Baptist Jesus specifically declares that the Messianic Kingdom, foretold by the Prophets, has come to pass, and He describes its characteristics: "The blind see, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them." It was in these terms, that Isaias had described the future kingdom (35:5-6). St. Matthew records a very formal expression of the Lord concerning the coming of the Kingdom: "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you" (xii, 28). Moreover, Jesus could call Himself the Messias only inasmuch as the Kingdom of God had come.
Exclusion of Jews from messianic kingdom
The Jews as a nation were rejected because of their sins, and were to have no part in the Kingdom of Heaven. This rejection had been several times predicted by the prophets, and St. Matthew shows that it was because of its incredulity that Israel was excluded from the Kingdom, he dwells on all the events in which the increasing obduracy of the Jewish nation is conspicuous, manifested first in the princes and then in the hatred of the people who beseech Pilate to put Jesus to death. Thus the Jewish nation itself was accountable for its exclusion from the Messianic kingdom.
Universal proclamation of the Gospel
That the pagans were called to salvation instead of the Jews, Jesus declared explicitly to the unbelieving Israelites: "Therefore I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof" (xxi, 43); "He that soweth the good seed, is the Son of man. And the field is the world" (xiii, 37-38). "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all nations, and then shall the consummation come" (xxiv, 14). Finally, appearing to His Apostles in Galilee, Jesus gives them this supreme command: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations" (xxviii 18, 19). These last words of Christ are the summary of the First Gospel. Efforts have been made to maintain that these words of Jesus, commanding that all nations be evangelized, were not authentic, but in a subsequent paragraph we shall prove that all the Lord's sayings, recorded in the First Gospel, proceed from the teaching of Jesus.
Destination of the Gospel
The ecclesiastical writers Papias, St. Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, and St. Jerome, whose testimony has been given above (II, A), agree in declaring that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews. Everything in this Gospel proves, that the writer addresses himself to Jewish readers. He does not explain Jewish customs and usages to them, as do the other Evangelists for their Greek and Latin readers, and he assumes that they are acquainted with Palestine, since, unlike St. Luke he mentions places without giving any indication of their topographical position. It is true that the Hebrew words, Emmanuel, Golgotha, Eloi, are translated, but it is likely that these translations were inserted when the Aramaic text was reproduced in Greek. St. Matthew chronicles those discourses of Christ that would interest the Jews and leave a favourable impression upon them. The law is not to be destroyed, but fulfilled (v, 17). He emphasizes more strongly than either St. Mark or St. Luke the false interpretations of the law given by the scribes and Pharisees, the hypocrisy and even the vices of the latter, all of which could be of interest to Jewish readers only. According to certain critics, St. Irenæus (Fragment xxix) said that Matthew wrote to convert the Jews by proving to them that Christ was the Son of David. This interpretation is badly founded. Moreover, Origen (In Matt., i) categorically asserts that this Gospel was published for Jews converted to the Faith. Eusebius (Church History III.24) is also explicit on this point, and St. Jerome, summarizing tradition, teaches us that St. Matthew published his Gospel in Judea and in the Hebrew language, principally for those among the Jews who believed in Jesus, and did not observe even the shadow of the Law, the truth of the Gospel having replaced it (In Matt. Prol.). Subsequent ecclesiastical writers and Catholic exegetes have taught that St. Matthew wrote for the converted Jews. "However," says Zahn (Introd. to the New Testament, II, 562), "the apologetical and polemical character of the book, as well as the choice of language, make it extremely probable that Matthew wished his book to be read primarily by the Jews who were not yet Christians. It was suited to Jewish Christians who were still exposed to Jewish influence, and also to Jews who still resisted the Gospel".
Date and place of composition
Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his Chronicle), Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion that the Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and Nicephorus Callistus fifteen years, after Christ's Ascension--i.e. about A.D. 38-45. According to Eusebius, Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew when he left Palestine. Now, following a certain tradition (admittedly not too reliable), the Apostles separated twelve years after the Ascension, hence the Gospel would have been written about the year 40-42, but following Eusebius (Church History III.5.2), it is possible to fix the definitive departure of the Apostles about the year 60, in which event the writing of the Gospel would have taken place about the year 60-68. St Irenæus is somewhat more exact concerning the date of the First Gospel, as he says: "Matthew produced his Gospel when Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church of Rome, consequently about the years 64-67." However, this text presents difficulties of interpretation which render its meaning uncertain and prevent us from deducing any positive conclusion.
In our day opinion is rather divided. Catholic critics, in general, favour the years 40-45, although some (e.g. Patrizi) go back to 36-39 or (e.g. Aberle) to 37. Belser assigns 41-42; Conély, 40-50; Schafer, 50-51; Hug, Reuschl, Schanz, and Rose, 60-67. This last opinion is founded on the combined testimonies of St. Irenæus and Eusebius, and on the remark inserted parenthetically in the discourse of Jesus in chapter xxiv, 15: "When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place": here the author interrupts the sentence and invites the reader to take heed of what follows, viz.: "Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains." As there would have been no occasion for a like warning had the destruction of Jerusalem already taken place, Matthew must have written his Gospel before the year 70 (about 65-70 according to Batiffol). Protestant and Liberalistic critics also are greatly at variance as regards the time of the composition of the First Gospel. Zahn sets the date about 61-66, and Godet about 60-66; Keim, Meyer, Holtzmann (in his earlier writings), Beyschlag, and Maclean, before 70, Bartiet about 68-69; W. Allen and Plummer, about 65-75; Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann (in his later writings), soon after 70; B. Weiss and Harnack, about 70-75; Renan, later than 85, Réville, between 69 and 96, Jülicher, in 81-96, Montefiore, about 90-100, Volkmar, in 110; Baur, about 130-34. The following are some of the arguments advanced to prove that the First Gospel was written several years after the Fall of Jerusalem. When Jesus prophesies to His Apostles that they will be delivered up to the councils, scourged in the synagogues, brought before governors and kings for His sake; that they will give testimony of Him, will for Him be hated and driven from city to city (x, 17-23) and when He commissions them to teach all nations and make them His disciples, His words intimate, it is claimed, the lapse of many years, the establishment of the Christian Church in distant parts, and its cruel persecution by the Jews and even by Roman emperors and governors. Moreover, certain sayings of the Lord--such as: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" (16:18), "If he [thy brother] will not hear them: tell the Church" (xviii, 10)--carry us to a time when the Christian Church was already constituted, a time that could not have been much earlier than the year 100. The fact is, that what was predicted by Our Lord, when He announced future events and established the charter and foundations of His Church, is converted into reality and made coexistent with the writing of the First Gospel. Hence, to give these arguments a probatory value it would be necessary either to deny Christ's knowledge of the future or to maintain that the teachings embodied in the First Gospel were not authentic.
Historic value of the First Gospel
Of the narratives
Apart from the narratives of the Childhood of Jesus, the cure of the two blind men, the tribute money, and a few incidents connected with the Passion and Resurrection, all the others recorded by St. Matthew are found in both the other Synoptists, with one exception (viii, 5-13) which occurs only in St. Luke. Critics agree in declaring that, regarded as a whole, the events of the life of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels are historic. For us, these facts are historic even in detail, our criterion of truth being the same for the aggregate and the details. The Gospel of St. Mark is acknowledged to be of great historic value because it reproduces the preaching of St. Peter. But, for almost all the events of the Gospel, the information given by St. Mark is found in St. Matthew, while such as are peculiar to the latter are of the same nature as events recorded by St. Mark, and resemble them so closely that it is hard to understand why they should not be historic, since they also are derived from the primitive catechesis. It may be further observed that the narratives of St. Matthew are never contradictory to the events made known to us by profane documents, and that they give a very accurate account of the moral and religious ideas, the manners and customs of the Jewish people of that time. In his recent work, "The Synoptic Gospels" (London, 1909), Montefiore, a Jewish critic, does full justice to St. Matthew on these different points. Finally all the objections that could possibly have been raised against their veracity vanish, if we but keep in mind the standpoint of the author, and what he wished to demonstrate. The comments we are about to make concerning the Lord's utterances are also applicable to the Gospel narratives. For a demonstration of the historic value of the narratives of the Holy Childhood, we recommend Father Durand's scholarly work, "L'enfance de Jésus-Christ d'après les évangiles canoniques" (Paris, 1907).
Of the discourses
The greater part of Christ's short sayings are found in the three Synoptic Gospels and consequently spring from the early catechesis. His long discourses, recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke, also formed part of an authentic catechesis, and critics in general are agreed in acknowledging their historic value. There are, however some who maintain that the Evangelist modified his documents to adapt them to the faith professed in Christian communities at the time when he wrote his Gospel. They also claim that, even prior to the composition of the Gospels, Christian faith had altered Apostolic reminiscences. Let us first of all observe that these objections would have no weight whatever, unless we were to concede that the First Gospel was not written by St. Matthew. And even assuming the same point of view as our adversaries, who think that our Synoptic Gospels depend upon anterior sources, we maintain that these changes, whether attributable to the Evangelists or to their sources (i.e. the faith of the early Christians), could not have been effected.
The alterations claimed to have been introduced into Christ's teachings could not have been made by the Evangelists themselves. We know that the latter selected their subject-matter and disposed of it each in his own way, and with a special end in view, but this matter was the same for all three, at least for the whole contents of the pericopes, and was taken from the original catechesis, which was already sufficiently well established not to admit of the introduction into it of new ideas and unknown facts. Again, all the doctrines which are claimed to be foreign to the teachings of Jesus are found in the three Synoptists, and are so much a part of the very framework of each Gospel that their removal would mean the destruction of the order of the narrative. Under these conditions, that there might be a substantial change in the doctrines taught by Christ, it would be necessary to suppose a previous understanding among the three Evangelists, which seems to us impossible, as Matthew and Luke at least appear to have worked independently of each other and it is in their Gospels that Christ's longest discourses are found. These doctrines, which were already embodied in the sources used by the three Synoptists, could not have resulted from the deliberations and opinions of the earliest Christians. First of all, between the death of Christ and the initial drawing up of the oral catechesis, there was not sufficient time for originating, and subsequently enjoining upon the Christian conscience, ideas diametrically opposed to those said to have been exclusively taught by Jesus Christ. For example, let us take the doctrines claimed, above all others, to have been altered by the belief of the first Christians, namely that Jesus Christ had called all nations to salvation. It is said that the Lord restricted His mission to Israel, and that all those texts wherein He teaches that the Gospel should be preached throughout the entire world originated with the early Christians and especially with Paul. Now, in the first place, these universalist doctrines could not have sprung up among the Apostles. They and the primitive Christians were Jews of poorly developed intelligence, of very narrow outlook, and were moreover imbued with particularist ideas. From the Gospels and Acts it is easy to see that these men were totally unacquainted with universalist ideas, which had to be urged upon them, and which, even then, they were slow to accept. Moreover, how could this first Christian generation, who, we are told, believed that Christ's Second Coming was close at hand, have originated these passages proclaiming that before this event took place the Gospel should be preached to all nations? These doctrines do not emanate from St. Paul and his disciples. Long before St. Paul could have exercised any influence whatever over the Christian conscience, the Evangelical sources containing these precepts had already been composed. The Apostle of the Gentiles was the special propagator of these doctrines, but he was not their creator. Enlightened by the Holy Spirit, he understood that the ancient prophecies had been realized in the Person of Jesus and that the doctrines taught by Christ were identical with those revealed by the Scriptures.
Finally, by considering as a whole the ideas constituting the basis of the earliest Christian writings, we ascertain that these doctrines, taught by the prophets, and accentuated by the life and words of Christ, form the framework of the Gospels and the basis of Pauline preaching. They are, as it were, a kind of fasces which it would be impossible to unbind, and into which no new idea could be inserted without destroying its strength and unity. In the prophecies, the Gospels the Pauline Epistles, and the first Christian writings an intimate correlation joins all together, Jesus Christ Himself being the centre and the common bond. What one has said of Him, the others reiterate, and never do we hear an isolated or a discordant voice. If Jesus taught doctrines contrary or foreign to those which the Evangelists placed upon His lips, then He becomes an inexplicable phenomenon, because, in the matter of ideas, He is in contradiction to the society in which He moved, and must be ranked with the least intelligent sections among the Jewish people. We are justified, therefore, in concluding that the discourses of Christ, recorded in the First Gospel and reproducing the Apostolic catechesis, are authentic. We my however, again observe that, his aim being chiefly apologetic, Matthew selected and presented the events of Christ's life and also these discourses in a way that would lead up to the conclusive proof which he wished to give of the Messiahship of Jesus. Still the Evangelist neither substantially altered the original catechesis nor invented doctrines foreign to the teaching of Jesus. His action bore upon details or form, but not upon the basis of words and deeds.
Appendix: decisions of the Biblical Commission
The following answers have been given by the Biblical Commission to inquiries about the Gospel of St. Matthew: In view of the universal and constant agreement of the Church, as shown by the testimony of the Fathers, the inscription of Gospel codices, most ancient versions of the Sacred Books and lists handed down by the Holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, popes and councils, and finally by liturgical usage in the Eastern and Western Church, it may and should be held that Matthew, an Apostle of Christ, is really the author of the Gospel that goes by his name. The belief that Matthew preceded the other Evangelists in writing, and that the first Gospel was written in the native language of the Jews then in Palestine, is to be considered as based on Tradition.
The preparation of this original text was not deferred until after the destruction of Jerusalem, so that the prophecies it contains about this might be written after the event; nor is the alleged uncertain and much disputed testimony of Irenaeus convincing enough to do away with the opinion most conformed to Tradition, that their preparation was finished even before the coming of Paul to Rome. The opinion of certain Modernists is untenable, viz., that Matthew did not in a proper and strict sense compose the Gospel, as it has come down to us, but only a collection of some words and sayings of Christ, which, according to them, another anonymous author used as sources.
The fact that the Fathers and all ecclesiastical writers, and even the Church itself from the very beginning, have used as canonical the Greek text of the Gospel known as St. Matthew's, not even excepting those who have expressly handed down that the Apostle Matthew wrote in his native tongue, proves for certain that this very Greek Gospel is identical in substance with the Gospel written by the same Apostle in his native language. Although the author of the first Gospel has the dogmatic and apologetic purpose of proving to the Jews that Jesus is the Messias foretold by the prophets and born of the house of David, and although he is not always chronological in arranging the facts or sayings which he records, his narration is not to be regarded as lacking truth. Nor can it be said that his accounts of the deeds and utterances of Christ have been altered and adapted by the influence of the prophecies of the Old Testament and the conditions of the growing Church, and that they do not therefore conform to historical truth. Notably unfounded are the opinions of those who cast doubt on the historical value of the first two chapters, treating of the genealogy and infancy of Christ, or on certain passages of much weight for certain dogmas, such as those which concern the primacy of Peter (xvi, 17-19), the form of baptism given to the Apostles with their universal missions (xxviii, 19-20), the Apostles' profession of faith in Christ (xiv, 33), and others of this character specially emphasized by Matthew.
|
|
|
|
| Christmas Novena of St. Andrew: November 30th - December 24th |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2021, 08:59 PM - Forum: Novenas
- Replies (3)
|
|
Christmas Novena of St. Andrew
Hail and blessed be the hour and moment in which the Son of God was born of the most pure Virgin Mary, at midnight, in Bethlehem, in piercing cold. In that hour, vouchsafe, O my God! to hear my prayer and grant my desires, through the merits of Our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of His Blessed Mother. Amen.
(It is piously believed that whoever recites the above prayer fifteen times a day from the feast of St. Andrew (30th November) until Christmas will obtain what is asked.)
Imprimatur
† Michael Augustine,
Archbishop of New York
New York, February 6, 1897
|
|
|
|
| St. Athanasius: The Paradise of the Holy Fathers |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2021, 08:47 AM - Forum: Fathers of the Church
- Replies (138)
|
|
THE PARADISE OF THE HOLY FATHERS: VOLUMES 1 & 2
By SAINT ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA
The Paradise or Garden of the Holy Fathers Being Histories of the Anchorites Recluses Monks Coenobites and Ascetic Fathers of the Deserts of Egypt
Between A.D. CCL and A.D.CCCC Circiter
Compiled by Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria Palladius Bishop of Helenopolis Saint Jerome and Others
Now Translated Out Of The Syriac With Notes & Introduction by Ernest A. Wallis Budge M.A:LITT.D : D.LIT Keeper of the Assyrian & Egyptian Antiquities in the British Museum
PUBLISHED AT LONDON BY CHATTO & WINDUS MCMVII
FROM THE STORY OF THE MONK WHO VISITED SYLVANUS IN SINAI. (Brit. Mus. MS. 14,648, Vol. 10b)
CONTENTS
THE PARADISE OF THE HOLY FATHERS: VOLUME 1
PREFACE
PALLADIUS, HIS LIFE AND TRAVELS
THE ASKETIKON OF PACHOMIUS
CHRISTIAN MONASTICISM IN EGYPT
THE LIVES OF THE EGYPTIAN MONKS AND THEIR TEACHING
PALLADIUS AS A HISTORIAN
THE PARADISE OF THE HOLY FATHERS
THE LIFE OF SAINT ANTHONY, BY ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA
[THE FOLLOWING IS] BY THE HOLY WRITER MAR ATHANASIUS
CONCERNING HIS DEATH
THE PARADISE OF PALLADIUS
THE FIRST HISTORY
COUNSELS TO LAUSUS
HERE BEGIN THE HISTORIES OF THE HOLY MEN BY PALLADIUS
CHAPTER I
THE HISTORY OF ABBA ISIDORE [BISHOP OF HERMOPOLIS PARVA (DAMANBUR) IN LOWER EGYPT]
CHAPTER II
THE HISTORY OF DOROTHEOS OF THEBES
CHAPTER III
THE HISTORY OF THE VIRGIN POTAMIAENA
CHAPTER IV
THE HISTORY OF DIDYMUS [BORN A.D
309 OR 314]
CHAPTER V
THE HISTORY OF THE MAIDEN ALEXANDRA
CHAPTER VI
THE HISTORY OF ABBA MACARIUS [THE ALEXANDRIAN] AND A CERTAIN VIRGIN
CHAPTER VII
CONCERNING THE MONKS WHO LIVED IN NITRIA
CHAPTER VIII
THE HISTORY OF ABBA AMMON, [THE “FATHER OF EGYPTIAN MONASTICISM”]
CHAPTER IX
THE HISTORY OF THE BLESSED MAN HOR
CHAPTER X
THE HISTORY OF THE BLESSED MAN PAMBO [DIED AD 393]
CHAPTER XI
THE HISTORY OF THE BLESSED AMMONIUS
CHAPTER XII
THE HISTORY OF THE BLESSED BENJAMIN
CHAPTER XIII
THE HISTORY OF APOLLONIUS THE MERCHANT
CHAPTER XIV
THE HISTORIES OF THE NATURAL BRETHREN PAESIUS AND ISAIAH
CHAPTER XV
THE HISTORY OF MACARIUS, THE CHILD OF HIS CROSS
CHAPTER XVI
THE HISTORY OF THE BLESSED NATBANIEL [DIED ABOUT 376 AD.]
CHAPTER XVII
THE HISTORY OF THE TWO EXALTED AND EXCELLENT MEN, MACARIUS THE EGYPTIAN, THE DISCIPLE OF MAR ABBA ANTHONY, AND MACARIUS THE ALEXANDRIAN
CHAPTER XVIII
THE HISTORY OF MACARIUS THE ALEXANDRIAN, THE GLORIOUS
CHAPTER XIX
OF THE BLESSED MAN PAUL THE SIMPLE, THE DISCIPLE OF ABBA ANTHONY
CHAPTER XX
OF THE BLESSED MAN PACHOMIUS
CHAPTER XXI
OF THE BLESSED MAN STEPHEN
CHAPTER XXII
OF VALENS THE PALESTINIAN
CHAPTER XXIII
OF HERO THE ALEXANDRIAN [BISHOP OF DIOSPOLIS ABOUT AD 365]
CHAPTER XXIV
OF PTOLEMY THE EGYPTIAN WHO WAS IN SCETE
CHAPTER XXV
OF ABRAHAM THE EGYPTIAN
CHAPTER XXVI
OF A CERTAIN VIRGIN WHO WAS IN JERUSALEM
CHAPTER XXVII
OF THE VIRGIN WHO WAS IN CAESAREA OF PALESTINE
CHAPTER XXVIII
OF A CERTAIN WOMAN WHO FELL AND REPENTED
CHAPTER XXIX
OF ANOTHER VIRGIN WHO FELL AND REPENTED
CHAPTER XXX
OF THE BLESSED WOMAN THAIS OR THAISIS
CHAPTER XXXI
OF THE BLESSED MAN ABBA ELIJAH
CHAPTER XXXII
OF THE BLESSED DOROTHEOS
CHAPTER XXXIII
OF THE BLESSED PACHOMIUS THE GREAT, AND OF THE SONS OF HIS MONASTERY, AND OF THE NUNNERIES WHICH WERE IN THE THEBAID
CHAPTER XXXIV
AN APOLOGY, AND PREFACE, AND ADMONITION
CHAPTER XXXV
THE TRIUMPHANT DEEDS AND EXPLOITS AND HISTORIES OF HOLY WOMEN OF THE VIRGIN OF ALEXANDRIA WHO HID ATHANASIUS
CHAPTER XXXVI
OF PIAMON THE VIRGIN
CHAPTER XXXVII
OF OUR BLESSED MOTHER TALIDA, THE OLD WOMAN OF ANTINOE
CHAPTER XXXVIII
OF THE VIRGIN TAOR
CHAPTER XXXIX
OF THE VIRGIN AND THE MARTYR COLLUTBUS
CHAPTER XL
OF THE VIRGIN AND OF MAGISTRIANUS WHO FOUGBT WITH WILD BEASTS FOR HER SAKE
CHAPTER XLI
OF THE HOLY WOMAN MELANIA THE GREAT
CHAPTER XLII
OF THE BLESSED WOMAN MELANIA THE YOUNGER
CHAPTER XLIII
OF THE BLESSED WOMAN OLYMPIAS
CHAPTER XLIV
OF THE BLESSED WOMAN CANDIDA
CHAPTER XLV
OF THE BLESSED WOMAN GELASIA
CHAPTER XLVI
OF THE BLESSED WOMAN JULIANA
CHAPTER XLVII
OF HERONION AND HIS WIFE [BOSPHORIA]
CHAPTER XLVIII
OF THE BLESSED WOMAN MAGNA
CHAPTER XLIX
OF THE MONK [MISERICORS] WHO LIVED IN ANCYRA
CHAPTER L
OF JOHN OF LYCUS, A CITY OF THE THEBAID
CHAPTER LI
OF THE BLESSED MAN POSSIDONIUS
CHAPTER LII
OF CHRONIUS WHO WAS FROM THE VILLAGE OF PHŒNIX
CHAPTER LIII
OF JAMES THE LAME [AND OF PAPHNUTIUS CEPBALA]
CHAPTER LIV
OF THE BLESSED MAN SOLOMON
CHAPTER LV
OF DOROTHEOS THE PRIEST
CHAPTER LVI
OF DIOCLES
CHAPTER LVII
OF THE BLESSED MAN KAPITON
CHAPTER LVIII
OF THE MONK WHO FELL
CHAPTER LIX
OF THE BLESSED MAN EPHRAIM, THE DEACON OF THE CHURCH OF EDESSA
CHAPTER LX
OF INNOCENT THE PRIEST
CHAPTER LXI
OF THE BLESSED ELPIDIUS
CHAPTER LXII
OF THE BLESSED MAN EUSTATHIUS
CHAPTER LXIII
OF THE BLESSED MAN SISINNIUS
CHAPTER LXIV
OF THE BLESSED GADDAI (GADDANUS), THE PALESTINIAN
CHAPTER LXV
OF THE BLESSED MAN ELIJAH
CHAPTER LXVI
OF SABAS, THE LAYMAN OF JERICHO
CHAPTER LXVII
OF THE BLESSED MAN SERAPION OF THE GIRDLE
CHAPTER LXVIII
THE TRIUMPH OF THE BLESSED MAN EULOGIUS, WHO MINISTERED UNTO THE ARIAN, WHOSE BODY WAS DESTROYED FOR THE SAKE OF CHRIST
HERE BEGINNETH THE SECOND BOOK OF THE [HISTORIES OF] THE FATHERS [AND] MONKS WHICH WERE ALSO COMPILED BY PALLADIUS
CHAPTER I
THE TRIUMPH OF THE BIESSED MAN MARK THE MOURNER
CHAPTER II
THE HISTORY OF MAR PAULUS (PAULE) THE PRINCE OF MONKS AND ANCHORITE
CHAPTER III
THE TRIUMPH OF A YOUNG MAN WHO WAS AN ALEXANDRIAN
CHAPTER IV
THE TRIUMPH OF A CERTAIN OLD MAN WHO WAS IN SCETE
CHAPTER V
THE TRIUMPH OF THE DISCIPLE OF ANOTHER OLD MAN WHO DWELT ALONE IN A CELL
CHAPTER VI
THE TRIUMPH OF THE DISCIPLE OF AN OLD MAN IN THE DESERT
CHAPTER VII
THE TRIUMPH OF PETER, THE DISCIPLE OF ONE OF THE OLD MEN
CHAPTER VIII
THE TRIUMPH OF A DISCIPLE OF ONE OF THE OLD MEN
CHAPTER IX
OF AURELIUS [ADOLIUS?]
CHAPTER X
OF ABBA MOSES THE INDIAN, [A CAPTAIN] OF THIEVES
CHAPTER XI
OF ABBA PIOR
CHAPTER XII
OF ABBA MOSES THE LIBYAN
CHAPTER XIII
OF A CERTAIN DISTINGUISHED WANDERING MONK
CHAPTER XIV
THE HISTORY OF THE BLESSED EVAGRIUS, THE SOLITARY AND STRENUOUS MONK
CHAPTER XV
THE HISTORY OF MALCHUS THE SOLITARY MONK
CHAPTER XVI
OF TWO OF THE FATHERS WHO WENT NAKED
CHAPTER XVIA
OF A CERTAIN OLD MAN WHO WENT NAKED
CHAPTER XVII
OF A CERTAIN NAKED OLD MAN WHO FED WITH THE BEASTS
CHAPTER XVIII
OF ANOTHER HOLY MAN
CHAPTER XIX
OF A CERTAIN SOLITARY MONK WHO USED TO FEED ON GRASS BY THE JORDAN
CHAPTER XX
OF A CERTAIN HOLY VIRGIN
CHAPTER XXI
OF THE TWO YOUNG MEN WHO WERE WITH MACARIUS
CHAPTER XXII
OF ABBA BESSARION
CHAPTER XXIII
OF THE WONDERFUL THINGS WHICH ABBA BESSARION WROUGHT
CHAPTER XXIV
THE HISTORY OF A HOLY MAN WHO [POSSESSED] NINE VIRTUES
CHAPTER XXV
OF THE BLESSED WOMAN MARIA
CHAPTER XXVI
THE HISTORY OF A CERTAIN SAGE AND OF THE WATCHING OF THE MIND
CHAPTER XXVII
OF TWO BROTHERS WHO DWELT IN A PERSIAN MONASTERY
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE HISTORY OF A CERTAIN VIRGIN WHO GREW OLD IN THE WORKS OF THE FEAR OF GOD
CHAPTER XXIX
OF STEPHANA, A MAN WHO FELL INTO FILTHY WANTONNESS
CHAPTER XXX
OF EUCARPUS
CHAPTER XXXI
OF A CERTAIN FAMOUS DEACON WHO DWELT IN A COENOBIUM IN EGYPT
CHAPTER XXXII
OF A CERTAIN EXCELLENT BISHOP WHO FELL INTO FORNICATION, AND THE PEOPLE HAVING WALKED UPON HIM HE WAS FORGIVEN
CHAPTER XXXIII
OF A CERTAIN BROTHER WHO WAS A NEIGHBOUR OF ABBA POEMEN
CHAPTER XXXIV
OF A CERTAIN BROTHER WHO DENIED [CHRIST] BECAUSE OF THE DAUGHTER OF A HEATHEN PRIEST
CHAPTER XXXV
OF A CERTAIN OID MAN IN SCETE
CHAPTER XXXVI
OF THE HARLOT WHOM SERAPION CONVERTED
CHAPTER XXXVII
OF THE HARLOT WHOM A SUBDEACON DROVE OUT OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER XXXVIII
OF ABBA APOLLO WHO WAS IN SCETE
CHAPTER XXXIX
OF COSMAS WHO WAS IN MOUNT SINAI
CHAPTER XL
OF ABBA MACARIUS WHO WAS ACCUSED OF COMMITTING FORNICATION
CHAPTER XLI
OF A CERTAIN OLD MAN WHO IN HIS SIMPLICITY SAID THAT MELCHISEDEK WAS THE SON OF GOD
CHAPTER XLII
OF ABBA MACARIUS THE EGYPTIAN, THE DISCIPLE OF MAR ANTHONY
CHAPTER XLIII
OF ABBA MARK THE LESS, THE DISCIPLE OF ABBA SYLVANUS
CHAPTER XLIV
OF ABBA PAULE THE SIMPLE, THE DISCIPLE OF MAR ANTHONY
THE RULE OF PACHOMIUS AT TABENNA
CHAPTER I
BY THE MIGHT OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST WE BEGIN TO WRITE THE “ASKETIKON,” THAT IS TO SAY, THE HISTORY OF THE MONKS OF TABENNA, WHO WERE, FOLLOWERS OF ABBA PACHOMIUS
CHAPTER II
OF SYLVANUS THE ACTOR
CHAPTER III
OF A CERTAIN SINNER WHO DIED
CHAPTER IV
OF THE FUNERAL OF A CERTAIN HOLY MAN WHO DIED
CHAPTER V
OF THE THINGS WHICH ABBA PACHOMIUS BEARD SAID IN THE AIR BY THE DEVILS AS HE WAS JOURNEYING IN THE DESERT TO HIS MONASTERY
CHAPTER VI
OF THE THINGS WHICH ABBA PACHOMIUS DID WHEN HE ARRIVED AT HIS MONASTERY
CHAPTER VII
OF THE REVELATION WHICH ABBA PACHOMIUS RECEIVED FROM GOD CONCERNING CERTAIN HERETICS WHO HAPPENED TO VISIT HIM
CHAPTER VIII
OF THE REVELATION WHICH HE RECEIVED ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT OF THE BRETHREN
CHAPTER IX
ANOTHER REVELATION ON THIS MATTER WHICH [BROUGHT] CONSOLATION
CHAPTER X
OF THE WORDS OF DOCTRINE WHICH ABBA PACHOMIUS SPAKE TO THE BRETHREN WHEN THEY WERE GATHERED TOGETHER
CHAPTER XI
OF HOW, NOT EVEN IN THE TIME OF FAMINE, WAS ABBA PACHOMIUS INDUCED TO TAKE WHEAT FOR NOTHING FOR THE USE OF HIS MONASTERY
CHAPTER XII
OF HOW WHEN THE WORK OF THE BRETHREN WAS SOLD RABBA WAS UNWILLING EVEN THAT THEY SHOULD ACCEPT THE FULL PRICE OF THE SAME
CHAPTER XIII
OF A CERTAIN ASCETIC BROTHER WHO WAS IN THE MONASTERY, AND WHO DESIRED A CROWN OF MARTYRDOM UNSEASONABLY
CHAPTER XIV
OF THE PHANTOM WHICH THEY SAW BY NIGHT WHEN THEY WERE GOING THROUGH THE MONASTERY
CHAPTER XV
OF THE GIFT OF TONGUES WHICH PACHOMIUS RECEIVED
CHAPTER IV
OF A CERTAIN HOLY MAN WHOSE NAME WAS YAWNAN (I.E JONAB), WHO WAS THE (GARDENER OF ONE OF THE MONASTERIES, AND OF THE WONDERFUL THING WHICH RABBA PACHOMIUS WROUGHT IN HIS MONASTERY
CHAPTER XVI
OF HOW ABBA PACHOMIUS WOULD NOT KEEP BEAUTIFUL BUILDINGS
CHAPTER XVII
OF HOW WHEN ON A CERTAIN OCCASION THE HERETICS CAME TO HIM HE DID NOT YIELD TO THEM, AND OF HOW HE LET THEM RECEIVE AN EXPERIENCE OF HIM BY THE SIGN WHICH THEY ASKED AT HIS HAND
CHAPTER XVIII
OF THE QUESTION WHICH A CERTAIN BROTHER BROUGHT TO HIM, AND ITS ANSWER
CHAPTER XIX
OF HOW UNCLEAN AND CONTEMPTIBLE IN THE SIGHT OF RABBA WAS THE MAN WHO TOILED WITH THE LABOUR OF HIS HANDS FOR THE SAKE OF VAINGLORY
CHAPTER XX
OF A CERTAIN MONK WHO BELONGED TO THE MONASTERY
FURTHER REMARKS BY THE WRITER PALLADIUS
THE HISTORIES OF THE MONKS WHO LIVED IN THE DESERT OF EGYPT, WHICH WERE COMPILED BY SAINT HIERONYMUS
CHAPTER I
THE APOLOGY, AND THE REASON FOR [WRITING] THE BOOK, [WHICH ARE ADDRESSED] TO THOSE WHO REQUIRED [THEM] FROM HIM
CHAPTER II
THE TRIUMPHS OF MAR JOHN THE RECLUSE, THE PROPHET OF THE THEBAID WHO LIVED IN LYCUS
CHAPTER III
THE TRIUMPHS OF THE HOLY MAN ABBA HOR
CHAPTER IV
THE TRIUMPHS OF ABBA AMMON
CHAPTER V
THE TRIUMPHS OF ABBA ABBAN [BENUS]
CHAPTER VI
THE HISTORY OF THE LIVES AND ACTS OF THE BRETHREN WHO WERE IN THE CITY OF OXYRHYNCUS
CHAPTER VII
THE TRIUMPHS OF ABBA THEON
CHAPTER VIII
THE TRIUMPHS OF ABBA ELIJAH
CHAPTER IX
THE TRIUMPH OF THE BLESSED APOLLO [AND AMMON]
CHAPTER X
THE TRIUMPHS OF ABBA APELLEN
CHAPTER XI
THE TRIUMPHS OF ANOTHER APOLLO, AND OF JOHN, THE DWELLER IN THE DESERT
CHAPTER XII
THE TRIUMPHS OF ABBA PAPHNUTIUS, THE SPIRITUAL MERCHANT
CHAPTER XIII
THE TRIUMPHS OF THE BLESSED EULOGIUS
CHAPTER XIV
THE TRIUMPH OF ISIDORE
CHAPTER XV
THE TRIUMPH OF DIOSCURUS
CHAPTER XVI
THE TRIUMPHS OF ABBA COPRES AND OF THE BLESSED PETARPEMOTIS
CHAPTER XVII
THE TRIUMPHS OF ABBA HOR, AND ISAIAH, AND PAUL, AND NOPI, THE CONFESSORS
CHAPTER XVIII
THE TRIUMPH OF EVAGRIUS
CHAPTER XIX
THE TRIUMPH OF ABBA PITHYRION
CHAPTER XX
THE TRIUMPHS OF THE BLESSED FATHERS
CHAPTER XXI
THE TRIUMPHS OF THE MONKS WHO WERE IN NITRIA
CHAPTER XXII
THE TRIUMPH OF AMMON THE FIRST
CHAPTER XXIII
THE TRIUMPH OF ANOTHER AMMON WHO WAS IN NITRIA
CHAPTER XXIV
THE TRIUMPH OF DIDYMUS
CHAPTER XXV
THE TRIUMPH OF CHRONIUS
CHAPTER XXVI
THE TRIUMPH OF THREE BRETHREN
CHAPTER XXVII
THE TRIUMPH OF PHILEMON
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE TRIUMPH OF JOHN
CHAPTER XXIX
THE TRIUMPH OF SERAPION
CHAPTER XXX
THE TRIUMPHS OF APOLLO THE LESS, THE READER AND MARTYR
THE PARADISE OF THE HOLY FATHERS: VOLUME 2
BOOK THE FIRST
CHAPTER I
OF FLIGHT FROM MEN, AND OF SILENT CONTEMPLATION, AND OF DWELLING CONTINUALLY IN THE CELL, [A WORK] WHICH WAS COMPOSED BY BISHOP PALLADIUS FOR THE PREFECT LAUSUS
CHAPTER II
OF FASTING AND ABSTINENCE AND OF OTHER [SIMILAR] LABOURS
CHAPTER III
OF THE READING OF THE SCRIPTURES, AND OF WATCHING BY NIGHT, AND OF THE SERVICE OF THE PSALMS, AND OF CONSTANT PRAYERS
CHAPTER IV
OF HOW IT IS MEET FOR US TO WEEP FOR OUR SINS AND TO MOURN FOR THEM ALWAYS
CHAPTER V
OF VOLUNTARY POVERTY
CHAPTER VI
OF PATTENT ENDURANCE
CHAPTER VII
OF OBEDIENCE TOWARDS GOD, AND TOWARDS OUR FATHERS AND BRETHREN
CHAPTER VIII
OF SCRUPULOUS WATCHFULNESS IN OUR THOUGHTS AND WORDS ANB DEEDS
CHAPTER IX
OF LOVE, AND CHARITY, AND OF THE WELCOMING OF STRANGERS
CHAPTER X
OF HUMILITY AND OF BOW A MAN SHOULD THINK LIGHTLY OF HIMSELF, AND SHOULD ESTEEM HIMSELF THE INTERIOR OF EVERY MAN
CHAPTER XI
OF FORNICATION
CHAPTER XII
OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF REPENTANCE, AND OF HOW IT IS RIGHT FOR US TO REPENT IN TRUTH
CHAPTER XIII
OF [THE FATHERS WHO] WROUGHT WONDERFUL WORKS
CHAPTER XIV
OF THE GREATNESS OF THE SUBLIME RULE OF THE SOLITARY LIFE
BOOK THE SECOND
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE RULE OF LIFE OF THE HOLY MEN WHICH THEY TAUGHT BEFORE THE MULTITUDE AND IN THEIR CELLS ON EVERY KIND OF SPIRITUAL EXCELLENCE
QUESTIONS BY THE PUPILS AND THE ANSWERS [TO THE SAME] BY THE HOLY FATHERS AND MONKS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE VISION OF THE MIND
APPENDIX
|
|
|
|
| 62% Of Swiss Citizens Vote To Keep Covid Vaccine Passports |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-29-2021, 06:17 AM - Forum: COVID Passports
- No Replies
|
|
62% Of Swiss Citizens Vote To Keep Covid Vaccine Passports
ZH | NOV 29, 2021
In a world where millions protest daily against the creeping tyranny of a big government which is abusing the neverending covid tragicomedy to get so much bigger it would make even George Orwell cringe, one country actually had a opportunity to put an end to "vaccine passports" and totally blew it: despite months of protests, Swiss citizens overwhelmingly voted to keep the country’s system of Covid vaccination certificates in place (not surprisingly, the deal was sweetened by the promise of financial assistance for voters).
According to RT, Sunday just over some 62% of voters chose to maintain the country’s coronavirus measures which include a controversial system of Covid vaccination certificates, required since September to enter bars, restaurants, theaters and other public spaces. Majorities in 24 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons backed the law, with only the tiny cantons of Schwyz and Appenzell Innerrhoden rejecting the measures.
And since covid has emerged as every politician's best friend, all Swiss political parties with the exception of the right-wing Swiss People’s Party supported the law, which was brought to a vote after anti-lockdown groups gathered nearly 200,000 signatures to challenge it earlier this year. Under Switzerland’s system of direct democracy, any initiative can be brought to a vote with 100,000 signatures.
Curiously, while voters in June backed the introduction of the measures by 60%, recent months have seen protests break out in Swiss cities over the introduction of vaccine certificates. Police in October used rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannon to disperse crowds of people who broke through barriers outside the parliament building in Bern. And yet, almost six months later, the support for the controversial measures appears to be even higher than when they were first introduced - one almost wonder if the entire referendum was by mail...
Alas, we will never know the answer.
“The democratic process has been respected but the law is still unconstitutional,” Michelle Cailler of the ‘Friends of the Constitution’ group said after the vote on Sunday. Cailler’s group was one of several who campaigned against the law.
Céline Amaudruz of the Swiss People’s Party, which is currently topping opinion polls in Switzerland, called on the government to take “coherent and measured” action, rather than treating the result as a “blank cheque” to impose whatever coronavirus-related policies it wishes.
The law voted on provides for more than just vaccine passports. It also expands financial support for citizens and businesses affected by the pandemic, a provision that may have won over some reluctant voters.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: 8y38uqcld1m435n3bawbxln9dd1nvkud5nk5rli....ormat=webp]](https://assistant.gloria.tv/FxK6pqhk7ZiS1AZwTDoBU6KMY/8y38uqcld1m435n3bawbxln9dd1nvkud5nk5rli.webp?format=webp)
![[Image: safety1.PNG?itok=zOFF6udr]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/safety1.PNG?itok=zOFF6udr)
![[Image: openvaers.png?itok=HLd5tprN]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/openvaers.png?itok=HLd5tprN)
![[Image: 2022-cover.jpg]](https://www.ihm-church.org/images/2022-cover.jpg)
![[Image: daily%20new%20cases%20covid.jpg?itok=Go9zdXWi]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/daily%20new%20cases%20covid.jpg?itok=Go9zdXWi)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F56%2Fb4%2F31%2F56b43152b1e8759d8911e1aa7a23de21.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: ?u=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-OnH...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-OnHdT-5E5zY%2FUpyqg4lplJI%2FAAAAAAAAT4Q%2FMhmOy03Og50%2Fs1600%2FChristmas%2Bnovena%2Bcard.JPG&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimage...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fbooks%2F1389935516i%2F20563536._UY630_SR1200%2C630_.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: swiss%20referendum.jpg?itok=mZwprWg7]](https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-public/styles/inline_image_mobile/public/inline-images/swiss%20referendum.jpg?itok=mZwprWg7)
