Where The Wild Things Are

[I’ve updated the post with new thoughts. Look towards the bottom to find them.]

In his guest post The Irrational Female, commenter mdavid offered his thoughts on why many modern women have gone “feral.” At the time I was too busy to offer my own thoughts, and intend to give them now on that subject. Since it has been a few days, and a few other posts have intervened, I think a new post on the topic would be appropriate.

Having read through mdavid’s post, and the responses to it, I have to say that while I agree with many of his observations, I disagree with many of his conclusions. Family size is tied to the phenomenon of “feral” women, but I don’t think it is a causal factor. Rather, it is a symptom of the actual forces at work.

My personal theory on the matter is that in our present “fallen” state, all human beings start out as feral. It is our “natural” state- or perhaps better termed, “base” state. In order for a human being to not be feral, he or she must be reared and socialized appropriately. Furthermore, since our “base” nature is feral, then it is the norm towards which we revert. Absent other forces at work, human beings will slowly revert back towards being feral. A failure to properly socialize and raise a child means that the child never leaves a feral state in the first place, or will quickly revert back to being feral once left to their own devices.

In order to keep humans from reverting to our feral nature, civilization developed and evolved various structures which promoted civilized behavior. In other words, we incentivized good behavior, and decentivized bad behavior. Laws, cultural codes and mores were all put in place in order to keep humans from going feral. These tools are, or rather, were, in place at every stage of a person’s life.

They were no means fool-proof, either. There have always been those who bucked the laws and customs of civilization. Various names have been used to describe them: criminals, outlaws, malcontents. However they are described, for the large part most have rejected the institutions and tools by which civilization was maintained. At the same time, civilizations would do their best to contain and isolate these individuals. A failure to do so almost invariably ended with the destruction of the attendant civilization.

What we see now in the West in the form of “feral women” is the natural result of the slow dismantling of the tools of civilization. Women, no less than men, needed strong social institutions and customs in place to keep their “wild side” in check. However, in the last few centuries those checks have been either removed or weakened. For the most part, women are no longer punished for socially destructive behavior. They are shielded in many instances from the worst consequences of their conduct. Everything that used to be in place to coerce women to behave is either going or gone.

Even worse, women are often encouraged to engage in this self-destruction. It isn’t enough that women no longer face barriers in the way of their exercising their feral nature. Simply being allowed to engage in what they want doesn’t go far enough. Instead, they must be affirmatively enabled in this. All of which is to say that “empowerment” as used today is nothing more and nothing less than the creation of a new social structure whose purpose is to allow women to go feral.

So, for a brief summary:

  • Human beings start feral and need to be socialized throughout their lives in order for them to become “civilized”
  • The tools civilization created in the past to socialize women so that they could be civilized have been weakened or dismantled
  • In recent years this has been taken a step further and new tools have been put in place which make it easier for women to act feral

Update:

Based on the comments below, I have reworked my original theory. First some background, and then I will start at the beginning.

Ours is a God of Order. (1 Cor 14:33). It stands to reason then that harmony with the will of God is in natural alignment with Order. On the other hand, that which is not in harmony with God’s will must be consistent with chaos, or Disorder. With this in mind, we might imagine a simple continuum, with Order on one side and Disorder on the other. The further we are towards Order, the more in line we are with God’s will. And the further towards Disorder, the less in line we are with God’s will. With this in mind lets to move to human beings.

Human beings have a couple of different forces acting upon them. First, you have our sinful inclinations as result of the Fall. Sin leads us away from God, and thus is inherently a tool of Disorder. Second, you have “the law written in our hearts.” This is our latent understanding of the Natural Law. Since the Natural Law is in harmony with God’s will, it is inherently a tool of Order. Thus, human beings are at their core conflicted- we have the effects of the Natural Law and of the Fall both working within us.

This conflict between those two forces within us, between Order and Disorder, form our base nature (not us being “feral” as I asserted before).  Unfortunately, the Fall damaged our ability to understand the Natural Law. This impairment means that, by ourselves, we can only ever have an imperfect understanding of it, and will only be able to imperfectly follow it. Hence, it is extremely rare for human beings to, on our own, live an Ordered life. But it isn’t impossible. Some individuals are gifted with a greater ability to reason and act rationally. This permits them to act more consistently with the Natural Law, and thus create Order. These individuals are the ones who build civilizations. Especially when they can work in concert, they can instill Order in the world around them. However, as stated before, most individuals aren’t like that. By themselves, they will act in a Disordered way.

One way this can be overcome is of course through careful parenting. Scripture is filled with numerous admonitions of the importance of disciplining children. And for good reason- this is essential to help them develop the tools necessary to live an Ordered life. When parents fail to properly raise their children, they risk those children “backsliding” and becoming captive to their passions.

Another method for instilling Order is through Law. Whether it be formal laws imposed by whatever government exists, or informal customs or conditions, they all have as their function the imposition of restraints on human behavior for the purpose of instilling Order. These social tools are essential to maintaining Order in any society. St. Paul explained why:

Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine

(1 Timothy 1:8-10)

There are some who are just inclined towards disobedience. There are others who will have trouble obeying. Thus, social restraints are essential for keeping them in check.

Throughout history, numerous civilizations have tried to impose their own version of Order. However, as noted earlier, they were operating under an imperfect understanding of the Natural Law. This means they would never, could never, achieve true order. They were always conflicted. Thus, you had the Aztec Empire committing human sacrifice, and the Romans maintaining a slave state, and various Indian empires using an inflexible caste system, just to name some examples. Because they lacked a complete understanding of the Natural Law, they were doomed to fail. Any civilization that is founded only on worldly things is so doomed. If an external threat doesn’t destroy them, internal conflicts will. [Incidentally, those civilizations that were closest to obeying the natural law were also the most secure.]

What changes this is Christ. With Christ and the sacraments, human beings can overcome the limitations placed on their understanding of the Natural Law by the Fall. This means we can determine the means to create a truly Ordered society that is in harmony with God’s Will. But at the same time, we are still human beings who sin. So we can reject the Grace extended to us. Because of that, we still need law, as there will always be those who are disobedient.

In the West now there are several things going on. First, we have a widespread rejection of Christ- a rebellion against sound teaching and doctrine. That invariably leads to Disorder, as it brings people further away from grasping the Natural Law. We also have a massive dismantling of social restraints. What I said earlier in the post still applies. Those restraints are essential, no matter the society. There will always be those who disobey or who are likely to stray. Without them, Disorder is only to be expected. Since the restraints on women in particular have been removed the most, we are seeing a lot of Disordered (or “feral”) women in the West these days. I expect that as Disorder continues to grow in the West that men will increasingly follow suit.

And now for an attempt to re-summarize:

  • Human beings are conflicted at heart- we are torn between Order and Disorder
  • Since Disorder tends to win out for most, human beings need to be conditioned and subject to various social restraints in order to stay “civilized”, that is, to be Orderly
  • Women are not reared as well now as they were in the past
  • The tools civilizations created in the past to restrain female behavior have been weakened or dismantled
  • In recent years this has been taken a step further and new tools have been put in place which encourage Disorderly female tendencies
  • As a result, women in the West have become more and more Disordered
Advertisements

92 Comments

Filed under Civilization, Men, Red Pill, Sin, Temptation, Women

92 responses to “Where The Wild Things Are

  1. Mrs. C

    DG-Your update is just excellent. I have a question. When you mention restraints or tools in the past to keep behavior rightly ordered, could you give specific examples of any you are thinking of?

    I also have a thought about how these “tools”, (maybe you mean laws, social, and cultural customs?) are viewed. These “tools” for behavior could be viewed as restraints for those who mistake liberty for license and want to abuse the actual freedom they enable us to have. In intention, these “tools” are actually in place so that we can freely (as the CCC says), love God and others. Those who have a great desire to follow and love God, will love his laws because they recognize the goodness of them and the freedom within them. Those who want to buck His laws lack trust in the goodness of God’s plan for man.

    One last thing, “Women are not reared as well now as they were in the past” Children are not reared as well now as they were in the past.

  2. Maea

    I think everyone needs to get off the semantics and voting wagons.

    Feral is an appropriate word; it simply serves to describe what happens after humanity indulges in concupiscence. In Catholicism, catechism describes how man desires a union with God but it also describes how man will become fallen and disordered– in other words, feral as it’s a rejection of civilization and union with God.

    No one here has denied the authority of a husband over his family, or of male authority/headship. Wives and daughters are under the authority of their husbands and fathers, nuns are under the authority of a priest/Church, and all women are under the authority of the Church. Mrs. C did not imply, or state anything contrary.

  3. Thank you for the update, Donal. Your clarification is much appreciated.

    This is not a criticism, I just always find the projection interesting. It’s as if y’all believe women are leading some kind of “feral rebellion,” which totally throws a wrench in my concept of men as leaders. Where is the headship, where is the teaching, where are all the men? You present them all as victims of women, stumbling along blindly, “following suit” as you put it.

    “Since the restraints on women in particular have been removed the most, we are seeing a lot of Disordered (or “feral”) women in the West these days. I expect that as Disorder continues to grow in the West that men will increasingly follow suit.”

  4. Mrs. C,

    When you mention restraints or tools in the past to keep behavior rightly ordered, could you give specific examples of any you are thinking of?

    I should clarify that when I talk about social restraints, I mean restraints placed on human behavior by society. Not simply restraints in the area of social interaction.

    This can include typical criminal laws which prohibit theft, fraud, murder or rape.

    It can include customs or codes of conduct too. Shunning those who transgress certain acceptable codes of behavior is another form of social restraint. For example, during New Testament times prostitutes and tax collectors were shunned. [Such shunning was not, in and of itself, wrong. Jesus commanded as much towards unrepentant sinners. The problem during those times was that the Pharisees offered no path to repentance and redemption for those who wanted to resume an Orderly life.]

    In the Old Testament, if a man deflowered a virgin and was caught, he was forced to pay the bride price. He also had to marry her if the father decided it was appropriate. And the man could never divorce the woman. That is a very serious social restraint (especially for OT Jews).

    Single, unmarried men were often never fully accepted in many cultures. They were viewed with suspicion, and often had trouble gaining full acceptance. This can be seen in Sirach 36:30-31. The reasoning behind this was that men should be encouraged to be responsible- to marry and have a family and build up the community, rather than simply amuse themselves as bachelors. Mild exclusion of them was a form of social restraint.

    Those are just a few examples.

    However, this post in particular was focused on female behavior. Social restraints that would be relevant would be shunning of women who engage in sexual promiscuity, or who acted in an unfeminine way, as just a few examples. Even mild examples, such as “polite company” not tolerating unladylike speech or immodest dress all serve a vital social purpose.

  5. I also have a thought about how these “tools”, (maybe you mean laws, social, and cultural customs?) are viewed.

    Yes, when I said tools I meant all the various “instruments” that society can use to alter behavior- laws, customs, traditions, etc.

    These “tools” for behavior could be viewed as restraints for those who mistake liberty for license and want to abuse the actual freedom they enable us to have. In intention, these “tools” are actually in place so that we can freely (as the CCC says), love God and others. Those who have a great desire to follow and love God, will love his laws because they recognize the goodness of them and the freedom within them. Those who want to buck His laws lack trust in the goodness of God’s plan for man.

    Yes, exactly. God is not a petty tyrant who enjoys abusing authority. When he tells us not to do something, it is for our own good. Sin harm us and others, even when we don’t realize it. The Natural Law is the template for how we should live our lives. Harmony with it will provide for all the best method of living on this planet in this life. It may not always be obvious why something is prohibited, or encouraged. But all of it is for a reason. Think of how a mother might tell her young child not to play in the street. The child may not realize the danger, but the mother does.

    Social restraints that punish or distinguish certain behaviors might seem cruel or unfair, but ultimately they are for our own good when they are in alignment with the Natural Law. Unfortunately, our liberal (in the classical sense of the word) sensibilities get in the way of understanding this- at least, that how it is for the overwhelming majority of people.

    One last thing, “Women are not reared as well now as they were in the past” Children are not reared as well now as they were in the past.

    Agreed. I was tailoring that summary to the original part of the post, which addressed mdavid’s specific inquiry about women. Both men and women are becoming more Disordered nowadays. However, the effects of female Disorder are greater at the moment, as more of their restraints have been lifted lately. And also because I think, as an aggregate, that they are reared even worse than men.

  6. @ insanity

    It’s as if y’all believe women are leading some kind of “feral rebellion,” which totally throws a wrench in my concept of men as leaders.

    Actually, its men and women together leading this. If anything, the men who support this increased Disorder are the greater threat. And rebellion is exactly the right word- although “feral”, if one wants to use that word, is the end result. Not necessarily an intended one, but an end result all the same.

    And why are you surprised about men being poor leaders nowadays? As a general rule, we aren’t natural leaders. We need proper formation just like women. And that is largely lacking.

    Where is the headship, where is the teaching, where are all the men?

    The headship and teaching is rejected- by men as well as women. You ask where all the men are. I assume you mean all the good men trying to fix this? They are often kicked out for trying to fix things. One guy from around these parts who went by the name of Joseph of Jackson tried to do exactly that. And was kicked out of his church for it. Most nearly anyone who tries to remedy the situation is silenced.

  7. Mrs. C

    .@mdavid “One drop of sin destroyed Adam’s true nature to the point of death. That’s the whole doctrine of original sin. I’ve only ever heard a few protestants claim otherwise, that human nature is still basically good at the root (not all prots, don’t jump!).”

    I actually do want to continue to parse out this use of the word feral to describe human nature, because contrary to what others have stated about needing to stop the semantics or too much “hairsplitting and legalism” as Ton described it above, semantics and the meaning of words is important and the hairsplitting is necessary if humans are ever to gain in their understanding of spiritual things. It was this very process that the Church Fathers were able to stamp out the various heresies as they cropped up.

    However, before we get back to that, I want to make sure I understand your meaning of the statement I quoted above. Are you saying that some protestants claim human nature is still basically good at the root?

  8. Mrs. C

    @DG – Thank you for answering my questions. I was curious to know what you meant. Your mention of shunning is interesting in light of the upcoming Synod on the Family and Pope Francis’ recent comments about welcoming into Church the divorced and remarried. Some are up in arms over his comments because they think this might lead to allowing them to receive Communion. I don’t think this is what he is hinting at. (I really should read the articles but in reality I’ve just skimmed headlines) I think the point is that even those living in this state should feel, just as anyone else in a state of mortal sin, that they are welcome to attend and participate at Mass. This welcoming is a good thing because their being there and participating, especially for the liturgy of the Word, may help them to reflect on and remedy their state. However, not being able to receive the Eucharist can be interpreted by some who think they should be allowed, as a punishment or a shunning/shaming restriction. It may feel like that but that is because the focus is on the person(s). If the focus is on the Real Presence of Christ and that it’s dishonorable to Him to receive when you are in a state of turning your back on Him, then it’s an action of respect for Christ rather than a punishment towards the person(s). Of course, the feelings of shame can always do what they are meant to do, which is to lead the sinner to repentance.

  9. theshadowedknight

    Donal, men naturally form hierarchies on their own. Some lead, others follow, but it is a natural process. Women had to work very hard to stop that process from occurring. They also work hard at creating the sort of men who cannot lead or follow.

    Men no longer care about leading women. All they have to offer is sex, and that is easy enough to get. Why lead? Socialize with fellow men until you want sex, go get some woman to give you some, then go back to your friends. Women are so disagreeable that men do not want to socialize with them, anymore.

    I do not need to lick a stove to know I will get burned. I have seen so many men get burned, already. I do not even want a stove in my house, given how often they burn it down.

    Face it, ladies. You fucked up, big time. Men no longer care. How many young men are commenting on blogs like these? I remember when many different commenters could be found. Now it is the same voices, mostly women whining and men telling you to shut up and stop crying.

    What kind of man wants to listen to women blame men for the problems they created, then tell men that they have to fix it, but only do it in a way that women will enjoy?

    You want to know how I was convinced to give up on women? Women, just like you, talking just like you are talking. It was not some well thought out argument on the pros and cons of marriage, it was not a clever video. It was the realization that you are the best that women have to offer. That, alone, was responsible. You drive more men into my camp in a single comment thread than ten thousand articles and videos combined.

    So keep it up. Your daughters will curse you as they watch men walk away. Your sons, well are they really going to risk ending up with a woman like their mother?

    The Shadowed Knight

  10. “And why are you surprised about men being poor leaders nowadays? As a general rule, we aren’t natural leaders. We need proper formation just like women. And that is largely lacking.”

    Because in my world the men are not poor leaders at all, they are all awesome. I see men leading all over the place, in spite of many challenges. I see the morality of the Western world all around me collapsing, but not the core of the church, not even the bulk of Christians.

  11. Mrs. C

    @GunnerQ “Sigh, you say you favor individualism but yearn for a future in which the Vatican holds more authority than entire nations. Which is it? Do individuals get to run their own lives or must they do as the God-chosen authorities demand?”

    Hmm…I don’t recall saying I favor individualism but I think our communication isn’t clear because we are defining things differently and approaching it from different angles. Ok, so you are saying that individualism means people get to run their own lives. I do favor that but it has to be within the bounds of the God-chosen and civil authorities that they operate within. Think of a circle and the line that makes the circle are the God-given moral laws and man-made laws. The individual gets to run his own life within the empty space of the circle and has freedom within it but shouldn’t step outside the lines of the circle. This is under the assumption that the laws to which he is held bound are just.

    @GunnerQ “This is what I’m getting at. You SAY you want the father to be in charge of his family but what you MEAN is you want the father to be the dutiful representative of “the authorities”. You don’t want him to do as he wishes. You don’t trust him to possess free will. You want to give him Five-Year Plans and ensure he follows them. I love how you say “all authority on earth is derived from God” and then deny the authority of a husband over his family. God put the husband in charge of the family… not the clergy and not the king… but you refuse to submit.”

    Well, I didn’t SAY anything about what I want. I’m sharing the Catholic understanding of authority. Those who have authority over others are bound to submit those who are, in turn, in authority over them. Having authority doesn’t mean you aren’t under authority yourself. We are all ultimately under God’s authority. Those with authority have limited authority, not absolute. For example, the Catholic Church says no birth control. The father is not free, by virtue of his authority, to decide otherwise for his marriage nor can he allow his wife to talk him into it. They are both bound to the authority of the Church. In temporal matters that don’t have a moral character, such as where to live, whether to save money or go on vacation etc, the father has the right to decide these things. However, being bound to charity, one would hope that he would make these decisions by taking into consideration the views of his family and what is best for all rather than just making the decision that benefits himself best to the exclusion of his family. If you are not Catholic, then I suppose you will have to read the Bible, interpret it and apply it as you see fit.

  12. mdavid

    C, …contrary to what others have stated about needing to stop the semantics…semantics and the meaning of words is important and the hairsplitting is necessary if humans are ever to gain in their understanding of spiritual things.

    Agreed. I’m a serious sucker for heresy. Precise words and thoughts (hairsplitting) keep me unified with Christians from Christ to today.

    Are you saying that some protestants claim human nature is still basically good at the root?

    I attend a bible study at work where I’m the only traditional Christian. Yes, this heresy (and a dozen others) has been seriously argued there. Remember, infant baptism offends Faith Aloners, esp. women (how could a beautiful innocent child be evil! You RC are sick!). The baptism question divides big-time among prots; the only heresies most prots know well are of the JV and LDS variety (these help unify them, being so obviously false). It’s important to remember that schism is never ending for prots and the only thing that unifies them is they ain’t RC. Otherwise, there is literally no peace, since anyone can believe anything, any sin can be excused by OSAS (I’ve seen a murder-sucide excused this way). Many RC don’t know how tough unity (church and family) is for prots, nor how much peace RC inherit with Church authority. Pray for unity. Seriously. The pain is real.

  13. mdavid

    DG, Both men and women are becoming more Disordered nowadays. However, the effects of female Disorder are greater at the moment, as more of their restraints have been lifted lately.

    This. Men are not coddled by society (slaves to the State). Women are (male voters are WKs). QED. (btw, feel free to fix the italic tag in prior post).

    IB,Where is the headship, where is the teaching, where are the men?

    When men demand freedom from authority, they cannot lead. Churches fall first (doctrine). Families next (divorce, birth control). Society last (rule of law, morality. We are now on the final stage.

  14. Mrs. C

    @mdavid “Remember, infant baptism offends Faith Aloners, esp. women (how could a beautiful innocent child be evil! You RC are sick!). ”

    The reason I wanted to make sure I understood that you were saying some Protestants teach that human nature is still basically good at the root is because I was surprised that you were implying that this was an erroneous teaching. Catholics and some Protestant denominations DO teach that human nature is essentially good. (even when in the state of Original Sin)

    The Catholic understanding is that human nature is essentially, intrinsically good because God created it and pronounced it so. Adam and Eve before the fall not only had a human nature that was good, they had sanctifying grace that took their good nature and made it super-nature. (Supernatural)

    Definition of sanctifying grace: ” The supernatural state of being infused by God, which permanently inheres in the soul. It is a vital principle of the supernatural life, as the rational soul is the vital principle of a human being’s natural life. It is called sanctifying grace because it makes holy those who possess the gift by giving them a participation in the divine life.

    Adam and Eve also were granted Preternatural gifts, which are by definition “Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature.” Meaning possession of these gifts give us supernatural powers but not the ultimate power that God has.

    The Preternatural gifts that Adam and Eve had were “-infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence [tendency to sin], and bodily immortality.”

    When Adam and Eve fell, their essential nature didn’t go from good to evil, so much as it was a loss of their super-nature. They still retained their essential human nature which is good but in losing sanctifying grace and their preternatural gifts, they no longer shared in God’s divine life. God used to walk with them in the garden but He sent them out because they no longer shared life with Him. They no longer partake in His Divine Nature because Sanctifying grace was lost.

    An unbaptized baby may be in the state of Original Sin, but being in the state of Original Sin is not being evil. The Original sin of Adam “affected the whole human race by depriving his progeny of the supernatural life and preternatural gifts they would have possessed on entering the world had Adam not sinned. Original sin in his descendants is personal only in the sense that the children of Adam are each personally affected, but not personal as though they had voluntarily chosen to commit the sin; it is grave in the sense that it debars a person from the beatific vision, but not grave in condemning one to hell.

    When a person is baptized, they go from having a human nature that is essentially good at the root, to having a supernatural nature, which is a share in God’s own life. Sanctifying grace is restored but the preternatural gifts were not (except that immortality will eventually be by attainment of heaven.)

    This is one of the reasons that feral doesn’t work as an accurate description when DG used it when he said “human nature at it’s base is feral.” (If you define feral as uncivilized) Human nature is always good and human nature with sanctifying grace is super-good. Because human nature is good our behavior is ordered to attaining the perfection of our own good. On a human level, this means that our behavior seeks to attain temporal happiness. However, because humans are called to our ultimate end beyond temporal happiness which is eternal happiness, virtuous behavior that leads to this is the behavior we should seek to perform. For example, sex before marriage is wrong, not because sex is bad, it’s because sex before marriage is seeking a lower good (temporal happiness) over a higher good of attaining eternal happiness, which is something we won’t get if we break God’s laws by mortal sin and persist in it.

    It is not human nature to seek to be feral or uncivilized. Humans naturally seek civilization because they recognize it as a means of attaining temporal happiness. Of course, because our nature is damaged by original sin, we have a hard time reasoning how civilization should be ordered best. For instance, the idea of freely expressing your sexuality no matter your married state can seem like a fine idea that would lead to happiness and a sense that it’s good to relieve an urge and bad to restrain it (which seems to be the mindset today) but it’s a bad idea because of the consequences (STD’s, bonding/then breaking of bonds, cuts off our attainment of eternal happiness etc,). Most people don’t consider that though until the damage is done and then have post-behavioral regret..

    The second reason feral doesn’t work as a word to describe humans is two-fold. A), it is a word that explains the nature and behavior of a non-human animal and is not, by definition, one that explains the nature of a human. B) Because it is a word that explains non-human animal behavior, it is a word that by definition doesn’t have a moral judgement or a moral component attached. An animal acting uncivilized is an animal acting according to it’s nature and there’s no moral judgement to make about it. We can judge the effects of an animal’s behavior as bad if it attacks a human but no immorality is imputed to the animal. Defining immoral human behavior as feral is adding meaning to the word that it doesn’t have by definition.

    This is why rebellion is the correct word to describe immoral human behavior. Rebellion is “the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.” This has a moral judgement attached (It can be good or bad depending on what or who one is rebelling against). It’s not “Girls gone wild.” It’s “Girls gone rebel.”

  15. DJ

    This reminds me of the Code of Cuenca a Spanish royal charter from around 1109 A.D. In one section it detailed how a person would be considered a minor till they where married. i think that would work rather well to incentive marriage.

  16. mdavid

    An unbaptized baby may be in the state of Original Sin, but being in the state of Original Sin is not being evil.

    Never said it did. That’s the straw man I argued against! Original sin can be well understood as original human nature going feral where sin becomes part of our DNA and is passed on. I again point out that original sin changes human nature enough to kill us, so don’t tell me it’s so minor to our human nature we aren’t feral. The change is major, much more so than an feral animal’s nature has changed.

    If you define feral as uncivilized

    I define feral properly, meaning no longer domesticated, going wild. The word works perfectly for original sin, leaving the garden and the Shepherd and becoming deformed by sin.

    The second reason feral doesn’t work as a word to describe humans…it is a word that explains the nature and behavior of a non-human animal and is not, by definition, one that explains the nature of a human.

    Again, this accuses Jesus of doing the same with vipers and sheep! Crazy.

    Because it is a word that explains non-human animal behavior, it is a word that by definition doesn’t have a moral judgement or a moral component attached. An animal acting uncivilized is an animal acting according to it’s nature and there’s no moral judgement to make about it.

    See my point above. Jesus directly teaches us to communicate moral truths the way I do. Sheep, anyone? That’s non-human animal behavior Jesus was trying to get into our heads. I (and 1,000 pastors) are on solid ground.

    This is why rebellion is the correct word to describe immoral human behavior.

    “You brood of vipers!” should have been translated as “You bunch of rebellious individuals!”. Er, no…ἔχιδνα can even mean the offspring of vipers…very similar to the feral concept.

    Let me be clear here, I’m not condemning your particular way of looking at things. You are condemning my mine (and many, even most, others). My view of original sin (and animal analogy) is 100% Church.

  17. “I define feral properly, meaning no longer domesticated, going wild. The word works perfectly for original sin, leaving the garden and the Shepherd and becoming deformed by sin.”

    I do not like the term “domesticated” in regards to our relationship with Christ, because to be domesticated means “to be tamed and kept as a pet or on a farm.” God gave us freewill, even in the Garden. We are not pets or animals on a farm, we are called to be in a love relationship with our Creator, one that involves freewill and choice.

    We are also not “deformed by sin,” we are created in His Image. Sin may well be an ugly thing, but Christ died on the cross to free us. We are new creatures in Christ, not permanently deformed farm animals, although I will grant you there are some people in the world that make you wonder about that.

  18. Pedat Ebediyah

    We are also not “deformed by sin,” we are created in His Image. Sin may well be an ugly thing, but Christ died on the cross to free us. We are new creatures in Christ, not permanently deformed farm animals, although I will grant you there are some people in the world that make you wonder about that.

    So you don’t like “deformed”…

    How about “formed” or “shaped”, as is expressed in the Scriptures?  Does that lessen it’s sting?  Is our existential dilemma mitigated by semantics?

    Lest we fall into this continued pattern of letting ourselves off the hook, and denying truth..and while, yes, our sins are covered by the blood, that doesn’t mean we are walking in consideration of that blood – at all.

    I’m reminded of David’s words:

    Psalm 51
    2. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
    3 For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.
    4 Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight—
    That You may be found just when You speak, and blameless when You judge.
    5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

    It all sucks, really, and our free-will ultimately leads us to disappoint.

     

  19. “…..and while, yes, our sins are covered by the blood, that doesn’t mean we are walking in consideration of that blood – at all.”

    Well, if we are in Christ, than shouldn’t we should be walking in consideration of that blood at all times?

    “Is our existential dilemma mitigated by semantics?”

    Yes, it is. The words we speak over ourselves have tremendous power. Consider the difference between perceiving an embryo as a human “baby” versus a “clump of cells.”

    The same is true of how we perceive people. If we believe people are simply feral creatures permanently deformed by sin, we will treat ourselves and each other much differently then we would if we perceived ourselves to be created in His image, wonderfully and fearfully made, so loved and valued we were worth dying for.

    Our free will does not always lead us to disappoint. It leads us to fall short perhaps, but it also leads us to God and the need for His redemption.

  20. Mrs. C

    @mdavid “I’m not condemning your particular way of looking at things. You are condemning my mine (and many, even most, others). My view of original sin (and animal analogy) is 100% Church.” “I define feral properly, meaning no longer domesticated, going wild. The word works perfectly for original sin, leaving the garden and the Shepherd and becoming deformed by sin.”

    I’m not saying there isn’t some truth in the analogy of Adam and Eve being domesticated in the garden and because of sin they acted in a very undomesticated way and had to leave their tame, cultivated garden and go out into the wild like feral animals. I can see that your choice to use feral does JUST FINE as an analogy.

    Above (Aug 6)you said, “Original human nature was not feral, but after our first sin, it became feral ” “That’s what original sin is all about, the fact that our new feral nature is not what God originally intended.”

    However, as I said above and have been saying, to say “human nature at it’s base IS feral,” (DG) or that human nature “became feral” or that we have “our new feral nature” especially if you mean “no longer domesticated” does not work perfectly to say what human nature IS.
    To me, (and I would think most people), to be domesticated (if applied to humans) would mean “of the home”, oriented towards the home, ordering of the house, not roaming wildly, but settled. Domestication IS human nature at it base, even with the corruption of sin. The disorder of sin makes domestication a struggle for us but it didn’t make us no longer domesticated.

    Human nature is stamped with the image of God, the Father , in union with the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, who is in every sense of the word, home and family. The disorder of sin did not erase this image. If it did, we would cease to exist. God calls us to know, love and serve Him. By this very call (because we can’t resist seeking because of it), by this very image of the Trinity, human nature, prone to sin as it is, is domesticated.

    If you define feral as no longer domesticated and going wild, then why is it still human nature to seek to be domesticated (to order or cultivate his environment, or to seek to order himself to the good, temporal or eternal) even when deprived of sanctifying grace? If our human nature IS feral (wild), we wouldn’t seek to be domesticated, we would live a wild, roaming existence and never look toward creating a temporal home or gaining our ultimate end, our eternal home.

    In the garden, man was told to have dominion over the animals and to subdue the earth. How to go about this came naturally to him because of his infused knowledge. It wasn’t a struggle.

    When he was told to leave the garden, he still had dominion over the animals and still had to subdue the earth, only figuring out how to go about this would be a struggle and nature itself would work against him causing work to be difficult rather than the pleasure he derived from it in the garden. He still strives for domestication because he is by nature domesticated.

    @mdavid “Original sin can be well understood as original human nature going feral where sin becomes part of our DNA and is passed on.”
    Original sin can be well understood as original human nature being left to itself when it was deprived of sanctifying grace and the preternatural gifts and we pass on our human nature minus the SG and gifts. The wound human nature suffered was the deprivation of SG and the gifts. This deprivation left us as our depraved selves. (Depraved but not totally depraved as Calvin would assert) Without this grace and the gifts flowing from it, human nature, left to itself,

    -lacked participation in Divine Life,
    -had to struggle for understanding (rather than it being infused),
    -presence of concupiscence (rather than it’s absence),
    -mortality (rather than immortality)

    @mdavid “I again point out that original sin changes human nature enough to kill us, so don’t tell me it’s so minor to our human nature we aren’t feral. The change is major, much more so than an feral animal’s nature has changed.”

    It depends on what you mean by change. The change wrought by original sin was a loss of something as opposed to a morphing into something else. If my arms are cut off, I’m still essentially myself. It’s a major change in that I will have to reorient myself to navigating the world in a different way and being in the world will be more of a struggle. Original sin doesn’t kill us so much as it leaves us to die (physically, the image prevents us from ceasing to exist because it’s eternal) which we will do by losing the gift of immortality. Original sin also kills the sanctifying grace in our soul which means that it deprives it of it.

    We say human nature is essentially good because human nature will do what human nature is supposed to do when left to it’s own devices. This shouldn’t be mistaken as saying our depravity is good. IOW, human nature will seek to participate in the Divine Life it lacks (good), seek to understand even though it’s a struggle (good), seek to do good even though it’s a struggle (good), and even die physically (good in the sense that it’s part of it’s nature to die but we don’t experience it as good).

    What domestication means, is the reason that I think “feral” (no longer domesticated), is not the right word to describe what human nature is.

  21. jack

    Let’s lay the blame where it belongs:

    Fathers who do not train their daughters, because:
    1) they are subservient to their wives by choice, or weakness
    2) they raise their daughter as a snowflake
    3) they are powerless in the family due to the combined assault on fatherhood via the family courts, media portrayal of fathers, and white knighting pastors who cut them off at the knees

    This is the recipe for a feral female

  22. jack

    Let’s also address the issue of female rebellion:

    Women have become willing collaborators with men in power, via feminist political agitation, rendering the rank and file men powerless.

    So, women cannot point the finger at normal church going men and call them failures as leaders, because women have given their political and voting power to a small bloc of men who are quite happy to use it as a tool to oppress.

    Women, as a general rule, vote rebellion against God more than men do. Witness how much more often women vote liberal. Women vote against God when they vote for abortionists, peddlers of anti male hysteria, and so forth.

  23. M.

    Protestants, without realizing it, follow Aleister Crowley’s (if you don’t know who this man was, read about him, as sad to say his religion and Protestantism have a common father.) central doctrine “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” If a doctrine pleases them, if it makes them feel warm and fuzzy, they’re happy to follow it. If however, it doesn’t strike their fancy, they will generally grotesquely distort some passage in their mistranslation to justify denying it.

    This is why almost all of them find nothing wrong with divorce and contraception and so on & so forth. This is the way it was in the beginning with them. The heresiarchs and their followers were tired of restraints, they wanted to gratify the passions unreservedly, wholeheartedly. If they wanted to feast on meat on Good Friday, well they were flipping well going to do it, if they wanted to break solemn vows they had made when entering Holy Orders, they were going to do it. If they wanted to desecrate churches and do unspeakable things to nuns, they were going to do it forthwith. They will not have this man to reign over them to paraphrase the Gospel of St. Luke 19:14, that is the true spirit of Protestantism. May they be converted and abjure their heresy before it is too late.

  24. jack

    The Catholic Church has certainly become a wellspring of indulged passions, scandalous coverups, and a willing abetter of American leftism, which is the height of willful behavior.

    I suspect that no one is going to be more surprised on the day of judgment than Catholics. They are not going to find out they were wrong in themselves, but they are going to find out how imperfect their organization was, and how it was not the “official Church of the God and His Son.”

  25. jack

    And let’s not forget aiding the Nazis, the inquisition, and endless behind the scenes meddling in world affairs.

    The prots might have some rebellion in them, but I think that the Catholic church makes a child of God into twice the son of hell that the protestants do. And the final proof is their election of a loony-left pope, who I expect at some point to go all-in on the full leftist agenda.

    Top Dem senators were welcomed in the Catholic church, despite their abortionist ways, and the Catholic church does not have the balls to excommunicate them. It is one thing to support abortion personally (which is a sin).

    It is another thing to drive the public policy bandwagon directly into the current pro abortion mindset.

    The Catholic church MAY/MIGHT/POSSIBLY/COULD have been the Church Universal at one point. But now it is a pathetic, corrupt shell of what it once was.

    The idea that mere men could ‘elect’ God’s representative on earth is proof enough of fallacy. Why does God have to speak through a voting process? Why can’t he just make it happen in some holy and undeniable way?

    Answer: Because men pretend to speak for God.

  26. M.

    Arius was a priest, in fact most heresiarchs were clergymen. This in no way negates the truth of the Catholic Church being founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The multitude of evil churchmen and heretical or apostate laymen are not themselves the Church. They are members thereof, and if they be obstinate in their errors until death they will be counted among the cockle at the Day of Judgement. When the 16th century heresiarchs founded their sects they drew men out of the Church just as Arius and Mohammed before them. Protestants are not Christians any more than Mohammedans whose ancestors apostatized from the True Religion in the Levant and North Africa are Christians. They are adherents of a new religion which is not Christ’s.

    The Holy Inquisition saved Europe, for a time, from the Bolsheviks of the day. International Jewry very nearly brought Spain under the yoke by means of marranos infiltrating every institution they possibly could. They even infiltrated the Church in order to better disseminate their pernicious errors. These marranos were like bacilli in Spain’s body politic. The Inquisition was a healthy reaction which succeeded in purging the illness before it became mortal. As for National Socialism, I’m afraid that you have failed to research the matter very thoroughly, if at all. The National Socialists faulted the Church for being un-Germanic and for supposedly enervating the German nation with its doctrine of charity. Josef Goebbels, in his private papers derided Franco for his Catholicism and regretted that Spain’s leader couldn’t have been someone else who more closely resembled the National Socialists. Many priests were imprisoned in concentration camps. Many National Socialists hated the Church as much as the Bolsheviks did.

    As for the Church’s supposed defection, that is a blasphemy against Christ (not saying you intended it as such, but it is.) as it is calling Him a liar. He solemnly gave His word that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Church, protestants however vehemently maintain that they did. If you read the writings of the earliest Fathers and Doctors you will find that their doctrine is Catholic Doctrine. St. Ignatius of Antioch knew St. Polycarp the Martyr, who knew St. John The Evangelist, who of course knew Our Lord Himself. His writings survive and they describe the Mass, belief in the Real Presence and so on; they do not in any way shape or form describe anything that resembles a protestant service. They also write of devotion to the Most Holy Mother of God and the invocation of the Saints. Read St. Ephrem the Syrian’s works on devotion to Our Lady. He lived during the 4th century, well before supposed corruption set in. May all those who are of good will hear the Truth of Christ, correspond with His grace and be converted.

  27. Mrs. C

    @Jack “The Catholic Church has certainly become a wellspring of indulged passions, scandalous coverups, and a willing abetter of American leftism, which is the height of willful behavior. I suspect that no one is going to be more surprised on the day of judgment than Catholics. They are not going to find out they were wrong in themselves, but they are going to find out how imperfect their organization was, and how it was not the “official Church of the God and His Son.”

    Surprised? Why should we be? Jesus said to expect nothing more. In fact, he said NOT to uproot the weeds, lest we uproot the wheat.

    24 Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

    27 “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

    28 “‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

    “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

    29 “‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

    “Here we see that the kingdom of God is in the here and now, present in and through the Church. Yet it is a mixed reality that will only be perfectly realized at the end of history. This current “mixed” state can be seen as the Church on earth which now grows in the field of the world with both weeds and wheat until the harvest when Christ says he will “tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned. But gather the wheat into my barn” (Matt 13:30). “

  28. Mrs. C

    @jack “The Catholic church MAY/MIGHT/POSSIBLY/COULD have been the Church Universal at one point. But now it is a pathetic, corrupt shell of what it once was.”

    “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

    @jact “The idea that mere men could ‘elect’ God’s representative on earth is proof enough of fallacy. Why does God have to speak through a voting process? Why can’t he just make it happen in some holy and undeniable way?”

    That’s like asking “Why the incarnation through Mary? Why can’t he just make it happen in some holy and undeniable way?”

    The entire salvation history (from Old Testament to New and beyond) shows God requiring humanity to work in cooperation with Him. If we are to have a share in His Divine Life in heaven, why would we not have to work in cooperation with Him now? That’s just good Fatherhood. “Son, if you expect me to work to provide food for the table and a roof over your head, you’ll get out there now to cut the grass and then you’ll wash the dishes. You’re not going to sit around on your arse while I do all work.”

  29. Mrs. C

    @jack ” “The idea that mere men could ‘elect’ God’s representative on earth is proof enough of fallacy.”

    Was The Word a fallacy because he was born of a woman? Some people thought so. “Who him? That’s just the son of Joseph and Mary. A mere carpenter’s son.”

  30. Catholics lack.the honesty and courage to own their failed co Catholics but blame all.the world’s ills on Protestants

    What a weak people and let’s not forget the reality of elections; it is a minority of Protestants and a majority of.Catholics who drove this mess here in the usa, and.Catholic nations like Ireland, Italy, Mexico destroyed themselves with leftist ideologies before Protestant usa. Course being a weak people you will not own up to the devastation, world wide devastation wrought by your co religionist

    How anyone can take your claims of Catholics being traditionalist, standing firm to faith etc serious is beyond me. The only explanation would be ignorance or indoctrination

  31. “How anyone can take your claims of Catholics being traditionalist, standing firm to faith etc serious is beyond me.”

    We are all fallen, are we not? Catholics, protestants, men, women? Are we not all without excuse? It seems to me that taking responsibility for our own selves and the harm we have done in the world is a better idea then trying to plea bargain with God and point fingers at someone elses sin.

  32. M.

    SFC Ton, go on with the ad hominem attacks, it’s the only thing that a contemptible little cockroach like you has got. Catholics are the only ones to fight communists and freemasons. The Catholic people of Spain and Portugal crushed them. General Franco shot thousands of red maggots afterward for the atrocities they had committed during the civil war there. If you and your fellow prots had had to face the red beasts you would have, to put it nicely, had an involuntary bowel movement and fallen down on the ground pleading and grovelling.

    The Poles continued the fight against communism in the form of a guerilla war into the early 60’s. Prot East Germans were among those most rapidly and successfully communized. And so it goes, but you go ahead and live in your world of fantasy and insult your betters, it makes no difference, you’ll still be what you are, and they’ll still be what they are, superior to you and your fellow prots in every conceivable way.

  33. jack

    Nothing but a lot of squid ink here. Count yourselves guilty of circular reasoning as well.

    Prayers to saints = idolatry.

    Case closed, I’m afraid. Elevating Mary to the point of being more a point of contact to the average Christian than Christ himself?

    Endless corruption among the “popes”. Whatever.
    And the current “pope” is a leftist loony, and a total horse’s rear end.

    By the way, speaking of weird, M’s first response is positively odd in it’s try-hard pomposity of manner. I am picturing someone kind of like the Monopoly guy, harrumphing and glaring down through his monocle, while occasionally punctuating his words with wild flailing of the arms.

    Dude – please – you’re giving me fremdshamen. Wrapping your opinions in a stiff, contrived tone adds no gravity to them whatsoever, but actually tends to betray a lack of confidence in them. If you’re really right, your opinions shouldn’t need to be painted up so garishly.

  34. jack

    By the way, Catholics are saved by the blood of Christ just the same as I am. But they enjoy no special status or benefits above any other of the saved.

    Where is boasting? It is excluded.

    When we all stand before God, I wonder if Catholics will be more happy for being in the presence of the Lord, or if they will be secretly enraged that they don’t have special status. I don’t dislike Catholics – I see them as being beset my a religion that is not nearly as Christlike as it should be, or could be.

  35. This (in many respects) sounded as much like the classic argument between Calvinists and Arminians as it does the well worn Catholic/Protestant debate.

  36. M.

    Jack, my manner of writing is based on how books were written in earlier saner times. If you bother to read a book written before WWII, or especially before WWI you will find that the language employed is not dissimilar to mine. They didn’t possess the wondrous newspeak used today which consists of 150 or so monosyllabic words and is only suited to expressing ideas on the order of “two legs bad, four legs good.” as the sheep were taught to bleat over and over again in Orwell’s Animal Farm.

    If you go back to Alexander Pope, Dryden or Dr. Johnson you’ll likely have a fit, what with all the classical and philosophical allusions and all of the words which are made up of more than one syllable, it would be quite maddening. Anyhow, you are yourself guilty of idolatry by your own ridiculous definition. If you have ever asked your minister to pray for you or for someone else you have thereby made him equal to God, you’ve worshipped him like the Hindus worship their idols. Of course that’s absurd, but Protestantism is given to absurdity being intrinsically disordered and irrational.

    The contempt for the Most Holy Mother of God is satanic in origin. The Holy Scriptures themselves record that Our Lady, inspired by the Holy Ghost said that “behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” As Bishop Challoner wrote in regard to this passage; “Shall call me blessed…..These words are a prediction of that honour which the Church in all ages should pay to the Blessed Virgin. Let Protestants examine whether they are in any way concerned in this prophecy.” The Most Holy Mother of God is exalted above all other creatures and is second to God Himself, Whom She bore. Would The Almighty Who is Truth, Beauty, Goodness and Purity Itself will to take on flesh from just any woman? To say so is to blaspheme Him. He knew His Mother from all ages, and when He created Her, He caused Her to be conceived without sin, and when Her time in this vale of tears was ended He caused Her to be assumed, body and soul into Heaven.

    She intercedes for poor miserable sinners with Her Son, and brings about the salvation of many who would be lost if not for Her prayers. How insolent it is for Protestants to assume that their prayers are just as good in the sight of Our Lord Jesus Christ as those of His Mother and the Saints, His Mother Who was without sin of any kind and gave Him His Body and Blood, and the Saints who devoted their entire beings to His service, often giving up their natural lives in the midst of torments rather than forsake Him. This is egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is intrinsically disordered, this is proved by the hierarchy that exists in nature which God created. There is a rightful order of things instituted by God, and those who would level all things and introduce so-called “equality” are invariably agents of the devil whether they realize it or not. May God preserve the remnant of the faithful.

  37. jack

    I reject the concept of a pope as satanic.

    The Bible makes no mention of Mary as intercessor. This is idolatry that was created later in books invented in order to gain control over the masses. Yeah, I know, the Catholics accept all of these writings as valid. Whatever.

    Nice try on the syllable-count snark, kiddo. I could write with the same comical, overwrought style if I chose to. However, I prefer to emulate my Savior, Christ Jesus, and get right to the point with clear language.

    Speaking of Jesus, He happens to be my intercessor with the Father. I’m certain Mary was a wonderful, holy woman. It does not follow that I must pray to her.

    Even though I think you are waaaaaay off, I still think you are a Christian, and you are saved. The fact that you don’t think the same of me matters not one whit. I am saved by Christ, and I will be accepted by grace into the Kingdom. And nothing is going to change that.

  38. theshadowedknight

    Catholic Ireland voted for gay marriage. Protestant America had to have it imposed upon us by a cabal of Jews and Papists in black robes after it was rejected again and again. Funny you mention Portugal, and how they went as red as the people who they fought. Not to mention all the communist governments in South America and Europe. Catholics have a serious problem. Blaming all the world’s woes on Protestants is disingenuous.

    The Shadowed Knight

  39. Feminine But Not Feminist

    Last I checked, this isn’t a post about Catholicism vs Protestantism, and Donal does like his threads to stay relatively on topic, so…

    Going back to the OP: I like the update Donal; I can’t think of anything that needs to be added to it.

  40. I don’t know how it got to a Prot/Cat argument because I stopped reading, but the whole thing was irrelevant to the post to begin with since Donal’s use of “feral” was a figure of speech and pertained only to humans vis a vis civilization. The Bible makes no mention of the Bible, which you would think would be important since Protestants claim everything they believe comes from the Bible. In actuality they practice Bibliolotry.

  41. M.

    Jack, I’m sorry for the tone I took, I just have become tired of the incessant attacks. I wish that you would read the writings of the early Fathers, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Ephrem the Syrian, St. Jerome and St. Augustine, look at the architecture of the ancient churches and consider what kind of worship they were intended for, look at the ancient paintings and listen to the most ancient church music and think long and hard about it all, and pray that the Almighty God would enlighten you as to whether or not you are in the true religion. We can never be sure of salvation in this life. Look up Ezekiel 18:24 and Philippians 2:12. That is why one must continually implore God for the assistance of His grace that He would strengthen His servants to overcome their enemies, the world, the flesh and the devil. I pray that you will see the truth and not reject it and that you will indeed be saved in the end.

    Shadowed Knight, you’re right, Catholics do have a serious problem and that problem is apostasy. Most nowadays obey only those doctrines which please them. They ignore all the rest and live bestial lives of depravity and yet insist upon calling themselves Catholics. They ought to be excommunicated, all of Ireland should placed under an interdict, but of course it won’t happen due the Judaeo-Masonic infiltrators and their generation of ’68 lackeys who run things.

    Those are apostates who voted in favour of sodomite so-called “marriage.” Truth be told there are very few Catholics in the world today, but a great multitude of degenerate pagans who give themselves the name. Only 5 or 10% go to Mass in most European countries, I don’t think it’s much better in Canada and the United States. The sermons given are often watered-down be nice to your neighbour and think a little about God during the week stuff at best, and outright heresy or even blasphemy at worst. This has always been the case, most of mankind is lost according to Our Lord Himself. Everywhere the good are few and the wicked great in number to quote one line of St Leonard of Port Maurice’s sermon : The little number of those who are saved. I don’t blame all the world’s ills on Protestants, International Jewry and its Masonic allies are much more culpable. I pray that God enlighten you. May Our Lord soon bring all of those who are of good will to Himself.

  42. jack

    Personally, the only thing I hope for is that a person can get at least as far as “Jesus Christ, son of the Living God died on the cross for my sins, and rose from the dead.”

    I am not “religiously political”, i.e. I am not steeped in doctrinal absolutes.
    To the extent that the Catholic church promotes Christ as the son of God, I am in agreement. As to any doctrinal issue that doesn’t directly challenge Christ as divine, and the son of God, I believe that such differences will not result in a person being saved or not saved. Of course I view any theology that denies the divinity and sonship of Jesus as false. For instance, I understand Mormons do not believe Jesus was the son of God. This means that despite their remarkable tendency toward moral behavior (for which I am admire them), I fear for the ultimate salvation of Mormons. Since they seem to be morally kindred spirits to myself, I hope that God’s revelation reaches them more fully.

    There are many nominally Christian factions (the presbyterians come to mind) which – as institutions – have eroded Biblical morality to almost zero, having substituted secular humanist principles instead. To the extent that MEMBERS of the presbyterian church accept Christ as Lord and savior, I believe they are saved. I believe that the leaders of the denomination may not be, since how can they say “Lord, Lord” and not follow his most obvious of commandments, but actually enforce opposition to Christ?

    And the denomination as an institution is likely doomed and damned. Hopefully the true faithful will exit the denomination (already starting to happen). Remaining in an apostate denomination will not – in my opinion of scripture – result in a loss of salvation, but rather it can lead a saved person in many channels of error, with the potential for harm that comes with belonging to an association that has made itself an adversary to the Word of God.

    I thank God that he made salvation – the escape from hell – so very simple to achieve.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s