Paradigm shift in way Church views women

[Pope Francis] repeated his frequent refrain about women being the “fertile” nurturers who complement men, and that regardless “the church is woman.” …. Francis heard a similar call from the French-speaking campus, where students staged a reading of an articulated critique of his landmark environmental encyclical “Praised Be” in which they called for a “paradigm shift” in the way the church views women. They noted that the encyclical virtually ignores women, cites no female theologians and contributes to women’s “invisibility” in the church and society. Women have long complained they have a second-class status in the church, barred from the priesthood and positions of power despite doing the lion’s share of the work educating the young, caring for the sick and passing on the faith. Francis, an 87-year-old Argentine Jesuit, said he liked what they said. But he repeated his frequent refrain about women being the “fertile” nurturers who complement men, and that regardless “the church is woman.” We read at: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2024-03/pope-francis-highlights-womens-role-in-church-and-society.html#:~:text=%22The%20Church%20needs%20to%20keep,collaboration%20to%20achieve%20this%20goal. Pope Francis highlights women's role in Church and society Pope Francis addresses an international conference on women in the Church, and emphasises the importance of recognising women's contributions while calling for unity and education to promote women's rights and dignity. By Francesca Merlo In his address to the participants of the International Conference titled "Women in the Church: Builders of Humanity," Pope Francis extended a warm greeting to all attendees, expressing gratitude for their presence and the organisation of the event. "The Church needs to keep this in mind, because the Church is herself a woman: a daughter, a bride, and a mother," said the Pope. He highlighted the significance of recognising and valuing women's contributions within the people of God, and he called for unity, discernment, and collaboration to achieve this goal. The conference, which gathers individuals from all over the world, focuses on highlighting the exemplary holiness of ten women: Josephine Bakhita, Magdeleine de Jesus, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Mary MacKillop, Laura Montoya, Kateri Tekakwitha, Teresa of Calcutta, Rafqa Pietra Choboq Ar-Rayès, Maria Beltrame Quattrocchi, and Daphrose Mukasanga. Pope Francis underscored the significance of their charitable, educational, and prayerful initiatives, which exemplify the unique reflection of God's holiness through the feminine genius. "The contribution of women is more necessary than ever," emphasised Pope Francis, acknowledging the challenges of hatred, violence, and ideological conflicts in today's world. He spoke about the urgent need for women's contributions, which he said are characterised by tenderness and compassion, in order to foster unity and restore humanity's true identity. On the topic of education, Pope Francis commended the collaboration between the conference and various Catholic academic institutions. "Every effort to present students with testimonies of holiness, especially of feminine sanctity, can encourage them to aim higher," he said, stressing the importance of presenting role models to inspire future generations. Pope Francis concluded his address by highlighting the ongoing struggles faced by women worldwide, including violence, inequality, and injustice. He called for concerted efforts to address these issues, emphasizing the transformative power of education for girls and young women in promoting overall human development. Bringing his address to a close, Pope Francis entrusted the outcomes of the conference to the Lord and imparted his blessing upon the participants before urging continued commitment to the advancement of women's rights and dignity. …. “In this sense the Marian dimension of the Church is antecedent to that of the Petrine, without being in any way divided from it or being less complementary. The Immaculate Mary precedes all others, including obviously Peter himself and the Apostles”. Pope John Paul II The Marian and Petrine Principles Annual Address to Roman Curia H. H. John Paul II December 22, 1987 On Monday, 22 December, in the Clementine Hall of the Apostolic Palace, the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Angelo Rossi, conveyed the Christmas greetings of the assembled cardinals and officials of the Roman Curia to the Holy Father, who delivered the following address in reply. Your Eminences, Revered Brothers in the Episcopate and Priesthood, My dearest Laity, I sincerely thank the Cardinal Dean for his greeting; he has interpreted your personal desires in this traditional and always pleasant gathering before Christmas. His message has focused our common attention on the particular significance which current circumstances contribute to our annual meeting. We meet near the Eve of Christmas in the Marian Year. Every year on this occasion we are moved by the expectation of him who is born in Bethlehem of the Immaculate Virgin Mary, and it is our mutual desire to experience as deeply as possible this central event of history by extending a welcome to the Incarnate Word. In this Marian Year our meeting has a special significance and brings a new emphasis to our Christmas reflection. The Marian Year, in fact, prepares us to approach Christ in this Advent of the third millennium in order to relieve the mystery of his Incarnation, following Mary who precedes us in this journey of faith. She was the first “minister” of the Word. As members of the Roman Curia we are conscious of serving the Mystery of the Incarnation from which the Church as a “Body” originated. In Mary, as St. Augustine noted: “the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to unite to himself human nature, so that to the immaculate head he associated the immaculate Church, (Serm 191.3; PL 38, 1010). From Mary is born Christ the Head who is indissolubly united to the Church, his Body. The “whole Christ” is born. As servants and ministers of this Mystical Body, daily nourished with the Eucharistic Body of Christ, we manifest this year the particular presence of the Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and of the Church in which we are aware of participating in a particular manner. 2. We well understand that Vatican II effected a great synthesis between Mariology and ecclesiology. The Marian Year adheres to such a synthesis and conciliar inspiration so that the Church may be everywhere renewed through the presence of the Mother of God who, as the Fathers taught, is a model of the Church. The Council offers an enlightening interpretation of the presence of the Virgin in the divine plan of salvation. Because she is the instrument and privileged channel of the Incarnation of the Word in human nature and of his presence among us, Mary is “intimately united with the Church: the Mother of God is a figure of the Church, as Saint Ambrose had earlier taught, in the order of faith, of charity and of the perfect union with Christ” (Lumen Gentium, 63). Developing this teaching, I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater: “ the reality of the Incarnation finds a sort of extension in the mystery of the Church – The Body of Christ. And one cannot think of the reality of the Incarnation without referring to Mary, the Mother of the Incarnate Word” (no. 5). Mary united to Christ, Mary united to the Church. And the Church united to Mary finds in her the most refined and perfect image of its own specific mission which is simultaneously virginal and maternal. The Fathers and the Teachers of the early Church have underlined this double aspect: for example, St. Augustine brilliantly comments, Hic est speciosus forma prae filiis hominum, sanctae filius Mariae, sanctiae sponsus Ecclesiae, quam suae genitriit similem redditit: nam et nobis eam matrem fecit, et virginem sibi custodit” (Serm 195.2; PL 38:1018). The Virgin Mary is the archetype of the Church because of the divine maternity; just like Mary, the Church must be, and wishes to be, mother and virgin. The Church lives in this authentic “Marian profile”, this “Marian dimension”; thus the Council, gathering together the patristic and theological voices, both eastern and western has noted this phenomenom: “The Church, moreover, contemplating Mary’s mysterious sanctity, imitating her charity, and faithfully fulfilling the Father’s will, becomes herself a mother by accepting God’s word in faith. For by her preaching and by baptism she brings forth to a new and immortal life, children who are conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God. The Church herself is a virgin, who keeps whole and pure the fidelity she has pledged to her Spouse. Imitating the Mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she preserves with virginal purity and integral faith , a firm hope and sincere charity” (Lumen Gentium, 64). Sphere of divine grace 3. This Marian profile is also- even perhaps more so- fundamental and characteristic for the Church as is the apostolic and Petrine profile to which it is profoundly united. In this vision of the Church Mary precedes the People of God who are still pilgrims. Mary is she who, predestined to be the Mother of the Word, lived continuously and totally in the sphere of divine grace subject to its vivifying influence; she is the mirror and transparency of the life of God himself. Immaculate, “full of grace”, she was prepared by God for the Incarnation of the Word and was always under the Continuous action of the Holy Spirit: hers was the “yes” and the fiat par excellence to him who had chosen her “before the beginning of the world” (Eph 1:4). Such response was evident in the docility, the humility, the conformity to the least movement of grace which rendered her, we can say, mother in a twofold sense through conformity to God’s will: “who does the will of God is my mother” (cf. Mk 3:35). The divine maternity, that unique and sublime privilege of the ever-Virgin, must be seen in this perspective as the supreme glory of the fidelity of Mary in corresponding with grace. The Marian dimension of the Church is evident from the similarity of tasks in relation to the whole Christ. To this dimension, in fact, can be applied the word of Jesus: “whoever does the will of my Father is my brother, sister, and mother”, (Mk, ibid.). The Church, like Mary, lives by grace in submission to the Holy Spirit; according to his light the signs and necessities of the times are interpreted, and progress is accomplished in complete docility to the voice of the Spirit. In this sense the Marian dimension of the Church is antecedent to that of the Petrine, without being in any way divided from it or being less complementary. The Immaculate Mary precedes all others, including obviously Peter himself and the Apostles. This is so, not only because Peter and the Apostles, being born of the human race under the burden of sin, form part of the Church which is “holy with sinners:, but also because their triple function has no other purpose except to from the Church in line with the ideal of sanctity already programmed and prefigured in Mary. A contemporary theologian has well commented: “Mary is ‘Queen of the Apostles’ without any pretensions to apostolic powers: she has other and greater powers” (von Balthasar, Nette Klarstellungen, Ital. transl., Milan 1980, p. 181). In this context it is especially significant to note the presence of Mary in the Upper Room, where she assists Peter and the other Apostles, praying for and with them as all await the coming of the Spirit. This link between the two profiles of the Church, the Marian and the Petrine, is profound and complementary. This is so even though the Marian profile is anterior not only in design of God but also in time, as well being supreme and pre-eminent, richer in personal and communitarian implications for individual ecclesial vocations. In this light the Roman Curia lives and ought to live – all of us ought so to live. It is certain that the Curia is directly united to the Petrine office to whose service it is dedicated by office, constitution and mission. The Curia serves the Church as a Body; situated, one may say, at the apex, it offers its collaboration to the Successor of Peter in his service to the local Churches. In this activity, it is more necessary and indispensable to preserve and strengthen the Marian dimension in the service to Peter. Mary precedes those of us who are in the Curia where we serve the Mystery of the Word Incarnate, just as she precedes the whole Church for which we live. May she assist us to discover ever more fully and to live more authentically this richness, which for us, I would say, is vital and decisive. May Mary help us to participate more consciously in the symbiosis of the Marian and Petrine apostolic dimensions from which the Church daily draws orientation and sustenance. May attention to Mary and to her example bring us to a greater love, tenderness and docility to the voice of the Spirit, so that each one is more enriched interiorly with that dedication to the ministry of Peter. 4. In the light of the Marian Year as the central theme of our meeting, which continues the teaching Vatican II in presenting Mary as the guide of the People of God in their pilgrimage of faith, I would now like to underline some of the salient events of the year that is about to conclude: the Synod of bishops, the numerous beatifications and canonizations, and the visit of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Dimitrios I of Constantinople. In the first place the sessions of the Synod: two months have passed since the conclusion of its discussions and it is more and more evident that the interventions and labours of the Synodal Fathers have resulted in a global image of the Church – how she lives, works, prays, suffers, struggles, and adheres to Christ. The Synod has effectively offered the image of this People on pilgrimage on earth, and especially of that portion of the People of God, the laity, according to their specific characteristics. In their pilgrimage it is still the Mother who precedes her children as they seek “the kingdom of God in dealing with temporal affairs as they organize them according to God’s will in the ‘spirit of the Beatitudes’” (Lumen Gentium, 31). This Marian presence in the mission of the laity, in their journey of faith, is the line which clearly defines that great event. As time passes since the Synod of last October, the positive results become more evident, not alone in the reaffirmation of the teaching of the magnificent documents of Vatican Ii but more so because of the emphasis on the ecclesiology of communion as a necessary contest for situating the role of the laity in the Church for the salvation of the world. The laity themselves have co-operated in formulating this conclusion, in so far as the Synod Fathers represented the voice of the laity; furthermore, the laity themselves of both sexes entered actively by their conspicuous and qualified presence at the Synod where they spoke in the plenary sessions and collaborated effectively in the circuli minores. The result has been a truly universal overall view of the diverse realities that constitute the true image of the Church today. As with the preceding Synods, it shall be my duty to follow those unforgettable days. Meanwhile I am happy to underline in our present meeting how this richness and plurality of results is the evidence that the Church is truly open to the voice of the Spirit in her pilgrimage of faith and love, and is always conscious of her responsibility to God and before the world. Mary is present in this journey of the laity, to guide them a she guides us all towards the coming of Christ. Final destiny 5. Vatican II has demonstrated that in her who is the Mother of God the Church has reached her final destiny: “In the bodily and spiritual glory which she possesses in heaven, the Mother of Jesus continues in this present world as the image and first flowering of the Church as she is to be perfected in the life to come” (Lumen Gentium, 68). This affirmation reiterates what the dogmatic Constitution the Church had already expounded in chapter7: “the eschatological character of the pilgrim Church and its union with the heavenly church”, and chapter 5: “the universal vocation to holiness in the Church”. In the fullness of time Mary, in virtue of her immaculate conception, reunited in herself the salvific design of God that had been destroyed by sin. Assumed into heaven with her most holy body, which is the Ark of the new Covenant, she already reigns with Christ in the psycho-physical unity of her person. She is, therefore, after Christ, “the first-begotten of the dead (Rev. 1:5; Col 1:18). She is the one who precedes the Church in the journey towards the fulfillment of sanctity and awaits the completion that shall be total. However, with her there are also those who, awaiting the final resurrection, are already in heaven according to the judgement of the church. They have verified in themselves the plan of God and have reached that desired success of every human existence: “the complete, intimate union with Christ” (cf. Lumen Gentium, 49). Recalling the Queen of all Saints in this Marian Year I now wish to mention the two canonizations and eleven beatifications of this year. These numerous liturgical events of 1987 have demonstrated, perhaps more forcibly than usual, how real, true and actual is the Church’s universal call to holiness, and have given testimony to the ethnic-vocational plurality of such a call. The new saints and beati, in fact, belong to diverse vocations among the people of God. Among such we discover: Cardinals, as Marcello Spinola y Maestre (29 March) and Andrea Carlo Ferrari (10 May): bishops, as Michal Kozal (14 June) and Jurgis Matulaitis (28 June); priests and brothers, as Manuel Domingo y Sol (29 March), Rupert Mayer (3 May) and Jules Arnould Reche (1 Nov.); women religious, as Teresa de los Andes (3April), Benedetta Cambiagio Frassinelli (10 May), Ulrika Nisch and BlandinaMerten (1 Nov.); laity of both sexes, as Lorenzo Ruiz (18 Oct.), Giuseppe Moscati (25 Oct. ), and many others all professions and occupations, even the most humble. It is a witness given in the most diverse circumstances, i.e. as pastors and ministers of the Church, as medical doctors, as educators and evangelizers. Often such witness was rendered in the most arduous circumstances, such as by martyrdom antonomastically so called as in the case of three Carmelite Sisters of Guadalajara (29 March), Edith Stein (1 May) and Karolina Kozka (10 June), Marcel Callo, Pierina Morosini and Antonia Mesina (4 Oct.), the 16 martyrs of Japan (18 Oct.), and the eighty-five English martyrs (22 Nov.). Again, many of the new saints and beati lived in our century: they are contemporaries. In reality, the saints are in our midst and they demonstrate that even today the Church is called to sanctity and responds generously under the inspiration and guidance of Mary. Furthermore, the saints and beati belong to diverse nations of different continents: thus the canonizations and beatifications attest to the universal significance even when viewed geographically. From this point of view I regard it as a special grace of the Lord to have been able to propose for the veneration of the church, as desired by repeated requests of the local bishops, come champions of the faith in the locality where they lived. I did this during some of the apostolic journeys of this year: Sister Teresa de los Andes at Santiago, Chile (3 April); Sister Benedicta of the Cross, at Cologne (1 May); Father Mayer at Munich (3 May); Karolina Kozka, at Tarnow (10 June); and Mons. Kozal at Warsaw (14 June). The ever-increasing possibility of publicly proclaiming the heroic sanctity of the sons and daughters of the Church in the course of my visits to various countries of the world confirms me in the belief that such journeys constitute a particular service to the People of God on its pilgrimage, precisely that pilgrimage towards the definitive Kingdom of God, in which Mary “precedes” the Church in various places on earth. Since the journeys are, with God’s help, the contemporary application of the mandate of Christ – “go therefore into the whole world” (Mk 16:15) – and also and explicit consequence of the Petrine ministry, “confirm your brothers” (Lk 22:32), they afford a greater spiritual and intellectual irradiation of the office that is so sublime and solemn, by proposing for the imitation of the Church the authentic exemplars of sanctity proper to it. Such saintly individuals are proof before the world that holiness is possible for all people, in every civilization and in all climates. 6. Following the path of the Council, the encyclical Redemptoris Mater underlined the “pilgrimage” aspect of the Church, in which the Mother of God “precedes”, and as such has ecumenical overtones. ….

Medjugorje and the flow of Grace

“All grace flows from the Catholic Church’s sacramental life. Grace never flows from frauds and deceptions, nor from anything that is false. In places of false apparitions grace completely bypasses the ‘apparitions’ as they can never be a ‘causa instrumentalis’ of grace”. Frits Albers and Frank Calneggia Taken from: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7627 Medjugorje and the Flow of Grace by Frits Albers, PH.B., Frank Calneggia Description This article explains that exterior manifestations of grace do not prove the authenticity of apparitions, because the Church is really the source of all grace. Publisher & Date The Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception …. Part I One can readily admit to the flow of grace at Medjugorje. Adherents and promoters are quick to point to the usual signs of grace: confessions, conversions, and the practice of prayer and penance. If apparitions are authentic, that is, if they possess a supernatural origin they come from God. Therefore authentic apparitions, such as Lourdes and Fatima, may be called a ‘causa instrumentalis’ (instrumental cause) of grace. If apparitions are false, that is, if they do not possess a supernatural origin they do not come from God. False apparitions may appear to be associated with the flow of grace; but by rights this grace belongs to the Holy Catholic Church because this Church is the source of all grace going out through the whole world due to the presence of the Blessed Sacrament within her. All grace flows from the Catholic Church’s sacramental life. Grace never flows from frauds and deceptions, nor from anything that is false. In places of false apparitions grace completely bypasses the ‘apparitions’ as they can never be a ‘causa instrumentalis’ of grace. This means that God never uses false apparitions as instruments of grace. Consequently the first thing that must be stated, and which must be rigorously maintained, is that the exterior manifestations of grace do not prove the authenticity of apparitions! Grace can flow if the apparitions are either true or false because the sacramental life of the Church can be present anywhere on earth completely independent of apparitions. Vatican II states, in Lumen Gentium, that “the grains of truth and holiness found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church rightly belong to the Church of Christ and possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity” (#8). If apparitions are false they are automatically outside the Church, then the “grains of truth and holiness” found in these places of fraud and deception do not belong to, or come from, the deception! These “grains of truth and holiness”, according to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, belong directly to the Holy Catholic Church. As stated above, they belong to her sacramental life. It is because of this that these grains of truth and sanctification “possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity”. That is, they possess an inner dynamism away from the deception and toward obedience to the teaching and authority of the Catholic bishop in charge of investigating the ‘apparitions’. If the inner urge of grace towards Catholic-unity-in-obedience (working, as we saw, whether the apparitions are true or false) is blocked in any way by private, personal and subjective convictions and attitudes (which is often the case when people attribute the flow of grace to false apparitions), then grace is thwarted and becomes ineffective. This, of course, is a very serious matter. It is highly presumptuous to attribute grace to false apparitions no matter how tempting this might be. It is a sobering thought to realise that presumption in the area of God’s grace and mercy is one of the sins against the Holy Spirit and for that reason is a serious obstacle to grace. Grace thus blocked and rendered ineffective will not produce the fruits of holiness and truth God meant it to produce when He bestowed it through the sacramental life of the Church. In other words, the conversions would then only be apparent and exterior. Such conversions lack that inner drive to unity-in-obedience, and would not have a lasting effect until the blockage is removed. The same goes for devotional practices. These, too, will become merely externalised if associated with the rash and presumptuous belief that the grace to do such devotions comes from spurious apparitions. Such presumption will also block grace obtained from authentic sources. Another sin of presumption that is often associated with the matter of private ‘revelations’ and ‘visions’ is the attitude that the Church will have to approve them because “we” think they are so good and holy and simply cannot come from the devil ... From the moment the obedience of the Lamb of God became the breakthrough for grace, rendering to nought the blockage caused by the disobedience of our first parents, all disobedience, whether individual or corporate, has remained the fundamental obstacle to grace and to its inner dynamism to Catholic unity. ‘The world’ and ‘the earth’ live in utter disobedience to God and His Commandments; in total defiance of the Gospel of His Son; and in complete rejection of the authentic teaching of His Catholic Church. Followers, and even more so promoters, of false apparitions would do well to consider their position in the Catholic Church in regard to this necessary virtue of obedience; lest it is the root of their disobedience which prevents grace and makes them part of ‘the world’. God has always built in, as the cornerstone of proper scrutiny into alleged apparitions, obedience to the findings and authority of the local bishop. It is not difficult to prove that disobedience to the Bishop of Mostar is blatant in Medjugorje, even to the extent that the anti-Catholic and anti-God world of communism started to promote the ‘apparitions’. Not only has this courageous and valiant Bishop been completely vilified by an international chorus of Medjugorje adherents for his rejection of the authenticity of the ‘apparitions’, this disobedience has been instigated and sustained by the ‘apparitions’ themselves. God has always built obedience to the local bishop into the proper attitude toward alleged apparitions. His Holiness Pope Pius XII has, on at least two occasions, taught the universal Church that the Papacy considers the local bishop to be the first and principal authority in apparition cases. (See his 1957 encyclical on the centenary of the apparitions of Our Blessed Lady at Lourdes, and his letter to the Bishop of Namur, Belgium, 7th Dec, 1942; in Don Sharkey, The Woman Shall Conquer, p 130). Medjugorje is no exception to this Papal attitude. If blatant vilification of the Bishop of Mostar and the widespread disobedience to his episcopal authority prove the happenings at Medjugorje to be false, then Medjugorje is outside the Church. Therefore the grace flowing at Medjugorje does not come from the ‘apparitions’ but comes from the sacramental life of the Church, bypassing the false phenomena. People who in this case adhere to the ‘apparitions’; and worse still, maintain that grace flows from them; and even worse still, in a most unholy presumption, declare that the flow of grace proves the ‘apparitions’ to be authentic, create a severe obstacle within themselves to the overwhelming fullness of the Church’s sacramental life which can be present anywhere on earth. The sad part is that this obstacle remains long after the ‘pilgrims’ have returned home ... Part II The foregoing study of how and why grace can flow in places where there are false apparitions is confirmed by two Catholic Bishops – both speaking in the context of Medjugorje – to be in line with Catholic Teaching. Mgr Henri Brincard, the Bishop of Puy-en-Velay, is the bishop responsible for the French Association of Marian Organisations. Here he is responding to a question put to him at an assembly of the Bishops of France. During the course of his response he draws on a declaration from Bishop Peric of Mostar, which can be found in Bishop Peric’s book Priestolje Mudrosti (Seat of Wisdom) p 62. [Emphases added]. “The examination of the events [of Medjugorje] must precede the examination of the fruits. When this order is not respected errors of judgement can arise. If we examine the events of Medjugorje in the light of the fruits, what do we observe? It is first of all undeniable that at Medjugorje there are returns to God and ‘spiritual’ healings. ... One could not deny these good fruits in situ. ... But can we say that they continue in our parishes? Difficult question, for we must note unfortunately that the susceptibility, even aggressiveness, of some partisans of Medjugorje towards those who do not share their enthusiasm is such that in some places it provokes serious tensions which attack the unity of the People of God. From where do the good fruits, observed in an indisputable manner at Medjugorje, come? A declaration of Bishop Peric, our confrere of Mostar, may on this point usefully enrich our mediations: ‘The fruits, so often mentioned, do not prove that they flow from apparitions or supernatural revelations of Our Lady. In the measure that they are authentically Christian, they may be interpreted as a product of the normal work of divine grace, by faith in God, by the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ, and by the Sacraments of the Catholic Church. And this is to say nothing of the negative fruits.’ Finally, it is opportune to ask ourselves if the events of Medjugorje have produced good fruits in the visionaries who, at least during the duration of the ‘apparitions’, must by their life be the first witnesses of the grace of which they say they benefit. From there it follows that we ask ourselves the following questions: ‘Have they obeyed the Bishop of Mostar? Have they respected him? ... ’ Such questions and still others yet, are habitually part of a serious investigation into an event of apparitions. In order for the investigation to arrive at a solid conclusion, it is necessary that these fundamental questions receive a clear and objective response. We would like to say nothing about the doubtful or even bad fruits. But truth obliges us to say that they exist. Let us quote, as examples, the calling into question, even to the point of defamation, of the Local Ordinary as well as the disobedience with regard to his legitimate authority; the exacerbation of the Herzegovina ‘question’ following the words attributed to the ‘Gospa’, words in favour of the Franciscans and against the Bishop (cf. Pavao Zanic, Bishop of Mostar, Official Statement: Medjugorje, March 1990).” The Second Vatican Council’s teaching on Collegiality is fully endorsed by Bishop Brincard in word and example. Catholics have the right to expect that his example of collegiality is matched by their own bishop. Bishop Brincard continues [Emphases added]: “I have no authority to pronounce any ecclesial judgement whatsoever on the events of Medjugorje. I am therefore the first to have to give an example of obedience, notably in respecting the pastoral decisions of my confrere of Mostar and in complying with joy to his wishes. I do not see how I can go to Medjugorje without giving my support, by the very fact of my arriving there, to the events whose discernment rest henceforth with the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such support would fly in the face of a traditional teaching of the Church, recalled in Lumen Gentium, and applicable to all the successors of the Apostles: ‘Individual bishops, insofar as they are set over particular Churches, exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them, not over other Churches nor the Church universal’. My wish, which I share with you, is to be able to further in my diocese a real renewal of Marian piety, in having frequent recourse to the habitual means which the Church puts at our disposal and which the Holy Father does not cease to recommend to us.” According to Medjugorje promoters hundreds of bishops have gone on ‘pilgrimage’ to Medjugorje over the last twenty years. From what Bishop Brincard has said, it is evident that bishops who go on ‘pilgrimage’ to Medjugorje sow confusion and division amongst the People of God by their bad example. Through their lack of collegiality they must be counted as being responsible for keeping Medjugorje ‘alive’ amongst Catholics. Collegiality is noticeably absent also in Bishops who may never have been to Medjugorje, but who allow its propaganda to invade their dioceses. This flow of evil out of a pipe that should produce grace for an entire diocese gives Medjugorje the illusion of coming from the Church; and by that illusion, the further illusion of coming from Our Lady the Mother and Model of the Church. Catholics the world over have experienced, to one degree or another, what happens when the Medjugorje illusion flows from an episcopate into a diocese, or across a country. Here to be noted are the various tours to Australia of ‘Ivan the Variable’, one of the so-called Medjugorje ‘seers’. As recently as 1999 he was given permission (by Cardinal Edward Clancy and by his successor, Archbishop George Pell) to speak from the sanctuary in each of the cathedral churches of the Archdioceses of Sydney and Melbourne. This was at the very time the Vatican issued its decree ordering the Franciscans out of the Diocese of Mostar under pain of excommunication! Two years earlier, in 1997, ‘Ivan the Variable’ was the featured speaker in the cathedral church of the Archdiocese of Perth. We quote from a report of that event printed in the Perth Archdiocesan newspaper, The Record, 27th Feb 1997. [Emphases added]: “Over 2000 people turned out on a sweltering, humid evening earlier this week at St Mary’s Cathedral to hear Medjugorje visionary Ivan Dragicevic speak following a sung Latin Mass concelebrated by Archbishop Barry Hickey and several priests of the Archdiocese. ‘Whatever the final decision by the Church about the authenticity of the apparitions’, Archbishop Hickey said in his homily, ‘it is undeniable that Medjugorje has given rise to a worldwide revival of Catholic life. ... One sees a powerful return to the central truths of the Faith, and a re-discovering of prayer and sacramental life’, he said. ‘The fruits of Medjugorje are good and they are plentiful. In this year of Jesus, we have no doubt that Mary, whose name is honoured at Medjugorje, will lead the world back to our Saviour’.” “Whatever the final decision by the Church ... it is undeniable that Medjugorje has given rise to a worldwide revival of Catholic life.” Here Medjugorje is being held up by an Archbishop as a ‘causa instrumentalis’ of grace “whatever the final decision by the Church”. The graces that the Archbishop claims to come from Medjugorje, come instead, as we saw, from the Church and belong to the Church. According to Lumen Gentium these graces “possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity”. That is, they possess an inner dynamism away from the deception of the ‘apparition’ and toward obedience to the authority and findings of the Local Ordinary: towards collegiality. Does Archbishop Hickey’s statement manifest this dynamism of grace that works toward Catholic unity and collegiality; or does it move in the opposite direction away from Catholic unity by holding up Medjugorje instead of the Church as a cause of grace, and ‘Ivan the Variable’ (whom Bishop Zanic proved to be a liar) as one who receives messages from Our Lady? Archbishop Hickey’s statement says, “it is undeniable that Medjugorje has given rise” to a flow of grace “whatever the final decision by the Church”. This is understood to mean that Medjugorje is authentic even if the Church says it is not authentic. Not only is the ‘voice’ of the ‘apparition’ apparently superior to the voice of the Church, but is also apparently separate from the Church. Vatican II with its rich teaching on Our Lady tells us that Our Lady is inseparable from the Church. Archbishop Hickey’s statement conveys the impression that there is a dichotomy or separation between Our Lady and the Church; but is given the appearance of still coming from the Church because it was made by a Catholic Archbishop during a Catholic Mass to honour “Medjugorje visionary Ivan Dragicevic”. It is certainly possible to separate Catholics from the Church by having them follow an impostor while mistakenly thinking that they are following Our Lady. It is not possible to separate Our Lady from the Church, as the following quotes from the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) will show. These quotes are taken from the concluding chapter of Lumen Gentium, Chapter VIII “Our Lady”. “Redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son and united to him by a close and indissoluble tie, she is endowed with the high office and dignity of the Mother of the Son of God. ... But, being of the race of Adam, she is at the same time also united to all those who are to be saved; indeed ‘she is clearly the mother of all the members of Christ ... since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head’. Wherefore she is hailed as pre-eminent and as a wholly unique member of the Church, and as its type and outstanding model in faith and charity. (#53)” “By reason of the gift and role of her divine motherhood, by which she is united with her Son, the Redeemer, and with her unique graces and functions, the Blessed Virgin is also intimately united to the Church. As St. Ambrose taught, the Mother of God is a type of the Church in the order of faith, charity, and perfect union with Christ. For in the mystery of the Church, which is itself rightly called mother and virgin, the Blessed Virgin stands out in eminent and singular fashion. (#63)” “But while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection, whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle (cf. Eph. 5:27), the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Devoutly meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church reverently penetrates more deeply into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her spouse. ... Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her lofty type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. (#65)” “The mother of Jesus in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. (#68)” It was not Vatican II that downgraded devotion to the Mother of God .... In the year 2001 Archbishop Hickey’s newspaper, The Record, continues to portray Medjugorje as a site of authentic apparitions and as a source of grace. It still reproduces ‘messages’ from ‘Our Lady’, and advertises pilgrimages to Medjugorje which it portrays as a Marian Shrine. Propaganda has been sustained over many years so that it has been given the appearance of an official ‘marian’ policy in the Perth Archdiocese. A typical outpouring of this quasi-official policy is “Medjugorje: a miracle of return to the faith”: an article that was given the front-page lead in of “Twenty Years of Medjugorje” when it was printed in The Record on 21st June 2001. Here is the first example from that article: “... the Vatican continues to consider whether or not to confirm the alleged apparitions.” The dictionary gives a number of accurate definitions of the word “confirm” as it is used in this extract from The Record. (i) ‘Provide support for the truth or correctness of’; (ii) ‘make definitely valid’; (iii) ‘prove to be true or valid’. When each of these definitions is successively substituted for the word ‘confirm’ in the above quoted sentence, that sentence reads as follows: (i) “The Vatican continues to consider whether or not to ‘provide support for the truth or correctness of’ the alleged apparitions”. (ii) “The Vatican continues to consider whether or not to ‘make definitely valid’ the alleged apparitions”. (iii) “The Vatican continues to consider whether or not to ‘prove to be true or valid’ the alleged apparitions”. From this it is evident that the statement that “the Vatican continues to consider whether or not to confirm the alleged apparitions” diverges from the truth on three counts. Firstly it premises that the apparitions are known to be true when in fact they are known to be false. Secondly it premises to confirm true that which is impossible to confirm true because it has already been shown to be false. Thirdly it implicates the Vatican in a role that it does not normally take in the investigation of apparitions. For enlightenment on this third count we return to Bishop Brincard’s response to the question: “Is there an authorised and official position of the Church concerning the events which motivate pilgrimages to Medjugorje”? “The norms relative to the discernment of private revelations, published on 24th February 1978 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by its Prefect Cardinal Francis Seper, specify that ‘It belongs in the first and foremost to the Local Ordinary to investigate and to intervene’. The norms of 1978 further specify that ‘the intervention of the Sacred Congregation may be sought either by the Ordinary after he has fulfilled the obligations incumbent upon him, or by a qualified group of faithful. In the latter case vigilance will be exercised that recourse to the Sacred Congregation not be motivated by suspect reasons (for example, wanting to lead, by one fashion or another, the Ordinary to modify his legitimate decisions, or to have the sectarian position of a group ratified, etc)’. Up to this day, only the Bishops of Mostar – Bishop Zanic, then Bishop Peric – and the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference have expressed a judgement on the events of Medjugorje. ... These episcopal interventions occurred after long and laborious investigations, several elements of which are not known to us. It is to be noted that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith never expressed the least reservation regarding these judgements when they were published. Bearing in mind the authority which this Congregation recognises pertaining ‘first and foremost’ to the Local Ordinary, in matters of discernment and intervention, it would not be wise to take lightly that which successive Bishops of the diocese of Mostar-Duvno have said. ... The history of the Church teaches us that Rome always remits in fine to the authority and competence of the Local Ordinary.” It is common knowledge that two successive Bishops of Mostar and the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference have declared that Our Lady never appeared in Medjugorje. The claim that “... the Vatican continues to consider whether or not to confirm the alleged apparitions” bears no relationship to the truth because it implies that the apparitions of Medjugorje have been shown to be authentic (when in fact they have been shown to be false), and all that remains is for the Church to decide whether or not to officially approve them. Here is the second example from the “Twenty Years of Medjugorje” article in The Record. “Is there a connection between Fatima and Medjugorje? One reported message of Mary, dated 25 August 1991 might present a clue: ‘I invite you to self-renunciation for nine days, so that, with your help, everything that I wanted to realise at Fatima may be fulfilled’. So, nine years before the Third Secret was revealed, Fatima and Medjugorje were linked.” The official judgement of the Church is that Our Lady gave no messages in Medjugorje. The message just quoted is spurious – it does not proceed from its pretended source; and can therefore never be a continuation of Our Lady’s Fatima message. This is portraying ‘Our Lady’ as speaking the lies that the ‘visionaries’ spoke: a sin that Bishop Zanic long ago denounced as “deserving the depths of hell”. The assertion that with nine days of self-renunciation the Medjugorje ‘visionaries’ will “fulfill everything”, but which in reality has not yet been fulfilled by the blood of countless twentieth century martyrs, further shows the spurious origin of this message and is an insult to the memory of those martyrs. The third example from the article celebrating “Twenty Years of Medjugorje” should be read from the perspective of the portrait that was put forward in the above quoted second example: that Our Lady is the same at Medjugorje as she is at Fatima. It is a report of the very first ‘conversation’ between ‘Our Lady’ and the ‘visionaries’, which took place on the day of the second ‘apparition’. “But they returned the next day with four companions and found the apparition waiting for them on the hillside. They sprinkled holy water at the vision to see if it would disappear, but the lady again only smiled. So one of them got up the courage to ask, ‘Who are you?’ the response came, ‘I am the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Peace’.” In her first apparition at Fatima Our Lady said to Lucia: “I came to ask you to come here on the thirteenth day for six months at this same time, and then I will tell you who I am and what I want”. Our Lady reserved the revelation of her identity to the Fatima children until her final apparition. In her apparitions at Lourdes it was not until the sixteenth of eighteen apparitions that Our Lady revealed her identity to St. Bernadette: “I am the Immaculate Conception”. In his encyclical Redemptoris Mater Pope John Paul II taught the entire Church that St. Louis de Montfort is a “witness and teacher” of both “authentic Marian spirituality” and its “corresponding devotion”, and that he is a “sure point of reference” to “look to and follow” in “the present phase of history”. In his treatise True Devotion to Mary St. Louis teaches us about Our Lady’s profound humility (TD #2): “Her humility was so profound that she had no inclination on earth more powerful or more constant than that of hiding herself, from herself as well as from every other creature, so as to be known to God only.” The reservation with which Our Lady revealed her identity in Fatima and Lourdes fits perfectly with St. Louis’ teaching concerning Our Lady’s humility. Medjugorje does not fit with St Louis’ teaching. Having failed the first examination set for them by St. Louis, the fabricators of Medjugorje, in this unholy caricature where pride and self promotion come to the fore, confirm that they do not qualify as witnesses of authentic Marian spirituality, and that the words that were allegedly spoken to them were not spoken by Our Lady. Where can we find a voice strong enough and final enough to warn Catholics where the allurement of spurious messages/apparitions is leading them? For this we again turn to St. Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary (#90), to hear what this great Marian Saint has to say about false devotions: Today, more than ever, we must take pains in choosing true devotion to Our Blessed Lady, because more than ever before, there are false devotions to Our Blessed Lady which are easily mistaken for true ones. The devil, like a false coiner and a subtle and experienced sharper, has already deceived and destroyed so many souls by a false devotion to the Blessed Virgin, that he makes a daily use of his diabolical experience to plunge many others by this same way into everlasting perdition; amusing them, lulling them to sleep in sin, under the pretext of some prayers badly said or of some outward practices which he inspires. As a false coiner does not ordinarily counterfeit anything but gold or silver, and very rarely other metals, because they are not worth the trouble, so the evil spirit does not for the most part counterfeit other devotions, but only those to Jesus and Mary – devotion to Holy Communion and to our Blessed Lady – because they are among other devotions what gold and silver are among metals.” “... into everlasting perdition! Strong words! We had better believe them! Everlasting perdition does not mean ‘a long time in Purgatory’. It means what it says: everlasting perdition: hell for eternity! Remember it is none other than Pope John Paul II who has designated St. Louis de Montfort’s writings as “authentic Marian spirituality”, and St. Louis as a “sure guide” to “look to and follow” in the “present phase of history”. Thus if so safe a guide as St. Louis de Montfort holds up to us that by a false devotion to Our Blessed Lady, the devil has already destroyed so many souls, and “daily succeeds” in destroying so many more “into everlasting perdition”, then it is high time that Cardinals, bishops, priests and layfolk sit up and take notice. False devotions to Our Blessed Lady are rampant in many dioceses side by side with otherwise orthodox looking devotions and practices. In this instance Catholics may try to weaken the force of St. Louis’ teaching against these false devotions by reassuring themselves that these false devotions cannot really plunge them “into everlasting perdition” because the bishop who allows these false devotions to be present also encourages them to accept that which is good and orthodox. After Our Lord’s teaching on ‘fruits’ and ‘trees’, and His insistence of judging the latter by the first, it was St. James who in his letter took up this question and made it crystal clear for all ages when he wrote: “My brothers, this must be wrong. Does any water supply produce a flow of fresh water and salt water out of the same pipe?” (Ja. 3: 10-11). “Brothers, this must be wrong ...”. These words have the Holy Spirit as their Author and they stand for all times and for all places and circumstances. If Medjugorje is a perversion of true devotion to Our Lady and an instigator of disobedience to Holy Mother Church, and the flow of these evils of false devotion and disobedience into a diocese intolerable, then what is sometimes trotted out: “But the Bishop appears to be so orthodox regarding the Blessed Sacrament, Our Lady, or in his opposition to abortion and aberrations in the liturgy, etc.” cannot be taken, according to St. James, as being a separate flow of fresh water coming out of the same pipe that produces Medjugorje. History shows that all those who during the Reformation accepted the aberrations of Cranmer, Luther, et al in the illusion of ‘drinking from their good points’, got themselves so poisoned that they all walked away from the Catholic Church and became Protestants right up to this day! There are still no exceptions: there never will be! By now it is an easy matter to show beyond reasonable doubt to any fair minded and honest person that Medjugorje is not Catholic, and that it was invented precisely to be anti-Catholic. Medjugorje is far from being ‘neutral’; it is tailor-made to produce one thing to perfection: a pre-determined and pre-meditated effect and result. If a bishop insists that we must see his good points and accept them as his guarantee that Medjugorje is authentic (i.e. two opposites coming out of the same pipe), then his good points are being used to mask evil in order that it will enjoy wide acceptance, which of course is the height of hypocrisy! With the result, according to St. James, that the whole supply becomes polluted: “Brothers, this must be wrong”. 7th October 2001 Feast of the Holy Rosary © The Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception

Race to save colt, babies left to die

“The colt gets the world’s best medical care; the baby gasps for breath without so much as panadol”. Vikki Campion Australia has been called “The Lucky Country”, and we often hear it said that it is the best place in the world to live. I (Damien Mackey) think, however, that it might resemble somewhat the old Cretan and Canaanite cultures, that were technologically advanced, highly productive and prosperous, on the one hand, and yet philosophically bankrupt and incredibly barbaric, on the other hand. Two female journalists, Vikki Campion and Peta Credlin, have called out the appalling – even philosophically sanctioned – infanticide: Vikki Campion has written in The Daily Telegraph: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/campion-inhumane-deaths-aborted-babies-born-alive-are-being-left-to-die/news-story/0e7cdbbdf245a8020674b669e9505174 Campion: ’Inhumane deaths’: Aborted babies born alive are being left to die A parliamentary inquiry has heard hearing gut-wrenching testimonies and facts like at least one aborted baby is born alive every seven days and left to die, writes Vikki Campion. Vikki Campion follow 4 min read August 24, 2024 - 9:53AM The Saturday Telegraph When Black Caviar’s foal – a colt sired by Snitzel – passed away this week, there was a virtual day of mourning. He received “around-the-clock, world-class veterinary care, but unfortunately could not be saved”, and headlines lamented devastation, with even ABC reporting that “late Black Caviar champion racehorse’s final foal has died”. As the world mourned the loss of a baby horse, a parliamentary inquiry in Queensland, sparked by Katter Australia Party MP Robbie Katter, was hearing gut-wrenching testimonies from frontline midwives like Louise Adsett. They revealed the tragic story of a baby boy, fighting for his life for five agonising hours devoid of any care, let alone that given to a colt. A motion in the Senate, which sought to “recognise that at least one baby is born alive every seven days following a failed abortion and left to die and that Australia’s health care system is enabling these inhumane deaths, and for the Senate to condemn this practice, noting that babies born alive as a result of a failed abortion deserve care,” went strategically unrecognised in most media, save for Weekend Telegraph columnist Peta Credlin on Sky. …. This was not a debate about women’s right to abortion but only pertained to what to do when an aborted baby is born alive. The colt gets the world’s best medical care; the baby gasps for breath without so much as panadol. As UAP Senator Ralph Babet spoke to his urgency motion, the Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young made vomiting-gestures behind him for the cameras. Care for babies in the Greens stops at Gaza. Climate 200-funded independent David Pocock, who fights to the marrow in his bones to save koalas, voted against painkillers for a baby dying on a table. NSW Liberal Senator Maria Kovacic, who has never won an election in her own right and who took the spot of a giant in the history of the Senate, Jim Molan, (whose life was not just about protecting the innocent, but in protecting all Australians in the Australian Defence Force), accused her colleagues of manipulating the process of the Senate and then went on to Meta and claimed it was “trying to take away women’s rights to their own health care”. Her page has since been inundated with threats. Senator Kovacic voted with the Greens, Teals, Labor, and three other moderate Liberals, arguing, “the complex issues that arise from the contents of this motion are challenging for most people but particularly for women, and they are deeply personal”. Once the baby is outside the woman, that infant is its own person and has its own rights. If this were a koala struggling to breathe and dying with no pain relief, these same politicians would vote for the koala. However, their compassion evaporates when it comes to a baby. Worse again was the media, failing to stand up for the powerless against the powerful. You can’t get any more powerless than a 21-week-old aborted baby being denied the care that, if these senators were denied it, someone would end up in court on charges. Regardless of the circumstances, every child born alive deserves care and comfort. The motion was never a preclusion to a woman’s right to abortion; once a person is alive and dying on the table, we are talking about a completely different set of rights. As one senator pointed out, an aborted baby would likely experience “shocking injuries that will not make them viable in the sense of a long-term life”. When ambulances go to car accidents, do they drag the poor souls onto the side of the road and leave them there because they would die anyhow, or do they do their best to help them? All the motion asked for was palliative care and essential pain relief, just as we would with anybody else towards the end of their life. Is the reason people look the other way because it’s too confronting to admit innocent lives are being left to perish in a metal tray for hours with no pain relief? Spare us the faux compassion on refugees, on the horrors in Gaza, when you pretend to gag for the cameras behind a person talking about the horrors of Australian babies dying in our hospitals. Spare us the faux compassion for the koalas, when you deny a dying baby painkillers. And as for the Labor and moderate Liberal members who voted against it, how will this help their vote amongst swinging voters with no faith but find it abhorrent on a purely human level? Some question the worth of the life of an abortion survivor, due to potential disability in their life. How can you say that a physically imperfect person does not deserve to live? …. Queensland MP Robbie Katter has introduced a bill to ensure the rights of babies born alive in his state. It’s a crucial step, which means the duty of a registered health practitioner to provide medical care and treatment to a person born as a result of termination would be no different from their duty to anybody else. I’ll help with some transparency, a link to how they voted. You’ll find every so-called “caring”, “ethical” party, including Teal, Labor, the Greens and the four soft-moderate Liberal faction Senators, voted against pain relief for a baby dying in a dish. Peta Credlin has declared on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut_MXgxv1og ‘Elsewhere we would call this infanticide’: Late term abortion survivors denied medical care August 21, 2024 - 8:13PM Sky News host Peta Credlin discusses the fact that babies who survive late term abortions are refused life-saving medical care and left to die in some Australian states. “I still couldn't get over that decision in the Senate last night that refused to even allow debate on a resolution that all new-born babies, born alive after late term abortions, be allowed to receive medical treatment rather than being left to die,” Ms Credlin said. “Why should the treatment of one human person depend upon a veto from someone else? “She might have intended the child dead, but if the baby is born alive, surely its right to live trumps everything else? “Elsewhere at law, we would call this infanticide.”

Hell, the definitive Fiery Furnace

by Damien F. Mackey ““Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state”. John Paul II John Paul II ‘the Great’ gave the following reasonable explanation of this most terrifying of subjects: HELL: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999.html JOHN PAUL II GENERAL AUDIENCE Wednesday 28 July 1999 Dear Brothers and Sisters, 1. God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”. In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life. 2. To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained. In the Old Testament the condition of the dead had not yet been fully disclosed by Revelation. Moreover it was thought that the dead were amassed in Sheol, a land of darkness (cf. Ez 28:8; 31:14; Jb 10:21f.; 38:17; Ps 30:10; 88:7, 13), a pit from which one cannot reascend (cf. Jb 7:9), a place in which it is impossible to praise God (cf. Is 38:18; Ps 6:6). The New Testament sheds new light on the condition of the dead, proclaiming above all that Christ by his Resurrection conquered death and extended his liberating power to the kingdom of the dead. Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31). The Book of Revelation also figuratively portrays in a “pool of fire” those who exclude themselves from the book of life, thus meeting with a “second death” (Rv 20:13f.). Whoever continues to be closed to the Gospel is therefore preparing for “eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thes 1:9). 3. The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033). “Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state. 4. Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no”, which marks the human creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council, DS 800-801). What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God. Damnation remains a real possibility, but it is not granted to us, without special divine revelation, to know which human beings are effectively involved in it. The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan, giving us the Spirit of God who makes us cry “Abba, Father!” (Rm 8:15; Gal 4:6). This prospect, rich in hope, prevails in Christian proclamation. It is effectively reflected in the liturgical tradition of the Church, as the words of the Roman Canon attest: “Father, accept this offering from your whole family ... save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen”. ________________________________________ Symbolism in Burning Fiery Furnace We burn either within the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which is salvific, all-encompassing, pure ecstasy, or we burn without (outside of) the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which is hopeless, agonising and destructive. The three young colleagues of the prophet Daniel were thus not harmed when dwelling within the heart of a fire, which same fire, however, annihilated those outside it, the henchmen of the base King Nebuchednezzar, symbolising the damned, and the Devil. The three young seers at Fatima, Portugal (1917), Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco, who were spared being tossed into boiling oil: Three Fatima children, like Daniel’s three young friends, faced with being burned alive (3) Three Fatima children, like Daniel's three young friends, faced with being burned alive | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu were promised by Our Lady of the Rosary that they would go to Heaven. They were to escape the definitive Fiery Furnace, which they were shown a month earlier (July 13), which is Hell. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/on-july-13-1917-our-lady-of-fatima-showed-a-vision-of-hell-and-taught-us-how-to-avoid-it On July 13, 1917, Our Lady of Fatima Showed a Vision of Hell and Taught Us How to Avoid It On July 13, 1917, Our Lady gave several specific directives that, if we heeded, the world would not be in the situation it finds itself today. “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.” (photo: John Martin, “Fallen Angels in Hell”, ca. 1841) Joseph Pronechen Blogs July 13, 2017 A hundred years ago, during the Fatima apparition on July 13, 1917, there was mention of the Rosary, a vision of hell, direction to help sinners, talk of consecration to the Immaculate Heart and consecration of Russia. Our Lady began by reminding the children: “I want you to come back here on the thirteenth of next month. Continue to say the Rosary every day in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary, to obtain the peace of the world and the end of the war, because only she can obtain it.” That is a directive, an instruction, a motherly order that we should heed and practice now more than ever. In the last 100 years, how many did so? Next, she told them when she would reveal her identity and what way she would provide for people to accept the apparitions as true. “You must come here every month, and in October I will tell you who I am and what I want. I will then perform a miracle so that all may believe.” Then, Our Lady set the scene and gave the children — and us — a way to help others so they would not end up as part of the vision she was going to show them next. She said: Make sacrifices for sinners, and say often, especially while making a sacrifice: O Jesus, this is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for offences committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Frightening Vision When Our Lady told this to the children, she opened her hands as she had during the two previous apparitions. Lucia described what happened. “The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire.” In The True Story of Fatima, Father John de Marchi recounted how Jacinta’s father Ti Marto witnessed the children’s actions in the Cova da Iria that day. He remembered “that Lucia gasped in sudden horror, that her face was white as death, and that all who were there heard her cry in terror to the Virgin Mother, whom she called by name,” wrote Father de Marchi. “The children were looking at their Lady in terror, speechless, and unable to plead for relief from the scene they had witnessed.” Later at the request of the Bishop of Leiria, Lucia described the vision this way: As Our Lady spoke these last words, she opened her hands once more, as she had done during the two previous months. The rays of light seemed to penetrate the earth, and we saw as it were a sea of fire. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke now falling back on every side like sparks in huge fires, without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. (It must have been this sight which caused me to cry out, as people say they heard me). The demons could be distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to frightful and unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. Terrified and as if to plead for succour, we looked up at Our Lady, who said to us, so kindly and so sadly: You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. Solution for Salvation It’s essential to remember that before this vision given to young children, Our Lady presented them that very short, very powerful prayer to help sinners. Then in July, after the vision, she gave them — and us — another essential prayer to help sinners: When you pray the Rosary, say after each mystery: O my Jesus, forgive us, save us from the fire of hell. Lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need. She had already taught this vital prayer to the children as a prelude to this further vision a month earlier, on June 13, this way: I want you to continue saying the Rosary every day. And after each one of the mysteries, my children, I want you to pray in this way: O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell. Take all souls to heaven, especially those who are most in need. There’s no time like this 100th anniversary year to begin this addition to the Rosary immediately if you haven’t already done so. The Children Respond The children took Our Lady’s revelations and requests to heart. Lucia recounted that soon after Jacinta didn’t want to play one day. She told Lucia, “That Lady told us to say the Rosary and to make sacrifices for the conversion of sinners. So from now on, when we say the Rosary we must say the whole Hail Mary and the whole Our Father! And the sacrifices, how are we going to make them?” Francisco said a good sacrifice would be going without lunch. Next, Jacinta asked about how long hell lasts, and heaven. Lucia said the idea of eternity made the biggest impression on Jacinta. Thinking about sinners and hell, Jacinta said, “Poor sinners! We have to pray and make many sacrifices for them!” Then she went on: “How good that Lady is! She has already promised to take us to Heaven!” Lucia described how Jacinta took this matter of making sacrifices for the conversion of sinners so seriously “she never let a single opportunity escape her.” For example, in the area were two very poor families with small children. Jacinta told her brother Francisco and Lucia, “Let’s give our lunch to those poor children, for the conversion of sinners.” The children agreed. This was just the tip of the prayers and sacrifices for sinners that they carried on. Father de Marchi described how “Jacinta's boundless zeal permitted her no rest. Looking tactfully at her cousin and her brother, she seemed to feel that with their fierce and heart-wrenching supplications, they could pierce the veil-of heaven and, all by themselves, depopulate the pits of hell.” Jacinta would tell her brother and cousin, “‘We mustn't stop our prayers to save poor souls! So many go to hell!’ Her heart beat in endless pity for the damned, but her intelligence demanded reasonably to understand why people went to such a frightful and hideous place as they had seen.” Jacinta asked, “Lucia — do you remember how our Lady's heart, when she showed it to us, was being pierced by thorns?" "Surely, I do” Lucia replied. “It simply means that her heart is wounded by the sins of people, and she is asking them to be sorry, and to make up for their sins, so that God will not have to punish them too much. She can't make people be good. They must themselves want to be good." Later, very ill, Jacinta would share many insights, among them, “The sins which cause most souls to go to hell are the sins of the flesh.” Father di Marchi noted the children realized why Our Lady asked to pray and make sacrifices for sinners. "Do this," the Lady was saying. "It is a great and good and loving thing to do. It will please God who is Love." “They became, of their free will, co-redeemers with Christ. The vision of hell that they had seen in July was not erased from their minds. They prayed incessantly. They sought new sacrifice. Praying the Rosary, they never forgot to include the prayer after each decade Our Lady taught them to say.”

Ezra heroic in the face of death

Part One: Ezra as the young Azariah of the Book of Daniel by Damien F. Mackey “Then Nebuchadnezzar said, ‘Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants! They trusted in him and defied the king’s command and were willing to give up their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God’.” Daniel 3:28 My purpose here will be to attempt to create a basic reconstruction of the life of Ezra the scribe, a most famous personage in biblical-Jewish history, but of whose early life, at least, we have virtually no information at all according to Mendel Adelman, in his article “Ezra the Scribe”: Ezra the Scribe - Jewish History (chabad.org) Very little is known about the early life of Ezra the Scribe. He was born in Babylon to a priestly family, and dedicated himself to the study of the Torah. By trade he was a scribe, writing books of the Torah and Prophets. He lived in Babylon for the first decades of his life, studying under Baruch ben Neriah. …. Whilst, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia article of the same title, our first definite introduction to Ezra will occur as late as 458 BC, during the reign of King Artaxerxes: EZRA THE SCRIBE - JewishEncyclopedia.com Though Ezra was one of the most important personages of his day, and of far-reaching influence upon the development of Judaism, his biography has to be reconstructed from scanty material, furnished in part by fragments from his own memoirs (see Ezra, Book of). The first definite mention of him is in connection with a royal firman granting him permission to lead a band of exiles back to Jerusalem (Ezra vii. 12-26). This edict was issued in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes, corresponding to 458 B.C. I, who accept neither the conventional reconstruction of Medo-Persian history and archaeology, nor the dates assigned to its various kings, see e.g. my: Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology (4) Medo-Persian history has no adequate archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (DOC) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu do not believe in this conventional ‘Artaxerxes in 458 BC’. The identification of the kings, “Artaxerxes”, and otherwise, who I consider to be relevant to the life of Ezra the scribe, will become clear as this article progresses. A first encounter with Ezra Far from this having occurred in 458 BC, I would re-date our first meeting with a young Ezra in the Bible about 150 years earlier, to 606 BC. It is the 3rd year of king Jehoiakim of Judah, which would correspond with the Accession Year of king Nebuchednezzar of Babylon (cf. Jeremiah 25:1). {606 BC would be the approximate conventional date for the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, but not the significantly lower date that I would estimate for it} Ezra first emerges there, in Daniel 1, as the young Azariah, a name that is perfectly compatible with Ezra: Ezra(h) | The amazing name Ezra(h): meaning and etymology (abarim-publications.com) As we learn in Daniel 1 about Azariah and his young companions, they were: 3 … Israelites from the royal family and the nobility— 4 young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. …. 6 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. 7 The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego. …. 17 To these four young men God gave knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning. …. 19 The king talked with them, and he found none equal to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; so they entered the king’s service. 20 In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom. Quite impressive CV’s. These youths were educated, wise, learned, intelligent, and competent. And that type of description would fit perfectly what we know of Ezra, “the ready scribe”: Ezra, a Ready Scribe – Ready Scribe Ezra is called a “ready” scribe, meaning he is competent, able to “quickly” do the work of a scribe. Having prepared himself to do the work of God by transcribing so many copies of the Word of God, Ezra is an expert concerning the Old Testament Scriptures …. While his education and diligent work certainly has helped to prepare him, what really sets Ezra apart from the other scribes of his day is his preparation of his heart: “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach statutes and ordinances in Israel” (Ezr 7:10). The word translated “prepare” means Ezra “directed” his heart, and the word translated “seek” means he “inquired, investigated, or studied” God’s Law. Notice that Ezra is not just seeking more knowledge; his desire is to “do” the will of God and to teach others so that they also can please Him. …. Although Azariah is always listed as the last of the trio (Daniel 1:6): “Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah”, variously as “Abednego” (cf. vv. 11, 19; 2:17, 49; 3:12-30), perhaps because he was the youngest, it is apparent that it is he who will take the leading part in the confession of guilt and the prayers. Again, this is very much like Ezra, who intones the prayers and reads from the Book of the Law (cf. Nehemiah 8:1-18; Ezra 8:15-36; ch’s. 9-10), and who organises the priests and the Levites. Azariah, then, could well be - as Ezra was (Ezra 7:1-5) - a priest in the line of Aaron, hence, potentially, the High Priest. Mary Jane Chaignot has written of Azariah’s leadership here, telling that Azariah “speaks for the people of Israel”: The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews - Bible Study - BibleWise The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews By Mary Jane Chaignot According to the Hebrew Bible, Daniel 3:23 states that the three Hebrew men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. This happened because they refused to bow down and worship the golden statue that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. The plan was that whenever people heard the sound of music, they were all supposed to bow down and worship the statue, which was ninety feet tall and nine feet wide. Anyone who refused would be thrown into the fiery furnace. After a few practice sessions, some of the locals complained to the king that the three Hebrew men refused to bow down and worship. The king, of course, couldn't let them snub his command. So he called them together and offered them a second chance to right the wrong they had committed. The consequences were clear if they refused. They would be tossed into the fiery furnace, and the king asked, "Who is the God who can save you?" Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego pretty much didn't care what the king threatened to do. They knew that the God they served could rescue them, but even if He didn't, they would refuse to worship the golden statue. Needless to say, the king turned purple at this point and ordered the furnace to be heated seven times hotter than usual. He commanded that the three men be bound and thrown into the furnace. Unfortunately, the furnace was so hot that the guards who threw them in were killed. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego fell into the midst of the fire. The prayer of Azariah would be inserted at this point. After a short introduction, the prayer proceeds as a communal lament with a request for deliverance. In so doing, Azariah (Abednego) speaks for the people of Israel by confessing their sins and affirming God's justice. The exile itself was an example of God's justice. This is doubly interesting considering that these three men are in the fiery furnace precisely because they refused to worship a golden image made by the king. In so doing, they were able to remain true to their God; nonetheless they now speak for sinful/idolatrous Israel. What is interesting about this prayer is that since there is no opportunity for sacrifice, Azariah offers a contrite heart. This would demonstrate a considerable advance in the thinking of how to mediate with God. In the absence of sacrifices, a "contrite heart" might suffice in order to assure their acceptance before God. The next section of the addition focuses on the fiery furnace. It describes how the king's servants stoked the fire to comply with the king's request to heat it "seven times hotter." They piled on more naphtha, pitch, and brush until the flames rose seventy feet above the furnace. Ultimately, it would kill those servants who were too close. The three Hebrew men, however, were saved by the presence of an angel. The angel drove the blaze out of the middle and made it as if a dew-laden breeze were blowing through it. Obviously, they were completely protected from the fire. Some scholars think this section should precede the first. It is difficult to understand how the men survived the fall into the furnace without being burned to death, especially if the fire was so hot that it killed their executioners. It would make more sense for the angel to be present from the beginning to protect them. The dew-laden breeze would then have kept them safe even while they were falling through the flames to the bottom. Despite such logic, this appears as the second section. Then all three men joined in praising God. Their voices were as one. They invoke all of creation to join in the praise of God, repeating the phrase "Bless the Lord…sing his praise and highly exalt him forever" with each verse except one (see v. 52). This repetition can also be found in some of the Psalms (see Ps. 103, 136, 148). The repetition adds solemnity and a majestic rhythm to the refrain. Then the next verse (Dan. 3:24) states that King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up suddenly, saying to his advisers, "Didn't we throw three men into the fire?" The advisers answered, "Yes, we did." But now Nebuchadnezzar (and presumably everyone else as well) sees four men walking around in the midst of the flames, to say nothing of the fact that the three somehow survived without being simply consumed by the fire. And the king states that the fourth looks like a son of the gods. The addition of the prayers has the effect of keeping the focus on the three men and the greatness of their God, instead of on the king and his outrageous commands. Previously, these three men were rather colorless characters. Now, however, they shine as faithful followers. It also highlights the idea that God is a God of justice. The exile was the result of Israel's sin. When people sin against God, God hands them over to their enemies. This thought is rooted in the premise of the Deuteronomistic history. The irony, of course, is that the Hebrew Masoretic Text omits these verses, and Christians have tended to ignore them. Some scholars wonder why this is the case, since there is nothing in them that could be considered remotely offensive to Judaic theology. Most concur that it might simply be a matter of length. The prayer is simply too long and too disruptive within the context of the story. Nonetheless, Greek versions can be found in Orthodox and Catholic Bibles. …. These verses can be divided into three sections: 1:1-22 -- The Prayer of Azariah; 1:23-28 – Description of the Furnace; 1:29-68 – The Song of the Three Jews. I – 1:1-22 – The Prayer of Azariah o 1:1-2 o Introduction o As they walked around in the flames, they sang hymns to God o Then Azariah stopped and said this prayer o 1:3-15 o Confession of sins o Azariah begins by praising God o He is the God of our fathers and always just in whatever He has done o His deeds and judgments are true o The exile was "just" on account of the sins of all the people o The people did not obey God's commandments o Nor have they done "what was good for them" o Because of this, God's actions were justified o Israel has been delivered into the hands of their enemies o These enemies are lawless and hateful o Their king is completely unjust o Yet, the people of Israel cannot complain o Shame and disgrace are their lot – even for those who still worship him o All are culpable o Azariah prays that God will not abandon them forever or annul His covenant o He pleads that God will not withdraw His mercy from them o He refers to the promises made to Abraham and Isaac o They were promised descendants more numerous than the stars of the sky and of the sands of the seashore o He realizes Israel's smallness of importance and knows it is a result of their sin o In exile they have no king, no prophet, no leader [Technically, during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were both actively prophesying, which suggests that this was written much later.] o They have no temple or anyplace to make an offering o 1:16-22 o Plea for deliverance o Azariah asks God to accept their contrite souls and humble spirits o Like the previous sacrifices of rams and bulls, he prays that God will see their sacrifice o All he wants is to be able to follow God wholeheartedly o He does not want those who trust in God to be disappointed o He avows that they earnestly follow God and fear Him and seek His face o He prays that God will not put them to shame but treat them leniently o This would be in accordance with God's great mercy Anyone who abuses them should be put to shame and stripped of power o Their strength should be broken o Then even the pagans will know that He "alone is Lord, God" o God is glorious over the whole world Compare, for example, Ezra’s confession of the guilt of Israel (Ezra 9:5-15): Then, at the evening sacrifice, I rose from my self-abasement, with my tunic and cloak torn, and fell on my knees with my hands spread out to the LORD my God and prayed: “I am too ashamed and disgraced, my God, to lift up my face to you, because our sins are higher than our heads and our guilt has reached to the heavens. From the days of our ancestors until now, our guilt has been great. Because of our sins, we and our kings and our priests have been subjected to the sword and captivity, to pillage and humiliation at the hand of foreign kings, as it is today. But now, for a brief moment, the LORD our God has been gracious in leaving us a remnant and giving us a firm place in his sanctuary, and so our God gives light to our eyes and a little relief in our bondage. Though we are slaves, our God has not forsaken us in our bondage. He has shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem. But now, our God, what can we say after this? For we have forsaken the commands you gave through your servants the prophets when you said: ‘The land you are entering to possess is a land polluted by the corruption of its peoples. By their detestable practices they have filled it with their impurity from one end to the other. Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them at any time, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it to your children as an everlasting inheritance.’ What has happened to us is a result of our evil deeds and our great guilt, and yet, our God, you have punished us less than our sins deserved and have given us a remnant like this. Shall we then break your commands again and intermarry with the peoples who commit such detestable practices? Would you not be angry enough with us to destroy us, leaving us no remnant or survivor? LORD, the God of Israel, you are righteous! We are left this day as a remnant. Here we are before you in our guilt, though because of it not one of us can stand in your presence.” Likewise, Azariah again (in vv. 2-10): Then Azari′ah stood and offered this prayer; in the midst of the fire he opened his mouth and said: “Blessed art thou, O Lord, God of our fathers, and worthy of praise; and thy name is glorified for ever. For thou art just in all that thou hast done to us, and all thy works are true and thy ways right, and all thy judgments are truth. Thou hast executed true judgments in all that thou hast brought upon us and upon Jerusalem, the holy city of our fathers, for in truth and justice thou hast brought all this upon us because of our sins. For we have sinfully and lawlessly departed from thee, and have sinned in all things and have not obeyed thy commandments; we have not observed them or done them, as thou hast commanded us that it might go well with us. So all that thou hast brought upon us, and all that thou hast done to us, thou hast done in true judgment. Thou hast given us into the hands of lawless enemies, most hateful rebels, and to an unjust king, the most wicked in all the world. And now we cannot open our mouths; shame and disgrace have befallen thy servants and worshippers. Part Two: Ezra when Jerusalem’s wall was re-built If this is a right conjunction, then we would have at the Dedication of the Wall … (i) Daniel (= Nehemiah); (ii) Azariah (= Ezra); and (iii) Mishael (= Meshullam). So far in this article a youthful Ezra has been identified with Azariah, re-named Abed-nego by the Chaldeans, who led the prayers, confessions of guilt, and Divine praises, within the heart of king Nebuchednezzar’s burning fiery furnace. And, regarding the latter, we now know that Nebuchednezzar’s alter ego, king Ashurbanipal, actually had, and indeed used for execution, “a burning fiery furnace”. See e.g. my article: Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus (4) Ashurbanipal and Nabonidus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The burning fiery furnace is a vivid symbol of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, abyss of fiery love: St. John Vianney put it this way: “Let us open the door of the Sacred Heart and shut ourselves in for a moment amidst the divine flames. We shall then realize what God’s love means.” If our difficulties put us right in the center of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, then instead of complaining about the heat, instead of moaning about the flames … we can take refuge there. The flames become victory. They become freedom. As our reading just said: “God chastises those who are close to him.” If we want to be close to God, then we must willingly go inside this furnace. The Crucible of the Heart of Jesus - Casting Out Fear We move on from king Nebuchednezzar’s Accession Year to his 20th year. Nebuchednezzar, though, is now to be found under an alternate name, “Artaxerxes”. Mid-way through the reign of Nebuchednezzar Here we encounter our first “King Artaxerxes” (Nehemiah 2:1), who, as further enquiry informs us, was “king of Babylon” (13:6). Despite that vital piece of information, critics argue over whether this monarch - as well as the “Artaxerxes king of Persia” in Ezra 7:1 - was meant as a reference to Artaxerxes I (c. 464 to 425 BC) or to Artaxerxes II (c. 404 to 358 BC). It was neither. This verse does not refer to an Achaemenid king at all, but to a Chaldean king. The king in question was, in fact, Nebuchednezzar the king of Babylon. The wall of Jerusalem had recently been destroyed by the Chaldeans. With the Great King’s permission, Nehemiah will rebuild it. He was an obvious favourite of the Chaldean king: Daniel and Nehemiah (3) Daniel and Nehemiah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Did Daniel’s learned friend, Azariah (= Ezra), accompany him on this brief mission? Though the paths of Nehemiah and Ezra barely seem to cross, which had caused me for a long time to imagine that Ezra was Nehemiah, I can identify a few verses in the Book of Nehemiah that definitely seem to place Ezra and Nehemiah side by side. Firstly, there is the well-known one - most controversial for those who try to separate Ezra and Nehemiah chronologically (8:9): “Then Nehemiah the governor, Ezra the priest and teacher of the Law, and the Levites who were instructing the people said to them all, ‘This day is holy to the LORD your God. Do not mourn or weep’. For all the people had been weeping as they listened to the words of the Law”. I used to try to read this verse as a waw consecutive, “Then Nehemiah … even Ezra …”, thereby fusing two names into the one person. But a second verse seems to militate right against that notion. At the Dedication of the Wall, the very incident upon which we are focussed here, we read that (12:36): “Ezra the teacher of the Law led the procession”. That this “Ezra” could not be a reference to Nehemiah himself is apparent from this combination of verses in Nehemiah 12: 27 At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem …. 31 I [Nehemiah] had the leaders of Judah go up on top of the wall. I also assigned two large choirs to give thanks. 36 Ezra the teacher of the Law led the procession. The seemingly obscure Ezra likely ‘peeps out’ again in verse 33: “… along with Azariah, Ezra, Meshullam …”. Of possible great interest, regarding the last name here, “Meshullam”, is that William H. Shea has proposed an historical identification of Azariah’s friend, Mishael (Meshach), with Nebuchednezzar’s official, Mušallim-Marduk: William H. Shea's hopeful historical evidence for Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (2) (DOC) William H. Shea's hopeful historical evidence for Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu If this is a conjunction, then we would have at the Dedication of the Wall (my reconstruction): (i) Daniel (= Nehemiah); (ii) Azariah (= Ezra); and (iii) Mishael (= Meshullam). Just to complicate matters, though, in Nehemiah 8:4 both a Mishael and a Meshullam stand on the left side of Ezra: “Ezra the teacher of the Law stood on a high wooden platform built for the occasion. … on his left were Pedaiah, Mishael, Malkijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah and Meshullam”. Part Three: One named Ezra returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua “These were the priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and with Joshua [Jeshua]: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra …”. Nehemiah 12:1 Tradition would have it that Ezra the scribe was not part of this important return of Jewish exiles to Jerusalem from Babylon when king Cyrus issued his famous decree in c. 535 BC (conventional dating, not mine) ordering for the Temple of Yahweh to be re-built (Ezra 1:1-4). I referred to this extraordinary situation in my article: Did Ezra leave Babylon only after Baruch died? (3) (DOC) Did Ezra leave Babylon only after Baruch died? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ezra, who had previously returned to Jerusalem with governor Nehemiah in the 20th year of king Nebuchednezzar (that is, “Artaxerxes king of Babylon”: Nehemiah 13:6), to rebuild the Wall that the Chaldeans had wrecked - while Baruch was actually away in Egypt with Jeremiah - would be expected to re-visit Jerusalem for this once-in-a-lifetime occasion, Year 1 of Cyrus. By now, Ezra would have been almost 30 years older than when he had accompanied Nehemiah to Jerusalem on the Wall building expedition. True to form, though, the obscure Ezra does not stand out in any accounts of this great event. I would see him as one of the leading priests-Levites referred to in Nehemiah 12:1: “These were the priests and Levites who returned with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and with Joshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra …”. Ezra the scribe, even though he was of the priestly line of Aaron (Ezra 7:1-5), would not actually assume the rôle of the High Priest in Jerusalem, however. No doubt this was because of his official commitments. Had not king Nebuchednezzar appointed Ezra (as the young Azariah), and his two fiery furnace companions, Hananiah and Mishael, to be high officials in the kingdom (Daniel 3:30): “Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the province of Babylon”? (Refer back to the William H. Shea article) The High Priest for this period, from the commencement of the construction of the Temple in the 1st year of Cyrus, until its completion, in the 6th year of king Darius, was Joshua, or Jeshua (cf. Ezra 3:2; 6:15), apparently the grandfather of Eliashib (Nehemiah 12:10) who had been the High Priest at the time of Nehemiah’s first visit (3:1). Part Four: Ezra returns again as soon as the Temple is completed “After these things, during the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, the son of Zerahiah, the son of Uzzi, the son of Bukki, the son of Abishua, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the chief priest— this Ezra came up from Babylon”. Ezra 7:1-6 Though Ezra was of the line of the chief priests, being descended from Aaron, it will be Jeshua, not Ezra, who will serve as the High Priest (Kohen Gadol) at the beginnings of the second Temple. Ezra, likely, as I have suggested, had high official duties in Babylon. Now, the prophet Zechariah would have a most dramatic vision of Jeshua (or Joshua) as clothed in utterly filthy garments, and being judicially accused by Satan (Zechariah 3:1-10): https://bible.ucg.org/bible-commentary/Zechariah/Vision-concerning-Joshua-the-high-priest-and-the-coming-Branch/ The high priest Joshua stands before the Angel of the Lord (3:1). As this particular figure is able to remove iniquity (see verses 3-4), the reference is apparently to the preincarnate Christ. Indeed, in verse 2 we see the "Lord" calling a rebuke down from the "Lord"—evidently Christ calling a rebuke down from God the Father. The rebuke is called down on Satan. "The Hebrew is literally 'the Satan,' meaning 'the Accuser'" (Nelson Study Bible, note on verse 1)—or, similarly, "the Adversary" or "the Opponent." The word "oppose" in verse 1 could also, in a legal setting, be rendered "accuse." "Satan's accusation invests [the scene] with a judicial character. The position of standing at the right side was the place of accusation under the law (Ps 109:6). Satan knows the purposes of God concerning Israel and therefore has always accused the Jews and accuses them still.... Satan is the accuser, not only of Joshua (i.e., Israel), but also of all believers (Job 1-2; Rev 12:10)" (Expositor's Bible Commentary, note on Zechariah 3:1). It is interesting to recall that the Samaritans, as agents of Satan to thwart the restoration of Judah and its worship, had constantly brought the Jews before the Persian imperial court (Ezra 4:4-5). The reason for Satan's accusation in Zechariah 3 is evidently Joshua's impurity, as symbolized by his defiled garments. Expositor's states in its note on verse 3: "The Hebrew word soim ('filthy') is 'the strongest expression in the Hebrew language for filth of the most vile and loathsome character' (Feinberg...). Some interpreters maintain that Joshua was covered with excrement—only in the vision, of course! Such clothes represent the pollution of sin (cf. Isa 64:6). To compound the problem, Joshua (i.e., Israel), contaminated by sin, was ministering in this filthy condition before the Angel of the Lord." Joshua had been guilty of sin, having previously abandoned the reconstruction of the temple while continuing in priestly service. "The high priest represented the people before God (see Ex. 28:29) and under no circumstances was to become defiled or unclean (Ex. 28:2; Lev. 21:10-15)" (Nelson, note on Zechariah 3:3). It is interesting to consider the high priest as representative of the nation, for the figure of Joshua is clearly being used that way in this passage. The whole nation, this priestly nation (see Exodus 19:6), stood guilty before God. The national identification is clear from verse 2. Responding to Satan's accusation against Joshua, the One who would later become Jesus Christ responds, "The Lord who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!" He follows with "Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?" God had earlier told the people of Israel in Amos 4:11, "I overthrew some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and you were like a firebrand plucked from the burning." That prophecy was dual, referring to both ancient and end-time Israel. The current vision is the same in this regard. Expositor's notes: "The reference to the burning stick snatched from the fire is an additional indication that Israel, not Joshua, is ultimately in view. Israel was retrieved to carry out God's future purpose for her (cf. Amos 4:11). The 'fire' refers to the Babylonian captivity. Metaphorically, Israel was snatched as a burning stick from that fire. However, this event may also look back to the deliverance from Egypt (cf. Deut 4:20; 7:7-8; Jer 11:4) and forward to the rescue from the coming tribulation period (cf. Jer 30:7; Zech 13:8-9; Rev 12:13-17)" (note on Zechariah 3:2). …. Whilst the description of Jeshua as “a brand plucked from the fire” might immediately make me think of Ezra - as the young Azariah delivered from the fiery furnace - the prophet Zechariah’s account of a High Priest covered with filth can by no means, one would think, be applicable to the saintly Azariah-Ezra. So far we have had Ezra return to Jerusalem on two important occasions, namely: (i) Year 20 of king Nebuchednezzar, when governor Nehemiah rebuilt the Wall; and (ii) Year 1 of king Cyrus, when official permission was given to the Jews to re-build the Temple of Yahweh. A little less than 30 years separated these two events according to my revision. Having settled the identification, as Nebuchednezzar, of the “Artaxerxes … king of Babylon” named in the Book of Nehemiah, we must now identify the “Artaxerxes king of Persia” mentioned in Ezra 7:1, who is absolutely key to the chronology of Ezra the scribe. For it was in “the seventh year of King Artaxerxes” when Ezra returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 7:7-8). As a useful commentator like Herb Storck (History and Prophecy: A Study in the Post-Exilic Period, House of Nabu, 1989) has insisted, this particular “Artaxerxes” can only be the Darius king of Persia in whose 6th year the Temple was completed (6:15). Ezra came back immediately afterwards, in the 7th year of Darius the Persian. Ezra was now bringing silver and gold, for which priestly purposes the King of Persia had decreed (Ezra 7:12-17): Artaxerxes, king of kings, To Ezra the priest, teacher of the Law of the God of heaven: Greetings. Now I decree that any of the Israelites in my kingdom, including priests and Levites, who volunteer to go to Jerusalem with you, may go. You are sent by the king and his seven advisers to inquire about Judah and Jerusalem with regard to the Law of your God, which is in your hand. Moreover, you are to take with you the silver and gold that the king and his advisers have freely given to the God of Israel, whose dwelling is in Jerusalem, together with all the silver and gold you may obtain from the province of Babylon, as well as the freewill offerings of the people and priests for the temple of their God in Jerusalem. With this money be sure to buy bulls, rams and male lambs, together with their grain offerings and drink offerings, and sacrifice them on the altar of the Temple of your God in Jerusalem. On the return journey home, Ezra would also have a delegation collect, from Kasiphia, Levites, who were completely lacking in the original group that had departed from Babylon (8:15-20). One amongst the “leaders” whom Ezra sent there was Meshullam (v. 16), a possible candidate, as we have found, for Mishael of the fiery furnace episode. The usually obscure scribe Ezra was this time, at the completion of the Temple, a major player (Ezra 7-10) - this visit of his occurring almost twenty years after his previous return to Jerusalem in Year 1 of Cyrus. In this article, three returns of Ezra have been identified: (i) Year 20 of Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean, to rebuild the broken Wall of Jerusalem; (ii) Year 1 of Cyrus, the Medo-Persian, to commence the building of the Temple; and (iii) Year 7 of Darius, just after the completion of the second Temple. This new chronology solves, I believe, the problem of who came first, Ezra or Nehemiah? They both came together to rebuild the Wall, and were there together again when the Temple’s reconstruction had commenced. But by the time that Ezra had returned on the third occasion, in Year 7 of Artaxerxes, which incident, as some commentators argue, actually pre-dated Nehemiah’s return in Year 20 of Artaxerxes – {and though this might seem logical, these were, in fact, two different kings “Artaxerxes”} – much of the work and reform that one finds in the Book of Nehemiah, had, of course, been completed – with Ezra himself also having played a significant part in it all. In the context of Ezra the scribe’s third return to Jerusalem only (Year 7 of Artaxerxes), the events narrated in the Book of Nehemiah would generally pre-date those of the Book of Ezra. For more on this, see e.g. my article: Nehemiah, and a cracker from A. van Hoonacker (3) (DOC) Nehemiah, and a cracker from A. van Hoonacker | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Part Five: Ezra endured an horrific death in Maccabean times Judas Maccabeus asked this Esdrias (8:23) “to read the sacred book aloud …”. Is this not precisely what Ezra would do? (Nehemiah 8:1-3) …” Ezra, a mostly obscure character throughout the Scriptures, despite his immense reputation and status, will now (according to my much revised chronology) emerge in 2 Maccabees. We firstly encounter him there as Esdrias, a name very close to Esdras, a version of Ezra. In 2 Maccabees, in chapter 12, we read that this Esdrias was even commanding Jewish troops (v. 36). “… Esdrias and his men had been fighting for a long time and were exhausted …”. Then, more characteristically of Ezra, we learn that, after a Maccabean victory over Nicanor, Judas Maccabeus asked this Esdrias (8:23) “to read the sacred book aloud …”. Is this not precisely what Ezra would do? (Nehemiah 8:1-3): “… all the people … asked Ezra the scribe to bring the Book of the Law of Moses which Yahweh had prescribed for Israel. … Ezra the priest brought the Law before the assembly …. On the square before the Water Gate … he read from the book from early morning till noon …”. Finally, as according to my multi-part series: Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis beginning with: Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis. Part One: Introductory section | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ezra was the same as the Jewish elder, Razis, whose spectacular but gory death - surely one of the most dramatic in history - is narrated in 2 Maccabees 14. He has been described by one commentator as a “madman”, and his suicidal manner of death has been deemed “cowardly”. But, whatever one may conclude about the manner of his death, this Razis was no coward. The Maccabean account tells that Razis “bravely threw himself down into the crowd”. And, a few verses earlier, it had recalled how this man had, in bygone days, sacrificed himself fearlessly for his people: “In former times, when there was no mingling with the Gentiles, he had been accused of Judaism, and he had most zealously risked body and life for Judaism”. Owing to this, Razis, “a man who loved his compatriots and was very well thought of”, was, “for his goodwill … called Father of the Jews”. Ezra, of course, is similarly known as “Father of Judaïsm”. Tradition has Ezra dying “at the age of 120”: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5967-ezra-the-scribe All of these years would be needed to cover the lengthy life that I have attributed to Ezra in this article, from his young manhood, as the wise Azariah, at the beginning of the reign of the Chaldean king, Nebuchednezzar, until the wars of Judas Maccabeus against the Seleucids.