Universal Catechism teaches that Jesus is a sinner

ABS is reposting his piece on scandal that was written years ago when he was using the S/N, I am not Spartacus.

The Catechism of Pope Saint John Paul II and its entries on scandal teach that Jesus is a sinner - a mortal sinner - and nobody seems to care.  

In fact, when other Catholics are alerted to the undeniable truth, they defend the Catechism

+++++++++++++++++++=

The only time in the history of Catholic Catechisms that one person has been identified as one who gave scandal is in this Universal Catechism and the one identified as He who gave scandal is Jesus, Our Lord and Creator, Jesus, Our Redeemer and Saviour.


Mysterium Iniquitatis.


The entries about Scandal in the new Universal Catechism are aught but the rhetorical scourging of Jesus, The God-Man, He who personifies Divine ontological innocence, and He is judged by the New Theologians as guilty of having given Scandal.


This is a new blasphemous sin crying to Heaven for vengeance and at some time in the future, public apologies must - and will be - given for this  most infamous blasphemy. 


I reacted with extreme anger the first time I read this and I slammed The Catechism to the floor and cursed loudly and my soul weeps today because nobody in the Hierarchy even seems to be aware of this blasphemous scandal, to say nothing about repenting of it and correcting it.


And, yes, IANS has contacted both his Bishop and The Prefect of The Sacred Doctrine of the Faith with Bishop Barbarito, through his spokesman, agreeing with the Catechism while the CDF has yet to reply.


Any man who reads these entries and does not wail and moan and/or find himself driven to righteous anger is a man living outside of Grace.


IANS has nothing more to write and while he readily confesses he can rapidly identify many who would have written this passionate cri de couer far more effectively, IANS knows of not one man who loves Jesus more than he or who would submit to an actual scouring with whips if such submission would have prevented this blasphemy.


Those standing amidst the destruction wrought by the Modernists and the New Theologians; those standing looking for love in the ruins; those wondering why events have so rapidly spun out of control need no look further for a cause;


Why would Jesus pour out His superabundant Graces upon His Spouse after she has publicly judged him a Scandal Monger?


We ought count our Blessings He has not smote His Church for having taught this to His children; as it is, we deserve infinitely worse than what we have received so far.

The Universal Catechism




II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS


Respect for the souls of others: scandal


2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.


2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."⁸⁶ Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.⁸⁷ 


^{(The Catechism teaches that Jesus gave scandal and it teaches that Jesus reproached the scribes for giving scandal; that is, objectively, The Catechism is teaching that Jesus was a hypocrite - one who both condemned scandal and gave scandal. Is there anyone with a lick of common sense who read these entries before promulgating them?  How can anybody be so criminally and sacrilegiously casual with the truth when it comes to He who IS Truth?)}



2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."⁸⁸ This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,⁸⁹ or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.


2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"⁹⁰



(The greats of the New Theology foreclosed the solitary door they had to escape from their sinful and sacrilegious entries about Jesus and Scandal. They COULD have cited Indirect Scandal as NOT being sinful..)

Fr Harndon Dictionary:

Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she forsees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block.)

  but the new theologians did not do that, rather, they changed the traditional teaching of indirect scandal and taught that even indirect scandal is sinful.

I have no idea what'n'hell sort of evil got into the new theologians but The Douai Rheims commentary warned against even thinking that Jesus caused scandal - say nothing about teaching that Jesus gave scandal...

Matt 15:12 Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?

Ver. 12. Scandalized. When the Pharisees had received our Lord's answer, they had nothing to reply. His disciples perceiving their indignation, came and asked Jesus if he observed they were scandalized, i.e. offended. It is probable the disciples were also a little hurt, or afraid lest his words were contrary to the law of Moses or the tradition of the ancients, and took this occasion of having their scruples removed. St. Hilary, St. Chrysostom and Theophylactus understand this answer, Every plant, &c. to signify that every doctrine not proceeding from God, consequently the traditions of the Pharisees here in question, were to be eradicated by the promulgation of the gospel truths, which were not to remain unpublished on account of the scandal some interested or prejudiced persons might choose to take therefrom. (Jansenius) --- It must be here observed, that Christ was not the direct cause of scandal to the Jews, for such scandal would not be allowable; he only caused it indirectly, because it was his doctrine, at which, through their own perversity, they took scandal. (Denis the Carthusian)

The perverse nature of the New Theology is such that they have ended-up sinning gravely; they have caused grave scandal and sinned mightily by teaching that Jesus gave scandal.

I completely and thoroughly condemn these entries in the New Catechism, those who wrote these entries, those who approved these entries, and the Pope who promulgated it; these are the new sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance.

May Our Lord and Saviour have mercy on the souls who wrote, edited, and promulgated this monumental evil of a teaching that Jesus gave scandal.

How such evil passed ecclesiastical muster gives the lie to any and all claims of continuity.  It is only a Church nearly completely corrupted that could have promulgated such filthy and fetid doctrines about My Lord and Saviour, my Creator and Redeemer.

Verse 12. Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized? Then, to wit, when Christ, after sending the multitude away, had come with His disciples into the house. This is plain from Mark 7:17. Were scandalized, i.e., were offended, because the Pharisees made all their holiness consist in external washings of the hands, etc. Therefore, hearing these things being disdained and overturned by Christ, they became indignant that their reputation for sanctity previously based on such things was taken away. Nevertheless, they did not dare to murmur or to contradict Christ, because He had convicted them with reasons that were too solid, both in this case and a little earlier with respect to corban; nor did they sufficiently understand Christ’s statement, since according to His custom He spoke to them in parables, that is, obscurely, saying, Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Verse 39. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and (i.e., “but”) a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. Adulterous generation (Greek γενεά, i.e., “nation, race”), i.e., faithless and unbelieving, because leaving God their husband to whom they had been betrothed by circumcision, they clung to the devil and to his prompting. Hence infidelity and idolatry are often called adultery by Ezechiel (ch. 16) and others. Thus S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, along with Theophylact, who says, “He calls them an adulterous generation, because they forsook God, and clave to the devil.” Second, adulterous, i.e., “false”, having degenerated from the faith and character of Abraham, Isaac and the rest of the patriarchs. For they believed in the Messias, but these would not acknowledge Him when He was present, and proving Himself by so many miracles to be the Messias. For the Messias was the husband of the synagogue of the Jews, and is now the Spouse of the Christian Church, as is plain from Ephesians 5:32. Thus Barradi, Maldonatus, Franz Lucas and others. For thus the Hebrews called “spurious” or degenerate children‭ רכנ‬ ‭ינב‬ bene nechar, i.e., “strange children”, or rather, children of a strange, that is, an adulterous, father.

And a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. “This perverse nation of the Jews asks of Me a sign from heaven, but I will not give it a sign, except a sign from the earth, that is, from the deep, not from 
on high”. Says the Interlinear Gloss: “the sign of My passion and burial for three days, not of glory; a sign which, nevertheless, will end in a celestial portent, that is, in the resurrection, which is accomplished by heavenly power, and afterward Christ will ascend gloriously into heaven. I will not grant to the Jews any other sign than what I formerly promised, when I said, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. . . but He spoke of the temple of His body. . . .” (John 2:19, 21). (He meant the sign of the resurrection, which is the sign of the prophet Jonas, because it was prefigured and indeed prophesied by Jonas.) “For this clearly showed, who I am, why I died, why I am crucified, in respect of which they are offended; in truth that I am the Messias, the Tamer of death and sin, the Savior of the world, and the Lord of heaven and earth”. For the keepers of the sepulcher told the Jews that Christ was risen from the tomb; the Jews themselves saw the sepulcher empty, and the Apostles proved Christ’s resurrection by many miracles. Therefore, many Jews at the time, and afterward all nations, believed in Christ raised from death. For the Jews did not expect a humble and poor Messias, but one who was rich and glorious. Such they beheld Christ in His resurrection, ascension, and mission of the Holy Ghost. Hence they at that time acknowledged Him, and accepted Him as the Messias, according to what He said in John 8:28, When you shall have lifted up the Son of man (on the cross), then shall you know that I am, for I shall rise gloriously from the cross and death. But the unbelieving Jews did acknowledge then, as though under compulsion, that Christ was the Messias, for after His resurrection He sent from heaven Titus and Vespasian, who destroyed Jerusalem and Judea, because of His unjust death at the hands of the Jews. Thus S. Chrysostom. For at that time there was a complete destruction of the nation, a destruction which continues until now, and shall continue until the end of the world. A righteous and avenging God brought this upon them on account of their crowning wickedness in killing Christ. This destruction is the most evident token that the Jesus whom they put to death was the Messias or Christ. Therefore, Christ (v. 41) brings forward this sign of Jonas, as a sign of the condemnation of the Jews by the Ninevites, who had believed Jonas and repented, whereas the Jews would not believe Christ,and were, therefore, cut off and condemned. Maldonatus thinks that Christ gave the Jews, who sought a sign from heaven for the sake of ostentation, a sign from earth for their condemnation, for it was fitting that those who sought a sign deceitfully should be frustrated and confounded.

The servants sent by God to the vineyard, i.e., the synagogue, to gather its fruits were Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, and the rest of the prophets, whom the Jews killed, because they reproved their vices, stoning some of them, like Jeremias. And He sent them a second time, and more than the first, that by His diligence and His love He might overcome the wickedness of the husbandman. Hence S. Chrysostom says, “Through all the grades of wickedness the mercy of God went on increasing, and through all the steps of God’s mercy, the wickedness of the Jews kept increasing.” Therefore, at length God sent unto them His Son, that is Christ, now Incarnate, whom as the heir of the synagogue, the scribes both slew and crucified without the city, i.e., outside of Jerusalem, on Mount Calvary, so that they themselves might preside over and rule the synagogue, and enrich and magnify themselves by means of it. Instead of they will reverence my Son, the Syriac has, “they will be ashamed on account of My Son.”

Tropologically, the vineyard that everyone must till is his soul. To a pastor it is his parish: to a bishop, his diocese: to a king, his kingdom: to a magistrate, the state; that they may bring forth the fruit of good works and virtues. The hedges are the laws and statutes: the keepers are the angels: the tower is meditation, reason, forethought: the wine press is tribulation, mortification, the cross. “A servant is sent,” says Rabanus, “when the law, a psalm, or a prophecy is read: he is cast out when they are blasphemed or despised. He kills the heir, who tramples on the Son of God, and dishonors the Spirit of grace. The vineyard is given to another when the humble receive the grace which was despised by the proud.”

Moreover, the man planting the vineyard is God, who is called a man, says S. Chrysostom, by similitude, not reality. By nature He is Lord, by kindness Father, according to the words in Isaias, The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel (5:7).

They (the scribes) say to Him: He will bring those evil men to an evil end. You will say, Mark and Luke assert that Christ said this; how then does Matthew attribute the same words to the scribes? I may reply with S. Chrysostom and Euthymius, that the scribes said it first, and afterwards Christ repeated and confirmed the same, in such manner and gesture that from thence, and from what preceded and followed (as Abulensis rightly observes, quaest. 200), the scribes sufficiently understood that it was spoken of them; and then they added, God forbid, as Luke relates(20:16).

He will bring those evil men to an evil end, namely, the wicked ones of the vineyard, i.e., the husbandmen of the Church, or the scribes with their followers, who killed the prophets and Christ. God will destroy them by Titus and Vespasian in this life, and by the devils in hell.

Verse 43. Therefore, I say to you that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. The Church is constantly called the kingdom of God in the gospel, because in it God reigns in the faithful by faith and grace, and leads them to the heavenly kingdom, that He may reign in them by glory.

Behold here, as it were, the epimythion, or post-parable and application, in which Christ clearly expounds and applies the three parables which He has spoken—namely, the first, concerning the two sons, one obedient, the other disobedient; the second, concerning the vineyard, whose husbandman killed the servants and the son of the owner; the third, concerning the rejected stone, which was made the head of the corner—to the scribes themselves, and the Jews their followers, as follows: “You, O ye scribes, are disobedient sons to God your Father, for ye persecute Me, His only-begotten Son sent by Him. Ye, too, are the husbandman of the vineyard, who will kill Me, its Heir. Lastly, ye are the builders of the synagogue, who reject Me as a stone; but God will make Me the basis and foundation of His Church, because He will take it away from you, and transfer it to the gentiles, who will eagerly receive and worship Me, and so will be endowed by Me with grace and glory.” For all these parables of Christ have this end in view: that they may signify the rejection of the Jews and the election of the gentiles, because the Jews rejected Christ, whom the gentiles accepted. By these parables Christ so pricked the scribes, that they prepared the cross for Him.

Verse 18. But Jesus knowing their wickedness (Greek πονηρία, i.e., “malice”, since by a fraudulent pretence they wanted to hand Him over to the Romans to be killed), said: Why do you tempt me, ye hypocrites? It is as though He said, “You pretend to be friends, and to desire to be religious and maintain a good conscience, that you may know what is right and just for you to do in this case, according to the law of God, when all the while you are My enemies and God’s also, and are thirsting for My blood, and are trying by fraud and deceit to extort it from Me.” “The prime virtue,” says S. Jerome, “in one who gives an answer is to know the mind of him who asks the question,” and to adapt the answer accordingly. For these Pharisees and Herodians, says the Imperfect Author, hypocritically “flatter so as to destroy”; but Christ rebukes them in order to save. “For God’s wrath is more useful than man’s favor.”

Verse 43. He saith to them: How then doth David in spirit (inspired by the Holy Ghost, acted upon and impelled by Him, indeed full of Him; for the Holy Ghost dictated the Psalms to David, endowed him with the emotions and the [four] living senses that they contain. Therefore, it was not so much David in spirit, as the Spirit in David who thus spoke) call him Lord. For the son is less and younger than his father. Hence the father is not wont to call the son his lord, but the son his father, as is common with the Italians and other nations. From this passage the modern rabbis are refuted, who expound this 109th Psalm not of the Messias, or Christ, but of Abraham, or David, or Ezechias. For the scribes and Pharisees of Christ’s time understood it of Christ, and regarded the psalm as a prophecy of Him. Otherwise they would have responded that Christ wrongly applied the Psalm to the Messias, when it ought to be understood of Abraham, David, or Ezechias. That it does apply to Christ is evident from verse 4 of the same Psalm, With Thee is principality (principium, in Hebrew ‭תבדנ‬ nedabot and in Greek ἀρχὴ), in the day of thy strength: in the brightness of the saints: from the womb before the day-star I begot Thee. This can refer to no one except Christ. Lastly, Jonathan, the Chaldee, Rabbi Barachias, R. Levi, and the ancient rabbis (according to R. Moyse and Genebrardus commenting on Psalm 109) understand it as referring only to Christ.

Christ, first, commands the Jews to follow the teaching of the scribes and Pharisees, but not their life and manners, which are dishonest, inhumane, boastful, and arrogant. Second (v. 13), He threatens them with the woe of malediction because of their hypocrisy, avarice, superstition, and other sins which He lists. Third (v. 32), He predicts that His followers and Apostles will be killed by them, and, therefore, He warns about the final destruction of Jerusalem and Judea by the Romans. 

BASTA!!! Enough of the Judaising already. The Jews who killed Christ knew what they were doing; the Jews are not to be understood as legitimately confused nor can we be expected to think it part of Catholic Doctrine to understand the Sanhedrin's tragic misunderstanding of Jesus..as if they did not know what they were doing.

Now, it is true that the low-information, average, Josiah and Judith Jew, might have had a legitimate excuse, but the Sanhedrin?

In asking us to intellectually and spiritually submit to such a false exculpation we are being asked to, collectively, exculpate the Jews en masse.

IF that were true, IF the jews did not know or could not be expected to know whom it was they Crucified, they why was Jerusalem completely destroyed as a result of their Deicide?

The question I have is - Did the Catholic Church ask a Rabbi to write these entries about Jesus putatively giving scandal?

I would not be surmising to learn it did for it asked protestants to help write the new liturgy.

It is almost as though the modernists who wrote the scandal entries about Jesus believe that God did not sufficiently prepare the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messias; that somehow God is to blame, somehow culpable for the failure of the Jews to accept Jesus as Messias.

And we are always asked to undertake such actions in this epoch of ecclesiastical Judaising where one may only praise the Jews for the Blessings of the Covenant but one is excoriated if one cites the Curses of the Covenant.

This infamous Judaising of the past one-half century has resulted in a complete and total rupture with the past.

Just think of the example of Pope Peter and The Apostles (Acts) going into Synagogues and the private homes of Jews preaching Jesus and Conversion and compare that to the modern Popes visiting Synagogues and refusing to preach Jesus and Conversion.

Now THAT is a scandal; not what Jesus did.


Woe betide Jesus for the putative sin of giving scandal?


NO!!!!


Woe betide Popes who do not preach Jesus and Conversion;


1st Corinth 9 For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lieth upon me; for woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. 

Who was it that wrote this pestilential poison that has polluted our pellucid Christology and poured into the minds of the faithful such perfidious heresies?


He ought be identified, made to apologise, and forced to undergo public penance.  I find this entire sacrilegious scandal to be an example of a monumentally malign and inexcusable perfidy of galactic size.


Any decent Catholoic Traditionalist would not publicly judge his spouse guilty of serious sin yet here we have His Spouse judging Jesus, The Bridegroom, of serious sin.


How can it be said of he/they who wrote these entries and he/they who approved and promulgated this Catechism (Pope Blessed John Paul II) exemplified a deep and abiding love for Jesus and would have rather accepted death than write even one word distorting the truth?


Ask your own self if you think Jesus appreciates His Spouse judging Him guilty and heaping upon him responsibility for the actions of the Devils of Deicide.


IANS will now post and highlight these malign and insane accusations attempting to exculpate the Devils.


If pre-Vat 2 Ecclesiastical history contains an example of any other such abominable accusations made against our Lord and Saviour, I have not heard of them.

589 Jesus gave scandal above all when he identified his merciful conduct toward sinners with God's own attitude toward them.³⁶⁷ He went so far as to hint that by sharing the table of sinners he was admitting them to the messianic banquet.³⁶⁸ But it was most especially by forgiving sins that Jesus placed the religious authorities of Israel on the horns of a dilemma. Were they not entitled to demand in consternation, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?"³⁶⁹ By forgiving sins Jesus either is blaspheming as a man who made himself God's equal, or is speaking the truth and his person really does make present and reveal God's name.³⁷⁰

Hang on; Jesus placed the Devils on the horns of a dilemma. Does whomever wrote this entry even know the definition of Dilemma?


It means a choice between two alternatives that are equally inevitable or undesirable.


So much for Free Will; O, and since when is accepting Jesus as Messias undesirable in any acceptable meaning of that word?


Jesus is undesirable?


The Devils of Deicide are putatively exonerated owing to Jesus placing the Devils on the horns of a dilemma but what about the Jews who accepted Jesus as The Messias?


Why were they not also placed on a dilemma by Jesus?  


Or were they not placed on the horns of a dilemma because their hearts were open to the Truth?


Blaming Jesus for the hateful perfidy of the Devils is insane - at best - because it is the pluperfect example of blaming the innocent.

591 Jesus asked the religious authorities of Jerusalem to believe in him because of the Father's works which he accomplished.³⁷³ But such an act of faith must go through a mysterious death to self, for a new "birth from above" under the influence of divine grace.³⁷⁴ Such a demand for conversion in the face of so surprising a fulfillment of the promises³⁷⁵ allows one to understand the Sanhedrin's tragic misunderstanding of Jesus: they judged that he deserved the death sentence as a blasphemer.³⁷⁶ The members of the Sanhedrin were thus acting at the same time out of "ignorance" and the "hardness" of their "unbelief".³⁷⁷

^{Did a Jew write these entries on Jesus giving scandal? The way the} entries are written - to absolve the Jews of being culpable of Deicide - raise that legitimate question.

Advancing exculpatory arguments of behalf of the Devils of Deicide is decidedly diabolical and such attempts bespeak a real tragedy - the Judaising of Tradition on the part of modernists and their progeny, The New Theologians.

The New Testament is suffused with examples countering these abominations and so let IANS just reference a few of them from the Gospel of Saint Matthew (he wrote in Hebrew) with sections from the great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide which puts the lie to the execrable entries of the Catechism.

matt 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not.

Verse 5. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the gentiles (the Syriac has, “of the profane”), and into the city (the Vulgate translator reads πόλεις, in civitates, “into the cities,” but now the accepted reading is εις πόλιν, in civitatem [singular], meaning “into the cities” or “into any city” by a change of grammatical number) of the Samaritans enter ye not.

Verse 6. But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.—Into the way of the gentiles means “to the gentiles”, since the way of the gentiles leads to the gentiles. This is a Hebrew catachresis and metalepsis. Jeremias 2:18 has a similar figure of speech: And now what hast thou to do in the way of Egypt? That is, “why art thou going into Egypt, why askest thou help from the Egyptians?”

This is the first precept that Christ gives to His Apostles while sending them forth to preach. He bids them go, not to the gentiles or the Samaritans, but to the Jews. The real reason was that Christ wanted His coming and His gospel to be preached first to the Jews. They were the children of the kingdom, and sons of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc., to whom God had promised the Messias, that is, Christ. For otherwise, the Jews might have taken exception against Christ and the Apostles, and said, “Thou art not the true Messias, for thou preachest the gospel to the gentiles and Samaritans. Our Messias was promised by the prophets to the Jews, not to the gentiles.” This precept, however, was only temporary. It only lasted during the life of Christ on earth. After His passion and resurrection Christ sent His Apostles to evangelize the nations throughout the whole world. Then was taken away the distinction between Jews and gentiles, and of both there was made one Fold and one Shepherd, as is plain in Matthew 28:19 and Acts 1:8. So S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and others, passim. This idea is expressed by S. Paul: For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision [i.e., of the circumcised, the Jews] for the truth of God to confirm the promises made unto the fathers (Rom. 15:8).

Verse 7. And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. This is the second and the chief command of Christ to His Apostles, to wit, that they should traverse Judea, and preach the kingdom of heaven, and invite, yea compel men to come into it. It was as though Christ said, “In a short time I will, by My death, open heaven to men, which has been shut for so many thousands of years by Adam’s sin, and I will open the entrance to it. Invite all, therefore, to take this way, courageously, trampling down earthly desires, so that they may enter into and gain the kingdom of heaven.” (See commentary at 3:2 and 4:17.) This was the sum and substance of the preaching of Christ and the Apostles, which includes the preaching of repentance and of renouncing vices and all things that hold them back from the kingdom of heaven or hinder them. That was the purpose of this proclamation, that the time was drawing near for the kingdom of heaven to be bestowed, and it would shortly be fulfilled. With what alacrity and diligence, then, each and every one ought to prepare himself to obtain the grace of this heavenly kingdom which is now offered; and what a severe penalty awaits those who would refuse such a great grace or neglect it. Thus Jansen.

Verse 31. Therefore, I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the spirit shall not be forgiven. The word spirit is in the genitive case, as is plain from the Greek πνεύµατος. The blasphemy of the Spirit, therefore, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Hence the Arabic translates, “Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit;” Syriac, “Blasphemy against the Spirit of holiness.”

You will ask, what is this blasphemy? 1. Philastrius (in haeresi Rethorii) thinks it is heresy, especially that of Eunomius, who denied that the Holy Ghost is God. Thus also S. Ambrose (lib. 1 de Spiritu Sancto cap. 3) and Epiphanius (haeresi 50).

2. S. Hilary thinks that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is when a man denies that Christ is God. “The sin against the Holy Ghost,” he says, “is to deny to God the power of virtue, and to take away from Christ His eternal substance, by which, because God came into man, man in turn shall be made into God; since God grants pardon to all other things, whilst this only is without forgiveness.”

3. S. Ambrose (lib. 2 de Poenitentia c. 4) thinks it is schism; also simony, the sin whereby, for example, Simon Magus wished to purchase the Holy Spirit from S. Peter with money (Acts 8).

4. Origen says it is every mortal sin after baptism; committed, that is, after the grace of the Holy Spirit received in baptism. Moreover, Pope Gelasius (de Anathematis Vinculo) understands “sinners who are not forgiven, either in this world, or in the world to come” to mean only those who remain sinners and do not wish to come to their senses. For He says, that man makes the sentence against himself irrevocable, who wills to continue in such a state that he truly cannot be forgiven.

5. S. Cyprian (lib. 3 ad Quirinum n. 28) says, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is every sin committed against God: but blasphemy against the Son of man is every sin perpetrated against man.

6. The same S. Cyprian (lib. 3 epist. 14) thinks blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is denial of the Faith in persecution.

7. Richard of S. Victor says (tract. de Blasphemia in Spiritum Sanctum), it is to hate and revile God. I have compiled and summarized eighteen expositions of the fathers (to wit, eleven of the Latin fathers and seven of the Greek) in the foregoing paragraphs; they are listed in small print by Toletus at note 17 of his commentary on Luke 12; I have already mentioned seven of them.

Lastly, theologians (and following them, catechists) out of various expositions of S. Augustine, collect six sins against the Holy Ghost; namely, presumption, despair, striving against known truth, envy of fraternal charity, impenitence, and obstinacy. They say that these are called sins against the Holy Ghost, because they are committed through certain malice against the goodness of God, which is attributed to the Holy Ghost. Thus, likewise, sins which are committed through infirmity are said to be done against God the Father, because power is appropriated to Him. And sins which are done out of ignorance, are said to be done against the Son, because to Him is appropriated wisdom. These things are true, but they do not harmonize with this passage and are impertinent.

Note, therefore, that Christ is here speaking not of every sin against the Holy Ghost, but only of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which is committed by words (nevertheless the same reasoning will apply to thoughts and actions), as when anyone reviles works manifestly divine and miraculous, holy and loving deeds of God, which He performs for the salvation of men, by which He confirms faith and truth. Such a work is the casting out of devils; and because such works proceed from the goodness and holiness of God, they are attributed to the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son by procession and spiration, as love, goodness, and holiness. When, therefore, anyone calumniates such things, and knowingly out of malice ascribes them to an unclean spirit (as these Pharisees did), he is said to commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; for such an one directly fights against God and takes from Him His holiness and purity, which are appropriated to the Holy Spirit, and thus makes a devil out of God.

We have already seen in the universal Catechism that the Catholic Church judged Jesus guilty of giving scandal - a mortal sin - and yet we read in Holy Writ how it was that Jesus was careful about not giving or causing scandal...



Matthew 17; But that we may not scandalize them.....


Our new theologians have been nothing if not loathe to judge sodomites as serious sinners but when it comes to Our Lord and Saviour, Our Creator, Redeemer, and Saviour?


Twice, they judge him Guilty of giving scandal.


It is no wonder He has withdrawn His grace from these phonies and frauds.


Who in their right mind could have approved such heresy as authentic Doctrine.*


*  Believe me, I not only know what I am writing, I also am very aware of potential objections to my frank judgment of their judgment of Jesus and I anticipate a particular objection that the Universal Catechism did not advance as an exculpatory escape for Jesus.


The first time I read the Universal Catechism I threw it on the floor cursing when I got to this part.

Layman needing help over here, Boss.


I was reading the Gospel of Luke today...


Luke 18: And he said to his disciples; It is impossible that scandals should not come; but woe to him through whom they come.


and I recalled the long existing (since its promulgation) objection I have to the Universal Catechism:


588 Jesus scandalized the Pharisees by eating with tax collectors and sinners as familiarly as with themselves.³⁶⁴ Against those among them "who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others", Jesus affirmed: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."³⁶⁵ He went further by proclaiming before the Pharisees that, since sin is universal, those who pretend not to need salvation are blind to themselves.³⁶⁶

589 Jesus gave scandal above all when he identified his merciful conduct toward sinners with God's own attitude toward them.³⁶⁷ He went so far as to hint that by sharing the table of sinners he was admitting them to the messianic banquet.³⁶⁸ But it was most especially by forgiving sins that Jesus placed the religious authorities of Israel on the horns of a dilemma.  Were they not entitled to demand in consternation, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?"³⁶⁹ By forgiving sins Jesus either is blaspheming as a man who made himself God's equal, or is speaking the truth and his person really does make present and reveal God's name.³⁷⁰


It has been more'n a year since I wrote the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith seeking a rewrite of these Catechism entries without having had a response.


^{But that unresponsiveness will not stop IANS.} 


^{The Catholic Catechism and The Catholic Magisterium has scandalised IANS and what they teach about Jesus is rank heresy that must not be allowed to stand for as it now stands, the Catholic Church has falsely accused Jesus of causing scandal whereas He says woe to he who causes scandal.}


^{I tell ya, the New Theologians - progeny of the Modernists - are without shame and their scandalous theology is redolent of sulphur.}