St. Cardinal John Henry Newman to be made a Doctor of the Church

Lead, Kindly Light by John Henry Newman (1834) Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom, Lead Thou me on; The night is dark, and I am far from home, Lead Thou me on. Keep Thou my feet; I do not ask to see the distant scene; one step enough for me. I was not ever thus, nor prayed that Thou shouldst lead me on; I loved to choose and see my path; but now Lead Thou me on. I loved the garish day, and, spite of fears, pride ruled my will; remember not past years. So long Thy power hath blessed me, sure it still Will lead me on. O'er moor and fen, o'er crag and torrent, till The night is gone; And with the morn those angel faces smile, Which I have loved long since, and lost awhile. Fr. Juan Velez has written (2025): https://www.cardinaljohnhenrynewman.com/st-john-henry-newman-to-be-declared-a-doctor-of-the-church/ St. John Henry Newman to be Declared a Doctor of the Church Today, July 31, 2025, the Vatican published the wonderful news that Pope Leo XIV has approved the future declaration of St. John Henry Newman as doctor of the Church. We are delighted with this news and wanted to share with you even if you learned about it earlier today. We have already posted some blog posts on this topic and will soon publish others. Today we wanted to share the news with you and ask to invite friends to give thanks to God for this news and to follow our weekly podcasts. Here is a link to the news from the Vatican webpage and some words by the journalist Alexandro Carolis: “One of the great modern thinkers of Christianity, a key figure in a spiritual and human journey that left a profound mark on the Church and 19th-century ecumenism, and the author of writings that show how living the faith is a daily “heart-to-heart” dialogue with Christ. A life spent with energy and passion for the Gospel—culminating in his canonization in 2019—that will soon lead to the English cardinal John Henry Newman being proclaimed a Doctor of the Church. The news was announced today, July 31, in a statement from the Holy See Press Office, which reported that during an audience granted to Cardinal Marcello Semeraro, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, Pope Leo XIV has “confirmed the affirmative opinion of the Plenary Session of Cardinals and Bishops, Members of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, regarding the title of Doctor of the Universal Church, which will soon be conferred on Saint John Henry Newman”. The saints give glory to God and teach us how to live as God’s children. We rejoice with the upcoming declaration of Newman as doctor of the Church. …. We read this by Dr. Samuel Gregg, at: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/07/31/john-henry-newmans-long-war-on-liberalism/ John Henry Newman’s long war on liberalism Saint John Henry Newman’s devastating critique of liberal religion remains even more relevant in our own time. Editor’s note: This article was originally posted on July 30, 2017, and is reposted today to mark the news that Newman has been named a Doctor of the Church by Pope Leo XIV. There is truly nothing new under the sun. That’s the pedestrian conclusion at which I arrived after recently re-reading the address given by one of the nineteenth century’s greatest theologians, Saint John Henry Newman, when Pope Leo XIII made him a cardinal on May 12, 1879. Known as the Biglietto Speech (after the formal letter given to cardinals on such occasions), its 1720 words constitute a systematic indictment of what Newman called that “one great mischief” against which he had set his face “from the first.” Today, I suspect, the sheer force of Newman’s critique of what he called “liberalism in religion” would make him persona non grata in most Northern European theology faculties. When reflecting upon Newman’s remarks, it’s hard not to notice how much of the Christian world in the West has drifted in the directions against which he warned. Under the banner of “liberalism in religion,” Newman listed several propositions. These included (1) “the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion,” (2) “that one creed is as good as another,” (3) that no religion can be recognized as true for “all are matter of opinion,” (4) that “revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective faith, not miraculous,” and (5) “it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy.” Can anyone doubt that such ideas are widespread today among some Christians? Exhibit A is the rapidly collapsing liberal Protestant confessions. Another instance is that a fair number of Catholic clergy and laity of a certain age who shy away from the word “truth” and who regard any doctrine that conflicts with the post-1960s Western world’s expectations as far from settled. Yet Newman’s description of liberal religion also accurately summarizes the essentially secular I’m-spiritual-not-religious mindset. At the time, the directness of Newman’s assault on liberal religion surprised people. It wasn’t for idle reasons that the speech was reprinted in full in The London Times on 13 May, and then translated into Italian so that it could appear in the Holy See’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano on 14 May. Everyone recognized that Newman’s words were of immense significance. The newly minted cardinal had hitherto been seen as someone ill at ease with the Church’s direction during Pius IX’s pontificate. Newman’s apprehensions about the opportuneness of the First Vatican Council formally defining papal infallibility was well known. Not well-understood was that concerns about Catholics being misled into thinking they must assent to a pope’s firm belief that, for example, the optimal upper-tax rate is 25.63 percent, didn’t mean that you regarded religious belief as a type of theological smorgasbord. Those who had followed the trajectory of Newman’s thought over the previous fifty years would have recognized that the Biglietto Speech harkened back to a younger Newman and a consistent record of fierce opposition to liberal religion. In 1848, for instance, Newman had lampooned liberal religion in his novel Loss and Gain (1848). One character in the book, the Dean of Nottingham, is portrayed as someone who believes that “there was no truth or falsehood in received dogmas of theology; that they were modes, neither good nor bad in themselves, but personal, national, or periodic.” Such opinions mirror the views of those today who primarily regard Scripture, the Church, and Christian faith as essentially human historical constructs: a notion that invariably goes hand-in-hand with a barely disguised insistence that the Church always requires wholesale adaptation to whatever happens to be the zeitgeist. The end result is chronic doctrinal instability (and thus incoherence) and the degeneration of churches into mere NGO-ism: precisely the situation which characterizes contemporary Catholicism in the German-speaking world. Another of the novel’s characters is Mr. Batts, the director of the Truth Society. This organization is founded on two principles. First, it is uncertain whether truth exists. Second, it is certain that it cannot be found. Welcome to the world of philosophical skepticism, which, Newman understood, is based on the contradiction of holding that we know the truth that humans really cannot know truth. Newman’s antagonism towards liberal religion, however, also reflected another side of his thought that, I suspect, some today would also prefer to ignore. This concerns Newman’s critical view of liberalism as a social philosophy. Newman was fully aware of the ambiguity surrounding terms like “conservatism” and “liberalism.” In his Apologia Pro Sua Vita (1864), Newman specified that his criticism of liberalism shouldn’t be interpreted as slighting French Catholics such as Charles de Montalembert and the Dominican priest Henri-Dominique Lacordaire—“two men whom I so highly admire”—who embraced the liberal label but in the context of post-Revolutionary France: a world which differed greatly from the Oxford and England of Newman’s time. We get closer to the “liberalism” against which Newman protested when we consider a letter to his mother dated 13 March 1829. Here Newman condemns, among others, “the Utilitarians” and “useful knowledge men” whose ideas were propagated by philosophical Radical periodicals such as the Westminster Review. These beliefs and publications were clearly associated with utilitarian thinkers and political radicals such as Jeremy Bentham (the Westminster Review’s founder), James Mill, and, later, John Stuart Mill. In this sense, liberalism was Newman’s way of describing what we today call doctrinaire secularism. This is borne out by the Biglietto Speech’s portrayal of a society’s fate as it gradually abandons its Christian character, invariably at the behest of those Newman calls “Philosophers and Politicians.” Newman begins by referencing their imposition of “a universal and a thoroughly secular education, calculated to bring home to every individual that to be orderly, industrious, and sober, is his personal interest.” Recognizing, however, that utility, pragmatism, and self-interest aren’t enough to glue society together, liberals promote, according to Newman, an alternative to revealed religion. This, he says, is made up of an amalgam of “broad fundamental ethical truths, of justice, benevolence, veracity, and the like; proved experience; and those natural laws which exist and act spontaneously in society, and in social matters, whether physical or psychological; for instance, in government, trade, finance, sanitary experiments, and the intercourse of nations.” But while liberals uphold this mixture of particular moral principles, matter-of-factness and science, Newman points out that they simultaneously insist that religion is “a private luxury, which a man may have if he will; but which of course he must pay for, and which he must not obtrude upon others, or indulge in to their annoyance.” It’s not, Newman says, that things like “the precepts of justice, truthfulness, sobriety, self-command, benevolence,” etc. are bad in themselves. In fact, Newman adds, “there is much in the liberalistic theory which is good and true.” Nor did Newman adopt an “anti-science” view at a time when some Christians worried about how to reconcile the Scriptures with the tremendous expansion in knowledge of the natural world which marked the nineteenth century. Newman wasn’t, for example, especially troubled by Darwin’s Origin of the Species. As he wrote to the biologist and Catholic convert St George Jackson Mivart in 1871, “you must not suppose I have personally any great dislike or dread of his theory.” What Newman opposed was a problem with which we are all too familiar today. This consists of (1) absolutizing the natural sciences as the only objective form of knowledge and (2) using the empirical method to answer theological and moral questions that the natural sciences cannot answer. In such cases, Newman wrote in his Idea of a University (1852), “they exceed their proper bounds, and intrude where they have no right.” It also fosters a mentality which has seeped into the minds of those Christians who prioritize sociology, psychology, opinion polls, and what they imagine to be the “established scientific position” when discussing what the Catholic position on any subject should be. More generally, Newman argued that it’s precisely because these principles are unobjectionable in themselves that they become dangerous when liberals include them in the “array of principles” they use “to supersede, to block out, religion.” In these circumstances, those who maintain that religion, in the sense of divinely revealed truths about God and man, cannot be relegated to the status of football teams competing in a private league are dismissed as unreasonable, intolerant, lacking benevolence, unscientific, and reflective of (to use the curious words employed in a L’Osservatore Romano opinion piece) a “modest cultural level.” In a word—illiberal. Newman well understood the ultimate stakes involved in the advance of liberal religion and the nihilism it concealed under a veneer of progressive Western European bourgeois morality. It was nothing less, he said, than “the ruin of many souls.” For Newman, there was always the serious possibility that error at the level of belief can contribute to people making the type of free choices that lead to the eternal separation from God we call hell. The good news is that Newman had “no fear at all that [liberal religion] can really do aught of serious harm to the Word of God, to Holy Church.” For Newman, the Church was essentially indestructible. That didn’t mean it would be free of disputation or disruption. Newman himself spent his life immersed in theological controversies. But Newman’s deep knowledge of the Church Fathers made him conscious that orthodoxy had been under assault since Christianity’s earliest centuries. Newman believed, however, in Christ’s promises to his Church. Moreover, Newman ended his Biglietto Speech by stating that “what is commonly a great surprise” is “the particular mode by which . . . Providence rescues and saves his elect inheritance.” Even in times where serious theological and moral error seems rampant, God raises up courageous bishops and priests, clear-thinking popes, new religious orders and movements, lay people who reject liberal Christianity’s mediocrity and soft nihilism, and, above all, great saints and martyrs. Against such things, Newman knew—and we should have confidence—liberal religion doesn’t have a chance.

Mithras myth, since probably based on Jesus, could not have influenced Christianity

by Damien F. Mackey “Much of what is presumed about Mithras comes from ancient, caption-less pictures and murals, so the vast majority of scholarly work on Mithras is pure speculation.” Bruce Cooper Unsurprisingly, after the extraordinary life of Jesus Christ on earth, there emerged mythological or semi-fictitious figures whose stories were based on Him. One of the most celebrated of these was Apollonius of Tyana of whom I have written: Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction (6) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction To the emperor Vespasian, a genuine historical person, there were fitted legends that clearly borrowed from the earlier Jesus Christ: Vespasian ‘becoming a god’ (6) Vespasian 'becoming a god' “Now, here we have Vespasian, a late contemporary of Jesus Christ by any estimate, and afflicted with dysentery no less, being re-cast by modern writers as a miracle-working messiah from whose life the Evangelists supposedly compiled their respective portraits of the true Messiah, Jesus Christ”. Even an early fictitious entity, such as: Buddha partly based on Moses (6) Buddha partly based on Moses had Gospel elements added to his evolving story. Thus, as listed by Bashir Ahmad Orchard (1990): https://www.alislam.org/articles/buddha-jesus/ 1. Jesus was born of a virgin without carnal intercourse. (Matth. Chapter 1) – Buddha was born of a virgin without carnal intercourse. (Hinduism by Williams, pp. 82 and 108) 2. When Jesus was an infant in his cradle, he spoke to his mother and said: I am Jesus, the son of God. (Gospel of Infancy) – When Buddha was an infant, just born, he spoke to his mother and said: I am the greatest among men. (Hardy’s Manual of Buddhism, pp. 145-6) 3. The life of Jesus was threatened by King Herod. (Matth. 2:1) – The life of Buddha was threatened by King Bimbarasa. (History of Buddha by Beal pp. 103-104) 4. When Jesus was a young boy we are told that the learned religious teachers were astonished at his understanding and answers. (Luke 2:47) – When sent to school, the young Buddha surprised his masters. (Hardy’s Manual of Buddhism) 5. Jesus fasted for forty days and nights. (Matth. 4:2) – Buddha fasted for a long period. (Science of Religion by Muller, p 28) 6. It is believed that Jesus will return to this world. (Acts 1:11) – It is believed that Buddha will return to this world. (Angel-Messiah by Bunsen, Ch. 14) 7. Jesus said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not to destroy but to fulfill. (Matth. 5:17) – Buddha came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it. (Science of Religion by Muller, p 140) 8. Jesus taught: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you. (Matth. 5:44) – According to Buddha, the motive of all our actions should be pity, or love for our neighbour. (Science of Religion by Muller, p 249) 9. It is recorded certain of the scribes and pharisees answered, saying, Master we would see a sign from thee. (Matth. 12:38) – It is recorded in the Sacred Canon of the Buddhists that the multitude required a sign from Buddha that they might believe. (Science of Religion by Muller, p 27) 10. It is written in the New Testament that Jesus said: If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and caste it from thee. (Matth. 5:29) – A story is related of a Buddhist ascetic whose eye offended him so he plucked it out and threw it away. (Science of Religion by Muller, p 245) Mohammed follows the same pattern. Essentially arising from the Old Testament, he will ascend into Heaven from Jerusalem (and so on) as Jesus did at the end of his earthly life. On the archaeologico-historical falsity of, not only Mohammed, but also the early Caliphates, see e.g. my article: Let’s not rush into accepting the rash tradition of Islamic Rashidun imperial conquest (6) Let’s not rush into accepting the rash tradition of Islamic Rashidun imperial conquest Mithras (Mithra), a complete fiction like Apollonius of Tyana, is yet supposed by some to have influenced Jesus Christ and the Gospels, as is said of the real Vespasian (2017). Bruce Cooper has well written on this erroneous state of affairs: https://bcooper.ca/2017/10/06/the-roman-god-mithras/ The Roman God Mithras I’ve been listening to a podcast with J. Warner and Susie Wallace where they are discussing why it is that young people are leaving the church. You can listen to it here. I do encourage you to listen to it because it will give you a better appreciation of the repost below and what both Jim and Susie are talking about, the need for evidential facts that support Christianity to be available for our youth, is a reality that cannot be over emphasized. Not only is the need urgent for our youth but in fact, for every Christian, regardless of their age. In the podcast Jim speaks about how a young Christian reacted when she was basically setup by an Atheist that had been invited to speak to their group. The setup had to do with the “supposed” background similarity of the Roman/Persian god Mithras and Jesus. As Jim indicates in the podcast, this “similarity” in background is very prevalent on the Internet and the repost below is an excellent example of why it is necessary to do your homework. ________________________________________ Is Jesus Simply a Retelling of the Mithras Mythology? …. Jesus “mythers” claim Mithras was born of a virgin, in a cave, on December 25th, and his birth was attended by shepherds. Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master. He had twelve companions (or disciples) and promised his followers immortality. Mithras performed miracles and sacrificed himself for world peace. He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again. His followers celebrated this event each year at the time of Mithras’ resurrection (and this date later became “Easter”). Mithras was called the “Good Shepherd,” was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion, and was considered to be the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” the “Logos,” the “Redeemer,” the “Savior” and the “Messiah.” His followers celebrated Sunday as His sacred day (also known as the “Lord’s Day,”) and they celebrated a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper”. Mithras, by this description, sounds a lot like Jesus doesn’t he? Most young Christians discover claims such as these while surfing the Internet or sitting in classes as university students. Atheists like Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald have written extensively about such comparisons. But while there are a number of pre-Christian mythologies with dying saviors, none are similar to Jesus in any significant way, including the Mithraic mystery religions of Persia and Rome. A significant portion of what we just described about Mithras is simply false. There are two distinct and non-continuous traditions related to Mithras, one coming out of the areas of India and Iran, and another, centuries later in Roman times. Many skeptics have struggled to try to connect these as one continuous tradition, and in so doing, have distorted or misinterpreted the basic elements of the tradition and mythology. Much of what is presumed about Mithras comes from ancient, caption-less pictures and murals, so the vast majority of scholarly work on Mithras is pure speculation. Let’s take a look at the claims we have already described and separate truth from fiction (for another examination of Mithras and many other alleged Christian precursors, please visit David Anderson’s excellent website(currently non-functional). I’ve also done much research on Mithras from the texts listed at the end of this blog post): Claim: Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds Truth: Mithras was actually born out of solid rock, leaving a hole in the side of a mountain (presumably described as a “cave”). He was not born of a virgin (unless you consider the rock mountain to have been a virgin). His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but the first Christians knew this was not the true date of Christ’s birth anyway, and both Mithraic worshippers and the early Roman Church borrowed this celebration from earlier winter solstice celebrations. Shepherds are part of Mithraism, witnessing his birth and helping Mithras emerge from the rock, but interestingly, the shepherds exist in the birth chronology at a time when humans are not supposed to have been yet born. This, coupled with the fact the earliest version of this part of the Mithraic mythology emerges one hundred years after the appearance of the New Testament, infers it is far more likely this portion of Mithraism was borrowed from Christianity rather than the other way around. Claim: Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master Truth: There is nothing in the Mithraic tradition indicating he was a teacher of any kind, but he was could have been considered a master of sorts. This would not be unexpected of any deity, however. Most mythologies describe their gods in this way. Claim: Mithras had 12 companions or disciples Truth: There is no evidence for any of this in the traditions of Iran or Rome. It is possible the idea Mithras had 12 disciples is simply derived from murals in which Mithras is surrounded by twelve signs and personages of the Zodiac (two of whom are the moon and the sun). Even this imagery is post Christian, and, therefore, did not contribute to the imagery of Christianity (although it could certainly have borrowed from Christianity). Claim: Mithras promised his followers immortality Truth: While there is little evidence for this, it is certainly reasonable to think Mithras might have offered immortality, as this is not uncommon for any God of mythology. Claim: Mithras performed miracles Truth: Of course this is true, as this too was not uncommon for mythological characters. Claim: Mithras sacrificed himself for world peace Truth: There is little or no evidence this is true, although there is a story about Mithras slaying a threatening bull in a heroic deed. But that’s about as close as it gets. Claim: Mithras was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again, and Mithras was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter) Truth: There is nothing in the Mithraic tradition indicating he ever even died, let alone resurrected. Tertullian did write about Mithraic believers re-enacting resurrection scenes, but he wrote about this occurring well after New Testament times. Christianity could not, therefore, have borrowed from Mithraic traditions, but the opposite could certainly be true. Claim: Mithras was called “the Good Shepherd”, and was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion Truth: There is no evidence that Mithras was ever called “the Good Shepherd” or identified with a lamb, but since Mithras was a sun-god, there was an association with Leo (the House of the Sun in Babylonian astrology), so one might say he was associated with a Lion. But once again, all of this evidence is actually post New Testament; Mithraic believers may once again have borrowed this attribute from Christianity. Claim: Mithras was considered to be the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.” Truth: Based on the researched and known historic record of the Mithraic traditions, none of these terms has ever been applied to Mithras with the exception of “mediator”. But this term was used in a very different from how Christians used the term. Mithras was not the mediator between God and man but the mediator between the good and evil gods of Zoroaster. Claim: Mithraic believers celebrated Sunday as Mithras’ sacred day (also known as the “Lord’s Day,”) Truth: This tradition of celebrating Sunday is only true of Mithraic believers in Rome and it is a tradition that dates to post Christian times. Once again, it is more likely to have been borrowed from Christianity than the other way around. Claim: Mithraic believers celebrated a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper” Truth: Followers of Mithras did not celebrate a Eucharist, but they did celebrate a fellowship meal regularly, just as did many other groups in the Roman world. From this quick examination of the Mithraic comparisons, it should be obvious Mithras isn’t much like Jesus after all. …. J. Warner Wallace is a Cold-Case Detective, a Christian Case Maker, and the author of Cold-Case Christianity and ALIVE

Noah and Jonah - not merely didactic fiction

“Despites Jonah’s own views on the subject, it is love that stands at the center of the eponymous Book of Jonah. It explains that God cares about every living being, and doesn’t want another flood. When Jonah continues to protest God’s mercy even after the people of Nineveh repent, God responds by saying: “should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people … and also many animals?” (Jonah 4:11). It is with these words that the book ends”. Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz While one is free to form one’s own opinion about Noah and Jonah, it always strikes me (Damien Mackey) as surpassing strange when a Catholic priest denies their reality. These, as followers of Jesus Christ, in whose divinity they would be expected to believe, are rejecting as real two biblical characters about whose existence Jesus had no doubts whatsoever, he even selecting the Jonah incident as the only sign that he would provide for his own Resurrection from the dead (Matthew 12:39): “He answered, ‘A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah’.” I once criticised a Dominican priest, for instance, who had claimed in a sermon that The Book of Jonah was “didactic fiction”, that is, a fictitious non-history whose intended purpose is to teach a moral or ethical lesson. * * * * * Kitty Foth-Regner here will likewise insist on the historicity of Jonah and Noah (2020): https://www.everlastingplace.com/eternal-eyes-a-blog-about-forever/were-noah-and-jonah-fictitious-what-difference-does-it-make Were Noah and Jonah fictitious? What difference does it make? …. An old friend of mine recently said she’d been taught that the Bible’s accounts of Noah and Jonah are merely parables that never happened. Is that so? And does it really matter? In a nutshell: No, and quite possibly. These are both historical accounts—real history. And yes indeed, our take on these accounts could have implications for where we each will spend eternity. So let’s take a closer look. (For a deep dive, you’ll need to do some research. Here’s a good place to start.) What does the Bible say? First of all, how does the Bible itself treat these accounts? Fact is, both are verified multiple times throughout both Old and New Testaments. For instance, check out Jesus’ confirmation of the historicity of Jonah in Matthew 12, and of Noah in Luke 17. Yes, many of us have been taught since childhood that Noah and Jonah were just stories designed to teach us--well, something or other. But were our teachers eye-witnesses to these events? Were they more reliable truth-tellers than the Bible’s writers? Than Jesus? Second, to quote virtually every unbeliever since Pontius Pilate, what is truth? I know the accounts of Noah and Jonah sound like science fiction to skeptics. But are they? Or are they simply demonstrations of the supernatural power of the God who created the universe and everything in it? Does “goo to the zoo to you” make more sense? Are supernatural explanations more fantastic than the “goo to the zoo to you” stories we’ve been spoon-fed since childhood? Think about it: We’ve been taught ad nauseam that evolution is fact. But dig into the subject even superficially, and we find that the evidence does not support this theory, that it instead points straight to the supernatural. As a starting point, think back to what we've been told about the origins of this universe, when “nothing that was something” allegedly exploded into “everything.” Where did all that “nothing that was something” come from? What caused it to explode? Where did the space it occupied come from? And how about time--where'd that come from? There is in fact no evidence that would support, via natural mechanisms, the sudden appearance of space, matter, energy and time. There are not even any credible theories being bandied about. Instead, evolutionists pull the “ignore the man behind the curtain” bait-and-switch to turn our attention to fossils (which in truth prove precisely nothing, but that's another subject entirely). Are Noah and Jonah really so outlandish? Now let’s apply our critical thinking skills to these supposedly fictitious Old Testament “stories.” Take the Genesis account of Noah and the global flood, for instance: What is so fantastic about that? We see the geological evidence of it everywhere. Look at aerial photos of the Grand Canyon, and consider what makes more sense – that the “mighty” Colorado River carved the whole thing out, or an enormous flood? (Note that the world’s real-life Chicken Littles are warning us of global catastrophe due to gas-ridden cows and plastic straws, and heads of state worldwide somehow find that perfectly reasonable. But not the Genesis flood.) Damien Mackey’s comment: Conservative biblical apologists may not be helping the situation by insisting upon a global Flood, because: Bible may not seem to favour the concept of a global Flood (10) Bible may not seem to favour the concept of a global Flood and Noah preparing an Ark full of, not only every type of animal, but dinosaurs as well! Kitty Foth-Regner continues: Or leap over to the book of Jonah. Is it really impossible for a man to be swallowed by a great fish and survive for three days? Certainly not when the Creator of the universe is in charge; Jesus Himself said, “With God, all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). To be sure, there are stories out there of modern-day Jonahs being swallowed by whales. I don’t know that any have been confirmed, however. Damien Mackey’s comment: February 2025: https://www.escape.com.au/destinations/south-america/horrifying-video-captures-kayaker-being-swallowed-by-humpback-whale-in-chile/news- Horrifying video captures kayaker being swallowed by humpback whale in Chile A kayaking trip took a shocking turn when a humpback whale swallowed a paddler, with the terrifying moment caught on camera. Watch the video. Adella Beaini A kayaker in Chilean Patagonia had a heart-stopping encounter when a humpback whale briefly swallowed him before swiftly spitting him back out. The incredible moment was captured on camera and has quickly gone viral on social media. Last Saturday, Adrián Simancas was paddling alongside his father, Dell, in Bahía El Águila near the San Isidro Lighthouse in the Strait of Magellan when a massive humpback whale suddenly surfaced. In an instant, the whale engulfed Adrián and his bright yellow kayak, holding him for a few seconds before releasing him unharmed. Kitty Foth-Regner continues: Most likely, Jonah’s experience was a one-time supernatural event. Do one-time events need subsequent repetition to be proven true? If so, then hmmmm, how come all those evolutionary scientists are still trusting in the Big Bang theory? What's the problem? The trouble is that skeptics insist on trying to assign natural causes to supernatural events. That’s simply not necessary when the miraculous is not only possible, but in evidence everywhere we look. For proof, check out your children and grandchildren. How did those eyes evolve, one step at a time? How did their circulatory systems come to be, bit by bit? How about their immune systems? Their ears? GI systems? Brains? Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Poof! …. Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz has written (2022): https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/352682/noah-jonah-and-life-after-catastrophe/ Noah, Jonah, and Life After Catastrophe The stories of Jonah and Noah are deeply intertwined. The stories of Jonah and Noah are deeply intertwined. The very name “Jonah” itself suggests a link; the Hebrew word for Jonah is “Yonah,” or dove, which is the type of bird that Noah sent out of the ark to see whether the flood was over. Thematically, there are contrasts and parallels. Noah is commanded by God to take refuge in a boat, as protection from God’s wrath; Jonah defies God’s command, by fleeing in a boat from God’s mercy. There are multiple other similarities, including how characters offer sacrifices after being saved, the counting of forty days to destruction, and how gardening takes center stage at the end of the story. It is clear that the Book of Jonah is meant to be read with the story of Noah in mind. What is the meaning of these literary connections? At first glance, Jonah is the anti-Noah. Noah is devout, while Jonah flees God’s calling; Jonah is even willing to sacrifice his life to defy God. Noah saves a remnant of the world from destruction, and although Jonah does save Nineveh in the end, he makes it clear that he would prefer Nineveh to be destroyed. Noah saves a menagerie of living beings by bringing them on his ark, while Jonah endangers an entire boat with his presence; the boat is safe only after Jonah is cast into the sea. Jonah could be dismissed as a rogue prophet who has turned his back on God and man. And the Book of Jonah is merely a repetition of the story of Noah, a reminder that the way of destruction is not the way of God. This interpretation misunderstands Jonah’s motives. Jonah is actually a prophet of justice who finds inspiration in the story of the flood, when a world of wickedness was washed away. Jonah is principled in his desire to punish the evil-doers and segregate the righteous from the unworthy. The flood, he believes, is the best blueprint for a human future. But Jonah is not a reactionary who conveniently forgets the end of the flood story; he knows that after the flood God promises that “never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood,” and designates the rainbow as the symbol that “never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.” However, Jonah understands this divine promise as a concession to reality, a pragmatic necessity, to prevent the world from being destroyed on a regular basis. As Don Isaac Abravanel puts it, without God’s forbearance, “it would be necessary to have a flood every year, even perhaps every month,” due to humanity’s sins. God’s covenant of the rainbow does not undermine the importance of justice. Damien Mackey’s comment: Regarding Abravanel, see my article: Is “Savonarola” worth canonising? (11) Is “Savonarola” worth canonising? Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz continues: Jonah offers a clear answer to one of the most difficult questions in the Noah narrative: what was the purpose of the flood? God sent the flood because “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). Yet, after the flood, the Torah explains that the reason why there will never be another flood is because “every inclination of the human heart is evil” (Genesis 8:24). The identical rationale is given for why God brought the flood, and why He promises never to repeat the flood. If humanity is equally evil both before and after the flood, what exactly did the flood accomplish? Jonah would answer that the flood is a constant reminder to humanity that we are fundamentally unworthy. Even if God can’t destroy the world again, we need to recognize that this is merely a loophole, letting humanity off the hook from a punishment they actually deserve. …. This is why Jonah finds God’s command to save Nineveh both unbelievable and unpalatable. Why save the wicked from destruction? If it weren’t for technical problems, destruction would and should be the norm. It is worth noting that Nineveh is built by Nimrod, the grandson of Ham, who is cursed and rejected by Noah. Jonah may be following in Noah’s footsteps by rejecting the wicked descendants of Ham, while at the same time fleeing to Tarshish, the descendent of Noah’s blessed son Jephet. Jonah can very well claim that he is carrying on Noah’s legacy, cursing the wicked while blessing the good. Despites Jonah’s own views on the subject, it is love that stands at the center of the eponymous Book of Jonah. It explains that God cares about every living being, and doesn’t want another flood. When Jonah continues to protest God’s mercy even after the people of Nineveh repent, God responds by saying: “should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people … and also many animals?” (Jonah 4:11). It is with these words that the book ends. …. The next article was written this year, 2025: https://www.harryfreedmanbooks.com/blog/what-do-jonah-and-noah-have-in-common/ What do Jonah and Noah have in Common? There is a remarkable correspondence between the biblical story of Noah and the Book of Jonah. The clue lies in the name Jonah, meaning dove in Hebrew. The dove, of course, is the bird that Noah sends out of the ark to discover whether the flood waters have dried out. But the connections between the two tales are far greater than just this. Noah is told by God that the world is about to be destroyed in a flood. He is commanded to build an ark to save himself, his family and the animal kingdom. He obeys the command, builds the ark and spends the next year peacefully floating above the flood. He is safe from the stormy waters. Jonah is told by God that Nineveh, the greatest city in the world, is to be destroyed. Even its animals will be wiped out. He is commanded to travel there and urge its inhabitants to repent. Unlike Noah he disobeys the command, runs to Jaffa and boards a boat. Unlike Noah, his time in the boat is not peaceful. The boat is buffeted by a storm, Jonah realises it is his fault and he is ejected into the water. The motifs of destruction, water, storms, boats and God’s command in the Noah story are reversed in the Jonah narrative. Jonah is swallowed by a great fish. A rabbinic midrash (Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer 10) says that a pearl in the fish gives him light. Noah is told to place a tzohar, translated as a light, into his ark. Another midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 31,11) explains it was a light emitting gem. The rabbinic commentaries seem to be drawing a parallel between the inside of the fish and the interior of the ark. According to the Midrash in Pirkei d’ Rabbi Eliezer, this is the third mission Jonah has been sent on (The first is recounted in the Second Book of Kings, 14,23). The dove in the Noah story is also sent out three times. After three days inside the fish, Jonah is spewed out onto dry land. He is about to conclude his third mission. The dove concludes its mission when it finds dry land. When Noah does reach Nineveh and delivers his message the king proclaims a public fast. Even the animals are to fast. They too will be saved, just as they are in Noah’s ark. These are just a few of the parallels and contradictions between the two stories. There are many more. The stories are also linked by common language, using the same Hebrew words in each narrative. In both stories God says that the people’s wickedness has come before me. In both the Noah and Jonah narratives God sends a ruah, a wind, to whip up the water. Noah’s rain falls for forty days. Jonah is told to proclaim to Nineveh that the city will be destroyed in forty days. God regrets making man. After the people of Nineveh repent he regrets his threat to destroy them. The question of course is why these stories seem to be connected. Did the author of Jonah want his readers to be reminded of Noah when they read the book? If so, why? Perhaps the solution lies in the plants. The dove completes its mission positively, showing Noah that the land is dry, by bringing him a leaf from an olive tree. Jonah completes his mission negatively, angry that after all his travails the city was not destroyed. He sits in the baking hot sun, hoping to die. When God makes a vine grow over him, he is glad. When the vine withers he becomes angry. God asks him why he pitied the vine but could not pity the city. The episode with the vine seems to symbolise Jonah’s petulance. Both the Noah and Jonah narratives demonstrate that the wicked will not prosper, that God has mastery over the world. Perhaps the author of the book of Jonah wants to remind his readers that the threatened destruction of Nineveh was not the only time that the wicked faced divine judgement. And uses the parables of the plants to show his readers that the humble obedience of the dove, performing his mission quietly and diligently, is preferable to the petulance of Jonah.

Megiddo Mosaïc documentary

“The fascinating mosaic presents groundbreaking physical evidence of the practices and beliefs of early Christians, including the first archaeological instance of the phrase ‘God Jesus Christ’.” Dr. Yotam Tepper https://www.museumofthebible.org/newsroom/a-new-documentary-explores-one-of-the-greatest-arc A New Documentary Explores One of the Greatest Archaeological Finds of the 21st Century the Megiddo Mosaic WASHINGTON, D.C., February 28, 2025 — Museum of the Bible announces their partnership with Angel Studios and Evolve Studios for the release of the documentary, “The Mosaic Church,” about the discovery of the 1,800-year-old Megiddo Mosaic in Megiddo, Israel. The documentary tells the story of the Megiddo Mosaic, a decorative floor of the oldest-known Christian worship space in history, dated to AD 230, located within a Roman military camp 15 miles southwest of Nazareth. The mosaic was discovered in an excavation by the Israel Antiquities Authority underneath a maximum-security prison and was conserved by the Israel Antiquities Authority in 2005. The mosaic made its world debut at Museum of the Bible in September 2024 and is currently on display in partnership with the Israel Antiquities Authority. “We are thrilled to make this film available for the public and continue to tell the remarkable story of one of the most important archeological discoveries of the 21st century,” said Bobby Duke, chief curatorial officer at Museum of the Bible. “This mosaic is critical for encountering and understanding early Christians at a time when they might have suffered persecution by the Roman Empire. It is a story that must be told.” According to Dr. Yotam Tepper, director of the excavation on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, “The fascinating mosaic presents groundbreaking physical evidence of the practices and beliefs of early Christians, including the first archaeological instance of the phrase ‘God Jesus Christ.’ Also featured on the mosaic are one of the earliest examples of a fish being used as a Christian symbol and the names of several of the Christian prayer hall’s patrons — a Roman centurion, an artist, and five women.” “The Mosaic Church” is produced by Emmy Award-winning Evolve Studios in association with The Natural Studios and Alafim Productions and is streaming exclusively at Angel.com/MOTB and on the Angel App. The documentary is narrated by Bear Grylls, star of the Emmy Award-nominated “Man vs. Wild” TV series and host of the Emmy Award-winning interactive Netflix show “You Vs Wild.” "Uncovering the Megiddo Mosaic has been a powerful journey into the early Christian spirit of resilience and faith. I am honored to narrate this story, bringing to life the legacy of the world's oldest-known church for audiences worldwide,” shared Bear Grylls. The documentary weaves together expert insights, historical analysis, and firsthand accounts from those who worked on discovering and conserving the Megiddo Mosaic. It also reveals deep insights into the life of early Christians from just a few generations after the accounts of the New Testament. Watch the trailer HERE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfN0o9h_4Xg The Megiddo Mosaic is on display at Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., until July 6, 2025. ….

“The greatest destroyer of peace today is the cry of the innocent unborn child”

“To me the nations who have legalized abortion, they are the poorest nations. They are afraid of the little one, they are afraid of the unborn child, and the child must die because they don’t want to feed one more child, to educate one more child, the child must die”. Mother Teresa Nobel Peace Prize 1979 Mother Teresa Acceptance speech Mother Teresa’s Acceptance speech, held on 10 December 1979 in the Aula of the University of Oslo, Norway. Let us all together thank God for this beautiful occasion where we can all together proclaim the joy of spreading peace, the joy of loving one another and the joy acknowledging that the poorest of the poor are our brothers and sisters. As we have gathered here to thank God for this gift of peace, I have given you all the prayer for peace that St Francis of Assisi prayed many years ago, and I wonder he must have felt the need what we feel today to pray for. I think you have all got that paper? We’ll say it together. Lord, make me a channel of your peace, that where there is hatred, I may bring love; that where there is wrong, I may bring the spirit of forgiveness; that where there is discord, I may bring harmony; that where there is error, I may bring truth; that where there is doubt, I may bring faith; that where there is despair, I may bring hope; that where there are shadows, I may bring light; that where there is sadness, I may bring joy. Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort than to be comforted; to understand, than to be understood; to love, than to be loved. For it is by forgetting self, that one finds. It is by forgiving that one is forgiven. It is by dying, that one awakens to eternal life. Amen. God loved the world so much that he gave his son and he gave him to a virgin, the blessed virgin Mary, and she, the moment he came in her life, went in haste to give him to others. And what did she do then? She did the work of the handmaid, just so. Just spread that joy of loving to service. And Jesus Christ loved you and loved me and he gave his life for us, and as if that was not enough for him, he kept on saying: Love as I have loved you, as I love you now, and how do we have to love, to love in the giving. For he gave his life for us. And he keeps on giving, and he keeps on giving right here everywhere in our own lives and in the lives of others. It was not enough for him to die for us, he wanted that we loved one another, that we see him in each other, that’s why he said: Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God. And to make sure that we understand what he means, he said that at the hour of death we are going to be judged on what we have been to the poor, to the hungry, naked, the homeless, and he makes himself that hungry one, that naked one, that homeless one, not only hungry for bread, but hungry for love, not only naked for a piece of cloth, but naked of that human dignity, not only homeless for a room to live, but homeless for that being forgotten, been unloved, uncared, being nobody to nobody, having forgotten what is human love, what is human touch, what is to be loved by somebody, and he says: Whatever you did to the least of these my brethren, you did it to me. It is so beautiful for us to become holy to this love, for holiness is not a luxury of the few, it is a simple duty for each one of us, and through this love we can become holy. To this love for one another and today when I have received this reward, I personally am most unworthy, and I having avowed poverty to be able to understand the poor, I choose the poverty of our people. But I am grateful and I am very happy to receive it in the name of the hungry, of the naked, of the homeless, of the crippled, of the blind, of the leprous, of all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared, thrown away of the society, people who have become a burden to the society, and are shunned by everybody. In their name I accept the award. And I am sure this award is going to bring an understanding love between the rich and the poor. And this is what Jesus has insisted so much, that is why Jesus came to earth, to proclaim the good news to the poor. And through this award and through all of us gathered here together, we are wanting to proclaim the good news to the poor that God loves them, that we love them, that they are somebody to us, that they too have been created by the same loving hand of God, to love and to be loved. Our poor people are great people, are very lovable people, they don’t need our pity and sympathy, they need our understanding love. They need our respect; they need that we treat them with dignity. And I think this is the greatest poverty that we experience, that we have in front of them who may be dying for a piece of bread, but they die to such dignity. I never forget when I brought a man from the street. He was covered with maggots; his face was the only place that was clean. And yet that man, when we brought him to our home for the dying, he said just one sentence: I have lived like an animal in the street, but I am going to die like an angel, love and care, and he died beautifully. He went home to God, for dead is nothing but going home to God. And he having enjoyed that love, that being wanted, that being loved, that being somebody to somebody at the last moment, brought that joy in his life. And I feel one thing I want to share with you all, the greatest destroyer of peace today is the cry of the innocent unborn child. For if a mother can murder her own child in her own womb, what is left for you and for me to kill each other? Even in the scripture it is written: Even if mother could forget her child – I will not forget you – I have carved you in the palm of my hand. Even if mother could forget, but today millions of unborn children are being killed. And we say nothing. In the newspapers you read numbers of this one and that one being killed, this being destroyed, but nobody speaks of the millions of little ones who have been conceived to the same life as you and I, to the life of God, and we say nothing, we allow it. To me the nations who have legalized abortion, they are the poorest nations. They are afraid of the little one, they are afraid of the unborn child, and the child must die because they don’t want to feed one more child, to educate one more child, the child must die. And here I ask you, in the name of these little ones, for it was that unborn child that recognized the presence of Jesus when Mary came to visit Elizabeth, her cousin. As we read in the gospel, the moment Mary came into the house, the little one in the womb of his mother, leapt with joy, recognized the Prince of Peace. And so today, let us here make a strong resolution, we are going to save every little child, every unborn child, give them a chance to be born. And what we are doing, we are fighting abortion by adoption, and the good God has blessed the work so beautifully that we have saved thousands of children, and thousands of children have found a home where they are loved, they are wanted, they are cared. We have brought so much joy in the homes that there was not a child, and so today, I ask His Majesties here before you all who come from different countries, let us all pray that we have the courage to stand by the unborn child, and give the child an opportunity to love and to be loved, and I think with God’s grace we will be able to bring peace in the world. We have an opportunity here in Norway, you are with God’s blessing, you are well to do. But I am sure in the families and many of our homes, maybe we are not hungry for a piece of bread, but maybe there is somebody there in the family who is unwanted, unloved, uncared, forgotten, there isn’t love. Love begins at home. And love to be true has to hurt. I never forget a little child who taught me a very beautiful lesson. They heard in Calcutta, the children, that Mother Teresa had no sugar for her children, and this little one, Hindu boy four years old, he went home and he told his parents: I will not eat sugar for three days, I will give my sugar to Mother Teresa. How much a little child can give. After three days they brought into our house, and there was this little one who could scarcely pronounce my name, he loved with great love, he loved until it hurt. And this is what I bring before you, to love one another until it hurts, but don’t forget that there are many children, many children, many men and women who haven’t got what you have. And remember to love them until it hurts. Sometime ago, this to you will sound very strange, but I brought a girl child from the street, and I could see in the face of the child that the child was hungry. God knows how many days that she had not eaten. So I give her a piece of bread. And then the little one started eating the bread crumb by crumb. And I said to the child, eat the bread, eat the bread. And she looked at me and said: I am afraid to eat the bread because I’m afraid when it is finished I will be hungry again. This is a reality, and yet there is a greatness of the poor. One evening a gentleman came to our house and said, there is a Hindu family and the eight children have not eaten for a long time. Do something for them. And I took rice and I went immediately, and there was this mother, those little ones’ faces, shining eyes from sheer hunger. She took the rice from my hand, she divided into two and she went out. When she came back, I asked her, where did you go? What did you do? And one answer she gave me: They are hungry also. She knew that the next door neighbor, a Muslim family, was hungry. What surprised me most, not that she gave the rice, but what surprised me most, that in her suffering, in her hunger, she knew that somebody else was hungry, and she had the courage to share, share the love. And this is what I mean, I want you to love the poor, and never turn your back to the poor, for in turning your back to the poor, you are turning it to Christ. For he had made himself the hungry one, the naked one, the homeless one, so that you and I have an opportunity to love him, because where is God? How can we love God? It is not enough to say to my God I love you, but my God, I love you here. I can enjoy this, but I give up. I could eat that sugar, but I give that sugar. If I stay here the whole day and the whole night, you would be surprised of the beautiful things that people do, to share the joy of giving. And so, my prayer for you is that truth will bring prayer in our homes, and the fruit of prayer will be that we believe that in the poor, it is Christ. And if we really believe, we will begin to love. And if we love, naturally, we will try to do something. First in our own home, our next door neighbor, in the country we live, in the whole world. And let us all join in that one prayer, God give us courage to protect the unborn child, for the child is the greatest gift of God to a family, to a nation and to the whole world. God bless you!

‘We live in a world that is burning’: Pope Leo XIV

Taken from: Pope Leo interrupts holiday to issue warning: ‘We live in a world that is burning’ Pope Leo interrupts holiday to issue warning: ‘We live in a world that is burning’ Story by Joshua McElwee Pope Leo XIV has issued a stark warning about a “burning” world as he interrupted his two-week holiday to urge Catholics to address the climate crisis. This marks the Vatican's second significant appeal on global warming within a week. Speaking from Castel Gandolfo, an Italian hill town near Rome where he is on holiday, the pontiff declared during a small outdoor ceremony: "Today … we live in a world that is burning, both because of global warming and armed conflicts." Leo, who was elected on 8 May to succeed Pope Francis, said: "We have to pray for the conversion of many people … who still do not see the urgency of caring for our common home." While refraining from naming specific climate-induced disasters, he characterised the global situation as an "ecological crisis". Leo said the 1.4-billion-member Catholic Church was committed to speaking about the issue, "even when it requires the courage to oppose the destructive power of the princes of this world". The Mass included a prayer for victims of the flash flooding in Texas, where at least 111 people have died and 173 are still missing. Leo celebrated Wednesday's Mass according to a new Catholic rite that exhorts people to care for creation, first published by the Vatican on 3 July in its latest push to address climate issues. Cardinal Michael Czerny, a senior Vatican official who helped to organise the Mass, said that Leo's decision to interrupt his holiday was a sign of the importance the new pope will place on environmental matters. "By offering this Mass … at the beginning of his holiday, Pope Leo is giving a beautiful example of thanking for God's great gift and praying that the human family learns to care for our common home," said Cardinal Czerny. Garden mass Francis, who died on 21 April, was also a firm proponent of care for creation. He was the first pope to embrace the scientific consensus about climate change and urged nations to reduce their carbon emissions in line with the 2015 Paris climate accord. ….

Sacred Heart an antidote to Pharisee-like smugness, complacency and presumption

by Damien F. Mackey One rarely hears even mentioned the Nine First Fridays (Five First Saturdays) – the Communion of Reparation package so desired by Heaven. Here it was mentioned but not explained; mentioned in a negative context without its benefits being proclaimed. Keeping all the Jewish Law - impossible. We used to be told that if you go to Mass on Sundays and say the Rosary you’re right. So said a Dominican priest during a homily in the context of smug Pharisaïsm. Keep the whole Law and you will be pleasing to God. Jesus, of course, turned all that on its head, calling the Scribes and Pharisees ‘hypocrites’ (Matthew 23:13): ‘Woe to you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to’. Similarly, the Dominican priest noted that there was far more to it than just going to Mass on Sundays and saying the Rosary. [There is a verse in Acts (15:29) that almost seems to support the simple view: Do this, and you will be OK: ‘You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well’]. Sadly, there are those who make the effort to have their children baptised and confirmed, thinking, then, they are “done”. Now they can freely get on with their lives, often making quite a success of things in a worldly sense, while ever remaining at an immature level of faith. The Dominican went on to include the Nine First Fridays, the completion of which can be considered by some faithful to make them right. Nothing he said was at all incorrect within its context. We do need to be warned against smugness, complacency and presumption. One rarely hears even mentioned the Nine First Fridays (Five First Saturdays) – the Communion of Reparation package so desired by Heaven. Here it was mentioned but not explained; mentioned in a negative context without its benefits being proclaimed. [A few weeks later, at the same church, on the Feast of the Sacred Heart, a Dominican priest in his 90’s did mention the Nine First Fridays, with a brief explanation of them, though he said that they were “not compulsory”]. I could not help wondering that instead of the Nine First Fridays being brought up in passing, in a negative context, wouldn’t it be far better to proclaim the devotion and its marvellous effects and the promises associated with it? Surely Heaven’s remedy will provide a perfect antidote to any tendency to Pharisaïc smugness and the like, promising, as it does, that: “Tepid souls shall grow fervent … Fervent souls shall quickly mount to high perfection”. At the end of the 17th century Our Lord appeared to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647-1690) and asked her to spread devotion to His Most Sacred Heart. In a letter written to her Mother Superior in May 1688, St. Margaret Mary set out what is called The Great Promise Our Lord made regarding the Nine First Fridays and what we must do to earn it: “On Friday during Holy Communion, He said these words to His unworthy slave, if I mistake not: ‘I promise you in the excessive mercy of My Heart that Its all-powerful love will grant to all those who receive Holy Communion on nine first Fridays of consecutive months the grace of final repentance; they will not die under My displeasure or without receiving their sacraments, My divine Heart making Itself their assured refuge at the last moment.'” We need help with our complacency and presumption, and this is it! We’d be silly to neglect it. If we do these devotions properly, to the best of our ability, the Promises are beyond all telling: https://holycross-olog.vermontcatholic.org/nine-first-fridays-devotion-of-reparation-to-the-sacred-heart-of-our-lord 1. I will give them all of the graces necessary for their state of life. 2. I will establish peace in their homes. 3. I will comfort them in all their afflictions. 4. I will be their strength during life and above all during death. 5. I will bestow a large blessing upon all their undertakings. 6. Sinners shall find in My Heart the source and the infinite ocean of mercy. 7. Tepid souls shall grow fervent. 8. Fervent souls shall quickly mount to high perfection. 9. I will bless every place where a picture of my heart shall be set up and honored. 10. I will give to priests the gift of touching the most hardened hearts. 11. Those who shall promote this devotion shall have their names written in My Heart, never to be blotted out. 12. I promise you in the excessive mercy of My Heart that My all-powerful love will grant all to those who communicate on the First Friday in nine consecutive months the grace of final penitence; they shall not die in My disgrace nor without receiving their sacraments; My Divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment. First Friday Requirements: To meet the requirements for the First Friday Devotion a person must, on each First Friday for nine consecutive months: 1. Attend Holy Mass 2. Receive Communion 3. Go to Confession