Advertisements
Home

St. Valentine

Leave a comment

H/T Catholic OnLine. 

This is a story everyone needs to know about.

We have holidays most people know little or nothing about the origin of the holiday.

So as Paul Harvey used to say “Now You Know  The Rest Of the Story.”

www-free-candle-spells-com_saint_valentine_february_14th

Feastday: February 14
Patron of Love, Young People, Happy Marriages
Died: 269

Valentine was a holy priest in Rome, who, with St. Marius and his family, assisted the martyrs in the persecution under Claudius II. He was apprehended, and sent by the emperor to the prefect of Rome, who, on finding all his promises to make him renounce hisfaith ineffectual, commanded him to be beaten with clubs, and afterwards, to be beheaded, which was executed on February 14, about the year 270. Pope Julius I is said to have built a church near Ponte Mole to his memory, which for a long time gave name to the gate now called Porta del Popolo, formerly, Porta Valetini. The greatest part of his relics are now in the church of St. Praxedes. His name is celebrated as that of an illustrious martyrin the sacramentary of St. Gregory, the Roman Missal of Thomasius, in the calendar of F. Fronto and that of Allatius, in Bede, Usuard, Ado, Notker and all other martyrologies on this day. To abolish the heathens lewd superstitious custom of boys drawing the names of girls, in honor of their goddess Februata Juno, on the fifteenth of this month, several zealous pastors substituted the names of saints in billets given on this day.

The Origin of St. Valentine

The origin of St. Valentine, and how many St. Valentines there were, remains a mystery. One opinion is that he was a Roman martyred for refusing to give up his Christian faith. Other historians hold that St. Valentine was a temple priest jailed for defiance during the reign of Claudius. Whoever he was, Valentine really existed because archaeologists have unearthed a Roman catacomb and an ancient church dedicated to Saint Valentine. In 496 AD Pope Gelasius marked February 14th as a celebration in honor of his martyrdom.

The first representation of Saint Valentine appeared in a The Nuremberg Chronicle, a great illustrated book printed in 1493. [Additional evidence that Valentine was a real person: archaeologists have unearthed a Roman catacomb and an ancient church dedicated to Saint Valentine.] Alongside a woodcut portrait of him, text states that Valentinus was a Roman priest martyred during the reign of Claudius the Goth [Claudius II]. Since he was caught marrying Christian couples and aiding any Christians who were being persecuted under Emperor Claudius in Rome [when helping them was considered a crime], Valentinus was arrested and imprisoned. Claudius took a liking to this prisoner — until Valentinus made a strategic error: he tried to convert the Emperor — whereupon this priest was condemned to death. He was beaten with clubs and stoned; when that didn’t do it, he was beheaded outside the Flaminian Gate [circa 269].

Saints are not supposed to rest in peace; they’re expected to keep busy: to perform miracles, to intercede. Being in jail or dead is no excuse for non-performance of the supernatural. One legend says, while awaiting his execution, Valentinus restored the sight of his jailer’s blind daughter. Another legend says, on the eve of his death, he penned a farewell note to the jailer’s daughter, signing it, “From your Valentine.”

St. Valentine was a Priest, martyred in 269 at Rome and was buried on the Flaminian Way. He is the Patron Saint of affianced couples, bee keepers, engaged couples, epilepsy, fainting, greetings, happy marriages, love, lovers, plague, travellers, young people. He is represented in pictures with birds and roses.

from Wikipedia

Saint Valentine (in Latin, Valentinus) is a widely recognized third century Roman saint commemorated on February 14 and associated since the High Middle Ages with a tradition of courtly love. Nothing is reliably known of St. Valentine except his name and the fact that he died on February 14 on Via Flaminia in the north of Rome. It is uncertain whether St. Valentine is to be identified as one saint or two saints of the same name. Several differing martyrologies have been added to later hagiographies that are unreliable. For these reasons this liturgical commemoration was not kept in the Catholic calendar of saints for universal liturgical veneration as revised in 1969.[2] But the “Martyr Valentinus who died on the 14th of February on the Via Flaminia close to theMilvian bridge in Rome” still remains in the list of officially recognized saints for local veneration.[3] Saint Valentine’s Church in Rome, built in 1960 for the needs of the Olympic Village, continues as a modern, well-visited parish church.[4]

Today, Saint Valentine’s Day, also known as the Feast of Saint Valentine, is an official feast day in the Anglican Communion,[5] as well as in the Lutheran Church.[6] In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Saint Valentine the Presbyter is celebrated on July 6 [7] and Hieromartyr Saint Valentine (Bishop of Interamna, Terni in Italy) is celebrated on July 30.[8] Notwithstanding, because of the relative obscurity of this western saint in the East, members of the Greek Orthodox Church named Valentinos (male) or Valentina (female) may celebrate their name day on the Western ecclesiastical calendar date of February 14.[9]

Identification

In the Roman Catholic Church the name Valentinus does not yet occur in the earliest list of Roman martyrs, compiled by the Chronographer of 354.[10] But it already can be found in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum,[11] which was compiled, from earlier local sources, between 460 and 544. The feast of St. Valentine of February 14 was first established in 496 by Pope Gelasius I, who included Valentine among all those “… whose names are justly reverenced among men, but whose acts are known only to God.” As Gelasius implies, nothing was yet known to him about his life.

The Catholic Encyclopedia[12] and other hagiographical sources [13] speak of three Saint Valentines that appear in connection with February 14. One was a Roman priest, another the bishop of Interamna (modern Terni) both buried along the Via Flaminia outside Rome, at different distances from the city. The third they say was a saint who suffered on the same day with a number of companions in the Roman province of Africa, for whom nothing else is known.

Though the extant accounts of the martyrdoms of the first two listed saints are of a late date and contain legendary elements, a common nucleus of fact may underlie the two accounts and they may refer to one single person.[14] According to the official biography of the Diocese of Terni, Bishop Valentine was born and lived in Interamna and was imprisoned and tortured in Rome on February 14, 273, while on a temporary stay there. His body was buried in a hurry at a nearby cemetery and a few nights later his disciples came and carried him home.[15]

Τhe Roman Martyrology, the Catholic Church’s official list of recognized saints, for February 14 gives only one Saint Valentine; a martyr who died on the Via Flaminia.[16]

Other Saint Valentines

The name “Valentine”, derived from valens (worthy, strong, powerful), was popular in Late Antiquity. About eleven other saints having the name Valentine are commemorated in the Roman Catholic Church.[17] Some Eastern Churches of the Western rite may provide still other different lists of Saint Valentines.[18] The Roman martyrology lists only seven who died on days other than February 14: a priest from Viterbo (November 3); a bishop from Raetia who died in about 450 (January 7); a fifth-century priest and hermit (July 4); a Spanish hermit who died in about 715 (October 25); Valentine Berrio Ochoa, martyred in 1861 (November 24); andValentine Jaunzarás Gómez, martyred in 1936 (September 18). It also lists a virgin, Saint Valentina, who was martyred in 308 (July 25) in Caesarea, Palestine. All eight were outstanding lovers of God and people, able to hear and to support anyone who is in love.[19]

Hagiography and testimony

220px-valentineanddisciples

Saint Valentine of Terni oversees the construction of his basilica at Terni, from a 14th century French manuscript (BN, Mss fr. 185)

The inconsistency in the identification of the saint is replicated in the various vita that are ascribed to him. A commonly ascribed hagiographical identity appears in the Nuremberg Chronicle (1493). Alongside a woodcut portrait of Valentine, the text states that he was a Roman priest martyred during the reign of Claudius II, known as Claudius Gothicus. He was arrested and imprisoned upon being caught marrying Christian couples and otherwise aiding Christians who were at the time being persecuted by Claudius in Rome. Helping Christians at this time was considered a crime. Claudius took a liking to this prisoner – until Valentinus tried to convert the Emperor – whereupon this priest was condemned to death. He was beaten with clubs and stones; when that failed to kill him, he was beheaded outside the Flaminian Gate. Various dates are given for the martyrdom or martyrdoms: 269, 270, or 273.[20]

Another popular hagiography describes Saint Valentine as the former Bishop of Terni, a city in southern Umbria, in what is now central Italy. While under house arrest of Judge Asterius, and discussing his faith with him, Valentinus (the Roman pronunciation of his name) was discussing the validity of Jesus. The judge put Valentinus to the test and brought to him the judge’s adopted blind daughter. If Valentinus succeeded in restoring the girl’s sight, Asterius would do anything he asked. Valentinus laid his hands on her eyes and the child’s vision was restored. Immediately humbled, the judge asked Valentinus what he should do. Valentinus replied that all of the idolsaround the judge’s house should be broken, the judge should fast for three days, and then undergo baptism. The judge obeyed and as a result, freed all the Christian inmates under his authority. The judge, his family and forty others were baptized.[21] Valentinus was later arrested again for continuing to serve Jesus and was sent to the prefect of Rome, to the emperor Claudius himself. Claudius took a liking to him until Valentinus tried to lead Claudius to Jesus, whereupon Claudius refused and condemned Valentinus to death, commanding that Valentinus either renounce his faith or he would be beaten with clubs, and beheaded. Valentinus refused and Claudius’ command was executed outside the Flaminian Gate February 14, 269.[22]

Churches named Valentine

220px-st-valentine-baptizing-st-lucilla-jacopo-bassano

Saint Valentine baptizing Saint Lucilla by Jacopo Bassano

Saint Valentine was not exceptionally more venerated than other saints and it seems that in England no church was ever dedicated to him.[23] There are many churches containing the name of Valentine in other countries.[citation needed]

A 5th or 6th century work called Passio Marii et Marthae made up a legend about Saint Valentine’s Basilica (it:Basilica di San Valentino) being dedicated to Saint Valentine in Rome. A laterPassio repeated the legend and added the adornment that Pope Julius I (357-352) had built the ancient basilica S. Valentini extra Portam on top of his sepulchre, in the Via Flaminia.[24] This church was really named after a 4th century tribune called Valentino, who donated the land it’s built in.[24] It hosted the martyr’s relics until the thirteenth century, when they were transferred to Santa Prassede, and the ancient basilica decayed.[25]

In the Golden Legend

The Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine, compiled about 1260 and one of the most-read books of the High Middle Ages, gives sufficient details of the saints for each day of the liturgical year to inspire a homily on each occasion. The very brief vita of St Valentine has him refusing to deny Christ before the “Emperor Claudius”[26] in the year 280. Before his head was cut off, this Valentine restored sight and hearing to the daughter of his jailer. Jacobus makes a play with the etymology of “Valentine”, “as containing valour”.

St. Valentine’s Day

For more details on this topic, see Valentine’s Day.

English eighteenth-century antiquarians Alban Butler and Francis Douce, noting the obscurity of Saint Valentine’s identity, suggested that Valentine’s Day was created as an attempt to supersede the pagan holiday ofLupercalia (mid-February in Rome). This idea has lately been contested by Professor Jack Oruch of theUniversity of Kansas. Many of the current legends that characterise Saint Valentine were invented in the fourteenth century in England, notably by Geoffrey Chaucer and his circle, when the feast day of February 14 first became associated with romantic love.[27]

Historian Jack Oruch has made the case that the traditions associated with “Valentine’s Day”, documented inGeoffrey Chaucer’s Parliament of Foules and set in the fictional context of an old tradition, had no such tradition before Chaucer.[28] He argues that the speculative explanation of sentimental customs, posing as historical fact, had their origins among 18th-century antiquaries, notably Alban Butler, the author of Butler’s Lives of Saints, and have been perpetuated even by respectable modern scholars. In the French 14th-century manuscript illumination from a Vies des Saints (illustration above), Saint Valentine, bishop of Terni, oversees the construction of his basilica at Terni; there is no suggestion here that the bishop was a patron of lovers.[29]

Relics and liturgical celebration

220px-st-valentine_110921-01

Shrine of St. Valentine in Whitefriar Street Carmelite Church in Dublin, Ireland

The flower-crowned skull of St. Valentine is exhibited in the Basilica of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, Rome.[30]

In 1836, some relics that were exhumed from the catacombs of Saint Hippolytus on the Via Tiburtina, then near (rather than inside) Rome, were identified with St Valentine; placed in a casket, and transported to the procession to the high altar for a special Mass dedicated to young people and all those in love.

Also in 1836, Fr. John Spratt, an Irish priest and famous preacher, was given many tokens of esteem following a sermon in Rome. One gift from Pope Gregory XVI were the remains of St. Valentine and “a small vessel tinged with his blood.” The Reliquary was placed in Whitefriar Street Church in Dublin, Ireland, and has remained there until this day. This was accompanied by a letter claiming the relics were those of St. Valentine.[31]

Another relic was found in 2003 in Prague in Church of St Peter and Paul at Vyšehrad.[32]

Alleged relics of St. Valentine also lie at the reliquary of Roquemaurein France, in the Stephansdom in Vienna, in Balzan in Malta and also in Blessed John Duns Scotus’ church in the Gorbals area ofGlasgow, Scotland. There is also a gold reliquary bearing the words ‘Corpus St. Valentin, M’ (Body of St. Valentine, Martyr) at The Birmingham Oratory, UK, in one of the side altars in the main church.

Saint Valentine remains in the Catholic Church’s official list of saints (the Roman Martyrology), but, in view of the scarcity of information about him, his commemoration was removed from the General Calendar for universal liturgical veneration, when this was revised in 1969. It is included in local calendars of places such as Balzan inMalta. Some[who?] still observe the calendars of the Roman Rite from the Tridentine Calendar until 1969, in which Saint Valentine was at first celebrated as a simple feast, until 1955, when Pope Pius XII reduced the mention of Saint Valentine to a commemoration in the Mass of the day. It is kept as a commemoration byTraditionalist Roman Catholics who — in accordance with the authorization given by Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007 — use the General Roman Calendar of 1962 and the liturgy ofPope John XXIII’s 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, and, as a Simple Feast, by Traditionalist Roman Catholics who use the General Roman Calendar as in 1954.

February 14 is also celebrated as St. Valentine’s Day in other Christian denominations; it has, for example, the rank of ‘commemoration’ in the calendar of the Church of England and other parts of the Anglican Communion.[33]

 

Advertisements

Slavery Reparation Demands are Pure Entitlement Nonsense

Leave a comment

This is from Patriot UpDate.

Blacks have gotten reparations since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.

It is called welfare and food stamps.

 

“So you think that people who never owned slaves should be required to pay reparations to people who never were slaves.” This was a comment made by an individual in a class I taught recently in which the issue of slavery reparations was raised. Interestingly, the individual who made this comment is black and the one who proposed reparations is white. Reparations are an ill-conceived concept advocated by people who think they are owed because blacks were once enslaved in America. Those pushing for reparations are predictable: Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton are two of the most vocal advocates. In fact, Farrakhan has gone beyond the borders of the United States with his reparations road show.

Failing to gain any traction in America for slavery reparations, Louis Farrakhan took his entitlement message to the Caribbean last year. In Jamaica he demanded that the Pope endorse slavery reparations to atone for the supposed sins of the Catholic Church. “Project 2019” is a white paper that sets out the case for slavery reparations to be paid by taxing U.S. citizens (although its author admits that seeking reparations is probably a waste of time and effort that could be put to better use in other causes for black Americans).

Reparation demands will probably be with us for a while because they grow out of the entitlement mentality that has become deeply engrained in so many Americans. But demands for slavery reparations are just that: pure entitlement nonsense. In fact, they are an example of race hustling at its worse. Americans of good will are working hard to bridge the racial gap that still exists in our country and bring about a state of racial harmony; something that would benefit Americans of all races. Unfortunately, there are still a few people who view racial discord as an opportunity to be exploited—think of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton—people best viewed as race hustlers. Race hustlers continue to fan the flames of racial discord as a means to keep themselves relevant, maintain power, and fatten their wallets. The biggest fear of race hustlers is that people in America will do what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. recommended: judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. If this ever happens the days of race hustling are over.

Fearing exactly this, race hustlers have long sought a way to really pour fire on the embers of racial discord. The more progress people of good faith make in bridging the racial divide in America, the more frantic race hustlers have become in seeking a burning issue that will ensure them of more years, if not decades, of relevance and financial security. The more entrepreneurial of the race hustlers think they have hit upon just the issue: slavery reparations. As race hustles go, this one must look inviting to people who benefit from racial discord because it appeals to them on so many different levels. There are the feelings harbored by some black Americans who know their history and understandably resent aspects of it, there is the growing entitlement mentality in American society, there is white guilt, and, finally, there is the always enticing element of money.

My view is that those who captured, transported, traded, and owned slaves should have been made to pay reparations to those they enslaved 150 years or so ago when slaves and masters were still alive. Reparations assessed at that time would not have erased the blight on humanity that slavery represented, but they would have at least been an attempt at justice. Speaking of justice, this is why I disagree advocates of slavery reparations who want American citizens alive today to be taxed to pay reparations to black Americans. If the goal of reparations is justice, where is the justice in asking Americans who are living today to pay for the sins of Americans who died long ago, sins they played no part in and owing to the span of time involved could not have stopped? How can a person alive today possibly be culpable for sins committed 200 or more years ago?

Further, what about Hispanic and Asian Americans? Should they be required to pay? What about Americans of mixed racial heritage? Should they be required to pay? What about the fact that a high percentage of Americans living today trace their lineage to immigrants who came to America after the Civil War? Should they be allowed to pay? What about descendants of black people who themselves owned slaves? Should they be required to pay? What about descendants of white Americans who helped slaves escape bondage? Should they be required to pay?

To race hustlers, slavery reparations must look like a promising issue on which to hang their hats, not to mention their wallets. Their thinking probably goes something like this: If we make enough noise about this issue and stir up enough guilt, maybe pandering politicians will go along with reparations just to shut us up. But on more careful consideration, the idea of reparations is not just fraught with difficulties; it is the result of twisted logic, entitlement, and greed. Society cannot right one wrong by perpetrating another. You do not establish justice for one man by inflicting injustice on another.

Look into this issue and you will notice right away that slavery reparations advocates do not limit their expectations of payment to just the direct descendants of slave traders and slave owners. This is not because they acknowledge that even direct descendants played no role in the heinous activities of their forbearers. The descendants of slave owners and slave traders weren’t even alive in those dark days of America’s history, nor would they be for a long time. Obviously, people cannot be held responsible—legally, ethically, or morally—for things they did not do and could not prevent. But this is not why reparations advocates choose not to focus on the descendants of slave traders and slave owners. The real reason is the very essence of expedience: money. There are not enough direct descendants of slave traders and slave owners alive in America today to generate the kind of money advocates are hoping to receive. Better for the pocketbooks of race hustlers if all Americans have to pay into the proposed fund and let justice be damned.

Another important question is this: Who would administer a reparations fund? Actually, reparations advocates have already answered this question. The plan is to ask “black leaders” to administer the reparations fund and make decisions concerning how to distribute any money that would be collected. Now there’s a plan. Besides this approach being a formula certain to encourage cronyism, graft, and corruption—that much power coupled with that much money is certain to corrupt, just look at Congress—who is going to choose the black leaders to administer the fund and who is going to oversee their decisions?

Slavery was an abomination, not just to America but to humanity. I state this as a given. However, expecting reparations to be paid by people who did not live during the slavery era, have never owned slaves, and in all likelihood are not even distantly related to slave owners of the past is a bad idea; an idea that is not fair, just, or logical. In fact, the demand for slavery reparations is little more than an example of the entitlement mentality run amok and being pushed by people who are interested in receiving money they don’t deserve from people who don’t owe it to them.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/slavery-reparation-demands-are-pure-entitlement-nonsense/

You Better Listen to What Marco Rubio Is Saying About the Assault on Christianity

4 Comments

This is from Rush Limbaugh.com.

While the left is attacking Christianity, they will not be able to destroy Christianity.

Matthew 16:18King James Version (KJV)

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

RUSH: This is the Christian Broadcasting Network, CBN, chief political correspondent David Brody interviewing Marco Rubio late yesterday.  Question:  “Does your deep faith drive public policy decisions on social issues like traditional marriage.”

RUBIO:  We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech, because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.  So what’s the next step after that?  After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech and that’s a real and present danger.

RUSH:  Do you think Rubio’s got a point there?  You better. I tell you, you better not sweep this away, folks. You better not think this is a little bit over the top.  He is right on the money.  In fact, I would even go further.  I think mainstream Christianity is the target and has been for I can’t tell you how long.  Before I was born.  Christianity has been the biggest enemy of the American left — well, any left.  Organized religion in general, but Christianity is the number one enemy of these people.

You notice they’ve made friends with militant Islam.  The left will not stand for any criticism of militant Islam, right?  You start drawing cartoons of the prophet, they’re the first to jump on your case, right?  Democrats and the left, they are out condemning any criticism of Islam.  They’ve sidled up.  Why?  Well, Islam has an enemy.  In their mind, their enemy’s Christianity.  So there’s a commonality there.  And I don’t care — folks, maybe this is another one of those things you’re just not supposed to say, but I’m sorry, it’s undeniable.

Okay.  Okay.  Tell me I’m wrong when I say that the left has formed an accord with Islam, tell me I’m wrong.  Militant Islam says you can’t draw pictures of the prophet.  The Democrat Party:  You can’t draw pictures of prophet, you can’t criticize Islam.  And they go out of their way not to.  We can’t call ’em terrorists.  You know the drill.  Christianity, it’s open season.  You can say anything, you can do anything, you can mock anything.  And Christians are just supposed to take it, and the reason we’re supposed to take it is ’cause we’re the majority.  The majority has to understand minorities feel offended, always hit on and ripped apart, so forth. You just gotta take it, part of being the majority.

And that is a relevant fact.  I mean, majorities are hated by the people in the minority.  The problem for us is that the minorities that we’re talking about here, most of them are really tiny, and yet they’re winning.  They’re bullying their way around, it’s incredible.  And Marco Rubio here is right on the money.  Look at Ireland and gay marriage.  What was the final vote there?  Was it 60%?  (interruption)  Over 60% approving.

Now, I have to tell you something.  As best I’ve been able to ascertain, Ireland just didn’t do this on its own.  There was a lot of American money moving the issue. There were a lot of American activists over there pushing the issue.  Nevertheless, they won, they made it happen.  And the pope, I don’t think — somebody correct me if I’m wrong — I don’t think the pope said anything about it.

Let me tell you where is next, then.  Italy is going to be next, by design and on purpose.  Gay marriage forces will target Italy, and by targeting Italy, they will target Rome.  And they’ll also go to Milan; fashion central is already the way paved there.  Maybe a little bit Florence.  Might even mess with Venice, but certainly Rome and the Vatican.  Marco Rubio: Christianity facing a real and present danger in the US due to a growing acceptance for gay marriage.

It’s not just gay marriage by the way.  It goes back to this Gallup poll celebrating the fall of morality, celebrating the fall of conventional morality.  It’s not just gay marriage.  It’s all kinds of things that constitute the fall of age-old morality, which the left has targeted as long as I’ve been around.  So Rubio said, “We’re at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.”

You will support it.  And not only will you support it, you will embrace it and you will love it.  It’s their own version of Sharia, if you want to know what Sharia is like.  Just like with Obamacare.  You will participate in Obamacare, and you will like it, and you will promote it, and you will not criticize it.  You will support gay marriage.  You will promote it.  You will love it, and you will accept it.  Anything less and you will be attacked.

Rubio said the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech.  And that’s a real and present danger.  Now, he said earlier this year also in an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network that it’s ridiculous and absurd to believe that there’s a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  “Fifty-eight percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, according to a Quinnipiac University poll earlier this year.  Fifty-nine percent of Republicans are opposed to it.”  Companion story — (interruption) what is this?  Oh, the pope did weigh in.  Oh, I’m sorry, it’s not the pope.  Well, okay, the pope hasn’t weighed in.

I said something earlier today — I got a note from somebody about this, about the next target area for the militant gay marriage crowd being Italy.  And pope’s gonna have to speak up.  And I stuttered and I stumbled, I thought, “Do I really want to tell ’em what I really think?”  Don’t be surprised if this pope eventually comes out and supports it as part of the global warming agenda.  It’s a different pope here.  He surprises you issue to issue.

Anyway, from the UK Guardian, the headline:  “Vatican Says Ireland Gay Marriage Vote is ‘Defeat for Humanity’ — Vatican diplomat seen as second only to the pope insists Saturday’s referendum result shows ‘the church must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation.’ A senior Vatican official has attacked the legalisation of gay marriage in Ireland. The referendum that overwhelmingly backed marriage equality last weekend was a ‘defeat for humanity,’ he claimed.”

This marriage equality, what is wrong with that?  Do you people on the left really think that whatever number of thousands of years ago some rich, fat, white guy sat around and defined marriage specifically to exclude homosexuals just because he hated ’em and wanted to discriminate against them?  And there has been thus, ever since, a quest for marriage inequality?  Is that what you really think?  Marriage equality?  Marriage has a definition, or it did.  Words mean things.  Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, pure and simple.  That’s what it is.

Now, if you’re gonna allow people of the same sex to get married, you’d better come up with a different term because that’s not what marriage is if words means things.  And words do mean things.  And if you’re gonna change the definition of marriage, then you better be open-minded and permit any change under the umbrella to happen.  If marriage is no longer the marriage of a man and a woman, the union of a man and a woman, then what is it?  “Well, Mr. Limbaugh, marriage is now a union of a man or a woman, or it can be a union of a woman and a woman or a union of a man and a man.”  Oh, okay.

How about this?  How about marriage can be the union of two men and one woman.

“Well, no.”

Well, why not?  You’ve blown the definition up already.  Why can’t it be whatever anybody wants to do, as long as they love somebody.  Words mean things.  Institutions are institutions for a reason.  They’re not designed by a bunch of people who hope to discriminate against people.  The roots of marriage are rooted in decency and goodness and love and child rearing and all of these things that are supposedly to aid society in remaining cohesive and to propagate the race for a whole host of reasons that are important, including bloodlines and everything else.

But once you blow that up, it isn’t marriage.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  Look it up anywhere.  And this whole notion of marriage equality, as though the designers of marriage did so purposely to discriminate?  There wasn’t any discrimination involved here. There wasn’t any hate. It wasn’t as though people devised an institution that specifically and for that reason denied access by others.  It’s not what the purpose of it was.

You know, you people on the left, not everything that happens has had you in the crosshairs.  Frankly, you haven’t been on that many people’s minds through the years.  We haven’t created all these traditions and institutions to exclude you.  It’s always been for other reasons that are far loftier.  They come along and claim that it’s a discriminatory institution rooted in hatred and bigotry and inequality and so forth.

And that’s how you get the young people to support it.  I mean, young people of course embrace the notion of equality and fairness and sameness, and if you go tell these people that just don’t have enough years lived in order to have sufficient experience, if you go portray marriage as something that discriminates, well, they don’t want to be a part of anything that discriminates, ’cause that’s not fair, that’s not nice, and that’s how they’ve done it.

But in the process they’ve blown up the definition of the word, and now it can mean anything anybody wants it to mean if they’re willing to make a cause out of it.  And it’s beginning to happen, predictably so.  I haven’t seen any official — maybe it’s happened and I just missed it — but has there been an official redefinition of the term that now specifies that marriage is either the union of a man and a woman or the union of a man and a man or the union of a woman and a woman?  Has that been codified somewhere?

No, what’s happened is, marriage is not just a union of a man and a woman, and the reason it isn’t is because it’s unfair and it’s discriminatory and it’s unequal.  And all of that is irrelevant to marriage and why it exists and how it came to be and what its purpose is.  But you wouldn’t know that if you’re a young Millennial and you’ve grown up surrounded by never ending assaults on how that’s unfair and that’s discriminatory and that’s inequality and you join the quest to make everything the same, everybody the same, everything equal, and, you know, bye-bye individuality and everything that comes with it.

So, anyway, the Vatican says Ireland gay marriage vote defeat for humanity, but the pope didn’t say it.  It was the biggest diplomat, Vatican diplomat, senior Vatican official.  Cardinal Pietro Parolin: “I was deeply saddened by the result. The church must take account of this reality, but in the sense that it must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation. I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity.”

And up next, after the break, leftists push Italy to follow Ireland on same-sex marriage.  And it’s a direct assault on the Catholic Church, mark my words.  It’s next.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here is the Oxford, the old Oxford English Dictionary, I should say new definition of marriage.  Listen to this.  (laughing) This is pathetic.  Classic, but pathetic.  Definition of marriage in the New Oxford English Dictionary.  Quote, “The condition of being a husband or wife.”  Marriage is now a condition. It’s a disease. It’s an assignment.  It’s “the condition of being husband or wife.  The relation between persons married to each other.  Matrimony.  The term is now sometime used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”

That’s what counts.  That’s the money quote in this stupid definition.  “The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”  I wonder if you go back and get a dictionary ten years ago, you look at the definition of marriage, I wonder what you’d find, and it wouldn’t have any of this gibberish in it.  “The condition of being a husband or wife.  The relation between persons married to each other.”  That’s what marriage is, the relation between people married to each other?  I didn’t think you could put the word in the definition.

We’re trying to define marriage, so how do you define marriage by using the word “married”?  That doesn’t help anybody to understand it.  And then matrimony.  Matrimony is another acceptable definition of marriage.  That would not help the people in Rio Linda to know what it is.  Nope.  You have to get down to, “The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”  How is that even marriage?  Long-term relationships between persons of the same sex?  Why can’t you just take the old definition of marriage that used to be what it was, defining a relationship, matrimony, a man and a woman and just say it’s a same thing for two men or two women?  Why obfuscate, why all this dancing around here?

Appeals Court Rejects Obamacare Contraception Mandate

Leave a comment

This from NewsMax.

We will take the victories where ever and when ever we can.

I want this  dead one and for all.

Even if it means death by a thousand cuts. 

 

 

A federal appeals court struck down Obamacare‘s controversial birth control mandate, declaring that requiring contraception coverage in employee health plans is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 2-1 Friday in favor of Francis and Philip Gilardi, the Roman Catholic owners of Ohio-based Freshway Foods and Freshway Logistics, who argued that the provision in the new healthcare law would violate their religious freedom, The Hill reports.

“The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company’s owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan,” wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown in the court’s decision.

Had the plaintiffs refused to comply with the law, they would have faced a $14 million fine.

Two of the judges on the panel disagreed with parts of the ruling, saying the rights of religious people do not extend to the companies they own.

The Obama administration has long argued that the requirement under the Affordable Care Act for contraceptive coverage — including sterilization — as a free preventative service is necessary to protect women’s reproductive rights, though churches and other houses of worship are already exempt from the provision in the healthcare law.

Religious conservatives have blasted the requirement as a violation of First Amendment rights.

The case is the latest in a string of challenges to the birth control mandate.

According to the Thomas Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, some 74 lawsuits with over 200 plaintiffs representing hospitals, universities, businesses, and schools have been filed challenging the mandate on grounds of religious liberty.

Rulings in the circuit courts have so far been mixed, leading legal analysts to predict the issue will reach the Supreme Court.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/appeals-court-backs-freshway/2013/11/01/id/534365?ns_mail_uid=57182492&ns_mail_job=1544341_11012013&promo_code=15719-1#ixzz2jSAYjYrF

 

Absurd: Military Priests Not Permitted to Serve Mass Due to Shutdown

3 Comments

This is from Town Hall.

Who in the Hell does Comrade Obama think he is?

This sounds like the work of a Banana Republican tin horn thug.

This is a clear violation of the Catholic priests First Amendmendment Rights.

 

 

 

While the Obama administration has not quite been known for its respect to freedom of religion, their latest action is borderline insanity: due to the government shutdown, priests contracted by the military are forbidden from serving Mass–even if they want to do it for free.

From CatholicVote (emphasis theirs):

But now there’s a story just coming to light that takes things even further. According the Archdiocese for Military Services, GS and contract priests (who are paid by the federal government as independent contractors in places where there aren’t enough active-duty priests to meet the needs of Catholics in military service) are being forbidden from celebrating Mass, even on a volunteer basis.

If they violate this restriction, they face possible arrest. FOR CELEBRATING MASS.

Approximately one quarter of the military is Catholic, but only eight percent of military chaplains are Catholic priests.

This is just absolutely crazy. If a priest would like to say Mass for free, they should be able to. To prevent them from doing so is a violation of the First Amendment. The government is clearly using the shutdown to inflict as much pain as possible, even when it is completely unnecessary.

 

US Army labels Evangelicals, Catholics religious extremists

2 Comments

This is from Bizpac Review.

I resent being called a religious extremists.

The Religion of Peace is the extremists.

No one in the Evangelical Community advocates killing our female relatives because they are out without a male family member.

 The Catholic Church does not recommend murdering their members 

for leaving the Catholic faith.

Islam says this and more.

U.S. Army reserve unit in Pennsylvania lumped Catholicism and evangelical Christianity along with Hamas and al-Qaida as examples ofreligious extremism during an Equal Opportunity training brief.

The Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty disagrees.

pope-Eucharist

A religious extremist? Photo creditgalatiansfour.blogspot.com

“We find this offensive to have Evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church to be listed among known terrorist groups,” said its executive director, Ron Crews, Fox News reported. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization.”

Oddly, the Army also listed “Islamophobia” as an example of religious extremism, which, of course, is not a religion, but a fear.

Fox News contracted Army spokesman George Wright regarding the incident. He advised the agency that this was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Dept. of the Army.”

“This slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine,” he said. “It was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”

The program’s presenter apologized and removed the slide after someone complained.

“We consider the matter closed,” Wright said.

The presentation first came to light by a participant who “considers himself an evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews told Fox News.

“There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”

Fox News Radio’s Todd Starnes wrote that “The Archdiocese for the Military Services was shocked to learn that the Army considered Catholicism to be an example of extremism.”

Given that Catholicism is the world’s oldest form of Christianity, I can well imagine.

extremeists sign“The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist,” the Archdiocese said in a statement.
They are calling for the Defense Department to “ensure that taxpayer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform.”

It took very little digging to discover that the presenter, not an expert in the subject matter, got her information from an internet search — primarily from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“Why is there such dependence upon the work of the SPLC to determine hate groups and extremist groups,” Crews said. “It appears that some military entities are using definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘extreme’ from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations. That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.”

We used to refer to the future as “a brave new world,” from the title of an Aldous Huxley novel. There’s nothing “brave” about religious bigotry, and there;s nothing “new” about hate and distrust.

 

 

New Pope Francis Called Abortion the “Death Penalty for the Unborn”

4 Comments

This is from LifeNews.

I say Bravo to Pope Francis and his stance on abortion.

I agree with his Holiness abortion is murder.

In Proverbs 6:16-17,God condemns the shedding of innocent blood.

Proverbs 6:16-17

King James Version (KJV)

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood

There is no more innocent blood than that of a child.

The archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergogliohas been selected to become the next Pope, leading the Catholic Church. Like his predecessors, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II, he is a staunch pro-life advocate when it comes to abortion.

Last year, then-Cardinal Bergoglio stated, “Abortion is never a solution. We listen, support and understanding from our place to save two lives: respect the human being small and helpless, they can take steps to preserve your life, allow birth and then be creative in the search for ways to bring it to its full development.”

He once called abortion a “death sentence” for unborn children, during a 2007 speech and likening opposition to abortion to opposition to the death penalty.

In an October 2, 2007 speech Bergoglio said that “we aren’t in agreement with the death penalty,” but “in Argentina we have the death penalty.  A child conceived by the rape of a mentally ill or retarded woman can be condemned to death.”

The remarks came during the presentation of a document called the Aparecida Document, a joint statement of the bishops of Latin America.

The document, which the new Pope presented on behalf of his colleagues at the time and signed of on, referred to abortion and communion, said “we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated.  This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.”

Archbishop Bergoglio said then that “the most mentioned word in the Aparecida Document is ‘life’, because the Church is very conscious of the fact that the cheapest thing in Latin America, the thing with the lowest price, is life.”

The new pontiff also denounced euthanasia and assisted suicide, calling it a “culture of discarding” the elderly.

“In Argentina there is clandestine euthanasia.  Social services pay up to a certain point; if you pass it, ‘die, you are very old’.  Today, elderly people are discarded when, in reality, they are the seat of wisdom of the society,” he said “The right to life means allowing people to live and not killing, allowing them to grow, to eat, to be educated, to be healed, and to be permitted to die with dignity.”

Meanwhile, he made the following comments to his priests last year: “In our ecclesiastical region there are priests who don’t baptize the children of single mothers because they weren’t conceived in the sanctity of marriage. These are today’s hypocrites… Those who separate the people of God from salvation. And this poor girl who, rather than returning the child to sender, had the courage to carry it into the world, must wander from parish to parish so that it’s baptized!”

 

St. Valentine

1 Comment

This is from Catholic Online.

This is a story everyone needs to know about.

We have holidays most people know little or nothing about the origin of the holiday.

So as Paul Harvey used to say “Now You Know  The Rest Of the Story.”

www-free-candle-spells-com_saint_valentine_february_14th

 

Feastday: February 14
Patron of Love, Young People, Happy Marriages
Died: 269

Valentine was a holy priest in Rome, who, with St. Marius and his family, assisted the martyrs in the persecution under Claudius II. He was apprehended, and sent by the emperor to the prefect of Rome, who, on finding all his promises to make him renounce hisfaith ineffectual, commanded him to be beaten with clubs, and afterwards, to be beheaded, which was executed on February 14, about the year 270. Pope Julius I is said to have built a church near Ponte Mole to his memory, which for a long time gave name to the gate now called Porta del Popolo, formerly, Porta Valetini. The greatest part of his relics are now in the church of St. Praxedes. His name is celebrated as that of an illustrious martyrin the sacramentary of St. Gregory, the Roman Missal of Thomasius, in the calendar of F. Fronto and that of Allatius, in Bede, Usuard, Ado, Notker and all other martyrologies on this day. To abolish the heathens lewd superstitious custom of boys drawing the names of girls, in honor of their goddess Februata Juno, on the fifteenth of this month, several zealous pastors substituted the names of saints in billets given on this day.

The Origin of St. Valentine

The origin of St. Valentine, and how many St. Valentines there were, remains a mystery. One opinion is that he was a Roman martyred for refusing to give up his Christian faith. Other historians hold that St. Valentine was a temple priest jailed for defiance during the reign of Claudius. Whoever he was, Valentine really existed because archaeologists have unearthed a Roman catacomb and an ancient church dedicated to Saint Valentine. In 496 AD Pope Gelasius marked February 14th as a celebration in honor of his martyrdom.

The first representation of Saint Valentine appeared in a The Nuremberg Chronicle, a great illustrated book printed in 1493. [Additional evidence that Valentine was a real person: archaeologists have unearthed a Roman catacomb and an ancient church dedicated to Saint Valentine.] Alongside a woodcut portrait of him, text states that Valentinus was a Roman priest martyred during the reign of Claudius the Goth [Claudius II]. Since he was caught marrying Christian couples and aiding any Christians who were being persecuted under Emperor Claudius in Rome [when helping them was considered a crime], Valentinus was arrested and imprisoned. Claudius took a liking to this prisoner — until Valentinus made a strategic error: he tried to convert the Emperor — whereupon this priest was condemned to death. He was beaten with clubs and stoned; when that didn’t do it, he was beheaded outside the Flaminian Gate [circa 269].

Saints are not supposed to rest in peace; they’re expected to keep busy: to perform miracles, to intercede. Being in jail or dead is no excuse for non-performance of the supernatural. One legend says, while awaiting his execution, Valentinus restored the sight of his jailer’s blind daughter. Another legend says, on the eve of his death, he penned a farewell note to the jailer’s daughter, signing it, “From your Valentine.”

St. Valentine was a Priest, martyred in 269 at Rome and was buried on the Flaminian Way. He is the Patron Saint of affianced couples, bee keepers, engaged couples, epilepsy, fainting, greetings, happy marriages, love, lovers, plague, travellers, young people. He is represented in pictures with birds and roses.

from Wikipedia

Saint Valentine (in Latin, Valentinus) is a widely recognized third century Roman saint commemorated on February 14 and associated since the High Middle Ages with a tradition of courtly love. Nothing is reliably known of St. Valentine except his name and the fact that he died on February 14 on Via Flaminia in the north of Rome. It is uncertain whether St. Valentine is to be identified as one saint or two saints of the same name. Several differing martyrologies have been added to later hagiographies that are unreliable. For these reasons this liturgical commemoration was not kept in the Catholic calendar of saints for universal liturgical veneration as revised in 1969.[2] But the “Martyr Valentinus who died on the 14th of February on the Via Flaminia close to theMilvian bridge in Rome” still remains in the list of officially recognized saints for local veneration.[3] Saint Valentine’s Church in Rome, built in 1960 for the needs of the Olympic Village, continues as a modern, well-visited parish church.[4]

Today, Saint Valentine’s Day, also known as the Feast of Saint Valentine, is an official feast day in the Anglican Communion,[5] as well as in the Lutheran Church.[6] In the Eastern Orthodox Church, Saint Valentine the Presbyter is celebrated on July 6 [7] and Hieromartyr Saint Valentine (Bishop of Interamna, Terni in Italy) is celebrated on July 30.[8] Notwithstanding, because of the relative obscurity of this western saint in the East, members of the Greek Orthodox Church named Valentinos (male) or Valentina (female) may celebrate their name day on the Western ecclesiastical calendar date of February 14.[9]

Identification

In the Roman Catholic Church the name Valentinus does not yet occur in the earliest list of Roman martyrs, compiled by the Chronographer of 354.[10] But it already can be found in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum,[11] which was compiled, from earlier local sources, between 460 and 544. The feast of St. Valentine of February 14 was first established in 496 by Pope Gelasius I, who included Valentine among all those “… whose names are justly reverenced among men, but whose acts are known only to God.” As Gelasius implies, nothing was yet known to him about his life.

The Catholic Encyclopedia[12] and other hagiographical sources [13] speak of three Saint Valentines that appear in connection with February 14. One was a Roman priest, another the bishop of Interamna (modern Terni) both buried along the Via Flaminia outside Rome, at different distances from the city. The third they say was a saint who suffered on the same day with a number of companions in the Roman province of Africa, for whom nothing else is known.

Though the extant accounts of the martyrdoms of the first two listed saints are of a late date and contain legendary elements, a common nucleus of fact may underlie the two accounts and they may refer to one single person.[14] According to the official biography of the Diocese of Terni, Bishop Valentine was born and lived in Interamna and was imprisoned and tortured in Rome on February 14, 273, while on a temporary stay there. His body was buried in a hurry at a nearby cemetery and a few nights later his disciples came and carried him home.[15]

Τhe Roman Martyrology, the Catholic Church’s official list of recognized saints, for February 14 gives only one Saint Valentine; a martyr who died on the Via Flaminia.[16]

Other Saint Valentines

The name “Valentine”, derived from valens (worthy, strong, powerful), was popular in Late Antiquity. About eleven other saints having the name Valentine are commemorated in the Roman Catholic Church.[17] Some Eastern Churches of the Western rite may provide still other different lists of Saint Valentines.[18] The Roman martyrology lists only seven who died on days other than February 14: a priest from Viterbo (November 3); a bishop from Raetia who died in about 450 (January 7); a fifth-century priest and hermit (July 4); a Spanish hermit who died in about 715 (October 25); Valentine Berrio Ochoa, martyred in 1861 (November 24); andValentine Jaunzarás Gómez, martyred in 1936 (September 18). It also lists a virgin, Saint Valentina, who was martyred in 308 (July 25) in Caesarea, Palestine. All eight were outstanding lovers of God and people, able to hear and to support anyone who is in love.[19]

Hagiography and testimony

Saint Valentine of Terni oversees the construction of his basilica at Terni, from a 14th century French manuscript (BN, Mss fr. 185)

The inconsistency in the identification of the saint is replicated in the various vita that are ascribed to him. A commonly ascribed hagiographical identity appears in the Nuremberg Chronicle (1493). Alongside a woodcut portrait of Valentine, the text states that he was a Roman priest martyred during the reign of Claudius II, known as Claudius Gothicus. He was arrested and imprisoned upon being caught marrying Christian couples and otherwise aiding Christians who were at the time being persecuted by Claudius in Rome. Helping Christians at this time was considered a crime. Claudius took a liking to this prisoner – until Valentinus tried to convert the Emperor – whereupon this priest was condemned to death. He was beaten with clubs and stones; when that failed to kill him, he was beheaded outside the Flaminian Gate. Various dates are given for the martyrdom or martyrdoms: 269, 270, or 273.[20]

Another popular hagiography describes Saint Valentine as the former Bishop of Terni, a city in southern Umbria, in what is now central Italy. While under house arrest of Judge Asterius, and discussing his faith with him, Valentinus (the Roman pronunciation of his name) was discussing the validity of Jesus. The judge put Valentinus to the test and brought to him the judge’s adopted blind daughter. If Valentinus succeeded in restoring the girl’s sight, Asterius would do anything he asked. Valentinus laid his hands on her eyes and the child’s vision was restored. Immediately humbled, the judge asked Valentinus what he should do. Valentinus replied that all of the idolsaround the judge’s house should be broken, the judge should fast for three days, and then undergo baptism. The judge obeyed and as a result, freed all the Christian inmates under his authority. The judge, his family and forty others were baptized.[21] Valentinus was later arrested again for continuing to serve Jesus and was sent to the prefect of Rome, to the emperor Claudius himself. Claudius took a liking to him until Valentinus tried to lead Claudius to Jesus, whereupon Claudius refused and condemned Valentinus to death, commanding that Valentinus either renounce his faith or he would be beaten with clubs, and beheaded. Valentinus refused and Claudius’ command was executed outside the Flaminian Gate February 14, 269.[22]

 

Churches named Valentine

Saint Valentine baptizing Saint Lucilla by Jacopo Bassano

Saint Valentine was not exceptionally more venerated than other saints and it seems that in England no church was ever dedicated to him.[23] There are many churches containing the name of Valentine in other countries.[citation needed]

A 5th or 6th century work called Passio Marii et Marthae made up a legend about Saint Valentine’s Basilica (it:Basilica di San Valentino) being dedicated to Saint Valentine in Rome. A laterPassio repeated the legend and added the adornment that Pope Julius I (357-352) had built the ancient basilica S. Valentini extra Portam on top of his sepulchre, in the Via Flaminia.[24] This church was really named after a 4th century tribune called Valentino, who donated the land it’s built in.[24] It hosted the martyr’s relics until the thirteenth century, when they were transferred to Santa Prassede, and the ancient basilica decayed.[25]

In the Golden Legend

The Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine, compiled about 1260 and one of the most-read books of the High Middle Ages, gives sufficient details of the saints for each day of the liturgical year to inspire a homily on each occasion. The very brief vita of St Valentine has him refusing to deny Christ before the “Emperor Claudius”[26] in the year 280. Before his head was cut off, this Valentine restored sight and hearing to the daughter of his jailer. Jacobus makes a play with the etymology of “Valentine”, “as containing valour”.

St. Valentine’s Day

For more details on this topic, see Valentine’s Day.

English eighteenth-century antiquarians Alban Butler and Francis Douce, noting the obscurity of Saint Valentine’s identity, suggested that Valentine’s Day was created as an attempt to supersede the pagan holiday ofLupercalia (mid-February in Rome). This idea has lately been contested by Professor Jack Oruch of theUniversity of Kansas. Many of the current legends that characterise Saint Valentine were invented in the fourteenth century in England, notably by Geoffrey Chaucer and his circle, when the feast day of February 14 first became associated with romantic love.[27]

Historian Jack Oruch has made the case that the traditions associated with “Valentine’s Day”, documented inGeoffrey Chaucer’s Parliament of Foules and set in the fictional context of an old tradition, had no such tradition before Chaucer.[28] He argues that the speculative explanation of sentimental customs, posing as historical fact, had their origins among 18th-century antiquaries, notably Alban Butler, the author of Butler’s Lives of Saints, and have been perpetuated even by respectable modern scholars. In the French 14th-century manuscript illumination from a Vies des Saints (illustration above), Saint Valentine, bishop of Terni, oversees the construction of his basilica at Terni; there is no suggestion here that the bishop was a patron of lovers.[29]

Relics and liturgical celebration

Shrine of St. Valentine in Whitefriar Street Carmelite Church in Dublin, Ireland

The flower-crowned skull of St. Valentine is exhibited in the Basilica of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, Rome.[30]

In 1836, some relics that were exhumed from the catacombs of Saint Hippolytus on the Via Tiburtina, then near (rather than inside) Rome, were identified with St Valentine; placed in a casket, and transported to the procession to the high altar for a special Mass dedicated to young people and all those in love.

Also in 1836, Fr. John Spratt, an Irish priest and famous preacher, was given many tokens of esteem following a sermon in Rome. One gift from Pope Gregory XVI were the remains of St. Valentine and “a small vessel tinged with his blood.” The Reliquary was placed in Whitefriar Street Church in Dublin, Ireland, and has remained there until this day. This was accompanied by a letter claiming the relics were those of St. Valentine.[31]

Another relic was found in 2003 in Prague in Church of St Peter and Paul at Vyšehrad.[32]

Alleged relics of St. Valentine also lie at the reliquary of Roquemaurein France, in the Stephansdom in Vienna, in Balzan in Malta and also in Blessed John Duns Scotus’ church in the Gorbals area ofGlasgow, Scotland. There is also a gold reliquary bearing the words ‘Corpus St. Valentin, M’ (Body of St. Valentine, Martyr) at The Birmingham Oratory, UK, in one of the side altars in the main church.

Saint Valentine remains in the Catholic Church’s official list of saints (the Roman Martyrology), but, in view of the scarcity of information about him, his commemoration was removed from the General Calendar for universal liturgical veneration, when this was revised in 1969. It is included in local calendars of places such as Balzan inMalta. Some[who?] still observe the calendars of the Roman Rite from the Tridentine Calendar until 1969, in which Saint Valentine was at first celebrated as a simple feast, until 1955, when Pope Pius XII reduced the mention of Saint Valentine to a commemoration in the Mass of the day. It is kept as a commemoration byTraditionalist Roman Catholics who — in accordance with the authorization given by Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of July 7, 2007 — use the General Roman Calendar of 1962 and the liturgy ofPope John XXIII’s 1962 edition of the Roman Missal, and, as a Simple Feast, by Traditionalist Roman Catholics who use the General Roman Calendar as in 1954.

February 14 is also celebrated as St. Valentine’s Day in other Christian denominations; it has, for example, the rank of ‘commemoration’ in the calendar of the Church of England and other parts of the Anglican Communion.[33]

 

5 Myths Liberals Have Created About Themselves

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

This is the best explanation of the liberal myth.

Conservatives need to shatter these myths.

Liberalism is like a restaurant with ugly decor, terrible food, overflowing toilets and roaches scurrying across the floor — that stays packed every night. Sure, liberals may be sanctimonious, mean spirited and advocate policies that don’t work, but you can’t help but admire the excellence of their public relations network. They can laud themselves for courage because they take a stand everyone they know agrees with, pat themselves on the back for their compassion as they maliciously insult someone that disagrees with them and congratulate themselves for their charitable behavior as they give other people’s money away. Liberal mythology is one thing, but what it actually looks like is a different beast entirely.

1) Liberals love science: As Ann Coulter says, “Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional. Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution.” The liberal commitment to science consists entirely of talking about how important science is when they believe they can use it to further the liberal agenda. On the other hand, when science shows that adult stem cells actually work better than embryonic stem cells, millions in Africa have died because liberals needlessly insisted on banning DDT or the evidence shows AIDS is never going to take off in non-drug-using heterosexuals, liberals have about as much interest in science as they do in supporting the troops.

2) Liberals care about education: If you define “education” as doing as much as humanly possible to toss plums to the teachers’ unions who help fund and elect Democrats, liberals love education. Alternately, if you define education as the rest of us do, making sure our kids learn as much as possible and are prepared for the working world, liberals don’t care about education at all. They fight merit pay, oppose firing bad teachers and try to kill even effective school choice programs. Any time there’s a divergence between what’s best for the teachers’ unions and what’s best for the kids, the kids ALWAYS lose with liberals.

3) Liberals are tolerant: In a very real sense, liberals don’t understand tolerance. To them, tolerance is promoting whatever position they happen to hold while excluding all competing views. So, if a conservative speaker shows up on a college campus, liberals try to shout him down. Liberals have tried to censor conservative talk show hosts with an Orwellian “Fairness Act.” They work tirelessly to try to silence Fox News, which is the one center right network up against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC. They block professors for their conservative views, blacklist conservative actors and lock conservatives out of almost every major newspaper in America. That’s not open-minded; it’s a level of dogmatic intolerance that could rival the most radical cult.

4) Liberals don’t moralize: Liberals believe in allowing children to have abortions over the protests of their parents, they want to force churches to perform gay weddings that violate their Christian beliefs and they demand that the Catholic Church provide abortion and birth control over its strenuous moral objections, but then they turn around and deny that they’re moralizing. Getting beyond that, they couch their arguments about tax rates, government programs and economics in distinctly moral terms. After all, what is the term “fair share” if not an appeal to morals? If liberals are going to continue to pretend that they don’t moralize, at least they should admit that they’re morally inferior to conservatives.

5) Liberals love the poor: For both philosophical and practical reasons, conservatives believe in helping the poor escape poverty. We agree wholeheartedly with Ben Franklin’s words of wisdom,

 

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

On the other hand, liberals “love” the poor like a cat loves mice. The cat gets fat off the mice and liberals get elected off of sadistically keeping as many Americans mired in poverty as they can. Then, they can give the poor just enough money to get by on while railing against those mean old conservatives who’re claiming the destitute can have better lives when any “compassionate” person would realize food stamps and welfare are the best most of these people can ever do. That’s not love; that’s a gang of pushers trying to hook as many customers as possible.

Obama v. Church: Who Will Win?

1 Comment

This is from The Last Resistance.

There is not doubt in my mind the church will prevail.

This is what God says about abortion.

Proverbs 6:16-19

King James Version (KJV)

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

There is no more innocent blood than that of a baby.

Now that Barack Obama has won re-election and the Republicans failed to gain control of the Senate, Obamacare is here to stay.  And it may usher in one of the greatest and costliest battles in our nation’s history – Barack Obama v. Church.

When I think of the costliest battles upon our own soil, the Revolutionary and Civil Wars top the list.  In both of these battles, thousands have lost their lives and thousands more were maimed and left destitute.  In the ensuing battle that is right around the corner, we may see thousands imprisoned and hundreds of institutions and businesses die and close their doors leaving thousands of Americans with a job or income.

The battle of Obama v. Church will be centered around the contraceptive mandate.  Obama insists that any employer with religious beliefs will be forced to violate those beliefs by providing contraceptives and abortifacients to all employees.  For those of strong belief, this mandate is no different than demanding a Muslim eat pork or even worse, demand that Obama tell the absolute truth for a whole month.

The list of Christian organizations that have filed suit to prevent them from having to comply with the contraception mandate is growing.  According to some of the sources, churches that are among that list are not going to cave in to the demands of the Obama administration and will resist to the bitter end.

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life and Missionaries of the Gospel of Life has joined the ranks of organizations that have filed lawsuits to block the HHS mandate (contraception mandate).  American Freedom Law Center acted on behalf of Priests for Life, one of the largest pro-life organizations in the nation, in filing the suit this past Friday.

In an interview, Fr. Pavone told OneNewsNow:

“They’re not going to change their teaching — and apparently the administration, as arrogant as it is, isn’t going to change either.  So what does that mean? It certainly means a conflict; it means a clash; it means perhaps civil disobedience and prison for some people.”

“We know that the people that we do reach do understand the issues.  The issues themselves are persuasive — life and marriage and freedom — but we’ve got to do a better job of targeting, of marketing, and frankly we need a lot more support from the grassroots people.”

“If people believe in this kind of work that conservative groups are doing, they’ve got to get behind it with their time and also with their resources.”

Religious leaders like Fr. Pavone are willing to stake everything they have to fight the injustice of the contraception mandate.  They have vowed to never betray their faith by submitting to it.  The fines and penalties for not complying are steep and could result in prison time, but Fr. Pavone is prepared to go that route if he has to.

From what I’ve read, other religious leaders are indicating that they will take a similar stand against an unholy act of religious treachery.

But what about you?

Whether you are a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim, the HHS mandate is a direct offense to your religion and as a believer of your faith, you have an obligation to stand up for that belief and do what you can to help in the legal fight to end this desecration of religious freedom and liberty. Are you willing to be a legal martyr for your faith or will you be one of those wishy-washy believers that goes with the flow and tries not to make waves?  If you are and you profess to be a Christian, may I remind you of the warning given to the Church at Laodicea in Revelation 3:15-16:

“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot.  Would that you were either cold or hot!  So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.”

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: