Showing posts with label pre-vatican ii. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pre-vatican ii. Show all posts

Friday, August 16, 2019

Why I no Longer Reject Vatican II and the Traditional Catholic Priests or Receiving Sacraments from Them (On Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood, Natural Family Planning, Una Cum etc.)

As for over the last two years, I have changed many of my old positions and do no longer adhere to the strict interpretation as expressed in many of our old articles. Now I follow the Doctors, Saints and Theologians of the Church, my conscience, and the teaching of St. Alphonsus, which teaches us that it is the law of conscience that determines whether an uncertain action is lawful or not. Therefore, if you feel good in your conscience about approaching this or that priest for Mass or the Sacraments (even a Vatican II priest) then you can do so. Therefore, if a position is uncertain or unclear to you (such as Baptism of Desire or Blood), do what you think is right according to your conscience. No one can force you to embrace an uncertain position under pain of sin, and therefore, do not worry about approaching a priest you feel good about approaching, if you feel you need to receive the consolations of Mass and the Sacraments from this priest.

Please read this article, which more fully explains the situation to another questioner:


Even though I said in this article (above) that the Vatican II priests are not validly ordained and hence not real priests, I in fact am not sure that this is the case anymore. Therefore, you may have a different opinion, or you may share this position. Many in the traditional camp have varied positions on this topic, and no one can force the other to accept his or her position under pain of sin. Therefore, follow your conscience and do what you think is right.

So the the question as to where you should go to mass I answer: Go to any mass or priest that you feel good about approaching according to your conscience. If you feel it is right to go to this or that mass and receive the sacraments from this or that priest, then do so. Your conscience is clean, and that is all that matters.

I also do no longer adhere to the position that Vatican II or the Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists or various Traditionalists Groups and Peoples etc. are heretical or damned, or that the various teachings, Saints and adherents to Vatican II (and other canonized by Vatican II) such as Saint Mother Theresa or Saint Pope John Paul II was heretical or damned or not Catholic (or not the Pope) – or that they are unworthy of this title. Why have I changed position? That is simply because the law of conscience is true, and because damnation is something evil, and because Vatican II is more open to the law of conscience and universal salvation, whereas the pre-Vatican II Church was not.

For more information on this topic and why I have changed position, and why damnation is evil and why the Vatican II Church teaches something good with being more open to universal salvation and the law of conscience, see these posts (please see both of them, they are really important):

https://against-all-heresies-and-errors.blogspot.com/2019/05/q-why-damnation-and-eternal-torments-is-evil.html

Simply said, salvation for everyone is something infinitely desirable and endlessly good, whereas eternal damnation in torments and fire is the most evil thing that could ever be imagined, and it is stupid to believe (and just silently accept) that our fellow human beings must be damned simply because they held a different faith, or simply because God wills it, or only because they failed in their life. That is why I admire Vatican II now, since they have distanced themselves from repressing and evil teachings like an eternal Hell with torments and fire for our fellow human brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, children and neighbours! and now, they (the Church), instead of focusing on unforgiveness and damnation, the Catholic Church (which is the Church of God) focuses on forgiveness, hope and salvation for everyone – which is an eternal true and endlessly good doctrine, since it follows true justice and our conscience which wills eternal good towards everyone (even ones enemies, that they may become good so that we may be able to love each other and become best friends), and not only towards ones own.

Concerning our "Various Traditional Catholic Issues and Groups Exposed" topic. This was the expression of my old beliefs, but is also the still current beliefs of my other old co-worker (or co-owner of the websites) that I have come to distance myself from. Even though the owner of the "prophecyfilm12" mail address still espouses those same views (the strict and old) I do not, and I would tell you that they (the Traditional and Vatican II Catholic groups and people we formerly condemned) are Catholics (i.e., those who believe in Baptism of Desire and Blood, NFP, Una Cum and Pope Francis etc.) and that they can be approached for the Sacraments and Mass if you feel good about doing so and you believe this is the right and Catholic choice.

One will simply not become a heretic for embracing (even obstinately) Baptism of Desire or Blood when Saints and even Popes and the Church tacitly approves of it and even formally approves of it in its teachings (such as in Code of Canon Laws and Catechisms and Theological Manuals and Books). So the Church teaches Baptism of Desire and Blood (but not perhaps dogmatically in the sense MHFM and others would like to have it), but we are heretics for believing in it? No, that is not true. If Pope Pius XII could believe in and teach Baptism of Desire and even NFP (which he did) then so can we. And it does not matter if we "know better" or have "been corrected" by others, such as by groups as ourselves or Most Holy Family Monastery, – for we are entitled to our own opinion on this matter if we desire to adhere to the teachings of the Saints and Pope Pius XII who all taught Baptism of Desire. Only when the Church has formally condemned Baptism of Desire and Blood or NFP (and such like controversial topics) and not given any more room for doubt, would it be unlawful to embrace those positions (unless, of course, you have a valid reason to doubt or deny those teachings, such as the teaching on Hell, which is an evil teaching and an evil thing). But has this happened? Has Popes really condemned Baptism of Desire or Natural Family Planning in name so that there are no arguments among Catholics about what is the truth? No, they have not! Why else all the arguments and differences in opinions? Popes such as Pius XII even spoke of BOD and NFP or Rhythm as Doctrine. So what does it tell us? That the Pope did not view the quotes as we (as in my old views) or MHFM does. It is easy to take a dogma or encyclical and just interpret it 100% strict and even dismiss all Saints and Theologians of the Church, but it is not wise to do so. When all the Theologians and Doctors of the Church teach Baptism of Desire and Blood, then we need to listen. If none of them interprets the dogmas as we or MHFM does, then we are free to accept their explanations and reject that of others. And it does not matter how "convincing" MHFM or anyone else is or however much they condemn you, – if you are uncertain (and you have a right to be and to remain uncertain, for the Church does not teach that you must accept the explanations of random people or be guilty of mortal sin) and if your conscience feel good about adhering to Baptism of Blood or Desire (both of which are doctrines which the Church approved theologians teaches), then you are free to adhere to their explanations. I suppose even you see the logic and reason in this position, i.e, that you are free to embrace the approved theologians' position on any topic that your conscience agrees with, and reject the position (or feel uncertain about without incurring sin) the position of non-approved sources, until the Church has formally and undeniably settled this matter.

If Thomas Aquinas (approved Saint and Doctor of the Church) could be saved believing in Baptism of Desire, then so can you, even if we or MHFM condemns you, since you are entitled to be unsure when the Church seems to contradict Herself by both teaching and condemning it, – if you now believe the doctrine could be condemned. Otherwise, the true explanation is that Baptism of Desire is not condemned, and that MHFM and others are over-interpreting the encyclicals and councils.

In conclusion: On topics that are uncertain and unsettled or sensitive (such as Mass or the Sacraments) follow your conscience and ask the advice of others, such as priests and friends, and do not only strictly follow the strict interpretations of online theologians (or the so-called "the only ones you can trust") that often over-interprets things and "only follow their own ways" to the rejection of everyone else, even if they are Popes, Priests, Monks, Approved Theologians, Catechisms or even Code of Canon Laws.

You have a right to be uncertain and to adhere to something that you believe is true (such as the approved sources). Therefore, do not worry about going to a specific Priest or Mass if you desire to do this, or to adhere to this or that teaching if you feel more comfortable in embracing it according to your beliefs and conscience. For if your conscience is clean on this topic, then you are acting right and even do a good thing, since you follow justice and honesty.

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Why the Catholic God is Evil and Unjust. Why Hell is Evil. Why All Souls Will be Saved in the End!

If you want my immediate response, see below his question. And yes, I condemn God, Hell and also prove why all souls will be saved in the end. In short: The injustice of God (i.e., Hell) was only a test to see who would follow their conscience (of not just being God's slave by allowing him to do anything (such as eternal evil)), and who would not (i.e., those who would follow their conscience (and the golden rule of wishing good upon others as upon themselves) which says that they do not want their own children to be damned and hence, they don't want eternal damnation to exist or that anyone should be damned.)

St. Bridget's Revelations ch 41

Eli: Have you read Book 3 Chapter 26? I'm going to paste half of the chapter here in the email for the sake of convenience and highlight what I personally think are kind of problematic for EENS. It's confusing because in the same chapter our Lord affirms EENS multiple times. I would really like to know what your take on this is.

Bold: borderline heretical
Underlined: EENS

However, now I can complain that I am little praised and unknown to many people, because everyone is following his own will but few follow mine. Be you steadfast and humble, and do not exalt yourself in your mind if I show you other people's trials, and do not betray their names unless you are instructed to do so. Their trials are not shown to you to shame them but in order that they may be converted and come to know God's justice and mercy. Nor should you shun them as condemned, for even if I should say today that a certain person is wicked, should he call on me tomorrow with contrition and a will to improve, I am prepared to forgive him. And that person whom I yesterday called wicked, today, due to his contrition, I declare him to be so dear a friend of mine that if his contrition remains steadfast, I forgive him not only his sin but even remit the punishment of sin.

You might understand this with a metaphor. It is as though there were two drops of quicksilver and both were heading toward each other in haste. If nothing but a single atom remained to keep them from joining, still God would be powerful enough to prevent them from coming together. Likewise, if any sinner were so rooted in diabolical deeds that he was standing at the very brink of destruction, he could still obtain forgiveness and mercy, if he called upon God with contrition and a will to improve. Now, given that I am so merciful, you might ask why I am not merciful toward pagans and Jews, some of whom, if they were instructed in the true faith, would be ready to lay down their lives for God. My response is that I have mercy on everyone, on pagans as well as Jews, nor is any creature beyond my mercy

Edit: This I interpret as lesser punishment, not salvation.

With leniency and mercy I will judge both those people who, learning that their faith is not the true one, fervently long for the true faith, as well as those people who believe the faith they profess to be the best one, because no other faith has ever been preached to them, and who wholeheartedly do what they can.

Edit: This also, lesser punishment, not necessarily salvation.

You see, there is a double judgment, namely the one for those to be condemned and the one for those to be saved. The sentence of condemnation for Christians will have no mercy in it. To them will belong eternal punishment and shadows and a will hardened against God. The sentence for those Christians to be saved will be the vision of God and glorification in God and goodwill toward God.

Excluded from these rewards are pagans and Jews as well as bad and false Christians. Although they did not have the right faith, they did have conscience as their judge and believed that the one whom they worshipped and offended was God.
But the ones whose intention and actions were and are for justice and against sin will, along with the less bad Christians, share a punishment of mercy in the midst of sufferings due to their love of justice and their hatred of sin. However, they will not have consolation in the service of glory and of the vision of God. They will not behold him due to their lack of baptism, because some temporal circumstance or some hidden decision of God made them draw back from profitably seeking and obtaining salvation. If there was nothing that held them back from seeking the true God and being baptized, neither fear nor the effort required nor loss of goods or privileges, but only some impediment that overcame their human weakness, then I, who saw Cornelius and the centurion while they were still not baptized, know how to give them a higher and more perfect reward in accordance with their faith.

Edit: this could be interpreted as God will supernaturally supply baptism.

One thing is the ignorance of sinners, another that of those who are pious but impeded. Likewise, too, one thing is the baptism of water, another that of blood, another that of wholehearted desire.

Edit: This is where my main gripe with the chapter lies.

God, who knows the hearts of all people, knows how to take all of these circumstances into account. I am begotten without beginning, begotten eternally from the beginning. I was born in time at the end of times. From the commencement I have known how to give individual persons the rewards they deserve and I give to each according as he deserves. Not the least little good done for the glory of God will go without its reward. This is why you should give many thanks to God that you were born of Christian parents in the age of salvation, for many people have longed to obtain and see that which is offered to Christians and yet have not obtained it.”

Jerome: It seems as it speaks of baptism of desire. The Church has always spoken in favor of this doctrine, and Popes, Catechisms, Code of Canon laws, Doctors of the Church, Saints, and all Theologians, etc. have all confirmed this doctrine. Yet, along comes MHFM and denies it, and many follow their lead. I personally incline to the majorities' position, and I haver started to distance my self from positions which contradicts the majorities' position.

I can understand the argument that to think they have all been wrong - is heretical. It is prideful.

Just as protestants misinterprets the bible, so it is easy to understand that people such as MHFM misinterprets dogmas etc. Or do you think they know better then all Saints, and all Theologians? It does not matter if their arguments seem strong or sound, because protestants argument also seem strong and sound. Even so, one can believe in baptism of desire and blood without being a heretic, since this position is allowed by the Church (since it is thought in the Church!), therefore, it is evil to condemn others for adhering to this doctrine.

That is why I have started to embrace baptism of desire and blood, since it leads to more souls being saved. Hence, one can be converted at the point of death and receive the faith, if this is needed, and be saved. So pagans, atheists etc. both can and will be saved, provided they have a good will in seeking God in their heart, as this Revelation indicates.

By the way, eternal hell is evil, and since Vatican II teaches that almost all are saved, I have also started to be inclined to this position. I can honestly believe that Vatican II is not an apostasy, but enlightenment. Do you not see how utterly evil and stupid it is to call "salvation" apostasy, heresy and evil? There are bad fruits of Vatican II, but that almost all people shall be saved are not one of them. So the pre-Vatican II Church which condemns almost the whole world (if one must be Catholic in the strict sense) was good, but Vatican II which opened up salvation for the entire human race, was evil? So good is evil and evil good?

There can be nothing more evil then Hell, and to think that a "good" God created it, or sends his own children there to suffer always, is itself a mortal sin and a heresy. - This just made me think of Gnostics and their belief that God is evil. Not that I agree that he was evil for the arguments they used, but rather, it is easy to see that God is evil because of the Hell he allows to exist. Had the Gnostics condemned God because he condemns souls (because he do evil and breaks the golden law -- i.e., do good unto others as you wan't others to do good unto you) they would have won the day. I mean, how can an honest soul argue that there is justice with eternal torments? Only mislead and brainwashed souls that do not follow a justice above God's "justice", would believe that. Human justice is way more just than God's justice in many ways, and that is why God's will shall be done on earth as well as in heaven.

Who is God? He who also follows the human laws, obviously, and who is not a dictator. Hence, the God we think is God is probably not God, or was undeserving of this title. Or perhaps this true God that is truly just has not come to existence yet, or is hiding, in order to see who wants to be truly just and not just being a slave. Perhaps Mary is God, or will become God, since she already receives her will always from God. It is not heresy to call Mary God, with the belief that the "God" we think is God is already evil and undeserving. If God can do all things, then he could even loose His Godhood and give this to another being. Even human justice would strip God of all his powers and imprison him, so that he never - for all eternity - could hurt another human beings/souls again.

Believe it or not, but I have had revelations about that Hell will cease to exist (or that it has already, since the Blessed Virgin Mary willed this in cooperation with all those who also wanted this), and that God will humble himself eventually, admitting that he was evil in creating it and sending humans, souls, even small children there to be tormented always (so God is also a child abuser and child murderer! really, you cannot think enough evil of a "God" who damns souls, and you commit no sin even for condemning and hating him and the evil he has done, rather, if you don't condemn him, you may sin and become a coward, since you know in your conscience he deserves condemnation). If it is one point worthy to be condemned for, or to be called heretical for, is the position that all souls shall be saved, or that atheists or pagans shall be saved etc.

So someone condemns you for wanting souls to be saved, such as by an evil God and brainwashed Church? What an honor! We do more good than they, yet they condemn us? Hypocrites! Stop being brainwashed! Stop follow a dictator! That is why we must follow our conscience. God is also in our conscience - perhaps there is some truth to collective consciousness, or whatever those other religions teach. I can understand Vatican II's teaching that there is truth in other religions. All truths have not been understood yet, such as who the true God is. "Catholic" he is though, but only because he is truly universal! which the Catholic God is not! - Yet, I condemned Francis for making this statement, even though I now clearly see that he was right (I have much to correct on our homepages).

"Our" Catholic God is not Catholic, since he only cares about his own in the end. Why else does he not save them (the "damned"), or forgive them even if they died in a "deadly sin"? If I was God, I would do all in my power that no one would be damned, even if they died in "deadly sin". I mean it! What would be a simple solution that the criminal God did not do? He could simply look the other way and say or think to a soul: "You did not die in a deadly sin, because I do not judge the sin to be deadly in a way to deserve eternal punishments." If someone deserves punishment because they truly did evil, they could go to purgatory, which is temporal. If only a person wants, he could think of several reasons as to why God would not have to damn a soul, and why that soul could be excused instead. Yet, the dictator God did nothing of it because of his stupid own "justice", which he thinks precedes or exceeds eternal or human justice. Wrong! As on earth so in heaven! And human justice do not judge as you do.

Would you want an atheist to be damned just because he was an atheist? Or a pagan, just because he was pagan - even if he was evil? You know the truth in your conscience - you do not want this, since you do not want this evil against yourself or your own children.

There is no justice with eternal hell, and Christians have only been brainwashed to look the other way since they fear God or don't want to be damned themselves. Honor to the man that condemns God in his face and calls him evil, and that prays to Mary with all their heart that there shall be no Hell and that all shall be saved. Why does God teach that Mary always gets her Will? Because she is more merciful, and hence more just! That is why Catholic examples of souls being saved is attributed to the Virgin Mary, and not to God or Jesus, since Jesus rather often receives the eternal shame spot of having wanted to damn the soul Mary wished to save! Hence, if we pray that there will be no Hell, she will have Her Will (which is our will), even if God does not want it. Even if God is evil, The Virgin Mary is not. If God don't want the damned as his children or forgive them, we will, and we will have them as our own and they will be forgiven!

There is an honor to live one's life hating and condemning God for his evil doctrine of Hell, and not a shame. Rather, it is a shame to live one's life thinking that there is a Hell and that people deserve it, or that there is justice in it. No judge on earth would ever condemn someone to such an unjust punishment, yet God is allowed to be an eternal and evil dictator? No, won't happen. God will fall in the end, and we (who hate God because of his Hell but still wants to love him and forgive him) and the Virgin Mary will have Our Will, and She will have all her children as she desires, in happiness and salvation. That is why God gave Mary all men as her children, since God himself was unworthy of this. That is why God himself admits in his evil bible (which contains a lot of evil such as hell but also good such as golden rules which he himself don't follow) that he don't look upon the damned as his children. They where not his to be since he wanted them evil. Even on earth bad parents are deprived of their children, so we can see a justice in that God suffers a loss of not having them as his own, even though he must be loved, since without love there will only be evil.

Even you know in your conscience that I have spoken true with all what I have said above, yet if you fear, you must be led astray by the bible, and the Church to excuse God (a true and evil dictator - and who is worse than satan himself - who condemns his own children to insufferable torments for all eternity) and believe that eternal torments is just and hence condemn men. At least desire all men and souls to be saved even if you are unsure if this will be the case, and you will be doing a good deed and have a good thought.

It is evil to think that someone deserves Hell, or that there is justice in it. This is the mystery with the last judgment, that God will not have his will, but Mary will rather, and those of Her children that wanted Her will - to save all of her Children. Origen thought correct, there will be universal salvation in the end.

I hope you understand. It is an honor to be condemn by God, by the Church and the Bible over something as unjust as Hell. Think of it yourself. You fought with God and his Bible and his Church in this life because you wanted souls to be saved, and even strove to eradicate this heresy and to apply universal salvation for all, even to the most evil and "undeserving" (note: nothing can be more undeserving than eternal punishments, especially in torments, and no one deserves such punishments, since a person, however evil, needs love to become good), yet, when you come before God, you will be "damned" because you wanted more good then him? Can't you see that this is a contradiction? and that it will be God himself who will fall before your feet since you have become more just and good on this point then him! All can see that it would be evil for you to be condemned, and Mary would not allow it, because you wanted souls to be save and because you condemned an unjust God.

Follow your conscience. Your conscience do not want a Hell, or that someone deserves such a punishment (yet according to blind Saints and the evil Bible, almost all souls are damned and yet no one has ever thought anything about it but that it is just in some way, because God said so! That is why souls who blindly follow God, do not follow their conscience and why they lost on this point; and even though God made them saints, they will not be saints on this point for failing to follow their conscience). Your conscience also says that it is evil to damn and punish too much, hence, God is evil if he really hold these positions of eternal torments and insufferable torments that is so severe (according to his saints) that not even all punishments on earth can give an indication of them.

It is easy to see and believe that the doctrine of Hell was taught by God as a test to see who dared to condemn him for once and follow their conscience and not just being his slave allowing him to do and believe in anything he wills however evil, such as eternal torments for dying in even one "deadly sin", such as masturbation (if they believed it was a deadly sin, that is...) Otherwise, masturbation is not a deadly sin if you do not believe it is a deadly sin. That is how conscience works. But then there is disobedience if you don't follow the rules of the Church, if you consider yourself Catholic, since they disallow masturbation. But again, disobedience is neither a deadly sin, unless you believe it is, because men have a free will for a reason, and they can make choices to follow their free will with a good conscience.


Eli: Almost every line in this email [above] contradicts you're website. I don't know where this sudden change in heart came from but I pray that you be delivered from whatever is blinding you.

Jerome: So it is blindness to want souls to be saved? But to embrace positions which damns most souls, is to see clearly?

No, my friend, it is you do not have the courage to break free from this enslavement system that is blinding you. Vatican II is more right than you think, and in due time, they might even teach that there is no Hell or that all will be saved absolutely.

I have expressed myself clearly. The change in my heart happened because I know in my conscience that Hell is the most evil that has ever existed. A true God, a good God, cannot have created a Hell or obstinately choose to send souls there for all eternity. That is why I have come to understand that this God, is not actually the true Catholic God, since he is not universal. The true God is in our consciences, and God wants us to follow our conscience.

What happens when we follow our conscience? Then we desire good upon others, such as that all souls shall be saved. A person who follows his conscience will see that Hell is evil, and that there is something wrong with this doctrine. A person who follows his conscience, and the Golden Rule (do good unto others as you want them do unto you) will see that God, who damns souls or allows them to be damned eternally, is evil if he does not change his position, and that Hell is unjust, and that it must cease to be.

I have been told many times that the God we thought was God (or was God) has lost his Godhood place in Heaven due to this injustice and that someone more just will take his place, and that Hell has already ceased to be and that all souls will be saved, although with different degrees of glory. That all people can live like one happy family is the ultimate goal and happiness, and if even one soul would be damned, there would not be perfection.

You also understand that it is evil to condemn one's own child, and you would not do this. Yet you excuse and defend a God who obstinately damns billions of souls without reason, other than that they died in his displeasure? If I was God, I would forgive all men, and make them love. If we have all eternity, even the most evil will be converted in the end. One can always learn to love with love, but one cannot learn to love with hate and torments. That is why Hell is unjust, since it takes away all chances of being converted.


If God does not want the damned or forgive them, let me have them! I will forgive them, and save them, and let them live in happiness in my soul if God rejects them. But I am sure Mother Mary will save them, as in fact, she already has. May we all live in her Holy Womb!





[After posting the above [first] post in CathInfo, a small discussion ensued before I was finally banned. The responses posted here, or the post above in its entirety, cannot be seen in the above thread link.]



Stubborn: Very screwed up OP. :facepalm: I will just say that hell lasts forever because God, being eternal, lasts forever. Therefore, if hell did not last forever, then sinners would have beaten God, sinners would be getting away with offending God if they were to ever be let out.

Jerome: It is ironic how you call me "screwed up" because I advocate salvation for my brethren and sisters. What is screwed up with that? No, rather, what is screwed up is to defend an evil God who condemns his own children.

Did you read my post? Probably not! Read it, and see what it says, then come back with some arguments.

The argument that God wants damnation and that's it, and therefore, we must accept it, is ridiculous because you don't even want damnation to exist. You only believe in it through force.

The argument that hell lasts forever because God lasts forever is also irrelevant. I mean, what is that for excuse for damning anyone? If God don't want to forgive the damned or let them live in happiness, let me have all the damned, let me forgive them, and let them live in my soul in happiness.

Just because God lives forever, does not mean an eternal injustice must be!

Sinners have not beaten God if Hell does not exist. Rather, God would have beaten himself up if Hell exists forever, since that would mean God would be unjust. Not even one just judge on earth would damn anyone to eternal punishment for whatever crime on earth. To think that God should be a dictator and damn souls only because he wishes so - is evil to the max. No one who is just would agree with his judgment, but rather try to depose him. That is why Mary will overrule God in the end, since she will have her will.

Sinners that have been forgiven from Hell and that have become good (or if there were no Hell) will have their just punishment even without an eternal Hell, such as loss of glory in Heaven or lesser rewards than those more just. However, since Heaven exists forever, everything should be able to be gained back, and more glory should be able to be attained. Therefore, no Hell needs to exist. Even a temporal punishment, such as purgatory, would be enough, instead of a Hell.

You say God would be offended if there was no Hell and his "damned" children were released? What offense is worse, that your own children, mom or dad or best friend are condemned to Hell (as they could be), or that God would be kind and forgiver sinners from Hell? If God forgave all sinners and they become good in the end and all were friends, no offense would be taken. So you see an offense that does not exist, only because you blindly and shamelessly want to defend God and his evil hell doctrine. If you follow your own conscience (that does not wish eternal evil on anyone) however, you would be following the true God. (Saints and Theologians teach God is in our conscience. I can understand why.)

The only offense would be if there was a Hell and if people where there. Think of yourself, stubborn, what if you where damned, or your mom, or dad, or best friend, or wife or children? That is an offense. You would not wish this eternal offense on anyone, much less on those you love or know, yet you still readily acknowledge Hell without actually thinking about the consequences, or whom might end up there.

If you where damned in the end (even if you where a "sinner"), I am sure you would wish to get out and be forgiven, since you would not want to be separated from those you love or live in insufferable pain eternally. Similarly, you would not wish your own parents, wife or children to be damned. So how would God be offended if they got out of Hell, if this would be the greatest happiness in reality, since it not only makes you eternally happy and gratuitous, but also makes God happy (if they could be saved and not be unjust, even according to his own laws? since he wants all to be saved, even if they don't according to his laws).

That is why this false God will fall in the judgment and the true hidden God take his place who wants men to follow their conscience, and all damned be saved, and why Origen and others like whim who taught universal salvation will be made right. The Virgin Mary will not let this injustice of eternally damning her and our children, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers etc. be going on, and when she understands she can have Her will on this point, she will, and God will fall. There is a reason why God obeys Mary on every point, and why God gave Mary power even over himself.

Already, there is no Hell, as I understand it, but even if there is, Hell will cease to exists at the last judgment, as others teach.

One thing is clear from your post, stubborn, and that is that you do not follow your conscience but rather breaks it by excusing God and by remaining a slave to an evil brainwashing system and doctrine that you know is evil and unjust - for Hell is certainly unjust, as all judges on earth readily would admit (excluded from this are those judges who are forced to believe in Hell by being Christians, but even so, they would never have condemned anyone themselves to such a punishment, since they know it is eternally unjust).

Stubborn: God is not evil, men are evil. Every man is born into this world bent on evil due to being born with original sin. This is elementary Catholic doctrine. As Fr. Wathen puts it: [You need to] look at things as they are and stop all this liberal star gazing and wishful thinking and return to hard reality. Last week in what we style a sermon you probably perceive that I was laboring and I felt ill at ease because I could not find the words to say what I had thinking for a number of weeks and have a little more success said in other places. The bishops are going to have to recognize that the fundamental premise and the farfetched hope and the basic inspiration of the second Vatican council were altogether false and insubstantial.

They are going to have to recognize that liberalism is intrinsically false and will not work, because beneath liberalism, the philosophical basis of liberalism, is what we call naturalism. Naturalism proclaims, among other heresies, that there is no such thing as original sin, that man is basically good, that he means well and if you let him grow up, he’ll grow up good, he’ll grow up moral, he’ll grow up to be a good fellow.

But Catholic doctrine says that man is not basically good, that he comes into the world bent on evil and if you leave him to himself, he’ll become a savage, he’ll become amoral. He’ll not only do most wicked things but he will try to justify them.

We have to recognize that this is the error of liberalism, that it wants to treat all men as if they really are not bad and that the only reason they are bad is that they are misguided, that they’re victims of circumstances and of their environment.

That they are bad because their mother, or their father, or their parents mistreated them, or because they were deprived of something, or because they didn’t get a chance to go to school with white folk and all that kind of thing. And we say that no, a man is bad because of original sin and he doesn’t mind being bad, he chooses to be bad. In other words, he cannot blame his wickedness on Adam only, because with every day that passes, he confirms the evil within himself.

At the second Vatican council they tried to say that "men are bad, that men are anti-Catholic because the Church has not treated men correctly, and if the Church approached them kindly, and with understanding and you might say with intelligence, modern public relations - they would have come into the Church instead of opposing it" and being against us in every way and distrusting it and even engaging in efforts to destroy it."

And the bishops are going to have to recognize that original sin is operative in every soul and it always will be, and that all men have to be disciplined, they have to acknowledge that by themselves they will do wicked things. And Almighty God in the Church established an authority over them and they may not like to be told what to do but they must be told what to do and they must be warned of the consequences of not doing it, and the consequences ultimately are hell fire...

Jerome: If God truly wants souls to be eternally damned, then yes, he is evil on this point, just as I would be if I choose to torment my children while living on earth with insufferable torments just because they offended me or "died" in my displeasure. All judges would condemn such an evil father, and even you would hate him (the evil he did) and the world would hate him and be shocked at how evil he was.

Even if every man on earth is bent on evil, that does not justify an eternal punishment for failing to live up to God's standard.

Stubborn, you don't want yourself, or your mom or dad or wife or children to be damned, hence, you don't even like this doctrine but only believe in it through force. Hell is evil, hell is unjust, hell is illogical. Only love can heal, not hate and eternal punishments.

Stubborn, have you even read my posts at all?

The only one I find honest so far have been Matto, who also understand that hell is sad, tragic and evil. That is why he addressed the point somehow by admitting that God could be hated for this doctrine. All others here have only looked the other way around, ignoring the points, excusing God. That is because you have been brainwashed! Instead of following your conscience, and the Golden Rule, which teaches that one wishes good upon others and that all shall be saved, you excuse God and Hell and claim this unjust punishment is somehow just, when it clearly is not.

Only when or if you yourself are damned, or those you love, will you see your folly. Not that you should be damned or will be, since no on will damned in the end, but if you where damned or someone you loved, you might quickly change position and not think God so holy or innocent anymore, if he simply allows them to stay their when you desire their salvation.

What a hypocrite God would be if he himself lived an earthly life without him knowing he was God and he ended up damned! I can only see it just that God himself must live an earthly life (and Jesus is not the same, since he knew he was God) to see whether he would succeed or fail in this earthly test, otherwise he is a hypocrite. And if he was damned, yet remain in Heaven as God, he would be an even worse hypocrite since the "damned" can't be in Heaven according to him. Even if God would have been saved does not change the point that Hell is evil and that God is unjust for not having taken steps to prevent souls from being eternally damned. Any father or mother on earth knows in their conscience that they want their children well even if they are evil or disobedient. No parent want their children to live in eternal torments. That is natural. Yet God is so unnatural, contrary to human nature, that he wants to damn his own children for all eternity... This only shows that human nature and justice is more reasonable and just than spiritual "reason", "nature" and "justice", which seems rather governed by pride, self-love and excessive love for punishing.

God's plan in the end will fail. The Blessed Virgin Mary will look into it and have Her will.

CathInfo: Sorry unknown, you are banned from using this forum! Banned for explicit blasphemy against God, and heresy. This ban is not set to expire.

Jerome: So I was banned for wanting to save souls, and God was being defended once more for condemning souls.

Friday, April 6, 2018

Q&A: Does Song of Songs teach that oral sex is permissible between husband and wife? And is Song of Songs to be interpreted in physical intimate way rather than in a spiritual intimate way?

Note: None of the teachings on our site must be deemed absolutely infallibly or true, and the reader must be advised to follow his own conscience. Even if our teachings proclaim this or that position to be true (according to our own interpretation), the reader must understand that this is our own private interpretation of saint quotes and church teachings: dogmas and encyclicals. Whatever the case may be, always follow what you think the church teaches on any matter; and do not trust blindly on what is taught on our site (even if we claim this or that position is a mortal sin) – even if our position may seem true and infallible (you may, however, follow what we teach blindly if you think this is the true position). If you have worries about any position, ask a knowledgeable friend or priest for guidance; and if you have further concerns, ask another priest or even several priests to see what he thinks about this or that position. No one can be forced to believe in any position that is uncertain, and the reader must be advised to follow his conscience. So if you think any position is uncertain according to your own conscience, make a reasonable judgment, and then ask for advice or continue to study the issue until you have made a right judgment – according to your conscience.

Question/Objection: Song of Solomon is a glorification of sexual relations within marriage. Songs of Solomon talks about caressing and kissing and so on. Notice in Song 2:3 that it says, " . . . and his fruit was sweet to my taste." Obviously, this involves very intimate experience. Tasting one another can have a wide variety of applications. It appears that this is a veiled way of alluding to oral sex. Therefore, oral sex is permissible between a husband and wife.

Answer: This person, of course, presents no real evidence for his assertion to support oral sex in the bible except for his own private interpretation of the bible (a practise which the Church also condemns). As Catholics should know, Catholics are not permitted to interpret the bible by themselves in opposition to Church teaching.

What the Church teaches is clear, since both Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Doctors of the Church, condemns oral sex as a mortal sin and as an unnatural sexual act (see appendix at the end of the article). And the Church has formally approved of Saint Thomas Aquinas’ and Alphonsus teachings.

Related articles:
https://against-all-heresies-and-errors.blogspot.com/2018/04/can-catholic-spouses-use-masturbation-in-the-context-of-natural-intercourse.html

https://against-all-heresies-and-errors.blogspot.com/2018/04/can-catholic-married-couples-use-sex-toys.html

It is not coincidental that in this day and age when almost all are heretics, many people are falsely interpreting King Solomon’s Song of Songs and Proverbs in a literal way instead of a figurative way (as the Holy Fathers did) that signify the spiritual relationship between God and the soul, Christ and the Church, and Christ and Our Lady. The Fathers never interpreted the Song of Songs or any other book of the Bible as a glorification of sex, and they unanimously rejected and condemned those wicked and lustful people who tried to excuse their unnatural sensuality by perverting the Holy Scripture for the sake of their own selfishness.

As said already, a Catholic is bound under pain of mortal sin to obey, consent to and follow the unanimous teaching of the Fathers on everything that they teach unanimously, as the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council teaches.

A doctrine of faith or morals that is taught by the unanimous consent of the Fathers is part of the Ordinary Magisterium. The Catholic Church infallibly teaches that all biblical doctrines that have been held by the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers are true and hence, binds all Catholics to believe them also.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 2, January 6th, 1870, ex cathedra: “I, Pius, bishop of the Catholic Church, with firm faith... accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

The Council of Trent in the 16th century was the first to infallibly define that a consensus can indeed make a doctrine part of the Ordinary Magisterium. And it was the first to infallibly define that the only kind of consensus that can do this is the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 4, AD 1546, ex cathedra: “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, hath held and doth holdor even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners [that is, those who oppose or contradict this] shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”

As we will see, the Church Fathers unanimously teaches that King Solomon’s Song of Songs and Proverbs must be interpreted in a figurative way instead of in a literal way, thus making this doctrine infallibly true (i.e., that the Song is to be interpreted spiritually) according to the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. The Church Fathers, well aware of the seemingly fleshly words and sexuality present in the Song of Songs, generally cautioned against reading it until a ‘mature spirituality’ had been obtained, lest the Song be misunderstood and lead the reader into temptation. Origen says, “I advise and counsel everyone who is not yet rid of the vexations of flesh and blood and has not ceased to feel the passion of his bodily nature, to refrain completely from reading this little book.” (Origen, Commentary on the Song of Songs, cited in Anchor Bible Commentary Song of Songs 117)

When asked for advice about what scriptural books a young girl should read, Jerome recommended the Psalms, Proverbs, Gospels, Acts and the Epistles, followed by the rest of the Old Testament. Of the Song however, Jerome counsels caution, saying “… she would fail to perceive that, though it is written in fleshly words, it is a marriage song of a spiritual bridal. And not understanding this, she would suffer from it.” (St. Jerome, Letter cvii, To Laeta, cited in Anchor Bible Commentary Song of Songs 119)

Indeed, “If you wish to understand… for what reason the body was made, then listen: it was made that it should be a temple to the Lord; that the soul, being holy and blessed, should act in it as if it were a priest serving before the Holy Spirit that dwells in you.” (Origen, Exegesis on 1 Corinthians 7:29)

Concerning the Book of Proverbs, St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-236 A.D.), From the Commentary of St. Hippolytus on Proverbs, writes:

 ““To know wisdom and instruction.” (Prov. 1:2) He who knows the wisdom of God, receives from Him also instruction, and learns by it the mysteries of the Wordand they who know the true heavenly wisdom will easily understand the words of these mysteries. Wherefore he says: “To understand the difficulties of words;” (Prov. 1:3) for things spoken in strange language by the Holy Spirit become intelligible to those who have their hearts right with God.”

St. Hippolytus of Rome goes on to explain that many things mentioned in the Book of Proverbs has a symbolical meaning:

“[On Proverbs 4:25] He “looks right on” who has thoughts free of passion; and he has true judgments, who is not in a state of excitement about external appearances. When he says, “Let thine eyes look right on,” he means the vision of the soul; and when he gives the exhortation, “Eat honey, my son, that it may be sweet to thy palate,” he uses “honey” figuratively, meaning divine doctrine, which restores the spiritual knowledge of the soul. But wisdom embraces the soul also; for, says he, “love her, that she may embrace thee.” And the soul, by her embrace being made one with wisdom, is filled with holiness and purity. Yea more, the fragrant ointments of Christ are laid hold of by the soul’s sense of smell.”

Hence that the Book of Proverbs is to be interpreted spiritually, with “thoughts free of passion” and “with holiness and purity”, just as with the Song of Solomon, and not for the purpose of any licentiousness.

St. Hippolytus of Rome goes on to explain Proverbs 5:19 in a spiritual sense—which, to the contrary, is the very verse lustful people interprets in a fleshly sense—and explains that it refers to spiritual wisdom and understanding; and that the hind and following words mentioned in Proverbs 5:19 is to be understood by “the purity of that pleasure”, and in the end he equates all of this with wisdom, that, “like a stag, can repel and crush the snaky doctrines of the heterodox [i.e., those holding unorthodox or heretical doctrines or opinions].”

“[Proverbs 5:19 “Let her be thy dearest hind, and most agreeable fawn: let her breasts [or affection or love] inebriate thee at all times; be thou delighted continually with her love.”] He shows also, by the mention of the creature (the hind), the purity of that pleasure; and by the roe he intimates the quick responsive affection of the wife. And whereas he knows many things to excite, he secures them against these, and puts upon them the indissoluble bond of affection, setting constancy before them. And as for the rest, wisdom, figuratively speaking, like a stag, can repel and crush the snaky doctrines of the heterodox. … The heterodox are the “wicked,” and the transgressors of the law are “evil men,” whose “ways”—that is to say, their deeds—he bids us not enter. … Let her therefore, says he, be with thee, like a roe, to keep all virtue fresh. (Prov. 5:19) And whereas a wife and wisdom are not in this respect the same, let her [that is, wisdom] rather lead thee; for thus thou shalt conceive good thoughts.” (The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus, "On Proverbs," by St. Hippolytus of Rome, 170-236 A.D., vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers)

Concerning this biblical passage, Benson Bible Commentary notes that: “Let her be as the loving hind — Hebrew, as the hind of loves; as amiable and delightful as the hinds are to princes and great men, who used to make them tame and familiar, and to take great delight in them, as has been observed by many writers. … Let her breasts — Rather, her loves, as Houbigant renders דדוה, at all times, in all ages and conditions; not only love her when she is young and beautiful, but when she is old, or even deformed; and be thou always ravished with her love — Love her fervently. It is a hyperbolical expression.”

The Hebrew noun for “affection” is dad and has three other biblical references (the basic meaning of dad is breast or pap), all in Ezekiel.

Since affection (dad) which is synonymous with love, can mean breast, and has correctly been translated as breast in other instances in the bible, that is also probably why most Bible translators have rendered it as breasts in Proverbs 5:19.

However, even some protestant bible versions do translate “breast” in this Bible verse as “love” or “affection”, which we believe is more accurate.

Proverbs 5:19, Revised Standard Version (RSV): “a lovely hind, a graceful doe. Let her affection fill you at all times with delight, be infatuated always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:19, Young’s Literal Translation (YLT): “A hind of loves, and a roe of grace! Let her loves satisfy thee at all times, In her love magnify thyself continually.”

Proverbs 5:19, New Century Version (NCV): “She is as lovely and graceful as a deer. Let her love always make you happy; let her love always hold you captive.”

Proverbs 5:19, Good News Translation (GNT): “pretty and graceful as a deer. Let her charms keep you happy; let her surround you with her love.”

It is of note that the approved Knox’s Catholic Translation of the Vulgate, Proverbs 5:19, reads:

“Thy own bride, gentle as a hind, graceful as a doe; be it her bosom that steals away thy senses with the delight of a lover that loves still.”

This difference in interpreting the Hebrew or Greek may also explain why we have seen different translations of this passage cited by early Church writers but without them mentioning the word “breasts”. The reason for this may be because they have interpreted this passage differently, and hence translated it in another sense. That may also explain why St. Hippolytus never mentioned the words “breasts” when commenting on this passage, and why he instead spoke of “affection of the wife.”

Whatever the case, none of the Fathers has ever interpreted breasts or kisses in a sensual way in scripture. According to St. Ambrose, the Breast mentioned in Song of Songs 8:1 is Baptism, and the Kiss is a kiss of mystical peace: “What are the breasts of the church except the sacrament of baptism? And well does he say “sucking,” as if the baptized were seeking him as a draught of snowy milk. “Finding you without,” he says, “I shall kiss you,” that is, finding you outside the body, I embrace you with the kiss of mystical peace. No one shall despise you; no one shall shut you out. I will introduce you into the inner sanctuary and the hidden places of Mother Church, and into all the secrets of mystery, so that you may drink the cup of spiritual grace.” (Consolation on the Death of Emperor Valentinian 75, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 22, p. 296)

St. Methodius, On The Abuse of Biblical Passages for the Purpose of Sensual Gratification (c. 311 A.D.): “Now Paul, when summoning all persons to sanctification and purity… in order to silence the ignorant, now deprived of all excuse… that he might take away occasion for the abuse of these passages from those who taught the sensual gratification of the body, under the pretext of begetting children… For men who are incontinent in consequence of the uncontrolled impulses of sensuality in them, dare to force the Scriptures beyond their true meaning, so as to twist into a defence of their incontinence… and they are not ashamed to run counter to the Spirit, but, as though born for this purpose, they kindle up the smouldering and lurking passion, fanning and provoking it; and therefore he, cutting off very sharply these dishonest follies and invented excuses, and having arrived at the subject of instructing them how men should behave to their wives, showing that it should be as Christ did to the Church, "who gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water by the Word," (Ephesians 5:25-26)…” (Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse III, Chapter X.--The Doctrine of the Same Apostle Concerning Purity)

The kisses, breasts, hair, lips, neck, belly, navel, etc. has a spiritual meaning according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers

According to Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory the Great and the rest of the Fathers and early Christian writers, the breasts, hair, lips, neck, belly, navel, etc. in Song of SongsSong of Solomon or Canticles of Canticles and related bible passages are the “powers” or “representations” of the soul or of the Church and Christ, or even wisdom itself. According to St. Ambrose (4th century bishop of Milan), commenting on Song of Songs 8:1, “What are the breasts of the church except the sacrament of baptism?” For St. Gregory the Great, the fawns feeding among the lilies in Song of Songs 4:5 are saints who “are unto God a sweet savor of Christ” (quoting 2 Cor. 2:15). Again from St. Ambrose, on the Song of Songs 7:2: “Small, too, are the navel and belly of the soul that ascends to Christ.” (From Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament, vol. IX)

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Father and Doctor of the Church (died 604): “To create allegories, the divine thoughts are cloaked with what we know; by examining exterior language, we attain an interior understanding. For this reason the Song of Songs employs language characteristic of sensual love to reheat the soul using familiar expressions to revive it from sluggishness and to spur it onto the love that is above using language typical of the love here below. This book mentions kisses and breasts and cheeks and thighs. We must not ridicule the sacred description of these terms but reflect upon the mercy of God. For this book goes so far as to extend the meaning of the language characteristic of our shameful love in such a way that our heart is set on fire with yearning for that sacred love. By discussing the parts of the body, this book summons us to love. Therefore we ought to note how wonderfully and mercifully this book is working within us. However, from where God lowers himself by speaking, he lifts us up there by understanding. We are instructed by the conversations proper to sensual love when their power causes us to enthusiastically burn with love for the Divinity.” (An Exposition on the Songs of Songs, Section 1 & 2; Translated from Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. CXLIV)

Pope St. Gregory the Great: “The Gentiles who were called did not cease kissing their Redeemer’s feet, because they longed for him with uninterrupted love. Hence the bride in the Song of Songs said of this same Redeemer: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.” (Song of Songs 1:2) It is fitting that she desire her Creator’s kiss, as she makes herself ready throughout her love to obey him.” (Forty Gospel Homilies 33, Quoted in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon by J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 292)

“The song of Songs introduces the bride saying, “Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth.” (Song of Songs 1:2) Now, by “kiss” we understand not the joining of mouths but the communion of pious soul and divine Word. It is like the bride saying something of this kind, I experienced your words in writing, but I long to hear your very voice as well, I wish to receive the sacred teaching directly from your mouth and to caress it with the lips of my mind.” (Commentary on the Song of Songs 1, Quoted in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon by J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 292)

Pope St. Gregory the Great: “Let us set this before our eyes: due to its unceasing desire, a soul of any of the chosen ones is set on fire in love for the sight of the bridegroom. Since such a soul lacks the power to perfectly perceive such a sight in this life, it contemplates his eminence and is deeply pierced because of this love. Now a deep piercing—which is born of charity and set on fire by desire—resembles a kiss, for as often as the soul kisses God, it is deeply pierced with love for him. At the present time there are many who really fear the Lord and have received [the grace of] good works but they still do not kiss God because they are not deeply pierced by a love for him at all.” (An Exposition on the Songs of Songs, Section 18; Translated from Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. CXLIV)

Pope St. Gregory the Great: “And of course the kiss of his mouth is the very fullness of interior peace; when we have attained it, there will no longer be anything to seek. This is why it is fittingly added, “FOR YOUR BREASTS ARE BETTER THAN WINE.” (Song of Songs 1:1) Wine is the knowledge of God received by those of us who reside in this life. But we embrace the breasts of the bridegroom when we contemplate him in the eternal fatherland by an embrace of his presence. Therefore let the soul say, “Your breasts are better than wine.” It is as if the soul says, “Great indeed is the knowledge about yourself that you have bestowed on me in this life; great is the wine of your intimate knowledge by which you make me very drunk; but your breasts are better than wine since whatever is presently known about you through faith is transcended by the beauty and loftiness of contemplation.” (An Exposition on the Songs of Songs, Section 19; Translated from Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. CXLIV)

St. Ambrose of Milan, Archbishop, Confessor, Father and Doctor of the Church (died 397): “But the church does not cease to kiss Christ’s feet, and she demands not one but many kisses in the Song of Solomon, since like blessed Mary, she listens to his every saying, she receives his every word, when the gospel or prophets are read, and she keeps all these words in her heart.” (Letter 62, To His Sister, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 26, p. 392)

St. Ambrose: “Therefore such a soul also desires many kisses of the Word, so that she may be enlightened with the light of the knowledge of God. For this is the kiss of the Word, I mean the light of holy knowledge. God the Word kisses us, when he enlightens our heart and governing faculty with the spirit of the knowledge of God. The soul that has received this gift exults and rejoices in the pledge of wedded love and says, “I opened my mouth and panted.” (Ps. 119:131; 118:131 in Douay-Rheims Version.) For it is with the kiss that lovers cleave to each other and gain possession of the sweetness of grace that is within, so to speak. Through such a kiss the soul cleaves to God the Word, and through the kiss the spirit of him who kisses is poured into the soul, just as those who kiss are not satisfied to touch lightly with their lips but appear to be pouring their spirit into each other. Showing that she loves not only the appearance of the Word and his face, as it were, but all his inner parts, she adds to the favor of the kisses: “Your breasts are better than wine, and the fragrance of your ointments is above all perfumes.” (Song of Solomon 4:10) She sought the kiss, God the Word poured himself into her wholly and laid bare his breasts to her, that is, his teachings and the laws of the wisdom that is within, and was fragrant with the sweet fragrance of his ointment. Captive to these, the soul is saying that the enjoyment of the knowledge of God is richer than the joy of any bodily pleasure.” (Isaac, or the Soul 3.8-9, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 65, p. 16-17)

St. Ambrose: “The church beautiful in [those recently baptized]. So that God the Word says to her: “You are all fair, my love, and there is no blemish in you,” for guilt has been washed away. “Come here from Lebanon, from the beginning of faith, you will pass through and pass on,” (Song of Songs 4:7-8) because, renouncing the world, she passed through things temporal and passed on to Christ. And again, God the Word says to her, “How beautiful and sweet are you made, I love, in your delights! Your stature is become like that of a palm tree, and your breasts like bunches of grapes” (Song of Songs 7:6-8).” (On the Mysteries 7.39, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2.10:322)

St. Ambrose: ““Your navel is like a round bowl, not wanting tempered wine. Your belly is like a heap of wheat, set about with lilies. Your neck is like a tower of ivory. Your eyes are a pool in Heshbon.” (cf. Song of Songs 7:2-4) The good navel of the soul, capable of receiving all virtues, is like a bowl, fashioned by the author of faith himself (Heb. 12:2). For in a bowl wisdom has mixed her wine, saying, “Come, eat my bread and drink the wine which I have mingled for you.” (Prov. 9:5) This navel, therefore, fashioned with all the beauty of the virtues, does not lack mixed wine. His belly also was filled not only with the wheaten food of justice, as it were, but also with that of grace, and it bloomed with sweetness like a lily (Isaiah 31:5).” (Consolation on the Death of Emperor Valentinian 96, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 22, pp. 293-94)

Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus (died c. 457): “She is admitted to the inner chamber, the quarters and rooms of the bridegroom, and boastfully says to her own retinue, “The king introduced me into his chamber,” (Song of Solomon 1:4) that is, he revealed to me his hidden purposes, the plan concealed from ages and generations he made known to me, the treasuries obscure, hidden, and unseen he opened to me, in keeping with the prophecy of Isaiah.” (Commentary on the Song of Songs 1, Quoted in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon by J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 295)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Archbishop, Confessor, Father and Doctor of the Church (died 386): “You wish to know the place? He says in the Canticles, “I came down to the nut garden” (Song of Solomon 6:11: A Type of the Passion of Christ); for it was a garden where he was crucified.” (Catechetical Lectures14.5, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 65, p. 16-17)

St. Caesarius of Arles, Archbishop of Arles (died 542): “It is said concerning the church of the Gentiles, “I am dark and beautiful, O daughter of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 1:5) Why is the church dark and beautiful? She is dark by nature, beautiful by grace. Why dark? “Indeed, in guilt was I born, and in sin my mother conceived me.” (Ps. 51:5; 50:7 in Douay-Rheims Version.) Why beautiful? “Cleanse me of sin with hyssop, that I may be purified; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” (Ps. 51:7; 50:9 in Douay-Rheims Version.)” (Sermon 12.4.1, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 47, p. 209)

St. Jerome, Hermit, Priest, Confessor, Bible Translator, Theologian, Father and Doctor of the Church (died 420): “Born, in the first instance, of such parentage we are naturally black, and even when we have repented, so long as we have not scaled the heights of virtue, we may still say: “I am black but comely, O you daughters of Jerusalem.” (Song of Solomon 1:5) But you will say to me, “I have left the home of my childhood; I have forgotten my father, I am born anew in Christ. What reward do I receive for this?” The context shows—“The king shall desire your beauty.” This, then, is the great mystery. “For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be” not as is there said, “of one flesh,” (Ephesians 5:31-32) but “of one spirit.” Your bridegroom is not haughty or disdainful; He has “married an Ethiopian woman.” (Numbers 12:1) When once you desire the wisdom of the true Solomon and come to Him, He will avow all His knowledge to you; He will lead you into His chamber with His royal hand; (Song of Solomon 1:4) He will miraculously change your complexion so that it shall be said of you, “Who is this that goes up and has been made white?”” (Letter 22.1, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2.6:22-23)

St. Hippolytus of Rome, Priest and Martyr (died 235): “[On Song of Solomon 1:4]“The king introduced me to his treasures.” Who is this king, if not Christ himself? And what are these treasures, if not his chambers? This is the people who say, “We will rejoice and delight in you,” for he calls everyone. First, it tells us about the past, then it reveals a time of penance in the future: “We will rejoice and delight in you.” “I loved your breasts more than wine,” not the wine that was mixed by Christ, surely, but the wine whereby Noah previously languished in drunkenness, the wine that deceived Lot. “We loved your fonts of milk more than this wine” because breasts were the commandments given by Christ [in the law]; they delight but certainly do not inebriate. For this reason, indeed, the apostles said, “Do not drink so much wine that you become drunk.” (Eph. 5:18) Therefore the beloved says, “I loved your breasts more than wine; righteousness loves you,” because those who follow the way of righteousness are those who love you, whereas unbelievers hate you and deserve retribution from the judge.” (Treatise on the Song of Songs 3.1.4, Quoted in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomonby J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 295)

Bishop Gregory of Elvira (died c. 392): “For thus is it called the Canticle of Canticles, inasmuch as it is above every canticle that Moses and Mary in Exodus and Isaiah and Habakkuk and others sang. These are better canticles because they give praise to the Lord with joyful mind and soul for the liberation of the people, or for their conversion, or in gratitude for the divine works. Here they are superior also because the voice of the singing church and of God is heard. Because the divine and human are united with on another, therefore, it is called the Canticle of Canticles, that is, the best of the best.” (Explanation of the Song of Songs 1.2, in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon by J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 289)

St. Augustine of Hippo, Bishop, Philosopher, Theologian, Father and Doctor of the Church (died 430): “The Canticle of Canticles sings a sort of spiritual rapture experienced by holy souls contemplating the nuptial relationship between Christ the King and his queen-city, the church. But it is a rapture veiled in allegory to make us yearn for it more ardently and rejoice in the unveiling as the bridegroom comes into view—the bridegroom to whom the canticles sings, “The righteous love you,” and the hearkening bride replies, “There is love in your delights.”” (City of God 17.20, in The Fathers Of The Church: A New Translation, vol. 24, p. 77)

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (died c. 340): “And as we are examining His Name, the seal of all we have said may be found in the oracle of Solomon the wisest of the wise, where he says in the Song of Songs: “Thy name is as ointment poured forth.” (Song of Songs 1:3) Yea, he being supplied with divine wisdom, and thought worthy of more mystic revelations about Christ and His Church, and speaking of Him as Heavenly Bridegroom, and her as Bride...” (Proof of the Gospel 4.16, Quoted in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon by J. Robert Wright, Thomas C. Oden, p. 293)

Cassiodorus, Roman statesman and writer (died c. 585): “In short, you deserve Christ’s kiss and the continuance of your virginal glory forever, for these words are spoken to you: “Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth, for your breasts are better than wine, smelling sweet of the best ointments,” (Songs of Solomon 1:1) and the other verses which that divine book includes with its mystical proclamation.” (Exposition of the Psalms, Preface, in Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation 51:42)

Origen, biblical scholar and theologian (died c. 254): “We must not, however, overlook the fact that in certain versions we find written “for your sayings are better than wine,” where we read “for your breasts are better than wine.” (Song of Solomon 1:4) But although it may seem that this gives a plainer meaning in regard to the things about which we have discoursed in the spiritual interpretation, we ourselves keep to what the Seventy interpreters wrote in every case. For we are certain that the Holy Spirit willed that the figures of the mysteries should be roofed over in the Divine Scriptures, and should not be displayed publicly, and in the open air.” (Commentary on the Song of Songs 1.3, in Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation 26:74)

St. Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens (1st century): “And in the Songs there are those passionate longings fit only for prostitutes. There are too those other sacred pictures boldly used to represent God, so that what is hidden may be brought out into the open and multiplied, what is unique and undivided may be divided up, and multiple shapes and forms be given to what has neither shape nor form. All this is to enable the one capable of seeing the beauty hidden within these images to find that they are truly mysterious, appropriate to God, and filled with a great theological light. But let us not suppose that the outward face of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. Rather, it is the protective garb of the understanding of what is ineffable and invisible to the common multitude. This is so in order that the most sacred things are not easily handled by the profane but are revealed instead to the real lovers of holiness. Only these latter know how to pack away the workings of childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive, contemplative power to cross over to the simple, marvelous, transcendent truth of the symbols.” (Letter IX, in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, pp. 282-83)

As we have seen, the Church Fathers unanimously teaches that King Solomon’s Song of Songs and Proverbs must be interpreted in a figurative way instead of in a literal way, thus making this interpretation infallible according to the Councils of Trent and Vatican I. Anyone, therefore, who dares to teach contrary to this unanimous interpretation of the Fathers on the Song of Songs (claiming that the Song definitely approves of various sexual acts or deeds when no one supports this notion), must be regarded as having deviated from how the Church understands these biblical books and hence is to be censured, because he denies the infallible teachings of the most Holy Councils of Trent and Vatican I, which explicitly declares that “the unanimous  consent of the Fathers” in a doctrinal matter is the official teaching of the Church. Indeed, so important is it to regard someone as having deviated from the faith who rejects the Church’s teaching on this matter that the Church declared in the Council of Trent that “Contraveners [that is, those who oppose or contradict that “the unanimous consent of the Fathers” is the official teaching of the Church] shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”

APPENDIX

St. Alphonsus condemns oral sex as a mortal sin. He also condemns other unnecessary non-procreative sexual acts as mortal sins:

1: On Matrimony, Book VI, n. 491-492
St. Alphonsus considers a question on marital sexual acts:


Or whether it is always [a] mortal [sin], if the husband were to insert [his] penis into the mouth of [his] wife?

Then, the Saint gives an answer proposed by some moral theologians of his day:

“In the negative [say several authors] … but only if there is no danger of pollution.”

Some theologians of that time period (1700’s) claimed that it would be moral, only if there was no danger that the husband would climax (“danger of pollution”). But then the Saint rejects their answer and gives an answer he asserts to be the truth:


But the truth is in the affirmative [that it is a mortal sin, citing several authors] … not only because, in this act, on account of the warmth of the mouth, there is proximate danger of pollution, but also because this [act] is considered [to be], in itself, an abnormal type of pleasure against nature (as has been said of any type of shameful sex).”

Saint Alphonsus asserts that this type of act, within marriage is a mortal sin for two reasons. First, because there is always the danger of pollution, i.e. the risk that the husband will climax, making the act a completed unnatural sexual act. Second, because this type of act, even without climax, is “in itself … against nature”, which means that it is an intrinsically evil and gravely immoral sexual sin. And he asserts that the same is true of “any type of shameful sex”, that is to say, any type of unnatural sexual act.

An unnatural sexual act is any type of sex, whether or not climax occurs, which is not ordered, by the nature of the act, toward procreation. Unnatural sexual acts are not procreative. Neither are they truly unitive (even if there exists a merely physical type of union in the act), since these acts do not offer the type of union ordained by God for husband and wife.

Then Alphonsus adds some commentary after his answer:

“And besides, whenever another orifice [or vessel] is sought by the husband, other than the natural orifice, which has been ordained for copulation, it is considered [to be] an abnormal type of [sexual] pleasure.”

The term “vessel” [vas] in Latin texts of moral theology refers to any orifice or receptacle used in a sexual act. The natural vessel is the vagina of the wife. Unnatural vessels include any other orifice or body part used to commit a sexual act (even if it is not strictly speaking an orifice).

St. Alphonsus considers the question on rectal intercourse:

“Whether a man sins mortally by beginning intercourse in the posterior receptacle (the anus), so as to consummate it afterwards in the appropriate receptacle (the vagina)?" The answer given to that question is: "[Various theologians] deny it is a mortal sin as long as there is no danger of pollution [ejaculation outside of the vagina]... But it is more generally and truly affirmed [to be a mortal sin] by [various theologians], because coitus itself of this kind (even if without insemination) is true sodomy, although not consummated, just as copulation in the natural vessel of another woman is true fornication, even if insemination does not take place.”