Protesting and contradictory
Saul,
“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee” (Lk I, 28)
“Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb” (Lk I,
42)
Mr. Saul, you begin your letter wishing me peace and finished it defying me
and insinuating that I do not respect the others. As a proof of your
“evangelical” respect, you say to me: “when we wish to see all kinds of
animals, we go to the Zoo and not to the Catholic Church” etc. And
afterwards you say at the end of your letter – leaving out what you
previously wrote about the Zoo: “Respect is good and we like it” I also like
respect. But I would not consider respectful, who, by fake respect to me,
left me in error. I would thank whoever showed me some error, to correct me
and to save me, because the respect to the next demands us not to respect
their faults. This is what the teacher does when correcting the exams from
his dear students.
I accept your challenge and I will publish your letter, with pleasure. It is
pretty funny, and it will entertain our readers a great deal.
Do not complain about the approximations I will make – in retribution of
yours – and that will be funny as well.
After wishing me in peace, you come armed against me, to challenge me to a
combat, as if I was Goliath.
There comes Saul, such as a new and heroic David, armed with the “father of
the dummies” (as we commonly call the dictionary in Brazil) and with badly
chosen excerpts from the Sacred Scriptures.
This is the first time that Saul imitates David. But if Saul, who was
anything but good, has prophesied among other prophets (1 Kings XIX, 24),
why could not you – who is also Saul – heroically challenge me, such as a
new David?
There comes then Saul, today, among the “warriors” ... of the Internet.
Intending to play the wise prophet, theologian and dictionary expert. With
protestant Bible and dictionary included.
Learn then, my dear Saul, first of all, that no dictionary is a treaty on
epistemology, hermeneutic nor exegesis. And learn also that any serious
study on synonymy will tell you that no synonym is absolutely equal.
Learn still, my dear opposer, that if there are two different words to
designate something or an action, it is because each one of them gives a
different nuance of the same thing or action. If two words are absolutely
identical, the language tends to eliminate one of them.
Thus, to adore is not the same as to venerate, and even less, to idolize.
Each one of these words has a different sense.
If your “father of the dummies” does not make this distinction, it is
because it is not a very wise “father of the dummies”. And although the most
famous “father of the dummies” in Brazil is called Aurélio, if you compare
it to any foreign “father of the dummies”, you will promptly see a
difference... a difference which is, let me say ... gigantic (I hesitated in
the selection of the adjective, and I have used a very vulgar one, just to
keep the respect).
“To adore” stands for recognizing something or someone as God, the Creator
of all things.
Although your friend Aurélio – that does not reside here in my house – does
not explain it, “to idolize” stands for the opposite, in a certain sense,
for it assigns the action of adoring a creature instead of adoring the
Creator.
Materially, the action of adoring and that of idolizing are identical.
Formally they are opposite.
For sure you understand the difference between matter and form, in regard of
an action. But, in order to help your reminding and comprehension, I will
give you a didactical example, for an expert in dictionary and in distorted
reading of the Bible is often so busy in memorizing and quoting the
Scriptures in “centimeters” and “millimeters”, that one can easily have
forgotten such an elementary thing. Moreover, the Brazilian “fathers of the
dummies”, and even the foreign ones, do not deal with it.
Well then, Mr. Saul, there goes the didactical example I have promised you:
A physician who makes a surgery in the heart of a patient and a murderer,
materially speaking, act in the same way: they open the chest of a human
being with a cutting and piercing instrument (scalpel or a dagger). However,
formally, their actions are opposite, for one has by end the healing of the
man from whom he opened the chest – (This is the doctor, did you get it Mr.
Saul?) – while the other aims to kill the one he opened the chest with the
dagger (This is the murderer, clear, Mr. Saul?).
Thereby, that who adores God and that who adores an idol do things that
materially are equivalent, but formally are opposite. That is why there are
the verbs to adore and to idolize.
Poor Dictionary Aurélio states that to adore, to revere, to idolize, and to
love extremely are synonyms. It is you who ensures me that. And whoever
followed you and your distorted way of reading, Mr. Saul, would conclude
that when someone says: “I love chocolate very much” would be considering
chocolate as the Creator of heaven and earth. And when yourself say: “I love
my kids extremely”, you would be – according Aurélio's opinion – performing
an act of idolatry, since for the dictionary, and for you, to love extremely
is the same as to adore.
What a foolish reasoning, don't you think so, Mr. Saul?
Can you realize the dead-end road the “father of the dummies” has taken you?
Mr. Saul, Mr. Saul... Put your “father of the dummies” away. Let it go. Do
you want a piece of advice? Be an “orphan”. At least when you argue about
religion or philosophy, do not base yourself on popular dictionaries; be an
“orphan”, I repeat.
But you probably will not accept my advice. How is it possible that a Saul,
who wants to imitate David, would accept an advice from someone who he
considers to be Goliath, although I am just 5'3''?
Patience!... The advice has been generously given.
You tell me you are evangelic and not protestant.
This is false, Mr. Saul. You are protestant indeed. There is no “evangelic”
religion. This adjective is falsely used by you and many others in our days.
What is the denomination of your sect, Mr. Saul?
Do not hide what you really are, behind the adjective “evangelic”, which is
way too vague. Behind it there are Lutherans, who believe that Christ is
God. But it also hides Jehovah's Witnesses who do not believe in Christ's
divinity.
What is your sect, Mr. Saul? There are thousands of sects calling themselves
“evangelic”, each one of them intending to be the only truthful Church. What
is your sect Mr. Saul? You do not say, and you hide yourself behind the term
“evangelic”.
In reality, you are a son of Luther. And one does not need to be German in
order to be protestant, that is to say, to be son of Luther. There are,
unfortunately, Brazilians sons of his (and also of the dictionary). And do
not complain about this “approximation”, for it was you who approximated the
Catholic Church to the Zoo.
Do you know Camões, the famous Portuguese poet? Do you? Do you remember what
he wrote?
"For even among the Portuguese traitors there were sometimes".
For I reminded this verse, when I read your last phrase: “In time, I am not
protestant, for I was born in Brazil.” For even among the Brazilian,
Protestants there were many times, Mr. Saul.
Who is born in Brazil is Brazilian, but not necessarily is Catholic,
Protestant or a tailor.
You're not doing well with logics, Mr. Saul. The dictionary and the
distorted reading of the Bible is causing you “rheumatism” in your
imaginative faculties, Mr. Saul.
Do you want an evidence?
You have quoted me an excerpt from the second Book of the Kings (XVIII, 3-4)
in order to prove that King Ezequias had destroyed the brazen serpent made
by Moses.
Thanks for the evidence that I am right.
For what does this excerpt that you quote prove?
It proves: 1. That Moses indeed made a serpent made of bronze; 2. that this
serpent was kept by the Jews for a long period of time; 3. that they ended
up adoring it or saying inappropriate cult to it 4. and due to that,
Ezequias broke it up.
Was Moses wrong when he made the brazen serpent? Of course not, because it
was God Himself who ordered it to be set up and to be looked at in order to
heal the Jews. Were the Jews wrong in keeping it? Of course not, because
they showed gratitude and obedience to God by doing so. And among those who
conserved it were Moses, Joshua, the Judges, David, Solomon. Would it be
possible that they were all wrong? Would it be possible that none of them
had an “Aurélio” nor any other pocket dictionary to learn that adoring,
venerating, revering, and loving extremely are all the same thing?
And none of the above could count on a clever Saul to advice them? Why, for
so many centuries, God and His messengers allowed the brazen serpent to be
kept?
It is obvious that it was allowed because it was not adored. When they
abusively transformed it into an idol, Ezequias immediately destroyed it.
But bear in mind, Mr. Saul, that “abusus non tolit usum”. And do not
you think that this is a Church's commandment: it is a juridical principle
from Roman Right: Misuse does not expunge use. If one abuses on the cult of
dulia due to a saint and to his image, and shifts it from veneration to
idolatry, this is a condemned abuse that does not turn forbidden nor invalid
the cult of dulia – and not of latria – due to a saint and his image.
Were then the Jews wrong in transforming it into an idol? Obviously so, and
Ezequias did very well in destroying it.
Therefore, as long as one does not adore an image as if it was God, it is
licit to have it and even “to look at it to be healed”, as God commanded.
And no true Catholic look at an image of Our Lady or of the saints thinking
that they are God and adoring these images. We venerate it, in the same
manner you venerate your mother's photograph.
And when we pray to Our Lady, we just repeat the text from Saint Luke which
I quoted to you in the very beginning of this letter. And which you most
certainly refuse to repeat.
In Saint Luke's you also find: “all generations shall call me blessed” (Lk
I, 48) Every generation shall call the Virgin Mary blessed. Every
generation but yours, Mr. Saul.
Which is then your generation, Mr. Saul?
Can you see how distorted is your reading of the Bible?
You ask me to correct you (through the Word) that in order to reach God, one
can only make it through Christ. So I will correct you.
First of all, let me ask you a question: How did you know that Christ is our
only mediator?
By chance, did Christ appear to you?
I don't believe so.
Christ does not appear to any Saul.
You will tell me that you knew Christ by reading the Gospels. By means
of the Gospels.
Therefore, there was a mean established by Christ himself for knowing Him.
Our Lord Jesus Christ chose twelve apostles to teach everyone who was Him,
and whoever does not listen to these mediators of Christ, does not listen to
Christ Himself: “He that heareth you heareth me” (Lk X, 16). Christ has
demanded us to listen to His apostles and evangelists as “secondary
mediators” between God and us.
And to Peter He Said: “and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren”
(Lk XXII, 32).
He did not give this mission to anyone else.
And you, Mr. Saul, refuse – like every protestant – to be confirmed
by Peter.
Christ could have decided to come to this world as an adult. He wanted to
come by means of the Holy Blessed Mary. Mr. Saul does not
accept what God has established, because Mr. Saul, dictionary expert, thinks
that he understands the Bible and only accepts from it what he, Saul, thinks
to be correct, and it is only correct what Saul thinks.
Mr. Saul – like every Protestant – declares to believe in the Bible, but
chooses what he wants to believe in the Bible. The protestant declares to
believe in the Bible, but he does not believe in what it says. The
protestant transforms the Bible into an idol.
Do you want another proof that you do not accept everything which is in the
Bible?
Our Lord Jesus Christ, at the time of His death in the Calvary, gave us the
Holy Blessed Mary to be our Mother, by saying to her and to Saint John:
“Woman, behold thy son. (…) Behold thy mother” (Jo XIX, 26-27).
Is this text on your Bible, Mr. Saul?
Of course it is!
But it happens that you do not accept it, because you do not want to accept
Holy Blessed Mary as your mother.
But, bear in mind, my dear Saul, that only those who have Mary as Mother can
have God as Father. You will only become David, if you accept she who God
has chosen as a mean to come to us. If you accept that Christ
established her as mediator between Him and us. That is why it is said that
to the shepherds and to the kings it was pointed that they should find the
Redeemer with his mother. And you think, quite erroneously, that you can
find Christ disregarding His holy blessed Mother.
And you think that there can be a Church of Christ outside the foundation,
which Christ Himself established: “That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I
will build my church” (Mt XVI, 18).
What is your church? Who has founded it? How old is it?
If it was not built upon Peter, it is not the only Church of Christ. That's
why the Roman Catholic Church is the unique Church of God, the only true
Church, outside which there is no salvation.
Yes, “the truth shall set you free”, said Jesus. And Mr. Saul, poor Saul,
keeps attached to his biases, which are the glasses that distort everything
he reads. The truth sets us free. And the truth is only possessed wholly and
perfectly by the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church, outside which there is no
salvation.
Hoping to have pleased you, and wishing you the light of true Faith, I
subscribe myself.
In Corde Jesu et Mariae, semper.
Orlando Fedeli.
