Saturday, August 11, 2012

American Military Preparing to Fight Americans

On December 31, 2011, while the US was partying on New Year's Eve and no one was watching, President Barack Obama quietly signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the president to instruct the military to arrest any American at any time with no charge and place them in an undisclosed place for an indefinite period of time with no trial.  You can go here and here to read about this.  As I posted on March 20, President Obama further signed an executive order as follows:
In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense. 
Now the latest news is that the military is putting a plan in place to fight Americans.  Oh yes, you read that correctly.  The American military is making plans to go to war against American citizens. Here is the editorial from The Washington Times, lamenting that this is going too far:

EDITORIAL: The Civil War of 2016

U.S. military officers are told to plan to fight Americans

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army's University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.

The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.

The vision is hard to take seriously [no, unfortunately, it is not hard to take seriously at all]. As retired Army Brig. Gen. Russell D. Howard, a former professor at West Point, observed earlier in his career, “I am a colonel, colonels write a lot of crazy stuff, but no one listens to colonels, so I don’t see the problem.” [They are trying very hard to deflect attention from this.]  Twenty years ago, then-Air Force Lt. Col. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. created a stir with an article in Parameters titled “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012.” It carried a disclaimer that the coup scenario was “purely a literary device intended to dramatize my concern over certain contemporary developments affecting the armed forces, and is emphatically not a prediction.”
The scenario presented in Small Wars Journal isn’t a literary device but an operational lay-down intended to present the rationale and mechanisms for Americans to fight Americans. Col. Benson and Ms. Weber contend, “Army officers are professionally obligated to consider the conduct of operations on U.S. soil.” This is a dark, pessimistic and wrongheaded view of what military leaders should spend their time studying.

 A professor at the Joint Forces Staff College was relieved of duty in June for uttering the heresy that the United States is at war with Islam. The Obama administration contended the professor had to be relieved because what he was teaching was not U.S. policy. Because there is no disclaimer attached to the Small Wars piece, it is fair to ask, at least in Col. Benson’s case, whether his views reflect official policy regarding the use of U.S. military force against American citizens.
Visions of Sister Lucy
I wish I was making this up. Interestingly, it is planned for 2016. That is very close to coinciding with the 100th anniversary of the apparitions of our Lady of Fatima, which occurred in 1917. What does this have to do with anything? Read the following from
At Rianjo, Spain in August 1931, Our Lord communicated to Sister Lucy His dissatisfaction with the Pope’s and the Catholic bishops’ failure to obey His command to consecrate Russia [Sister Lucy was one of the visionaries of Fatima and the only one to survive past childhood, as predicted by our Lady]. He said:
Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My requests, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.
In another text Lucy wrote that Our Lord complained to her:
They did not wish to heed My request! Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.
The reference by Jesus to the King of France’s disobedience and punishment is as follows:
On June 17, 1689 the Sacred Heart of Jesus manifested to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque His command to the King of France that the King was to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart. For 100 years to the day the Kings of France delayed, and did not obey.

So on June 17, 1789 [100 years to the day from St. Margaret Mary Alacoque's warning] the King of France was stripped of his legislative authority by the upstart Third Estate, and four years later the soldiers of the French Revolution executed the King of France as if he were a criminal.

In 1793 France sent its King, Louis XVI, to the guillotine. He and his predecessors had failed to obey Our Lord’s request that France be consecrated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and thus misfortune had befallen both the King and his country.

Execution of King Louis XVI
Now, after more than seventy-five years, another consecration requested by God Himself, the solemn public Consecration of Russia, has still not been performed. In the meantime, we see that the prophecies predicted by Our Lady of Fatima are being fulfilled, and the Pope and bishops will be punished if they continue delaying the execution of God’s requests.
In the vision of the Third Secret of Fatima, released by the Vatican on June 26, 2000 the Pope and bishops were shown the results of ignoring Our Lord’s requests. The vision depicts a bishop dressed in white, who is shot and killed by a band of soldiers while he is kneeling at the foot of a large wooden cross atop a hill, after having traversed a half-ruined city filled with corpses. The execution of the bishop dressed in white is followed by the execution of many bishops, priests and laity. This prophetic vision of death and destruction should serve as a warning to those who persist in delaying the requests of God, for Our Lord warned Sister Lucy that if the bishops continue to do this, "they will follow him (the murdered King Louis XVI of France) into misfortune."
We are seeing our government turn against the Catholic Church before our eyes. The handwriting is on the wall. We know that the government views anyone who speaks out as a potential terrorist. Even those who pray in front of abortion clinics are suspects.  As I have stated and shown on this blog, soon anyone who "discriminates" against homosexuals will be prosecuted for hate crimes.  This will allow the government to close churches.  Just as the Catholic Church in China has been forced underground, so it will happen here in the United States. 

There is no more time to bury our heads in the sand.  We are headed for times of great persecution and martyrdom.  We must start preparing now and asking our Lord and our Lady for the grace and strength to stand up for what is right as the United States government more and more becomes the force of evil.  And it will not matter who is president or controlling the Congress, Republican or Democrat.  Voting for the "right" person will not make a difference.  Prayer is our only weapon.

Friday, August 10, 2012

Romney - Faux Conservative

I was recently told by a good and devout Catholic recently that I must vote for Mitt Romney because to choose not to vote is the same as voting for Barack Obama, and to vote for any other candidate is throwing my vote away, which again amounts to voting for Barack Obama.  When I tried to point out that I really see no difference between the candidates, I was basically told I was crazy, that Romney is our only hope.

I have posted several times on this blog about my great disappointment in Mitt Romney, from his approval of homosexuals adopting children, to his support for the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the president to order the military to arrest any American citizen at any time with no charge and hold them indefinitely at an undisclosed location for an indefinite period of time with no trial, to the fact that Romney had a fundraiser at the house of the manufacturer of the morning after pill

Now the Catholic League is "astonished" that Romney will not take a position on the Chick-Fil-A controversy.  If Bill Donohue of the Catholic League had been the least aware of just how liberal Romney really is, he would not be in the least shocked at Romney's reaction, or lack of reaction, to the condemnation the owner of Chick-Fil-A received from the liberal establishment for stating he was  in favor of traditional marriage and against same sex marriage. 

Conservatives so badly want a candidate that they believe represents them that they are willing to accept anything that is thrown their way.  Back in the 2008 election, the liberal mantra was "anyone but Bush."  As a result, we got Barack Obama, who has led this country rapidly down the road to atheistic socialism.  Now in 2012 the conservative mantra is "anyone but Obama."  As a result, conservatives stand behind Mitt Romney, whose record is almost as liberal as that of Barack Obama. Until recent years, Romney was a strong supporter of abortion, his healthcare law in Massachusetts was the blueprint for Obama's pro-abortion, anti-Catholic healthcare law, and as I have shown, he is most definitely in favor of big government intruding into our lives, e.g., the National Defense Authorization Act.  Romney says he is not in favor of same sex marriage or "civil unions that are identical to marriage", as he says in this quote:
“Well when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.”

As Josh Marshall of states:  "What does that mean exactly? I’m not sure why Romney wouldn’t say, I’m against gay marriage. I’m against civil unions. But I could support visitation rights, some domestic partnership benefits etc. But he didn’t. He seems to be saying that some civil unions could be okay as long as they’re clearly inferior to ‘marriage’, rather than simply being a different name for the identical bundle of rights."

So why are we surprised when Mitt Romney refuses to take a position on conservative issues, such as the controversy of Chick-Fil-A?  People need to stop hearing and seeing only what they want to believe and face up to reality.  We do not have a choice in this presidential election.

Here is the article from Newmax:

Catholic League Chief ‘Astonished’ By Romney Chick-fil-A Stance

Monday, 06 Aug 2012 01:49 PM

By David A. Patten

The Romney campaign’s decision to duck the Chick-fil-A controversy over gay-marriage appears to have reopened old wounds with social conservatives, who were never fully sold that the former Massachusetts governor would represent their concerns in the marbled halls of Washington.

“This is the most disheartened that certainly I’ve felt looking at this entire race,” said Catholic League president Bill Donohue. He told Newsmax in an exclusive interview that social conservatives will now have to decide whether to sit out the race.  [Where have you been on all the other issues, Bill?  You wouldn't be surprised if you had been paying attention.]
On Friday, Romney told reporters he does not intend to address the controversy that was touched off when big city mayors threatened to punish the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain after its president, Dan Cathy, voiced support for the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

“Those are not things that are part of my campaign,” said Romney.  [Why aren't they part of his campaign?  We really need to ask ourselves that question.]
Romney’s aides have explained that while the presumptive GOP presidential nominee favors the traditional definition of marriage, he is trying to structure his remarks to keep the focus solely on the economy in order to have the best possible chance of defeating President Barack Obama in November.  [Romney doesn't want to talk about this issue.  Could it be that he is hiding his true agenda, which isn't all the different from Barack Obama?]
Longtime columnist and former GOP presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan waded in on the issue Friday, telling Politico that Republicans must push back against gay marriage or risk losing social conservatives for a generation.

“I don’t understand why Mitt Romney doesn’t just get his Secret Service detail and take his press corps down to a Chick-fil-A and show solidarity with these people,” Buchanan said, adding: " . . . Reagan would have walked right on down there naturally.”  [Wake up and smell the coffee, Pat.  Romney is folding on this issue, and he will be no different than Barack Obama if elected president.  That is why he won't "show solidarity with these people."]
Donohue, pointing out that constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz and the ACLU issued bold statements condemning the effort to punish Chick-fil-A, told Newsmax that Romney’s decision to be “agnostic on this issue” could prove to be “the defining moment” of the 2012 campaign.  [We've had tons of "defining moments" in this campaign.  This is only the latest.]

Social conservatives have to make up their mind whether they should just simply stay at home, or go out there and vote for Romney [my point exactly],” said Donohue. “I’m astonished that he couldn’t even come to grips with the question — leaving gays out of it — do we want the chief executives, the mayors of large cities trying to intimidate, using the power of government against private enterprises whose politics they disagree with? I think it’s a pretty simple issue.” [It is a simple issue, Bill, and Romney by his silence is telling you exactly where he stands on it.]

Donohue noted that many social conservatives were skeptical before Romney decided to sit out the controversy, which has only aggravated that uneasy relationship. He said the campaign’s response “does not bode well” for the role social conservatives and their issues will play in the upcoming convention, and beyond.
Donohue voiced his appreciation that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a favorite of evangelicals and other conservative voters, has been invited to address the convention. But he said that placate social conservatives.

“No one’s going to be allowed to speak at any great length on this issue,” he predicted in regard to the convention. “All we’re going to hear is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s flatulent.”  [I can only repeat, there is no real difference between the Republicans and Democrats.]

More feedback to Romney’s no comment came from conservative direct marketing pioneer Richard Viguerie, who told Newsmax: "Governor Romney has once again disappointed the conservative base of the Republican Party by refusing to support Chick-fil-A when they were attacked by Democrat politicians and others who favor the radical homosexual agenda.
While President Obama united the base of the Democratic Party by appealing to those interests, Governor Romney's silence has merely served to unite the Fortune 500 and other establishment interests he already had behind his candidacy."

Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition counseled social conservatives not to overreact to Romney’s response, however.

“I would certainly recommend Mitt Romney or any other candidate stop by a Chick-fil-A while on the campaign trail,” Reed told Newsmax.

“But on the salient and defining issue of what constitutes marriage, Romney has with great moral clarity made it unambiguously clear that he believes that marriage should be defined between a man and a woman,” said Reed. “Voters of faith will remember that when they go to the polls in November.”  [Oh yea? See Romney's "great moral clarity" in the comment I posted above about his stance on same sex marriage.  From Romney:  "I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name. My view is the domestic partnership benefits, hospital visitation rights, and the like are appropriate but that the others are not.”]

And the hits keep coming.  There is now a story from cnsnews that Mitt Romney has no problems with homosexuals being boy scout leaders.  And this is nothing new.  He has always supported homosexuals being part of the Boy Scouts.  Read on.

Romney Says Boy Scouts Should Admit Homosexuals
By Patrick Burke
August 9, 2012
( – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has reiterated his view that the Boy Scouts of America should admit homosexuals as Scouts and Scout leaders. He also supports the right of the Scouts to decide their own policies.

Currently, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) do not admit homosexuals as Scouts or Scout leaders.

In 1994, when Romney was running for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts against Democrat Sen. Ted Kennedy, Romney said “all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”

Tovia Smith of WBUR radio in Boston asked Romney during an October 1994 senatorial debate, “Mr. Romney, you say you’re a moderate on social issues, one who will defend abortion rights, equal rights for women, for blacks and for gays -- in fact, you say you will do more to promote gay rights than Senator Kennedy.”
Smith continued, “You also sit on the national Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America, which has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. Do you support that policy and, if not, have you ever done anything as a board member to oppose it?”

Romney said, “I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Romney campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul confirmed to the Associated Press on Aug. 5 that Romney maintains the position he took back in 1994.  [At last, an issue on which Romney has not flip flopped.]

When asked for direct confirmation that Gov. Romney maintains the same position he held in 1994, the Romney campaign referred to several past quotations regarding Romney’s opposition to the ban, including that of the 1994 debate.

Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout and founder of Scouts for Equality, hailed Romney’s stance as “the right thing to do,” as well as the fact that President Obama apparently shares the same view on this issue.

“I think more generally, if you look at the fact that both President Obama and his opponent in the presidential election are on the record together in this incredibly polarized political climate, I think it really speaks to both the moral validity and also the critical importance of ending this policy,” Wahls told
“There aren't a whole lot of areas in the American political sphere where you see this kind of overlap, and I think it really does speak volumes about how important this is,” he said.

As reported by, the Boy Scouts of America came under scrutiny after a petition was released by ousted Cub Scout den leader and lesbian Jennifer Tyrell on, urging the Scouts to change the policy on openly gay members.

Although the petition has been signed by 320,000 people across the country, including Hollywood celebrities, the Scouts have not changed the policy.

“Contrary to media reports, the Boy Scouts of America has no plans to change its membership policy. The introduction of a resolution does not indicate the organization is ‘reviewing’ a policy or signal a change in direction,” according to an official statement from the Boy Scouts of America national office on June 7.

“The BSA is a voluntary, private organization that sets policies that are best for the organization,” reads the statement. “The BSA welcomes all who share its beliefs but does not criticize or condemn those who wish to follow a different path.”

Upon becoming a Boy Scout, each member takes the following oath:
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

In June of 2000, the Boy Scouts of America went to the Supreme Court to preserve their right not to admit homosexuals after the New Jersey Supreme Court had ruled that the Scouts policy was in violation of New Jersey’s anti-discrimination law.

The Boy Scouts in that state had been sued by a former Eagle Scout who came out as a homosexual after becoming a Scoutmaster, and was consequently removed from that post.

The brief filed by the gay advocacy organization Lambda Legal argued that the phrase “morally straight” does not necessarily apply to sexual orientation. 
“Likewise, members and sponsors can have widely divergent views on what it means to be ‘morally straight’—and whether that tenet relates to sexual orientation in any way again, so long as they are not known to be gay themselves,” reads the Lambda Legal brief.  [This is emblematic of what has happened in our world today.  Sin is no longer called sin, and if we don't accept it as normal, then we are the ones with the problem.  Mitt Romney being in favor of homosexual scout leaders only adds to this problem, and as president, he will enforce this sin.]

However, the Court ruled in the Scouts’ favor and, in the majority opinion, the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist rejected the argument that homosexuality could constitute “morally straight” behavior, by citing the Boy Scouts’ statements to the contrary.

“And the terms ‘morally straight’ and ‘clean’ are by no means self-defining. Different people would attribute to those terms very different meanings. For example, some people may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is not at odds with being ‘morally straight’ and ‘clean,’” Rehnquist wrote. 
“And others may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is contrary to being ‘morally straight’ and ‘clean.’ The Boy Scouts says it falls within the latter category,” wrote Rehnquist[Obviously, those "others" does not includes the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, who sees no problem with homosexuals leading the Boy Scouts.]

The current BSA policy on sexual orientation reads as follows:

“While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to members who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA."
And if Mitt Romney has his way, the Boy Scouts will accept homosexuals as leaders of their Scouts.  What, pray tell, is the difference between Obama and Romney?  Romney nuances his words while Obama says it right out.  But whether Obama is re-elected or Romney wins, our society will continue to devolve into moral depravity.  There is no politician who can or even wants to change that, and this includes Mitt Romney.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Meditation on the First Joyful Mystery - The Annunciation

Yesterday, August 4, was the First Saturday of the Month. The First Saturday Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was first mentioned by Our Lady of Fatima on July 13, 1917. After showing the three children a vision of hell she said, "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace... I shall come to ask for... the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays..." The First Saturday devotion is as follows:
It consists in going to Confession, receiving Communion, reciting five decades of the Rosary and meditating for a quarter of an hour on the mysteries of the Rosary on the first Saturday of five consecutive months. The Confession may be made during the eight days preceding or following the first Saturday of each month, provided that Holy Communion be received in the state of grace. Should one forget to form the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it may be formed at the next Confession, occasion to go to confession being taken at the first opportunity 

The young girl Mary in prayer
Today I wish to post a meditation on the first Joyful Mystery, the Annunciation of the Angel Gabriel to our Blessed Mother. This Mystery involves the beginning of the Gospel story in which we see our Lady as a young girl, probably about 14 years old, living in Nazareth who is recently engaged to Joseph. She is somewhat upset about this because it had been her intention to dedicate her life to God as a virgin. But she was an extremely obedient young girl and did as her parents wished.  

A great miracle had occurred with Mary's cousin, Elizabeth and her husband, Zachary, who lived in Jerusalem. They were an older couple and had never been able to have children. Elizabeth was now past the age of child bearing. However, an angel appeared to Zachary and told him Elizabeth would conceive. Zachary disbelieved and laughed at the angel, but to both his and Elizabeth's amazement, she did conceive and was now in her sixth month of pregnancy.

This same angel, the angel Gabriel, now went to Nazareth where Mary lived and appeared to her. We are told in Luke 1:28 - "And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." This is now the first part of the "Hail Mary" prayer which every Catholic learns from the time they can talk (or at least we use to learn it at an early age).

 The book of Luke tells us of Mary's reaction to the angel: "Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be." I think this is probably a bit of an understatement.  Anyone would be quite frightened if a supernatural being suddenly appeared in front of him. Gabriel immediately addressed Mary's concerns and said: "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God."   Our Blessed Mother has appeared many times over the centuries, and especially in the last couple of hundred years, to many people. Like Gabriel, one of her first statements is usually "Do not be afraid." I am sure she keeps in mind how she felt when Gabriel appeared to her.

There is no doubt that Mary was still very confused at this point and could not fathom what possible reason an angel could have for appearing to her.   She was just a poor little Jewish girl in an unimportant town without any influence on anyone or anything.  Why would God single her out? 

The angel Gabriel went on with his message:  "Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.  And of his kingdom there shall be no end. "

Mary's mind most likely reeled at this message.  She was engaged to be married, and this could most certainly cause major problems. If she became pregnant outside of marriage, she could be stoned to death.  And what is this about giving birth to the Son of the Most High who will reign over the house of Jacob forever? How was she, a little non-entity Jewish girl with no prestige in the world and probably not even able to read, going to give birth to the Son of the Most High?

 Mary had to be completely overwhelmed with this message.  Unlike Zachary, she did not laugh at or disbelieve Gabriel.  She did not protest in any way with Gabriel or try to go into the many arguments that most likely popped into her mind.  The only question Mary asked the Angel Gabriel was, "How shall this be done, because I know not man?"   No when, where, what or why.  As far as Mary knew, it was not possible to become pregnant while still a virgin.  But there was no looking for a way out, no hesitation at all.  She merely wanted to know how this would be done. 

And Gabriel told her, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.."  Gabriel also told Mary about the miracle of her cousin Elizabeth becoming pregnant in her old age.  "And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: Because no word shall be impossible with God." 

I think it is safe to say the young Mary still did not understand how or what was happening to her.  All she knew was God was asking her to bear a Son for him.  Without hesitation, without argument, she gave her answer to Gabriel. "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word." 

At that point one of the most momentous events in history occurred. As we say in the Angelus, "And The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."  With her "Yes", Mary became the new Eve.  Our first mother Eve said no to God and yes to Satan, and condemned herself and all her progeny to be born with original sin and live cut off from our Creator.  Mary's "yes" brought Christ to this earth and through His Sacrifice, cleanses us of the sin we have inherited from our first parents and brings us into the Kingdom of God.  With her "Yes", Mary crushed the head of that old serpent, Satan, and became the destroyer of all heresies.  “Thou alone, O Mary, has crushed all heresies in the whole world,” sings the Church in the Divine Office. We are told in Genesis 3:15:
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

When Mary said "Yes," God in the second Person of the Trinity left his throne in heaven and took up residence in the womb of a young girl on earth.  She became the Ark of the Covenant, the Gate of Heaven.  Through Mary's "Yes," God became Man.  The Creator became one of the created.  Christ took on the form of a slave, as the Apostle Paul wrote in the Book of Philippians 2:6-7:  
Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
Mary gave Christ the human nature which, 33 years later, was poured out on the Cross to redeem mankind from eternity in hell.  Mary was a part of this great Sacrifice by our Lord and Creator from the beginning.  She shared equally in His Sufferings, in His Passion and in His Triumph over sin and now reigns with Him in heaven as Queen of Heaven and Earth.  In one of his very last acts before his death, Christ gave His Mother to be our Mother, this great symbol of humility and obedience to God.  The Queen of Heaven and Earth is our Mother just as much as she is the Mother of God. 

No other religion in the world has their god sacrificing himself to save men.  Christianity is unique among all beliefs because it is the true belief. And it was the young unknown girl in Nazareth, Mary, who gave Christ to us in the form of a man through her Yes to the Angel Gabriel. 

Related Posts  0