I had promised to continue the series on the Alt Right since few people are willing to be honest and not over react to them. Perhaps the best thing to do is to first explore the more current origins. So lets begin with the Neoreactionary movement, which can be also expressed as the Dark Enlightenment, but for our purposes here, I will separate the two, and talk about the latter later on.
The following is taken from a noted site:
Who Are the Neoreactionaries?
...Neoreactionaries believe that while technology and capitalism have advanced humanity over the past couple centuries, democracy has actually done more harm than good. They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy...
...Perhaps the one thing uniting all neoreactionaries is a critique of modernity that centers on opposition to democracy in all its forms. Many are former libertarians who decided that freedom and democracy were incompatible.
Exactly what sort of monarchy they’d prefer varies. Some want something closer to theocracy, while Yarvin proposes turning nation states into corporations with the king as chief executive officer and the aristocracy as shareholders.
For Yarvin, stability and order trump all. But critics like Scott Alexander think neoreactionaries overestimate the stability of monarchies — to put it mildly. Alexander recently published an anti-reactionary FAQ, a massive document examining and refuting the claims of neoreactionaries.
...Yarvin proposes that countries should be small — city states, really — and that all they should compete for citizens. “If residents don’t like their government, they can and should move,” he writes. “The design is all ‘exit, no ‘voice.'”...
...Neoreactionaries believe “The Cathedral,” is a meta-institution that consists largely of Harvard and other Ivy League schools, The New York Times and various civil servants. Anissimov calls it a “self-organizing consensus.” Sometimes the term is used synonymously with political correctness. The fundamental idea is that the Cathedral regulates our discussions enforces a set of norms as to what sorts of ideas are acceptable and how we view history — it controls the Overton window, in other words.
The name comes from Yarvin’s idea that progressivism (and in his view, even today’s far right Republicans are progressive) is a religion, and that the media-academic-civil service complex punishes “heretical” views.
So what exactly is the Cathedral stopping neoreactionaries from talking about? Well, the merits of monarchy for starters. But mostly, as far as I can tell, they want to be able to say stuff like “Asians, Jews and whites are smarter than blacks and Hispanics because genetics” without being called racist. Or at least be able to express such views without the negative consequences of being labeled racist.
On October 28th, Dr. Donovan will be giving a lecture on The Battle of Tours. This was a great battle between Charles Martel and his forces against the invading muslims.
Dr. Sean Donovan is a Milwaukee area physician and retired U.S. Navy Captain, now in private practice after 29 years' naval service. His last tour of active duty was with 1st Battalion, 25th Marines, in Fallujah, Iraq. He has published and spoken on medical and historical subjects in a variety of venues.
Dr. Donovan's interest in the Battle of Tours dates to an invitation to a wedding in Tours twenty years ago. At that time, the tragic events which have since befallen France and the West were nearly unimaginable; now France is once more at the center of a struggle with antecedents traceable to - and before - Tours in 732.
Dr. Donovan invites all interested to join in a consideration of the Battle of Tours, how it came to be fought, and its lasting historical significance.
The event is open to everyone, and we suggest a ten dollar donation. A social will follow for young adults from the ages of 18 to 40. Hope to see you there!
This is being put on by Sursum Corda MKE, but all are invited to the talk. Also, if you are a young adult you are invited to a social afterwards and many other events the following day. Feel free to come. They ask that you sign up if possible for food reasons:
The following excerpt is taken from the book "On the Roman Pontiff (De Controversiis Book 1)" by St. Robert Bellarmine. Until only a couple years ago this text had not been translated into English, but thanks be to God Ryan Grant, the founder of Mediatrix Press has translated many of the great saints works. Please support Ryan and his company, it is a great gift to the church!
“Therefore, four questions must be explained to us. First: whether Peter might be that rock upon which the Church shall be founded. Second: whether that foundation might be the ruler of the whole Church. Third: whether Peter might be the one to whom the keys are given. Fourth: whether the full power to govern the Church should be understood through the keys. On the first question there are four opinions...
The fourth is of Luther and the Centuriators, that faith or the confession of faith is the rock, concerning which the Lord spoke in this place...
The fourth opinion remains, which is common among nearly all Lutherans, and at first glance appears to be confirmed by the testimony of the Fathers. Accordingly Hillary teaches: “The building of the Church is the rock of confession . . . This faith of the Church is the foundation: through this faith the gates of hell are weak against it: this faith of the kingdom of heaven holds the keys.” St. Ambrose says: “The foundation of the Church is faith.” St. John Chrysostom: “Upon this rock I will build my Church, that is faith and confession.” Likewise Cyril, explaining this citation: “I reckon he called the rock is nothing other than unshaken and firm faith of the disciple.”
Illyricus adds: “If it is founded upon Peter, and rather not upon the confession of Faith of the Church, then immediately it would have fallen. For Peter soon ran at the point of the Lord’s passion, and he fell. Moreover in the same Chapter of St. Matthew, it is said to him: ‘Get behind me Satan, you are a scandal to me, because you do not have a sense of what is of God.’ Thereupon he denied Christ a third time, and not without a great curse.”
I respond: Faith, or confession, is considered in two ways. In one way it absolutely followed itself, and without any relation to the person of Peter: in the second way with relation to Peter. In the first way it appears our adversaries would have it that faith is the foundation of the Church, but certainly they are deceived. If it were so, why didn’t the Lord say, instead of: “I will build upon this rock,” “I am building,” or “I have built my Church”? Many had already believed that he was the son of the living God, as early as the prophets, the Blessed Virgin, Simeon, Zachariah, John the Baptist, the apostles and remaining disciples.
Next, faith taken up absolutely is rightly called the foundation of justification and of all strength, as Augustine says: “The house of God is founded by belief, erected by hope, perfected by love.” But the foundation of the Church is not properly faith. There ought to be a foundation of the same kind, as well as the rest of the building. The Church is a congregation of men, just as of living stones, therefore the stone, which is the foundation, ought to be also some man, not some virtue.
Last, that pronoun this most clearly showed that through the rock faith cannot be understood absolutely: for it is referred more closely to the one named rock: next, it had been said to Simon: “You are rock,” not to faith; therefore it behooves us to accept faith in the second way is the foundation, and to say not any faith you please, but the faith of Peter, and not of Peter as a private man, but as the shepherd of the Church. It coincides with that, which we said in this regard, that Peter is the foundation.
Therefore the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church for a two-fold reasoning. First, that on account of the merit of his faith Peter attained that he should be the foundation of the Church, as Jerome, Hilary, Chrysostom and others show on this place. Secondly, because Peter is chiefly in the very matter the foundation of the Church, that since his faith cannot fail, he ought to confirm and hold up all the others in faith. Thus, the Lord said to him: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith should not fail, and when thou hast converted strengthen thy brethren.”
Therefore, by reasoning of his indefectible faith, Peter should be the firmest rock, sustaining the whole Church; it is the same thing to say “upon Peter” and “upon his faith” the Church was founded, and the Fathers cited speak in this manner. For St. Hilary, after he had said the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, and receives the keys of the kingdom, he adds on Peter himself: “He merited a preeminent place by the confession of his blessed Faith,” and a little after: “Hence, he holds the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence, his earthly judgments are heavenly, etc.”
Therefore, as he had said, “faith is the foundation and holds the keys,” so now he says Peter by reason of his faith merited a preeminent place, that is, that he should be the head, or foundation, and should hold the keys. And he says the same thing most beautifully about Peter: “O happy foundation of the Church by the solemn decree of a new name.”
For equal reasoning St. Ambrose, where he says the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, he notes the same thing: “He did not refuse to his disciple the favor of this word, that he should also be Peter, who as the rock should have solidity of steadfastness and firmness of faith.”
Chrysostom explaining in both citations, why it is that the Church is built upon the confession of Peter, introduces the Lord speaking thus: I will build my Church upon you.”
Next, Cyril also says the foundation is not any faith, but that unconquerable and most firm faith of St. Peter; and he writes that Peter himself is the rock, upon which the Church is founded.
Now I respond to the objection of Illyricus, firstly with the commentary of Jerome for this chapter: when Peter was told: “Get behind me Satan” and when he denied Christ, he was not yet the foundation. Therefore the place Christ promised him, he had intended to give to him after the resurrection. Add, that Peter did not err on the faith, but was merely ignorant of something, when he was told, “Get behind me Satan,” and he was lacking in charity, not in faith, when he denied Christ. That we will teach in its proper place in the treatise on the Church.”
The desire by some to flee from the visible and actual, lets be clear, actual Petrine office held by Pope Francis is quite boring. Why do these folks flee from the trial? How much has been written by these self appointed doctors, and yet how often as their work led people to pray, fast and give more alms for the love of Christ and his Church?
I dont remember Dom Bosco relating the sea would be calm. I don’t recall that before the sea became so the Man in White safely brought the ship in before the storm hit. The storm is here, be a man, embrace the trial with charity, clarity and just piety.
It is not the call of any single prelate, clergyman or gun totting blogger to declare anything in regards to Peter. Know your roll. If you are not willing to do at least twice the amount of time praying you do complaining, please do us all a favor and stop causing greater scandal. Thank you.
Pray for Peter
Pray for your bishop
Pray for your priest
Pray for the Church
This will be the sole Milwaukee stop for the Treasures of the Church ministry
Treasures of the Church is a ministry run by Fr. Carlos Martins of the Companions of the Cross. This is an experience of the Living God through an encounter with the relics of His saints. The exposition begins with a multi-media presentation on the Church's use of relics. After the presentatioon, stay and venerate the relics of some of your favoite saints!
Note: I do not necessarily agree with everything said by the authors herein, but it is worth understanding without name calling
** I will first post a link to GK Chesterton’s article on how the Jewish understanding of racial superiority and how it influenced the prussian mind that would later have a role in Hitlerism(fyi, the Church does not support the idea of race, she recognizes ethnicities, but ones DNA is not regarded in Catholic tradition) . After which I will post a short excerpt from a website that goes more into depth on the essay. Finally, it is worth noting some parallels in the current build up of Russian identity as the Third Rome and so forth. So here we go
“...Deliquescent religious syncretism always weakens the integrity of the cultural immune system and subverts a healthy resistance to intrusive and destructive ideologies and alien faiths. But, in addition to this kind of Dialectic of “Solve et Coagula” – i.e., a sort of Hegelian process of emergence and convergence, or amalgamation and “aggregation into larger political units” – Chesterton also saw another, narrower and more concentrated development: namely, a certain very incongruous combination of “heathenry and heresy;” a sort of Hegelian consolidation of “Old Testament Christianity” and a New Heathenism. It was the ideology of Prussianism: an eclectic amalgamation of Lutheranism and Neo-Paganism, which then developed into the Neo-Paganism and Hitlerian “Heresy of Race.” It appeared to him to be deeply rooted in Prussia, although Chesterton saw it coming from even deeper spiritual and historical sources, as we shall see...
Chesterton's deep discernments and warnings about the impending danger of a “narrow national and tribal fury” and the towering weakness of intellectual and spiritual Pride should help us understand, in order to resist, both aggressive American “Exceptionalism” today and its self-destructive arrogance, and Christian (as well as Judaic) Zionism's comparably insolent sense of “Chosenness” and “Morally Immune Exclusiveness.” Like Chesterton's own “vivid conviction” about neo-Pagan “Prussianism,” we see these later developments, too, as “a poison to the world.”...
One of Chesterton's specifically profound and farsighted essays, entitled “The Judaism of Hitler,” will, furthermore, help us see the deeper background of World War II; but it will also aid our understanding of the current wars we are in, and not only in the Middle-East. We may also thereby come to realize why there are now so many growing barriers, and even legal penalties, as well as various psycho-techniques of intimidation, set up against any candid scholarly inquiry into certain neglected or hidden truths of history, especially the history of World War II, but even of World War I. Chesterton himself saw that “the Armistice” after World War I was not truly a “Peace,” but rather, only “a Truce”: a mere temporary “stacking of arms,” full of bitterness, and with a latent explosiveness, indeed.
Chesterton, reflecting upon the then-impending second War in Europe and the wider world, saw “Hitlerism” itself as a further manifestation of “Prussianism,” though with an admixture of some new “biological,” as well as “Asiatic” and often “Gnostic,” ideological variants. “Hitlerism's” own “racial arrogance” prompted the generous and humble Chesterton to make his own trenchant “analysis of the heresy of Race,” and to resist the permeating and resurgent spiritual disease of Pride.
In a certain sense, “Hitlerism” was for Chesterton a sort of “New Prussia,” with an added Asiatic spirit of the Huns, as well as the haughtiness of “the Nordic Man” and a new form of an old thing: “the heresy of Race.” Because of this combination of cruelty and cold Pride, Chesterton himself retained that “vivid conviction that Prussia was Prussianism and Prussianism a poison to the world” – like their contemporary Asiatic analogue, Japanese militarism. But, he adds, with his unmistakable irony: “General Goering may be trusted to teach us better; till we learn at least thatnothing is so anarchical as discipline divorced from authority; that is from right.” (The New American Empire, however, with its own blinding Pride, seems not yet to have learned this lesson: this truth about Power divorced from moral authority and its ill-fruits of anarchy.)
Because of its own pervasive Pride, Chesterton mightily opposed the martial ideology of “Prussianism” and the “Prussian militaristic government,” even from its inception; but he especially opposed its later public dominance over what he calls “the Old Germany,” which included “Austria,” as well. His reasons for his resistance are important, and timely:
As man may say, as a scientific fact, that there is in Northern China a well of petroleum, we said [before, during, and after World War I] that there is in Northern Europe a fountain of poison. It is a fact; it continues to flow. It is obviously nonsense to call it Germany. It is not really satisfactory even to call it Prussia. It is much more satisfactory simply to call it Pride. It is a thing of the spirit; it is not a nation; it is a heresy [a combination of “heathenism and Lutheranism”]. It is an idealoutside the European ideal; outside what most of us would call the normal human ideal. It is something alien to Europe, which Europe cannot digest and did not destroy.
Thus, as of the early 1930s, especially, says Chesterton:
The result is that Prussia begins to reappear; which means that Militarism [as in Japan and in Kemal Ataturk's Turkey] begins to reappear. Prussia means Prussianism now exactly as it meant Prussianism then; it always did, it always does, and (short of a spiritual conversion) it always will. Prussia is a patch of eighteenth century heathenry and heresy [and of Old Testament Christianity], which never did believe, nor (to do it justice) generally pretend to believe, in any sort of international ideal or common code of Christendom [much less the Creed of Catholic Christendom]. From the first command of Hohenzollern to the last appeal of Hitler, it [“Prussianism”] is the most simple, one-sided, savage tribal patriotism .... The consequence is that Prussia is the one European State that [as of the mid-1930s] may at any moment wage [like America today] an aggressive war. We all said this steadily for five years [1909-1914] ...; and some of us have always refused to unsay it. But a good many [the New Pacifists] seem to have been ashamed for ten years [1919-1929] of having told the truth; and are still ashamed, even when [circa 1933-1935] the truth has once again come true.
The reality called Europe made sense to Chesterton only when “you see Europe as Christendom.” Therefore, this alien thing called “Prussianism” (as an ideology and spirit, and a stunting deformation) is something difficult for him to characterize with fair adequacy. He says:
It is difficult to find a fit word for it [this alien spirit] .... The nearest definition I know is this. The civilized man, like the religious man, is one who recognizes that something exists besides himself .... what medieval people called Christendom or the judgment of all Christian princes; what any Christian will call the conscience of man as a witness to the justice of God .... But in one way or other that is the test; that the man [or nation] does not think his dignity lowered by admitting a general law [like the Natural Moral Law or the Ten Commandments or the Sermon of the Mount]though it might go against him.
Further describing this truly alien and destructive spirit of “Prussianism,” Chesterton says:
There does really lie to the north-east between us [in Britain] and the Christian State of Poland and the almost Asiatic State of Muscovy, a real independent source or spring of the opposite spirit [to traditional Christian Europe]. It is not only something that praises itself; it is something that needs no praise except its own .... He [i.e., the Prussian] is simply proud of himself and his sort; and would be equally proud of wrecking [Catholic] Christendom or enslaving humanity. This is the problem of Prussia, which is not even the problem of Prussians, but only of Prussianism. It is certainly not the problem of limits they have accepted and the [Prussian] leadership they have obeyed. But the point is that something unbaptized and barbaric does remain among the [European] nations; as it would say unconquered; as we should say, unconverted; and, anyhow,entirely unrepentant.
We shall soon see that this “Prussianism,” in Chesterton's farsighted understanding, is at the roots of “Hitlerism” and its own “racial arrogance,” although “Hitlerism” ultimately drew upon an older source, as well. The idea of a “Chosen People” can very easily become pervaded with the spirit of Pride, which is, once again, not a spiritual strength, but, rather, a towering spiritual weakness.
In such “Prussianism,” as in the more intense “racial arrogance” of the later “Hitlerism,” Chesterton would always say: “There is that fountain of poisonous pride, there is that isolated idolatry of self.” Moreover, he would add:
And clear and honest thinking must not shrink from starting afresh with that first fact [i.e., that the 1918 Armistice was not a Peace], that there is in Christendom, unconverted and unconquered, a force that is not Christian. Surely it is not so very impossible to believe that it was this [“Prussianism”] that threatened the world with war in 1914; when it is obviously this [i.e., this “Prussianism” which is to be found in the new Hitlerism and in the very “Judaism of Hitler”] that threatens it with war now [in the mid-1930s]?
With characteristic magnanimity and humility, Chesterton says:
Let us forget for a day whatever we may think about the faults of others [like the Pride of “Prussianism”]; and pray that we may not again wreck the hope of the world by faults of our own. Let us pray that if the challenge [of a New War] does indeed come again, we may not meet it byrandom slander or roaring self-righteousness .... Let us pray to be delivered from the vices and vulgarities of our own [decadent and post-Christian] civilization; and all the more if we sincerely believe that it is still a civilization, and may need to be defended from something that is still a savagery.
Becoming more specific about the deeper and now more developed “Prussianist” threats in “Hitlerism,” a modest Chesterton winsomely adds:
If the ruin that fell on the House of Hohenzollern [in World War I] was, as I still believe, a doom earned and provoked by the dehumanized pride of Prussia, we [Christians and British] must not forget that the vast economic collapse [in 1929] that has affected the victors [in World War I] hasalmost as much of the quality of a great historical judgment; and the rebuke of fate to our own mercantile and mechanical [and now psycho-electronic] culture. In so far as modern men can face such facts frankly, they will be worthy to find peace or fitted to face war.
With this brief background-consideration of “Prussianism” and its own “poisonous fountain of Pride,” we may now examine the more censored and explosive topic of “Hitlerism” and its cognates and antecedents.
Chesterton forthrightly says: “Hitlerism is almost entirely of Jewish origin” With his drollery and charm, he notes at once that “This truth might not have the soothing effect which I desire;” and playfully adds that “This simple historical explanation, if it were written on a post-card or a telegraph-form, and addressed to Herr Hitler's private address, might or might not cause him to pause in his political career, and reconsider all human history in the light of the blazing illumination with which I have furnished him in these words”! These words, he then seriously contends, “are none the less strictly historical” and must now be more amply examined.
Admittedly, says Chesterton, the creative and imitative Germans
Produced a sort of Prussianism that was praised or blamed as militarism; but they borrowed the idea of militarism from the French .... The greatest of the Prussians [Frederick II, Frederick the Great of Prussia] did not even conceal his contempt for Prussia. He refused to talk anything but French, or to exchange ideas with anybody, except somebody of the type of Voltaire. Then came the liberal ideas of the French Revolution, and the whole movement of German Unity was originally a liberal movement on the lines of the French Revolution. Then came the more modern and much more mortally dangerous idea of Race, which the Germans borrowed from a Frenchman named Gobineau. And on top of that idea of Race, came the grand, imperial idea of a Chosen Race, or a sacred seed that is, as the Kaiser said, the salt of the earth; of a people that is God's favourite and guided by Him, in a sense which He does not guide other lesser peoples. And if anybody asks where anybody got THAT idea, there is only one possible or conceivable answer. He got it [the idea of a Chosen Race] from the Jews.
With a view to Nineteenth-Century and to Twentieth-Century Weimar Germany, Chesterton then says, with trenchancy and some softer irony, the following:
It is perfectly true that the Jews have been very powerful in Germany .... But the Germans will find it very hard to cut up their culture on a principle of Anti-Semite amputation .... But again, it is but [i.e., only] just to Hitlerism to say that the Jews did infect Germany with a good many things less harmless than the lyrics of Heine or the melodies of Mendelssohn. It is true that many Jews toiled at that obscure conspiracy against Christendom; and sometimes it was marked not by obscurity but obscenity. It is true that they were financiers, or in other words usurers; it is true that they fattened on the worst forms of Capitalism; and it is inevitable that, on losing these advantages of Capitalism, they naturally took refuge in its other form, which is Communism. For both Capitalism and Communism rest on the same idea: a centralization of wealth which destroys private property. (Materialism is modern lingo for this)
Probing deeper into this mystical “idea of a Chosen Race,” our author concludes:
But among the thousand and one ways in which Semitism affected Germanism is in this mystical idea, which came through Protestantism [originally a kind of “Old Testament Christianity,” as often noted]. Here the Nordic Men, who are never thinkers, were entirely at the mercy of the Jews, who are always thinkers. When the Reformation had rent away the more Nordic sort of German from the old idea of human fellowship in a Faith [the Catholic Faith] open to all, they obviously needed some other idea that would at least look equally large and towering and transcendental. They began to get it through the passionate devotion of historical Protestants to the Old Testament.
That is to say:
By concentrating on the ancient story of the Covenant with Israel, and losing the counterweight of the ideal of the universal Church of Christendom, they [the Protestants, especially the “Prussianized” or “Hitlerized” Protestants] grew more and more into the mood of seeing their religion as a mystical religion of Race. And then, by the same modern processes, their education fell into the hands of the Jews.
By way of further explanation of this last sentence, Chesterton observes:
There are Jewish mystics and Jewish sceptics; but about this one matter of the strange sacredness of his own race, almost every Jewish sceptic is a Jewish mystic. When they insinuated their ideals into German culture, they doubtless very often acted, not only as sceptics, but as cynics. But, even if they were only pretending to be mystics, they could only pretend to understand one kind of mysticism. Thus, German mysticism became more and more like Jewish mysticism”
Finally, with all this insanity from the Russians wanting to be recognized as the “third Rome” (already heretical seeing as they think authority for the Church rests with the empire and not with Peter), we can see how the influence of super race theory noted in John 8:39 (where the Jews pounded their chests with pride saying they were of the seed of Abraham and therefore superior) just moves from central Europe to the ole’ sleeping bear. It’s not a secret who funded the Bolshevik revolution, and that the Russians now should fall into the same trap as the Germans, and yes we as the Exceptional Americans (as Beck put it we are exceptional because we believe Man can rule himself... does anyone else see any problems here with that idea?) Just keep a close eye on Russia and the US as both are likely to be pitted against each other to “see” who is more exceptional, or shall we say superior?
Since this is always a Hot button topic since the term "Jewish" is in use, it is worth again noting that what is being talked about here is an idea propagated originally by the Jewish people, but it does not come intrinsically from their being. Most Jews do not think as such, but the idea is so far beyond them at this point that its origin is not relevant unless you are willing to tackle "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" E. Michael Jones has hit on along with many of the saints and Doctors of Holy Mother Church. And, if your response is that this is anti-Semitic, take it some place else, you don't know my background and your definitions are vague and therefore useless. The point is not to hate anyone, only to correct a false understanding with charity before others pay for bad ideas.
Pray for the Jews, and pray that the Puritan and Orthodox heresies will cease before more problems arise.
Oh and pray for Pope Francis and your Bishop, we all need many, many prayers!
The following excerpt was taken from "The prophecies and revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden:
The teaching of Christ to his bride about how she should live and also about how the devil admits to Christ that the bride loves Christ above all things, and about how the devil asks Christ why he loves her so much and about the love that Christ has for the bride.
“I am the creator of the heavens and the earth. I was true God and true man in the Virgin’s womb and I rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. You my new bride have come to an unknown place. Therefore, you must do four things: First, you must know the language of the place. Second, you must have proper clothes. Third you must know how to organize your days and your time according to the custom of the place. Fourth, you must become accustomed to the new food.
So, since you have come from the instability of the world to the stability, you must learn a new language, that is, the abstinence from useless and vain words and sometimes even from permissible ones in order to observe the importance and virtue of silence. Second, your clothes should be humble both in the interior and exterior so that you do not extol yourself inwardly as being holier than others, nor your time should be ordered in such a way that just as you before used to have much time for the needs of the body, so now you should only have time for the soul, that is, to never again want to sin against me. Fourth, your new food is abstinence from gluttony and from delicacies with all prudence, as far as your human nature can endure it. The abstinence that goes beyond the capacity of human nature is not pleasing to me, for I demand the rational and taming of lusts.
Then the devil appeared in the same moment. Our Lord said to him: “You were created by me and have seen all justice in me. Answer me now whether this new bride of mine is lawfully mine by proven justice. For I allow you to see and understand her heart so that you may know how to answer me. Does she love anything else as much as me or would she take anything in exchange for me?”
The devil answered: “She loves nothing as much as you, and rather than losing you, she would suffer any torment, if only you gave her the virtue of patience. I see like a bond of fire descending from you to her and it ties her heart so much that she thinks of and loves nothing but you.” Then our Lord said to the devil: “Tell me how she pleases your heart or how you like this great love I have for her.” The devil said: “I have two eyes; one is corporeal, although I am not corporeal, and with this eye I perceive temporal things so clearly that there is nothing so secret or dark that it could hide itself from me. The second eye is spiritual, and I see so clearly with it that there is no pain so small that I cannot see and understand to which sin it belongs. And there is no sin so small or slight that i do not see it unless it has been purged by repentance and penance. But, although there are no body parts more sensitive and vulnerable than the eyes, I would still much rather desire that two burning torches without end penetrated my eyes than for her to see with the eyes of the spirit.
I also have two ears. One is corporeal, and no one can speak so secretly and silently that I do not immediately hear and know it through this ear. The second ear is spiritual, and no one can have such a secret thought or desire for any sin, that I do not hear it through this ear, unless it has been washed away by penance. And I would gladly prefer that the suffering of hell, surging forward like a stream and spreading the most terrible hot fire without end flowed through my ears than that she should hear anything with the ears of the spirit. I also have a spiritual heart, and I would gladly let it be ceaselessly cut to pieces and constantly renewed to the same suffering in order for her heart to grow cold in your service and love.
But, since you are righteous, I now have a question for you that you may answer. Tell me, why do you love her so much? Why did you not choose someone holier, richer and prettier for yourself?” Our Lord answered: “Because justice demanded this. You were created by me and have seen all justice in me. Tell me, while she is listening, why it was justice that you should have such a bad fall and what you were thinking when you fell!”
The devil answered: “I saw three things in you. I saw your glory and honor being above all things, and I thought about my own glory. For this reason I became proud and decided to not merely become your equal, but to be even higher than you. Second, I saw that you were mightier than all others, and therefore I desired to be mightier than you. Third, I saw what would happen in the future, and since your glory and honor are without beginning and would be without end, i envied you and thought that I would gladly be tortured forever by the most bitter punishment if, thereby, you would die. And with such thoughts and desires I fell, and immediately hell was created.”
Our Lord answered: “You asked me why I love my bride so much. Assuredly, it is because I change all your malice into good. For since you became proud and did not want to have me, your Creator, as your equal, therefore, humiliating myself in all things, I gather sinners to myself and make myself their equal by giving them my glory. Second, since you had such an evil desire that you wanted to be more mighty than I, therefore I make sinners more mighty than you and partakers in my power. Third because of your envy against me, I am so full of love that I offered myself up and sacrificed myself for the sake of everyone through my death.” Thereafter, our Lord said: “Now, devil, your dark heart is enlightened. Tell me, while she is listening, what love I have for her.”
The devil answered: “If it were possible, you would gladly suffer the same pain in each and every limb just as you once suffered on the cross in all of your limbs, before losing her.” Then our Lord answered: “Since I am so merciful that I do not refuse my mercy and forgiveness to anyone asking for it, ask me then humbly for mercy and forgiveness to anyone asking for it, ask me then humbly for mercy yourself, and I will give it to you.” The devil answered: “Never shall I do this. For when I fell, a punishment was established for every sin and for every worthless word and thought. And every spirit or devil that fell will have his punishment. And before I would bend my knee before you, i would rather swallow all the punishments in me, as long as my mouth could be opened and closed in punishment, so that my punishment would be forever renewed.”
Then our Lord said to his bride: “See how hardened the lord of the world is and how mighty he is against me because of my hidden justice. I could indeed destroy him in a moment through my power but I do not more injustice to him than to a good angel in the kingdom of Heaven. But when his time comes, and it is now approaching I shall judge him with his followers. Therefore, my bride, may you always persevere in good deeds. Love me with all your heart. Fear nothing but me. I am namely the Lord over the devil and all things created.