A Perfect Union

The last blog post concluded that the marriage between Christ, the Bridegroom, and the Catholic Church, the Bride, was an unhappy one.

A next conclusion can also be drawn, that a perfect union is not possible without Divine intervention.  There was a chance that it might have been possible in the Garden of Eden before Eve and Adam ate the Forbidden Fruit, but a sexual union did not occur since no child was conceived and born before their Fall, which gives rise to a question as to whether God ever intended Adam and Eve to be sexual with one another. Perhaps their union was to be a a union of their souls rather than of their flesh.

One could maintain that because of the complimentary male and female anatomy, a sexual union was intended, if not mandated, allowing for procreation.  After all, this is what the Bible said that God had said, quoted without references [1]:

God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that crawl on the earth.

If indeed that was what had occurred, then Adam and Eve's first disobedience was not that they ate the Forbidden Fruit, but that they did not conceive a child before the Fall when they were told explicitly to "[b]e fertile and multiply".  The Jews who wrote the Old Testament failed to highlight or explain away their first disobedience, a sin, or the real first original sin.

It was not until the New Testament that the world has learned that even though a human body features a certain anatomy, it does not mean that that it has to be used in a sexual manner. Did the Son of God Who was made man ever entered into a sexual union?  There has not been any claim by any one of either gender who had a sexual encounter with Christ.  In the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary, She was conceived by the Holy Spirit but did not have a physical union with a man in the flesh [2], quoted without references:

In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” But she was greatly troubled at what was said and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. [Emphasis added.]

The world has also learned that a couple's life together does not have to be procreative, like the non-sexual union between the Blessed Virgin Mary and Joseph to whom She was betrothed. [3]  Theirs was made possible by Divine intervention and thus it was perfect.  It had to be perfect to be able to raise the Son of God.  Besides this union, there is no other in the world that was or is perfect, therefore this blogger is left to imagine one.

The imagined perfect union can occur only in Heaven after a soul has been cleansed of all of its sins, it being reverted to its original "pre-Fall" state of pure and complete innocence.  It is the continuous willful union of a soul's wholesome and untainted innocence and God's omniscience and omnipotence that can be and is perfect, unbreakable and eternal.

The longing for this union can hardly be expressed simply.  In this blogger's life this longing is a scale that weighs heavily on the one side the raw pains of interior emptiness against an uncertain hope for happiness and an unattainable dream of pure joy on the other from having the Holy Spirit dwell within forever so that life is without ever a hint or a moment of unsatiated desire and from having his seemingly endless vortices of different turmoils being stilled and filled by Christ's peace and by God's overflowing and unceasing love.


[1] http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/1, 28.
[2] http://www.usccb.org/bible/luke, 26-35.
[3] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/1:38, 18.

An Unhappy Marriage

Quoted below without references to footnotes is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church [1]:

The Church is the Bride of Christ 

796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist. The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom." The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride "betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him. The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb. "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her." He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body: 

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church." And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh." They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself "bride."

The Catholic Church has evolved into a bride more suited for Satan than for Christ.  Even though the sex scandals since the release of the Philadelphia grand jury report [2] are no longer in the news headlines presently, the Bride of Christ is no longer "spotless" after being tainted by impurities, hypocrisies, denials and deceits over the years.  This is only part of the Church that has been sullied; the other parts that are being compromised are unfolding under this papacy.  How much more defiled the Bride of Christ will become time will tell, and likewise, if Her continuous defilement, by Bergoglio and by his self-serving clerics whose primary interest is their collective sacrilegious careers, will be reparable, assuming that they are praying, fasting, self-flagellating and repenting individually and as a group, which this blogger doubts are taking place with any regularity or at all.

If God was able to find a replacement for Eve in the Blessed Virgin Mary, God will most surely find a new Bride, a true Catholic Church that Satan will fear and not approach, for the Bridegroom Who is Christ, the replacement for Adam.


[1] http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm
[2] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4112592-Philadelphia-2005-Grand-Jury-Report.html

The Pope On The Blessed Virgin Mary

In his book, the pope said as follows [1], quoted in part:


“From the moment she was born until the Annunciation, to the moment she encountered the angel of God, I imagine her as a normal girl, a girl of today, I can’t say she a city-girl, because she is from a small town, but normal, educated normally, open to marrying, to starting a family. One thing I imagine is that she loved the Scriptures: she knew the Scriptures, she had done catechesis in a family environment, from the heart. Then, after the conception of Jesus, she was still a normal woman: Mary is normal, she is a woman that any woman in this world can imitate. No strange things in life, a normal mother: even in her virginal marriage, chaste in that frame of virginity, Mary was normal. She worked, went shopping, helped her Son, helped her husband: normal”. [Emphasis original.]


He then went on and on, tediously, based on what was reported in the article cited under footnote [1].  This blogger has not read the book nor does he plan to read it.  The article did not report that Bergoglio said anything about the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Immaculate Conception.  Perhaps he did not.

Assuming that Bergoglio did not in his book acknowledge or does not personally believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without Original Sin [2], it therefore makes sense that he was able to imagine the Blessed Virgin Mary being "a normal girl, a girl of today" and "a normal woman" (quoting his words).  My recommendation is that he needs to pray the Magnificat daily and publicly [2]:


My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
[Because] [H]e hath regarded [the humility of his handmaid;] [for] behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
[Because] [H]e that is mighty hath [done great things to me;] and holy is [H]is Name.
And [H]is mercy is [from generation to generations, to them that fear Him.]
He hath [showed might in His arm;] [H]e hath scattered the proud in the [conceit] of their [heart].
He hath put down the mighty from their seat[;] and hath exalted the humble[.]
He hath filled the hungry with good things[;] and the rich he hath sent empty away.
He [hath received Israel His servant, being mindful of His mercy,]
As [He spoke to our] fathers, [to] Abraham and [to] his seed for ever. [Amen]
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Ghost;
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. [in brackets: from True Devotion to Mary with Preparation For Total Consecration  by Saint Louis-Marie Gringion de Montfort, translated by Father Frederick William Faber, D.D., edited and annotated by The Fathers of the Company of Mary, retypeset and copyright in 2010 by Saint Benedict Press, TAN Books.]


The Magnificat tells the world that the Blessed Virgin Mary is unequal to anyone.  Therefore, this blogger concludes that Bergoglio was wrong to equate the "normal girl, a girl of today" and "a normal woman" to the Blessed Virgin Mary.  In doing so, Bergoglio was close to being Satanic by downgrading the Mother of God to a "normal girl, a girl of today" and to "a normal woman".

The Mother of God is no ordinary girl (or woman) of today, or yesterday.  Bergoglio should have equated the "normal girl, a girl of today" and "a normal woman" to the other woman who was made without Original Sin, Eve, who was full of pride and disobeyed God and fell for Satan and its temptation.

It would be rare and therefore "not  normal" for "a girl of today" or "a normal woman" to be pure and undefiled like the Blessed Virgin Mary Who humbles Herself and obeys God without question and Whom Satan hates and fears.  Yet, Bergoglio insisted repeatedly that Mary, Mother of God, was "normal" like a girl and a woman of today when She was blessed by God in a unique and holy way, a truth  (God's Truth) that Bergoglio, presumably, ignored on purpose in his book, that lastampa.it  did not highlight in its article quoted in part above.

This blogger is not so sure anymore that Bergoglio is truly Christ's disciple.  Perhaps he was once, then Satan entered him, allowing him to imagine and state in his book that the Blessed Virgin Mary is comparable to "a girl of today" and "a normal woman" and directing him to insinuate, ever so imperceptibly yet deceivingly, that the Mother of God is as impure, proud and corruptible as "a normal girl, a girl of today" and "a normal woman".  The possibility that Bergoglio who is a disciple of Christ is also a betrayer of Christ is very real because to assume that Judas Iscariot was the only disciple whom Satan had entered and who betrayed Christ in 2,000 plus years is unrealistic.


[1] http://www.lastampa.it/2018/10/08/vaticaninsider/the-pope-ill-tell-you-about-mary-a-normal-girl-KTgt8GlyojXrw5SXmhQaHJ/pagina.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnificat
[3] "In 1854, four years before the apparitions of Mary at Lourdes, Pope Pius IX defined the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception which stated that 'the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin.'" See https://www.allaboutreligion.org/blessed-virgin-mary.htm

Another Fantasy: Healing The Catholic Church - Synod of Exorcists

The pope should gather all the bishops, archbishops and Cardinals from around the world, demonically-possessed or not, to meet at the Vatican to attend a first-ever annual Synod of Exorcists.

During the Synod of Exorcists, the clerics as well as the pope himself will have to endure the pains of exorcism for as long as would be required for the exorcists to exorcise all the demons from them collectively (this could be a first too) and  individually before they would be allowed to return to work as holy (non-demonic) shepherds.

Before being exorcised, all of them will first have to fast, drinking only water, eating only once a day plain bread, and pray unceasingly the rosary in Latin eight (8) hours a day for two full weeks as a group.  The clerics, probably all of them without exception, who are not used to fasting and praying the rosary this way, will come to realize that the preparation for the annual exorcism is far worse than being possessed and going through exorcism.

As a result, they will voluntarily tell Satan and its demons to get out in order that they may be able to be exempted from this annual ordeal by being transparent in all that they do and not do.

What about priests?  They, too, will have to be exorcised and go through the same fasting and praying under the supervision of their Archbishop who will accompany them throughout the ordeal.  And so do seminarians.  By fasting, praying and going through exorcism, they will be able to discern clearly if God is truly calling them to become the suffering Shepherd Who is Christ.

Can Viganò's Second Letter's Anecdotal Conclusion Perhaps Be Improved?

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò dated a letter on September 29, 2018, the Feast of Archangel Saint Michael, in which he wrote the following concluding remarks [1]:

It [referring to "a mosaic of the Basilica of St. Mark in Venice"] represents the miracle of the calming of the storm. I was struck by the fact that in the boat of Peter, tossed by the water, the figure of Jesus is portrayed twice. Jesus is sound asleep in the bow, while Peter tries to wake him up: “Master, do you not care that we are about to die?”  Meanwhile the apostles, terrified, look each in a different direction and do not realize that Jesus is standing behind them, blessing them and assuredly in command of the boat: “He awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, ‘Quiet! Be still,’ … then he said to them, ‘Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?’” (Mk 4:38-40). [Italics  original.]

The scene is very timely in portraying the tremendous storm the Church is passing through in this moment, but with a substantial difference: the successor of Peter not only fails to see the Lord in full control of the boat, it seems he does not even intend to awaken Jesus asleep in the bow.

Has Christ perhaps become invisible to his vicar? Perhaps is he being tempted to try to
act as a substitute of our only Master and Lord?

Perhaps this blogger is reading too much into it but his take away after reading Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's conclusion is this: after Jesus was awoken by Peter and after He had calmed the wind and the sea, He asked Peter why he was afraid and why he still had no faith.  If Peter had absolute faith in Christ and was not afraid, then he would not have awoken Christ Who was sound asleep in the boat in a stormy sea.  By saying that Bergoglio did not intend to awaken Jesus, it could be interpreted to mean Bergoglio having Christ at the forefront of his mind and having complete faith in Christ which is the opposite of Viganò's point.

This blogger thinks he knows the point that Viganò was trying to make and he agrees with it, but to make it clear, perhaps Viganò could have added after these words "he does not even intend to awake Jesus asleep in the bow" this: in order to put an end to Christ's ministry by letting the stormy sea destroy the boat and drown those who are in it (implying the loss of all moral authority of the Catholic Church and all credibility of the good shepherds who preach the Gospel by having hypocrisies attributed to them by association).

Of course, this blogger is no where near as eloquent and subtle as Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, therefore his thoughts and blog posts are a reflection of such and other deficiencies.

[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/389623829/Vigano-Scio-Cui-Credidi#download

Free Will And Predestination

Free Will was given to man at his creation.  "The LORD God gave the man this order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die." [1]  The man, Adam, was handed the Forbidden Fruit by the woman, Eve.  He knew where it came from and he chose to eat it anyway. [*] What he said was proof of his knowledge: "Then God asked: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat? The man replied, 'The woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it.'" [2]  Having made his personal choice, Adam blamed it on God for having created the woman and for putting her there with him.  The woman in his mind became an extension of the Serpent.  Regardless of the origin of the temptation, Adam was punished and banished from the Garden of Eden for disobeying God's one and only rule with full knowledge.  As a consequence of making the wrong wilful choice, God's promise of death for them (and their descendants) came true.

Was Adam's wilful choice was preordained?  There are countless questions like that throughout history up to the present day's moment to moment decisions.  How about Judas' betrayal of Christ? Was that also preordained even though nobody forced Judas into it?

Juxtaposing Free Will against Divine Predestination is the topic of this entry, an inherent conflict that is as mysterious as the ineffable magnificence of God.  There are many brilliant people who have consider this very conflict.  One concluded that "[k]nowing the outcome is not the same thing as forcing the outcome." [3]  Another concluded this: "I believe that God directs history. However, I do not believe that He micro-manages history." [4]  One used an example to illustrate: "We have freewill, but since God is well omnipotent and omniscient he already knows what choices we will make.  It['s] like asking a 6 year old if they want broccoli or ice cream.  We know that they are going to want the ice cream." [5]  Yet another gave a sophisticated but confusing (as least to this blogger) explanation [6] which either avoided stating the obvious or obfuscated it with irrelevant statements and skillful writing (which this blogger hopes that he had never done, not that there is even a hint of skill in his writing, and will never do in this blog -- if he had, he apologizes, and apologizes for all future pretentious posts).  What is obvious to this blogger is that the inherent conflict between Free Will and Divine Predestination is a mystery that cannot be comprehended by the human mind.

Having just concluded that the conflict between Free Will and Divine Predestination is not for the human mind to ponder, this blogger is going to contradict himself right off by pondering it.  Perhaps it is a defect to present Free Will and Predestination as a conflict to start out with since they do not have to be in conflict in the first place.  Going back to the Garden of Eden, if Adam and Eve had obeyed God, by choosing to reject the Serpent's temptation and not eat the Forbidden Fruit, then their respective Free Will would have coincided with God's Will which would have been for them an eternity of youth and fulfillment in Paradise.

Since that did not happen, then Predestination and Free Will supposedly came into conflict.  In a perfect world, they do not conflict.  Even now, Free Will and Predestination can be one and the same, provided that every single person chooses not to sin and conform everything he/she chooses to do and does to the Will of God.  This is not likely to happen; nonetheless, there is still Predestination.  

Predestination does not change.  If it can change, then Predestination is not Predestination but a "pre-estimation," a made-up term.  Predestination, as defined here, is the sum of all individual Free Wills, plus God's very own Free Will, culminating in large scale events that had occurred and will occur in the world.  Since Predestination does not change, and it is equated here to the sum of all Free Wills (man's and God's), therefore the sum of all Free Wills also does not change.

No man knows precisely what will take place in the future and when, but God does.  Man, however, can look to the past to know what took place.

For example, the 9-11 tragedy did not occur because several men decided to wake up one morning and thought it would be fun to commit suicide by hijacking airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers in the United States.  This blogger does not know the truth behind their concerted action but thinks that it was not a random act out of spontaneity.  Human behavior, this blogger postulates, is similar to a law of physics (applied loosely).  For there to be a reaction there has to be an action (or sometimes a series of actions) that precedes it, even though the initial action(s) is (are) sometime difficult to isolate, and even if isolated, would be denied or otherwise deemed as justified, moral or normal behavior.  This event was preordained not by God alone but by the Free Will of God and the aggregate Free Will of man over time.  There is not the least bit of doubt in this blogger's mind that this tragic event was predestined long before it occurred.

Some may be upset as to why God did not exercise His Free Will and override the combined Free Will of man in events such the one on September 11, 2001, that would lead to tragedy?  Man cannot tell God what God should and should not do.  In this case, perhaps God had decided to let man's Free Will take the lead without intervening, to let man suffer the result of his own predestiny.  Were there not innocent by-standers and heroes trying to save others who perished?  If so, why did God not save them from other people's predestiny?  Were not some saved from dying in this tragedy?  How can any sinner be absolutely innocent?  Can innocence be relative?  Is the laying down of one's life for another an act that one should blame God for?  Did Christ not lay down His life to save sinners?

One ought to accept that Predestination is not a punishment but a product of Free Will.

The foregoing example looked to the past.  A forward-looking example could be the advancement of biotechnology.  The long-term consequences of consuming genetically-modified (Satanically-transformed) and artificial (Satanic) foods that are not God's original creations by people and creatures of every kind can lead to new diseases and incurable cancers as well as the destruction of life cycles of creatures that support the very existence of mankind.  A further example could be the decentralization of the Catholic Church without the Vatican and a pope as a result of conflicting choices among clerics regarding sex abuse, sex abuse cover-up, divorce, gay marriage and adoption, chastity and on and on.  When the Catholic churches, clerics and laities around the world are no longer under the dictates of the Vatican, and when serious and unresolvable conflicts arise among different religions within a community, then not only will the local police force be called into action, but also military forces will eventually be at war with one another should such conflicts become large-scale and spread like wild fires around the world.  While these examples are imagined, the possibility that they may become reality is not foreclosed entirely.  Only God knows if such events will come to pass.  If they do, they will be subsumed under Predestination.  The ultimate Predestination is contained in the Book of Revelation with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Whether the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is God's plan alone or in combination with man's collective Free Will over time is not in question based on the conclusion to this blog entry.  The Second Coming of Jesus Christ is a combination of God's Free Will and the collective Free Will of man which together form Predestination.  In other words, man by his God-given Free Will is co-author of his own predestination alongside God, the first and main author of Predestination Who has created and permitted man to be Predestination's co-author.

[*] This statement conflicts with and corrects two wrong assertions made in a post entitled The Beginning, The Past, The Present, The Future And The End  published on August 29, 2018.  This blogger apologizes for those errors.

[1] http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/2, 16-17.

[2] http://www.usccb.org/bible/genesis/3, 11-12.

[3] https://www.wake-up.org/salvation/predestination-free-will.html,1st section, 3rd paragraph.

[4] http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/predestination.html, last section.

[5] http://www.islamicity.com/forum/printer_friendly_posts.asp?TID=11918, 1st reply.  It is interesting to find that Islam has this question as well.

[6] http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/freewill-predestination.htm

Losing Oneself In God

How does one who is a sinner lose oneself in God?  This blogger does not know but tries to imagine it and puts down his thoughts as they enter his mind.

To lose oneself in God, one must know who God is, what God is and where God is.  Simultaneously, one needs to know how to fulfill "the first of all the commandments" [1]: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." [2]

Who is God?  Nobody knows for certain who God is exactly.  Man knows God as the Creator of all things and as the Almighty One, but he does not know God well enough to know what God is likely thinking and doing at any moment.  God is far more than what the mind can imagine.  Therefore, no words can describe God fully since words necessarily confine God within the limits of human knowledge and intellect.

What is God?  As stated in John 4:8, "God is love." [3]

Where is God?  This blogger believes that God is everywhere simultaneously in timelessness even though there is nothing in the Bible that confirms specifically God's omnipresence.  However, Matthew 6:6 hints at it: "[W]hen you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you." [4]

God's complete and amorphous existence is both definite and indefinite.  Not knowing God's definiteness and indefiniteness concurrently, one cannot lose oneself in God without God's assent.  Jesus had said,"'No one comes to the Father except through me.'" [5]

Definiteness of God is made as clear as can be for man to understand by the life of God's only Son, Jesus Christ.  To lose oneself in the definiteness of the words spoken by Christ Himself is difficult enough, let alone suffer as He did.  This definiteness is the physical part that belongs to the world.

Beyond definiteness, there is the spiritual dimension that is unseen, that connects worldly existence to other-worldly existences and the finality of time to the infiniteness of eternity which is Heaven (or Hell for those who are already dammed).   To lose oneself in God's indefiniteness requires more than imagination; it requires Divine intervention.

Losing oneself in God's indefiniteness is to experience other-worldly experiences, but not all such experiences come from God--they can originate from Satan too.  Satan can mimic and mock God.  Therefore one has to be careful to not make a mistake and lose oneself in Satan, one that is easy to do because Satan is so smart in being deceitful.  Telling the difference between them requires unyielding faith in God and humble prayers.

Faith in and humility before God are two prerequisites needed to fulfill "the first of all commandments" which is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength." [6]  Together they form the "second" simultaneous part to losing oneself in God.

By fulfilling these prerequisites, one is still unable to choose to lose oneself in God because of sin.  As a sinner, one is predisposed to sin.  Predisposition is not inevitability.  In other words, while one can fall easily into sin, one can choose not to.  How some people can avoid sin entirely, if they exist presently in this world, this blogger has no idea.  He can only assume that God has given them an abundance of grace.

The "Collect" part at the Latin Mass on Sunday, September 23, 2018, the Eighteenth Sunday After Pentecost, reads in part as follows: (in English) "O Lord, direct our hearts: for without Thee we are not able to please Thee."  "Dómine, tuæ miseratiónis operátio: quia tibi sine te placére non póssumus." (in Latin) [7]

Thus, only by God's grace is a one who is a sinner able lose oneself in God.  There is no other way.


[1] http://www.usccb.org/bible/mark/12, at 28.  See also http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/22:1517, at 36.
[2] Ibid, at 30.  See also http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/22:1517, at 37-8, and http://www.usccb.org/bible/dt/6:5#05006005, at 5.
[3] http://www.usccb.org/bible/1john/4, at 8.
[4] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/6, at 6.
[5] http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/14, at 6.
[6] Refer to footnotes [2] & [3] above.
[7] The Roman Catholic Daily Missal 1962. (2004). Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, at 794.