| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 314 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 310 Guest(s)
Baidu, Bing, Facebook, Google
|
|
|
| St. Francis of Sales: One Should Speak Freely Against Heretics and Schismatics |
|
Posted by: Stone - Yesterday, 08:59 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
 |
One Should Speak Freely Against Heretics and Schismatics
False ecumenism, so widespread and common in our days and coming from high ecclesiastical authorities, affirms that is not charitable to condemn heretics, schismatics, and other enemies of the Catholic Church.
To stop attacking these people is falsely presented as an act of love, and a obligation of Catholics. The truth, however, is the opposite as one can read
in the Saints and Doctors of the Church.
We transcribe below a text of St. Francis of Sales, Doctor of the Church, universally known for his goodness and charity. He strongly advises us to condemn the enemies of the Church:
Quote:The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied.
It is a work of charity to shout: "Here is the wolf!" when it enters the flock or anywhere else.
(Introduction to the Devout Life, part III, chap. 29)
|
|
|
| St. Thomas Aquinas: Whether Heretics Should Be Tolerated |
|
Posted by: Stone - Yesterday, 08:37 AM - Forum: Doctors of the Church
- No Replies
|
|
The Young St. Thomas on Tolerating Heretics
" [...] we are pleased to offer today a translation, courtesy of www.theaquinasinstitute.org, of a fine article in St. Thomas’s Scriptum super Sententiarum Petri Lombardi, Bk. 3, dist. 13, qu. 2, art. 3: “Whether heretics should be tolerated.”
Readers familiar with his treatment of this question in the Summa (II-II, q. 10, a. 8, ad 1; q. 11, a. 3) will see many of the same points made, but here we have them fresh from the Master of the Sacred Page writing his doctoral dissertation."
Whether Heretics Should Be Tolerated
[ Sustinendi]
( Scriptum super Sent. IV.13.2.3)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...3D15.1&f=1]](https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.yYn_NFIdf3hJux91PqfJDwAAAA%26pid%3D15.1&f=1)
Objection 1. It seems that heretics should be tolerated. For nothing should be attacked except what is against friendship. But a difference of opinions is not against the harmony of friendship, as the Philosopher implies in Ethics 9. Therefore, they are not to be attacked.
Objection 2. Furthermore, what is necessary is not to be impeded. But heresy is necessary to the Church: it is necessary for heresies to exist, so that those who are tested may be made manifest (1 Cor 11:19). Therefore they are not to be attacked.
Objection 3. Furthermore, the Lord commanded that weeds be permitted to grow until harvest (cf. Mt 13:30). But the harvest is the end of the ages. Therefore since heretics are weeds, it seems that they must be permitted to grow until the end of the world.
Objection 4. Furthermore, no wise man should nod at what cannot ensue. But, as it says in a certain gloss on Isaiah 7, as long as the world stands, wise speech, secular speech, and heretical speech will dominate. Therefore the Church should not nod at the persecution of heretics.
Objection 5. Furthermore, no one believes without willing, as Augustine says. But heretics err in their faith. Therefore they are not to be forced.
Sed contra 1. But to the contrary, the Apostle commands that the old ferment be uprooted for it corrupts the whole mass (cf. 1 Cor 5:6-7). But heretics corrupt the Church the most. Therefore they are to be rooted out of the Church.
Sed contra 2. Furthermore, wolves are to be defended against by the office of pastors, as is clear from John 10:12. But heretics are wolves, as is clear in Acts 20:29.
Sed contra 3. Furthermore, spiritual life is better than physical. But murderers are rooted out because they take men’s physical lives. Therefore, much more should heretics be, who take men’s spiritual lives.
Response: I answer that heresy infects with vices; hence it says they lead much toward ungodliness, and their speech spreads like a cancer (2 Tim 2:16-17). And so the Church excludes them from the company of the faithful, and particularly those who corrupt others, so that the simple, who can be easily corrupted, are segregated from them not only in mind, but also physically. And this is why they are imprisoned and expelled by the Church. Now, if they did not corrupt others, they could also be concealed. But those who are firm in the faith can spend time with them physically so that they might convert them; nevertheless they cannot share in divine things, for they are excommunicated. But in secular judgment, they can licitly be killed, and despoiled of their goods, even if they do not corrupt others, for they are blaspheming against God, and they keep a false faith. And so they can be justly punished more than those who are guilty of the crime of offending majesty and those who forge false money.
Reply to Objection 1: The Philosopher is speaking only of speculative opinions. But consensus in the unity of the faith is the principle of communion in charity; and therefore dissent in the faith excludes the friendship of familiarity.
Reply to Objection 2: Heresy is said to be necessary not speaking per se, but incidentally, inasmuch as God draws something good out of any evil. For according to Augustine, the Church uses heretics to prove its own faith, namely when it attacks their false dogmas.
Reply to Objection 3: The Lord commanded that the weeds not be rooted out for this reason: lest perhaps the wheat should be uprooted at the same time with them. And so, this approach has a place among those about whom it is not clear whether or not they are heretics.
Reply to Objection 4: Although the Church cannot make it so that there are no heretics, nevertheless it can force this or that one individually; just as also we cannot avoid all venial sins, but we can strive to avoid individual ones.
Reply to Objection 5: The Church does not prosecute them so that they may be led to believe by violence, but so that they may not corrupt others, and lest so great a sin remain unpunished.
Adapted from here.
|
|
|
|
| Liberalism Is the Most Dangerous Enemy of the Social Reign of Christ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-13-2026, 11:16 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
|
Liberalism Is the Most Dangerous Enemy of the Social Reign of Christ
Fr. Henri Ramière
Le Règne Social du Coeur de Jesus, Toulouse, France, 1832, chapter "Dangers of Catholic Liberalism"
TIA | July 23, 2018
The French Jesuit Fr. Henri Ramière (1821-1884) was a renowned theologian, philosopher, historian, writer and great apostle of the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; he founded a monthly magazine Messenger of the Heart of Jesus and edited it until the end of his life.
![[Image: 010_Ram.jpg]](https://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bestofimages/010_Ram.jpg)
Fr. Henri Ramière (1821-1884)
At Vatican Council I, he was a strong opponent of the Liberalism he saw entering the Church and society. Pope Pius IX congratulated this Jesuit for his work titled Church Teaching on Liberalism (Les Doctrines Romaines sur le Libéralisme). In 1871 the same Pope entrusted him with the task of writing to all the Catholic Bishops commanding them to promote the consecration of the Christian world to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
To demonstrate how the tenets of Liberalism that Fr. Ramière warned against have become common thinking among Catholics, today under the title of Progressivism, TIA transcribes here a very opportune chapter of his outstanding work, The Social Reign of the Heart of Jesus (Le Règne Social du Coeur de Jesus), published in Toulouse, France.
This chapter was also published twice as an article in his monthly Messenger in September 1868 and in 1871 under the title "Dangers of Catholic Liberalism."
+ + +
In the world there was an army whose history, through 18 centuries, was an uninterrupted series of apparent reverses and real triumphs. Always fighting against enemies a hundred times more numerous, this army had conquered them all, and its flatterers assured it that it had annihilated them. Guard of a citadel of which God was the protector, it laughed at the assaults of the mighty on earth; and the futility of the efforts of the greatest conquerors to weaken it gave it the right to despise the future attacks it would face.
But, behold, the enemy, unable to overcome this army by force, resorted to an infernal stratagem: He addressed himself to the defenders of the citadel and entrusted to them the charge of demolishing the fortifications and opening the gates. However, in order to gain their consent, he did not foolishly propose to them such a betrayal, which the loyal spirits of that army’s warriors would have rejected.
![[Image: 010_fortress.jpg]](https://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bestofimages/010_fortress.jpg)
A citadel that for centuries triumphed over all the assaults of the enemy
The enemy’s craft had more skill: He appealed to the warriors' generosity; he persuaded them that if they had the right to defend the citadel, their adversaries had an equal right to attack it. Therefore, justice required that, instead of expending all their forces to reject these attacks, they should defend the rights of the assailants.
The maneuver, unfortunately, had an effect: Inside that powerful army, which unity had made invincible, a numerous party formed that took as a war cry "the freedom to attack!" Those who did not want to enlist in this party found themselves, on the part of their brothers-in-arms, the target of a hostility more acerbic than that of the enemies. This hostility extended even to the Chief chosen by God to command this army. His own soldiers – regardless of the firmness that had maintained a strict discipline in the army, which until that day had been its strength – did not fear to contest the prerogative of his supreme authority.
There is not one of our readers who has not seen through the transparent veil of this allegory and applied it to the dangers to which Liberalism exposes the army of Jesus Christ. This is, in truth, the weeds sown by the enemy in the field of the head of a household. It is the trap by which so many noble hearts allowed themselves to be caught. It is the strategy that gave advantages to the immortal Adversary of Truth that violence did not give.
*
What, then, is Catholic Liberalism? It is a mitigated form of absolute Liberalism, or, in other words, free-thinking. It has always been the tactic of the Father of Lies to unite more moderate errors with extreme errors, thus to more readily seduce those who would be repelled by absolute denials of the Faith.
This is how in the 17th and 18th centuries Jansenism, a mitigated Lutheranism, dragged along many minds that would have repelled Luther's blasphemy. The free-thinkers are the Protestants of the 19th century and the legitimate descendants of Luther.
![[Image: 010_circle.jpg]](https://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bestofimages/010_circle.jpg)
The circle of so-called 'reformers' with Luther at the center who challenged the supremacy of truth
Luther protested against the supremacy of the Pope and against the authority of the Church; free-thinkers protest against the authority of Jesus Christ and the supremacy of truth. Luther claimed for every "Christian" the right to believe and teach what he thought he had found in the Bible; free-thinkers claim for every man the right to think and to maintain everything his reason invents.
The Protestants did not want any fixed dogma in the supernatural order; free-thinkers do not want any fixed principle in the rational order. In their view, there are only opinions and the public power has no right over these opinions; rather people should be given ever greater freedom to present and spread their personal opinions.
If someone wants to attack the existence of God, the soul, the future life and the most essential laws of morals, civil law should have no say in the matter. There is no crime to hold an opinion and, since thought is free, the word and the press must be equally so. Such is absolute Liberalism, which is also called Rationalism, the great dogmatic heresy of the 19th century.
Catholic Liberalism is far from reaching this point. It does not make the monstrous concessions to error that would destroy the integrity of the Faith. It does not deny that there is an absolute truth to which man must give the assent of his reason; it does not dispute the divinity of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Church; rather, it concurs with free-thinking in enclosing the faith in those truths that lie in the sphere of the individual conscience.
According to Catholic Liberalism with regard to society and the power that governs it, truth has no more rights than error. The public power should view those who hold both as merely having opinions whose freedom it is obliged to protect – as long as they do not resort to violence in order to obstruct the freedom of opposing opinions.
Thus, in the eyes of liberals, be they Catholic or anti-Catholic, the law must be atheistic, that is, it should not be concerned about God, as if He did not exist. For them, His precepts are non-existent, His authority is null and void, His Revelation worthless. In his intimate circles, as a Catholic and as a man, the magistrate can believe all this, but as a magistrate, in the exercise of his authority, he must behave absolutely as if he does not believe in anything.
The liberal theory requires, therefore, for all Catholics engaged in public office to have two consciences: a personal conscience, according to which all his personal actions conform to the law of God and a public conscience, which allows him to ignore any of these laws in the performance of his functions. As a Catholic, he hears Mass, and as a magistrate he assists at the laying of the cornerstone of a mosque. If we were still living in the time of Paganism, he would accompany Caesar to the temple of the idols.
We do not affirm that all Catholic liberals admit this theory in its full extension. To the contrary, we know that many refuse to bring to term the consequences of such principles; nonetheless, the consequence follows no less logically from the principles.
In fact, there is no middle ground: Either society is subject to God and then is obliged to defend His rights and to conform to His precepts, as Catholic doctrine prescribes; or society is independent of God and then has the absolute right not to be concerned about Him, which is legal Atheism.
The application of the two theories can suffer various modifications, but one theory absolutely excludes the other, and we must choose between them. If we defend, at least in theory, the supremacy of truth, we are Catholics; if we concede to error the same rights as truth, we are liberals.
For the anti-Catholic Liberalism this equality between truth and error is absolute; for the Catholic Liberalism it relates only to society and to the power that governs it. These are two different errors, but they agree in denying the rights of truth. In fact, even though this second form of Liberalism is much less repugnant than the first, it is no less opposed to Catholic doctrine and we do not exaggerate by qualifying it as heresy. For it is evident that it denies at the same time the rights of God, of Jesus Christ and of the Church.
Either God is nothing or He is the Sovereign Lord of all of societies as well as of individuals. To want to place Him outside of the law, to deny Him the essential authority, is to deny Him existence. Legislative Atheism necessarily leads to doctrinal Atheism.
Jesus Christ, no less than God His Father, has the right to the homage and the obedience of societies. When Christ came to earth, the Eternal Father gave to Him not only souls, but also the nations. He made Him Sovereign King and the only Savior of both peoples and individuals, applying the word of the Apostle: "For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
![[Image: 010_King.jpg]](https://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bestofimages/010_King.jpg)
The truth of Christ must reign in both the temporal and religious spheres
By thus authorizing peoples to disregard the teachings and precepts of Jesus Christ in their collective existence, Liberalism violates the rights of the Heavenly Father as well as those of His Only Begotten Son.
In the same way Liberalism attacks the authority of the Church. In fact, she was made the sovereign depository of the Incarnate Word and the supreme interpreter of His law. Our Lord told the Apostles, "Go, therefore, and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all the things that I have commanded you." (Mt 28:19-20)
Here He makes no distinction between social and individual duties. He did not say to the Apostles, "Go and teach every man what he personally owes to God, but do not be concerned about what men assembled in a society owe to one another." He speaks not only to individuals, but to nations. When, therefore, Liberalism removes societies from the authority of the Church, leaving them to answer only to their individual consciences, with one stroke it reduces to nothing the institution of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the mission of the Church.
Yes, it reduces both to nothing, because the truth is one and indivisible. To want to divide truth into two parts, and then sacrifice one to the demands of the world in order to better maintain the other, is to destroy it entirely. We can be disposed to make excuses for the intentions of the Catholics who make this calculation, imagining that we are rendering a great service to the truth, but we are obliged to clearly tell them, with the Pope, that such a service rendered to the truth by its defenders is more harmful to it than the violent attacks of its enemies.
It is the judgment of Solomon – who ordered the baby of two women, who both claimed him, to be cut in half – applied in reverse, not on a mortal child, but on the immortal truth. The division, which for Solomon was just a sham, would ask liberal Catholics to do what is manifestly impossible. A man placed between his conscience, which is Catholic, and public opinion, which no longer is, and tries to save both cannot do so. To take up the sword and strike is to try to cut the truth into two pieces.
To public opinion he surrenders the social rights of this divine truth even as he preciously guards his individual rights for himself. How can he not see that the divine truth thus mutilated is no longer the truth and no longer has anything of the divine? If God no longer governs social relations, then He obviously does not deserve the homage of individuals. Ceding this point to free-thought, he thus surrenders it all; he hands over the citadel and sacrifices the crown of the Divine King, who he boasts to defend.
"But," as liberal Catholics say, "if we refuse this satisfaction to public opinion, it becomes irritated by us and we are unable to exert any influence over it."
Yes, this is true. Just as the Christians of the first centuries could not confess the unity of God and the divinity of Jesus Christ without raising the public opinion of their time against them, so also we cannot. It is always the same fight although the terrain is different. It is the secular battle against Jesus Christ.
To pretend to facilitate the salvation of the world by sacrificing the rights of the Savior would be to deceive ourselves with a foolish hope. Doing this, we would only make salvation impossible: first, because Jesus Christ would no longer be the true Savior if He were not the necessary Savior; second, because instead of conquering the affection of the world, we would only procure its contempt; third, because the truth would cease to have the power to save men should its defenders cease to assert it in all its integrity.
Indeed, it is not the attacks of the enemies that weaken the truth; these attacks, on the contrary, make it shine even brighter. Its very nature is to be combated by error, just as it is the nature of light to be opposed to darkness. So long as the truth is boldly, courageously and wholly asserted by those whom it chose to be its organs on earth, it retains all its power to enlighten minds of good faith.
But, if the organs charged with manifesting it to the world affirm it only half-way, how can obscure minds know it? What profit will error not draw in the fight from the imprudent concessions of its defenders?
Without a doubt, these mitigated errors, which seduce Catholics and even priests, are incomparably more disastrous to the truth than the extreme errors professed only by those who are openly impious. If the lamp that lights the house is hidden under the bushel, how can its inhabitants not stumble in the darkness? If the salt becomes tasteless, what is left to preserve the world from corruption?
Therefore, Pius IX did not exaggerate when he denounced Liberalism as a scourge more frightful to Catholic France than the violence of the tyrants of the Commune [the radically communist government that ruled Paris from March 19 to May 28, 1871). In so doing, he was not comparing the liberal Catholics to the leaders of the Commune. Rather, he likened the results of the illusion of the former to the consequences of the tyranny of the latter.
|
|
|
|
| Msgr. Gaume Excerpt from The Sign of the Cross (1873) |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-13-2026, 11:07 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
|
A Short Chapter from Msgr. Gaume's The Sign of the Cross (1873)
PREFACE:
IN the month of November of the year 1862, a young German Catholic of great distinction arrived in Paris to pursue his course in the College of France. Faithful, according to the traditional usage of his country, to make the Sign of the Cross before and after meals, he, on the first day, became the wonder of his school-companions. The next day, in virtue of the freedom of worship, he was the object of their mockeries. In one of his visits he begged us to tell him what we thought of the practice, of which his companions were trying to make him ashamed, and of the Sign of the Cross in general. The following letters are intended as an answer to those two questions.
ELEVENTH LETTER
December 6th.
THE Sign of the Cross is a treasure which enriches us; this is one of the reasons of its being. It enriches us, because it is an excellent prayer. This is, my dear friend, as you have not forgotten, the point of doctrine we have just established. Half the proof has already been given. It is in the antiquity, the universality, the perpetuity of the Sign of the Cross. In the midst of the shipwreck in which the idolatrous world allowed so many primitive revelations to be lost or damaged, we see the Sign of the Cross floating on the surface. What says this strange fact, new to you, incomprehensible to a great number, but most reasonable to the Christian accustomed to reflect? It speaks eloquently of the high utility of the Sign of the Cross for man, because it tells its powerful efficacy over the heart of God. From reasoning, let us proceed to facts. The Sign of the Cross is a prayer; a powerful, universal prayer. It is a prayer. What is a man who prays? He is one who confesses his indigence before God; his intellectual, moral, and material indigence. He is a beggar at the rich man’s door. Now, the beggar prays with his voice, but more eloquently by his pale and emaciated face, by his infirmities, his tattered clothes and his attitude. Thus prayed on the Cross the adorable Mendicant of Calvary. In that state, the Son of God was more than ever the object of the infinite complacency of His Father. He Himself tells us that that eloquent prayer, more in action than in words, was the powerful lever which drew all things to Him. (John, 12:33 )
What does a man do when he forms the Sign of the Cross, either with his hand, or by extending his arms? He impresses upon himself the image of the Divine Mendicant; he identifies himself with Him. It is Jacob clothing himself with the garments of Esau, that he may obtain the paternal benediction. What does he say to God? By this attitude of faith, humility, and devotedness, he says: “Behold in me your Christ, respice in faciem Christi tui;” a prayer more eloquent than all the words that could be spoken. “It ascends,” says St. Ambrose, “and the alms descend.” Ascendit deprecatio et descendit Dei miseratio. Such is the Sign of the Cross, even without a formula. It does not speak, yet it says all. It is a powerful prayer. When an agent of the authorities, a commissary of police, mayor, or gendarme, lays his hand upon a culprit, he says: “I arrest you in the name of the law.” In the words, “In the name of the law,” the guilty man sees the authority of his country, the strength of the army, the judges, the king himself; and he allows himself to be taken.
When, then, man, threatened by danger, assailed by doubts, persecuted by temptation, a prey to suffering and sickness, pronounces these words of solemn authority, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” and while pronouncing them makes the sign by which the world has been redeemed, and Hell vanquished, how can you explain the continued resistance of evil? Has not man fulfilled all the conditions of success? Is not God, in some way, obliged to intervene, and by His intervention, to glorify His name and the power of His Christ? The particular efficacy of the Sign of the Cross has never been doubted, either by the Church, or by Christian generations. The gravest theologians teach even that the Sign of the Cross operates of itself, and independently of him who makes it. They give us several proofs: I will cite only two. The first is the custom of incessantly repeating the Sign of the Cross. “If it did not produce,” say they, “its effects of itself, Christians would have no reason for making use of it so frequently. What good would it do to have recourse to it, when a motion of the soul, or any good action whatsoever, would suffice to obtain or realize what they hope to obtain or realize by the Sign of the Cross?” (Gretzer, lib. iv. c. 62, p. 703. Gregorius de Valentia, Suarez, Bellarminus, Pyræus, et al.)
The second rests on facts celebrated in history and of incontestable authenticity: I will relate a few. The first, is that of Julian the Apostate. A deserter from the true God, that emperor becomes, by an inevitable conclusion, an adorer of the Demon. To learn the secrets of the future, he seeks throughout Greece for men in communication with the Evil Spirit. A sorcerer presents himself, who promises to satisfy his curiosity. Julian is conducted into a temple of the idols. The conjurations are pronounced, and the emperor sees himself surrounded by’ demons, whose appearance fills him with terror. By a gesture of thoughtless fear, he makes the Sign of the Cross, and the demons disappear. The sorcerer complains, and repeats his incantations. The demons reappear. Julian forgets himself again and, at the Sign of the Cross, the spirits of darkness again take flight.(Orat. I., contr. Julian. 4 Dial., lib. iii. c. 7.). This fact, related by St. Gregory Nazianzen, Theodoret, and other Fathers of the Church, caused great excitement in the East.
The second is better known in the West. We have it from Pope Saint Gregory. The illustrious pontiff commences his relation by the following words:
Quote:“The fact which I am about to relate is not doubtful, for it had almost as many witnesses as the town of Fondi numbered inhabitants.4 “A Jew, journeying from Campania to Rome by the Appian Way, arrived at the small town of Fondi. It being very late, he could find no lodging, and went to pass the night in an old temple of Apollo. He felt afraid of that ancient dwelling of the demons, and although not a Christian, took care to arm himself with the Sign of the Cross. “Frightened at his solitude, he remained awake until midnight. Suddenly he saw a troop of demons, who seemed to be coming to pay homage to their chief; who was seated at the head of the temple. As they presented themselves, he interrogated each in particular as to what he had done to lead men into sin. All revealed to him their artifices. In the midst of the discourse one advanced, who related that he had succeeded in making the venerable bishop of the city feel the sting of a terrible temptation. “
‘Until now,’ said he, ‘my labor was in vain, but last evening I succeeded in making him give a slight tap on the shoulder of the holy woman employed in his house.’ “ ‘Continue,’ answered the ancient enemy of mankind, ‘continue and finish what you have begun, and so great a victory shall bring you an extraordinary reward.’ “Meanwhile, the Jew, the witness of the spectacle, could scarcely breathe. In order to make him die of fear, the president of the infernal assembly, knowing of his presence, ordered them to inform him who was that rash man who had dared to take shelter in the temple. The evil spirits approached, but seeing him marked with the Sign of the Cross, cried out: ‘Woe! woe! an empty vessel, sealed! Væ, væ! vas vacuum el signaturn!’ At those words, the infernal troop disappeared.
“The Jew, on his side, hastened to depart. He hurried to the church, where he found the venerable bishop. Calling him aside, he related all that had happened to him, and how he had learned of the slight tap given to his servant, and what was the project of the demon. Surprised beyond measure, the bishop immediately dismissed her, and from that time forbade all persons of the other sex to enter his house. He consecrated the old temple of Apollo in honor of St Andrew, and the Jew was converted.” (Dial., lib. iii. c. 7).
Let us relate another fact. We read, in the Ecclesiastical History of Nicephorus, that under the emperor Mauritius, Chosroes II, king of Persia, sent an embassy to Constantinople, and that all the Persians who composed it had the Sign of the Cross marked on their foreheads. The emperor asked them why it was that they bore a sign in which they did not believe.
Quote:“What you see on our foreheads,” said they, “is the testimony of a signal favor which we received some time ago. A pestilence was ravaging our country, and some Christians advised us to mark the Sign of the Cross on our foreheads, as a preservative against it. We believed them, and have been saved, although nearly all our families were cut off by the scourge.” (Hist., lib. xviii. c. 20 ).
After these facts naturally follows the reflection of the great Bishop of Hippo, which seems decisive in favor of the teachings of theologians.
Quote:“We must not be surprised,” says he, “at the power of the Sign of the Cross when it is made by good Christians, since it has so much strength when employed by strangers, who do not believe in it, and this happens for the glory of the great King.” (Lib. de 83 quæst., quæst. 79. 8 Gretzer, ubi supra.).
That we may remain within the limits of orthodoxy, we must, however, add that the Sign of the Cross does not operate of itself, purely and simply, but in as much as is useful for our salvation and that of others. It is the same with it as with certain other practices, such as, for example, exorcisms, to which no divine promise attaches effects infallible and unconditional. I add, that the piety of him who makes the Sign of the Cross contributes to its efficacy. This sign is a silent invocation of Jesus Crucified; consequently, it is so much the more efficacious as it is made with greater fervor. Again, the invocation with the heart or the mouth is so much the more likely to obtain its effect, as the Christian who makes it is more virtuous and more agreeable to the Lord.
It is a universal prayer. In one sense the Sign of the Cross may say, like our Savior Himself: “All power has been given to me in Heaven and on Earth.” Here, more than anywhere else, we must, my dear Frederic, reason with facts. They are so numerous that the only difficulty is to choose among them. All, and each in its manner, proclaim on one side the faith of our ancestors, and on the other, the empire of the Sign of the Cross over the visible and invisible worlds. It provides for all the wants of both soul and body. For his soul, man has need of lights; the Sign of the Cross obtains them. St. Porphyius, Bishop of Gaza, is obliged to dispute with a Manichean woman. In order to dispel, by the clearness of his reasoning, the darkness with which the unfortunate woman is surrounded, he makes the Sign of the Cross, and light shines on that darkened intellect. Julian, the crowned sophist, provokes a controversy with Cæsarius, brother of St. Gregory Nazianzen.
Quote:The generous athlete enters the lists armed with the Sign of the Cross. To an enemy perfect in that art of warfare, and skilful in his manner of reasoning, he opposes the standard of the Word, and the spirit of lies is caught in his own snares.(S. Greg. Nazian. In laud. Cæsar).
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, so powerful in words and deeds, orders recourse to be had to the Sign of the Cross every time that he is to engage in combat with the pagans, and he assures them that they shall be reduced to silence.(Catech., xiii.).
In the temporal order, no less than in the spiritual, divine lights are necessary to man; they also are obtained by the Sign of the Cross. The emperors of the East, the successors of Constantine, when they had to speak before the Senate, always began by the Sign of the Cross.(Coripp. Deland. Justin. Jun.). As we have already seen, St. Louis, before discussing in council the affairs of his kingdom, always conformed himself to this most ancient and religious practice. If, after the example of the greatest princes who have governed the world, the emperors and kings of the nineteenth century should have recourse to the Sign of the Cross, do you think that affairs should be in a worse state than they are? As for me, I am as convinced as I am of my own existence, that they would be much better. Are not those who govern now as much in need of light as those who governed in former times? Do they pretend to find it elsewhere than in Him who is its source? Do they know of a means more certain to invoke Him with success? Do not all ages bear witness to its efficacy? Does not the Church, which ought to be their oracle, continue to proclaim it? Is there a council, a conclave, or a religious assembly that is not begun with the Sign of the Cross? Do the Catholic priests, faithful inheritors of tradition, ever speak from the pulpit without being armed with this sign of strength and light? In this they observe the precept of the ancient Fathers. “Make the Sign of the Cross,” says St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “and you shall speak; Fac hoc signum et loqueris.” (Catech. illuminat., iv).
What I have said of kings, my dear friend, must be said of all those who are charged with teaching others. Is not the Incarnate Word the God of science and of all sciences, the Professor of professors, the Master of masters? If the Sign of the Cross presided over all the lessons that are now given, over all the books that are now printed, do you think we would be inundated, as we are, with errors, sophistry, false ideas, and incoherent systems, whose incontestable result is to cause the modern world to sink again into that intellectual darkness from which Christianity has drawn it? For his soul, man needs strength: the Sign of the Cross is the fruitful source of it. Look at your illustrious ancestors, the martyrs. From what did they seek the courage to triumph in their heroic combats? From the Sign of the Cross. Generals of armies, centurions, soldiers, magistrates, senators, patricians, and plebeians, children and aged men, matrons and .young virgins, all were careful, when descending into the arena, to cover themselves with this invincible armor: insuperabili christianorurn armatura. Come with me; I will name a few to you. In Cæsarea, see that generous martyr, who walks to the place of execution surrounded by an immense concourse of people. It is the centurion Gordius. See him, calm and collected, arming his forehead with the Sign of the Cross. (S. Basil, Orat. in S. Gord). What is that town in Armenia, situated in the midst of snows, and on the borders of a frozen lake? It is Sebaste. Behold, coming here in the evening, forty men, bound with cords, and stripped of their garments, who are being dragged to the midst of the lake, condemned to pass the night there. Who are they? Forty veterans of the army of Licinius. A superhuman force of resistance is so much the more necessary, because on the shore, warm baths are prepared for those who will apostatize. They make the Sign of the Cross, and an heroic death comes to crown their courage. (SS. Martyr.).
We have seen the young Agnes as a living Sign of the Cross amidst the flames. Behold other Christian virgins, born like her in the Golden Age of the martyrs. The first is St. Thecla, illustrious by her birth, more illustrious by her faith. The executioners have seized upon her; they conduct her to the funeral pile; she mounts it with a firm step, makes the Sign of the Cross, and remains calm and tranquil in the midst of the flames. At the same moment, the rain descends in torrents, the flames are extinguished; and, like the children of Babylon, the young heroine comes forth from the fire without one hair of her head being injured. (Ado, in Martyrol., Sept. 23).
The second is St. Euphemia, no less celebrated than the first. Upon the orders of the judge, the instruments of torture are made ready in an instant. The young virgin is about to be stretched on the wheel: she makes the Sign of the Cross, and advances towards the frightful engine, bristling with iron spikes; she gazes on it without any terror, and by that glance, causes it to fly into fragments. (Apud. Sur. t. v. at Baron. Martyrol., Sept. 16). Look again. We stand in one of the Roman prætoriums, so often crimsoned with the blood of our fathers, so often the witnesses of their sublime answers and their heroic constancy. It is during the persecutions of Decius; you know that sanguinary emperor, that execrable animal, as Lactantius calls him: execrabile animal Decius. Before the judge stands a band of Christians. The accuser comes, according to custom, to charge them with all sorts of crimes. They are already condemned; they know it. What do they do? Raising their eyes to Heaven they make the Sign of the Cross, and say to the proconsul, “You shall see that we are neither cowardly nor faint-hearted.” (Apud. sur. Apr. 13). Were I to continue this list, I should have to cause the innumerable army of martyrs to pass before you in review. There is not one of those valorous soldiers of the Crucified who, in going to combat, did not bear the standard of his King. Let it suffice to name a few. St. Julian and St. Pontian, St. Constant and St. Crescent, St. Isidore, St. Nazarius and St. Celsus, St. Maximinus, St. Alexander, St. Sophia and her three daughters, St. Paul and St. Juliana, St. Cyprian and St. Justina. (See their Acts.). Taken from all countries and all conditions, they bear witness that it was a universal custom among the martyrs to arm themselves with that sign of strength, before entering the lists with men, with beasts, or with the elements.
But better still; fearing that the weight of the chains would prevent them from forming the Sign of the Cross, they ask the Christians, their brethren, or the priests, their fathers, to arm them with the victorious sign. Corribonus, converted to the faith by the martyr St. Eleutherius, goes himself into the amphitheatre to seek the crown of martyrdom. “Pray for me,” says he to his father in Jesus Christ, “and arm me with the Sign of the Cross, the same with which you have armed Felix the general.” ( Apud. sur., Apr. 18). Glyceria, the noble daughter of a father thrice consul, is seized and cast into a narrow prison. The first act she performs, on seeing herself in the hands of her enemies, is to beg the holy priest, Philocratus, to make the Sign of the Cross on her forehead. The priest grants her desire, saying, “May this sign of the Crucified fulfill all your desires.” (Apud. sur., Apr. 18, t. iii. et Baron. t. ii.). They are all accomplished. The young heroine descends into the amphitheatre. At the moment she is about to gather the palm of victory, she turns towards the Christians, who mingle with the crowd, and says with all the spirit of a warrior about to die for his flag: “Brethren, sisters, children, fathers, and all you who hold to me the place of a mother, beware; watch over yourselves, and consider well who is the Emperor whose mark and sign is engraved on our foreheads.”(Ibid.). You have heard it; in the Sign of the Cross all the martyrs sought for strength. And would they have looked for strength from a nonentity? Would the great Emperor, for whom they died, have allowed them to remain in an incurable illusion? If any one believes this, let him give his proofs.( pp. 51-57)
---
Book may be purchased here.
Downloadable PDF here.
Free Audio book here.
|
|
|
|
| Padre Pio - "Comportment at Holy Mass and Afterwards" |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-12-2026, 10:37 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
|
Beloved daughter of Jesus,
May Jesus and our Mother always smile on your soul, obtaining for it, from Her most holy Son, all the heavenly charisms!
I am writing to you for two reasons: to answer some more questions from your last letter, and to wish you a very happy names-day in the most sweet Jesus, full of all the most special heavenly graces. Oh! If Jesus granted my prayers for you or, better still, if only my prayers were worthy of being granted by Jesus! However, I increase them a hundredfold for your consolation and salvation, begging Jesus to grant them, not for me but through the heart of his paternal goodness and infinite mercy.
In order to avoid irreverence and imperfections in the house of God, in church - which the divine Master calls the house of prayer - I exhort you in the Lord to practice the following.
Enter the church in silence and with great respect, considering yourself unworthy to appear before the Lord's Majesty. Amongst other pious considerations, remember that our soul is the temple of God and, as such, we must keep it pure and spotless before God and his angels. Let us blush for having given access to the devil and his snares many times (with his enticements to the world, his pomp, his calling to the flesh) by not being able to keep our hearts pure and our bodies chaste; for having allowed our enemies to insinuate themselves into our hearts, thus desecrating the temple of God which we became through holy Baptism.
Then take holy water and make the sign of the cross carefully and slowly.
As soon as you are before God in the Blessed Sacrament, devoutly genuflect. Once you have found your place, kneel down and render the tribute of your presence and devotion to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. Confide all your needs to him along with those of others. Speak to him with filial abandonment, give free rein to your heart and give him complete freedom to work in you as he thinks best.
When assisting at Holy Mass and the sacred functions, be very composed when standing up, kneeling down, and sitting, and carry out every religious act with the greatest devotion. Be modest in your glances; don't turn your head here and there to see who enters and leaves. Don't laugh, out of reverence for this holy place and also out of respect for those who are near you. Try not to speak to anybody, except when charity or strict necessity requests this.
If you pray with others, say the words of the prayer distinctly, observe the pauses well and never hurry.
In short, behave in such a way that all present are edified by it and, through you, are urged to glorify and love the heavenly Father.
On leaving the church, you should be recollected and calm. Firstly take your leave of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament; ask his forgiveness for the shortcomings committed in his divine presence and do not leave him without asking for and having received his paternal blessing.
Once you are outside the church, be as every follower of the Nazarene should be. Above all, be extremely modest in everything, as this is the virtue which, more than any other, reveals the affections of the heart. Nothing represents an object more faithfully or clearly than a mirror. In the same way, nothing more widely represents the good or bad qualities of a soul than the greater or lesser regulation of the exterior, as when one appears more or less modest. You must be modest in speech, modest in laughter, modest in your bearing, modest in walking.
All this must be practiced, not out of vanity in order to display one's self, nor out of hypocrisy in order to appear to be good to the eyes of others, but rather, for the internal virtue of modesty, which regulates the external workings of the body.
Therefore, be humble of heart, circumspect in words, prudent in your resolutions. Always be sparing in your speech, assiduous in good reading, attentive in your work, modest in your conversation. Don't be disgusting to anybody but be benevolent towards all and respectful towards your elders. May any sinister glance be far from you, may no daring word escape your lips, may you never carry out any immodest or somewhat free action; never a rather free action or a petulant tone of voice.
In short let your whole exterior be a vivid image of the composure of your soul.
Always keep the modesty of the divine Master before your eyes, as an example; this Master who, according to the words of the Apostle to the Corinthians, placing the modesty of Jesus Christ on an equal footing with meekness, which was his one particular virtue and almost his characteristic: "Now I Paul myself beseech you, by the mildness and modesty of Christ" [Douay-Rheims, 2 Cor. 10:1], and according to such a perfect model reform all your external operations, which should be faithful reflections revealing the affections of your interior.
Never forget this divine model, Annita. Try to see a certain lovable majesty in his presence, a certain pleasant authority in his manner of speaking, a certain pleasant dignity in walking, in contemplating, speaking, conversing; a certain sweet serenity of face. Imagine that extremely composed and sweet expression with which he drew the crowds, making them leave cities and castles, leading them to the mountains, the forests, to the solitude and deserted beaches of the sea, totally forgetting food, drink and their domestic duties.
Thus let us try to imitate, as far as we possibly can, such modest and dignified actions. And let us do our utmost to be, as far as possible, similar to him on this earth, in order that we might be more perfect and more similar to him for the whole of eternity in the heavenly Jerusalem.
I end here as I am unable to continue, recommending that you never forget me before Jesus, especially during these days of extreme affliction for me. I expect the same charity from the excellent Francesca to whom you will have the kindness to give, in my name, assurances of my extreme interest in seeing her grow always more in divine love. I hope she will do me the charity of making a novena of Communions for my intentions.
Don't worry if you are unable to answer my letter for the moment. I know everything so don't worry. I take my leave of you in the holy kiss of the Lord. I am always your servant.
Fra Pio, Capuchin
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: 20220221190236_f69491cd89bdf4116d1c990c1...14bec.webp]](https://publisher-assets.ncregister.com/pb-ncregister/swp/hv9hms/media/20220221190236_f69491cd89bdf4116d1c990c13a8982d4eeb185d70b794cbf4fe523dafa14bec.webp)
![[Image: Sakrileg.png]](https://philosophia-perennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/11/Sakrileg.png)
