| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 396 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 390 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, Facebook, Google, Twitter
|
|
|
| Liberalism Is the Most Dangerous Enemy of the Social Reign of Christ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 10 hours ago - 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 - 10 hours ago - 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 - Yesterday, 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
|
|
|
|
| To Apostasy by Way of "Obedience" |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-11-2026, 07:13 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
To Apostasy by Way of "Obedience"
This article is an answer to a letter to the Editor written to Courrier de Rome, the French translation of Si Si No No. The letter, written by a bewildered priest, precedes the article.
To the Editor:
Please clarify me on the following. In the editorial of Fr. Giancarlo Politi in the bulletin Mondo e Missione (Feb., 1995), I read on the subject of our four Catholic missionaries slain in Algeria. I quote verbatim:
Quote:They were not in that part of Africa to conduct crusades or to proselytize, an objective that the Church nowhere pursues.
I have read the same thing in the newsletter of Fr.Van Straaten whom I have always admired and even supported in a modest way. I would like to know if the injunction of Jesus to his apostles “Go and teach all nations….” no longer implies proselytizing, and, if it doesn’t, since when. I have always believed that that was indeed the task of the apostles. Has the mission of the priesthood been changed?
Sincerely,
(Signed by Fr. X)
[The Editor answers.]...To help you to understand, let's recall two pontifical texts. The first is taken from the encyclical Pascendi of Pope St. Pius X against Modernism:
Quote:That we should act without delay in this matter [to condemn Modernism] is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom,…We allude...to many who belong...to the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, Whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man…Enemies of the Church they certainly are, nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt [from Daughters of St. Paul edition. - Ed.].
✝ ✝ ✝
That was in 1907. Forty years later, Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis against neo-Modernism or the "New Theology" wrote:
Quote:It is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
There is another danger all the more serious because it is concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men. These advocate an eirenism by which they set aside questions dividing men and aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma…Through their enthusiasm for an imprudent eirenism they consider as an obstacle to fraternal union things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the Faith, the removal of which would bring about the union of all but only to their destruction. [from the Daughters of St. Paul edition - Ed.]
Pius XII tells us these ruinous opinions were then being disseminated "among the secular and regular clergy, in seminaries and religious institutions."
That was in 1950. Today those Churchmen, deformed by neo-Modernism in the seminaries and religious institutions and having stage-managed the last Council, are in power in the Church and occupy the key positions in the Catholic hierarchy, putting to work their "counsels of destruction" to unify the human race "in a common ruin." "Blind and leaders of the blind...," says St. Pius X:
Quote:...puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity , they think they can base and maintain truth itself” (Pascendi).
Amidst this Modernism, resistance by a Catholic, and most particularly by a priest, is a duty. It's a matter of choosing between aberrant and erroneous human judgments and the infallible judgment of the Church, which for 2000 years has taught that...:
Quote:...nothing which pertains to the perennial and certain doctrine of the Church and which, in any way whatsoever, direct or indirect, relates to the truths of faith or morals, nothing of the constitution of the Church, nothing of that which has been fixed by Christ and, through His mandate, by the holy Apostles is subject to change (G .Siri, La Giovinezza della Chiesa, ed. Giardini, Pisa, 1983).
We repeat to these destructive clerics the words of St. Edmund Campion, martyr of the Anglican schism:
Quote:In condemning us, you condemn the Church of all times. For what is there that She believed and taught that we also do not believe?"
The current ordeal is one of extreme severity because "the masterstroke of Satan," as Archbishop Lefebvre has called it, has placed the authority of popes at the service of neo-Modernism, and therefore the deception is much more grave and widespread. Nevertheless, the problem is not insurmountable. It is sufficient to recall that in the conflict between Faith and authority the Faith will prevail because authority is at the service of the Faith and not the contrary.
For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth (II Cor. 13:8).
Let us take the case of Fr. Werenfried van Straaten in the article "A Fruit of the Heretical Post-Conciliar Ecclesiology: the New Charity of Fr. Van Straaten" (Courrier de Rome, March, 1995). To justify his total reversal of direction, he echoes Pope John Paul II:
Quote:Rightly the Pope has forbidden all forms of proselytism. In that case we must help in the formation of Orthodox priests in order that they would be capable of instructing those that they are going to baptize (L 'echo de l'amour, Oct. 1994).
This premise must be proven and to prove it one must prove that the Vicar is superior to the Invisible Head of the Church, who has commanded that which John Paul II forbids! Now, in the conflict between an inferior authority (a pope) and a superior authority (Our Lord Jesus Christ), obedience is owed to the superior authority. It is Catholic moral theology which teaches this. In such a case the subject does not disobey the Superior, but he obeys an authority higher than the Superior: "I owe you my love," St. Bruno writes to Pope Pascal II, "but I owe a greater love to the One who has created both you and me" (P.L. 163 col.463). But Leo XIII writes in two encyclicals:
Quote:[w]hen...an order of authority is contrary to reason, to the eternal law, to the authority of God, then we wish to make it known, it is legitimate to disobey in order to obey God (Libertas Praestantissimum, 1888).
And it would not be just to accuse those who act in this manner of disregarding the duty of submission to authority; for the princes whose wills are in opposition to the will and the laws of God, thereby over-step the limits of their power. (Diuturnum Illud).
Obedience to the pope, the prince of the Church, does not evade the moral law: the duty to obey him always supposes that his order would be both licit and lawful, that is to say that it would not be in opposition to reason, to the eternal law and to the divine order. On the other hand, the principle according to which one must "obey God rather than men" applies to the pope just as to any other authority on earth. On this point Catholic theologians, although differing widely on the question of an "heretical pope," are in perfect agreement.
Unlike yesteryear, it is necessary today to have these principles clearly in mind so one does not risk justifying what is contrary to the Gospel (as Fr. Van Straaten does) solely because the pope said it, even though it means abandoning the Faith of the Universal Church to follow the private thought of a man simply because he sits on the chair of Peter while Peter is not speaking by his mouth. St. Thomas teaches (Summa Theologica II, II, Q.2a) that the subjects also sin against the Faith when they follow the "authorities in the Faith" [bishops and popes], even if at the same time they warn these authorities that they are falling away from the Faith of the Universal Church. In this case, subjects are released from their normal ties of subjection and obedience and they have the duty and the right to defend their own Faith.
Quote:When the shepherd changes into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. Normally, without doubt, doctrine descends from the bishops to the faithful, and those who are subjects, in the order of the faith, are not to judge their superiors. But in the treasure of revelation there are some essential points which every Christian, by the very fact of his title as Christian, is bound to know and defend (The Liturgical Year, Vol. IV, Dom Guéranger; Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria).
"BUT THE POPE IS INFALLIBLE"
Some will object, "But the pope is infallible." Be careful! First of all, infallibility has not been promised in order to add "novelties" to the "deposit of the faith," but solely to preserve, explain and defend the truths already revealed:
Quote:The Holy Spirit has been promised to the successors of Peter not that they may make known, under His revelation, a new doctrine, but in order that, with His assistance, they may piously preserve and faithfully set forth the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say the deposit of the faith. (Vatican I, Constitution De Ecclesia Christi, D.1836).
Besides, the pope can express himself at four very distinct levels:
1. at the level of the extraordinary infallible Magisterium (ex cathedra).
2. at the level of the ordinary infallible Magisterium.
3. at the level of the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium.
4. at the level of the theologian or of the private person. (This is the case in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II's recent book-interview.)
We immediately exclude from infallibility this last level, because it is evident that infallibility has not been promised to the pope as a private person.
The extraordinary infallible magisterium (ex cathedra) applies when the pope "fulfilling his charge as pastor and teacher of all Christians;...defines, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that a doctrine on faith or morals must be held by the entire Church" (Pastor Aeternus, see also Vatican I, D.1839, etc.).
The ordinary infallible magisterium applies when the truth being taught is proposed by the pope:
Quote:...as having been previously defined, or as having always been believed or acknowledged in the Church, or as being attested to by the unanimous and continuing consent of theologians as Catholic truth (Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. VIII col. 1705).
Thus, for example, Leo XIII is infallible when, in the encyclical Providentissimus, he teaches as always believed by the Church the absolute absence of errors in the faithfully preserved texts of Sacred Scripture.
It is only at these two primary levels that the teaching the pope exposes is guaranteed to expose faithfully that which is truly contained in divine Revelation. There is, on the other hand, the ordinary magisterium non-infallible, simply authenticated, wherein...:
Quote:...a teaching is praised, recommended, or simply affirmed [by the pope] without any indication of its belonging to revelation or to the constant and universal Catholic tradition and without any indication of strict obligation imposed by the faith or by the submission due to the sovereign authority of the Roman Pontiff (Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, to VII col. 1713).
Normally one also owes obedience, even if it is neither unconditional nor absolute, to the non-infallible and merely authentic magisterium of the pope. However, one does not owe him any obedience whatsoever when, opposed to a non-infallible judgment of the Church or even of the constant and universal faith of the Church. In this case, resistance is not only justified, it is a duty. It is born not of a spirit of error nor of rebellion, but rather of charity. [...]
The gravity of the current crisis is precisely owing to the lack of security in the faithful that, in normal times, was offered to them by the ordinary non-infallible magisterium of the popes. It is true, however, that, at this level, Our Lord Jesus Christ did not promise any infallibility to Peter (Mt. 16: 18; Lk. 22:22) or to his successors “according to the constant interpretation of theologians," but only concerning his ex cathedra teaching (Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. VII col. 1717).
The assurance which in normal times is derived from the non-infallible magisterium of the pope is only linked to the care that he takes not to deviate from the doctrine transmitted by the Apostles. Today this care has disappeared because that "unchecked passion for novelty" of which St. Pius X spoke also corrupts the mentality of the one who sits on the throne of Peter and who so wrongfully affirmed it at the beginning of his pontificate:
Quote:If the Lord has called me "with such thoughts...with such sentiments, it is in order that they ...find a resonance in my new and universal ministry (The Angelus, March, 1979).
This is the same as saying, "It is no longer the pope who must conform himself to Tradition, but Tradition which must conform itself to the mentality of the pope."
One risks tremendous aberrations if these sad realities are ignored and one conducts himself as if all goes well without hindrance in the current ecclesiastical situation. From his unproven and erroneous premise - "Rightly the Pope has forbidden all forms of proselytism" - Fr. Van Straaten deduces that Catholics must subsidize the proselytism of the Orthodox churches, in aiding "the formation of Orthodox priests in order that they would be capable of instructing those that they are going to baptize." It is no indifferent matter to God whether souls should be baptized in His one and only Catholic Church or in schism and heresy!
The Church has always condemned the subsidizing of non-Catholics as a grave sin against truth and charity (see Encyclopedia Cattolica, under the word Cooperation, col. 498). Fr. Van Straaten has forgotten his dogmatic and moral theology. He no longer seems to have the Faith which tells us the pope is there to keep and promote the Catholic Faith and not to demolish it (II Cor. 10:8). All this because of a false concept of obedience improperly raised to the level of a theological virtue. Yet, it is a moral virtue in which one can sin, yes, by default, but also by excess, in obeying "in matters contrary to a law or to a superior precept." This constitutes an "improper obedience" or, more accurately, "servility" (Roberti-Palazzini, Dizionario di teologia morale, ed. Studium).
As we have written:
Quote:In practice, no one has ever explicitly imposed upon a Catholic in the name of obedience a denial of his very Faith…But they have and do impose on him a new "course for the Church" which, in implying the negation of everything that the Church has taught and done on the basis of the doctrinal principles up until Vatican Council II, leads straight to apostasy. (Courrier de Rome, March, 1990, "The Duty to Resist!").
In other words, to apostasy by way of "obedience," which is by nature a denial of reason.
- Hirpinus
|
|
|
|
| Cardinal Zen urges Pope Leo to stop Synod, remove Cardinal Fernández |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-11-2026, 07:01 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
It is our understanding that Cardinal Zen is a 'conservative Novus Ordo' rather than a traditional one but at least here he attempts to right a wrong.
✝ ✝ ✝
Cardinal Zen urges Pope Leo to stop Synod, remove Cardinal Fernández
Cdl. Zen slammed the Synod’s ‘hidden agendas,’ including on homosexuality and ‘women’s ordination,’ and called on Pope Leo to give Cdls. Grech and Hollerich a ‘long vacation.’
![[Image: cdl-zen-e1706107109956.jpeg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/cdl-zen-e1706107109956.jpeg)
Cardinal Joseph Zen
Anthony Kwan/Getty Images
Nov 9, 2026
(LifeSiteNews [adapted]) — Cardinal Joseph Zen, bishop emeritus of Hong Kong, in a blog post last week, reflecting on the fruits of the Second Vatican Council, called on Pope Leo XIV to put a stop to the Synod on Synodality and condemned the initiative’s “hidden agendas” on LGBT ideology, female “ordination,” and clerical celibacy.
In his blog post, translated into English on November 6, Zen argued that the Second Vatican Council has not been sufficiently fruitful, namely because it is under “constant attack” by those trying to use it to justify reforms contrary to the faith. Turning specifically to the Synod, he slammed the process and the “hidden agendas” lying behind it, such as allowing the “ordination” of women via Holy Orders, allowing Roman clerics to choose not to be celibate, and “updating” sexual morality “under the ‘L.G.B.T.Q. banner.'”
Zen called on Pope Leo to put an end to the Synod on Synodality and these hidden agendas, as well as sending Cardinal Mario Grech, the secretary general of the Synod of Bishops, and Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, S.J., who was the General Relator of the Synod, on a “long vacation,” and remove Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández as prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
“After all these years of the synodal process, they have failed to get their ‘hidden agendas’ (in fact, not so ‘hidden’) fulfilled,” Cardinal Zen wrote. “There was relentless manipulation and strict control of the process, yet it was a failure. Despite every effort to stifle genuine discussion, the objectives that the Pope evidently entrusted to the Synod Secretariat were not achieved.”
“Even within the limited time for free speech in the assembly, it was evident: that Synod members rejected those objectives: changing the hierarchical constitution of the Church, ordaining women to the priesthood starting with the diaconate, the free choice of celibacy for the Roman clergy, and the sexual morality radically ‘updated’ (?) under the L.G.B.T.Q. banner,” he added.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” and “contrary to the natural law” and that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered.” The Catechism is very clear that homosexual activity can never be approved and repeats that “(h)omosexual persons are called to chastity.” Homosexual acts are mortal sins; therefore, anyone who commits these sins and does not repent through the sacrament of Confession is in danger of Hell. [...] The Roman rite of the Catholic Church has also traditionally required clergy to live in celibacy in order to completely dedicate themselves to Our Lord and the Church. [...]
Cardinal Zen, highlighted how the “cause of homosexuals” has been especially promoted since the start of the synodal process, citing the 2023 promulgation of Fiducia Supplicans, which endorses the spontaneous “blessing” of homosexual “couples,” Pope Francis showing special favor to Father James Martin, S.J., and, more recently, the publication of the final report of Study Group 9, which scandalously endorses testimony claiming that “sin, at its root, does not consist in the (same-sex) couple relationship.”
“And recently, something has happened which made us realize, to our horror, that the whole lengthy discourse on the synodal process is intended to provide a tool for justifying anything,” His Eminence wrote.
“At the end of Section D, we mentioned ‘study groups.’ Now, the final report of Group 9 has been published, in which assuming (arbitrarily) that the synodal method is sacrosanct when it comes to the study of homosexuality, they reached the conclusion that the sexual act between a homosexual couple is a gift from God!?” he added. “Is this not blasphemy? It is incredible that such a thing could appear in a publication issued by the Holy See!”
Zen stressed that the homosexual agenda promoted in the Study Group 9 document was particularly egregious, since our passions are among the greatest enemies of our eternal salvation and slammed the synod’s ignoring the importance of the Church’s bishops.
Quote:The enemies of God, the three enemies of our salvation are: our passions, the world and the devil. But where does the destruction of God in souls begin? Precisely with this deviation from sexual morality! For concupiscence lies within our flesh, and when indulged, it becomes an addiction, causing us to lose the power of the will. That is why even the devil says that the most important thing is to destroy the family.
Moreover, it is not true that we insist solely on sexual morality; the question of the Church’s hierarchical structure is far more fundamental today. Jesus founded the Church upon the apostles, with Peter as their head. Now the Church must be guided by the bishops, with the Pope at their head. But the entire course of the recent synod on synodality ignores the importance of the bishops; it is no longer a true synod. By emphasizing the etymological meaning of the word “synodality” as “traveling together” or “participation”, the significance of the historical reality of synods has been sidelined: synods and councils of bishops within the Church, and the synod presided over by the bishop within the diocese.
Toward the end of his post, Zen noted that in this confusing age where people across the world are clamoring for meaning, the Church should promote the entirety of its doctrine rather than attempt to accommodate the world. The cardinal called on Pope Leo to end the synod and remove Cardinal Grech, who published the synod Study Group 9 report, Cardinal Hollerich, and Cardinal Fernández, whose dicastery promulgated Fiducia Supplicans.
“Let us put a stop to this so-called ‘Synod on Synodality’! May the Holy Father grant Cardinal Grech and Cardinal Hollerich a long vacation; he cannot entrust the governance of the Church to the Secretariat for the Synods; on the other hand, closer communion between the bishops and the Pope, between the cardinals and the Pope, is most welcome,” he wrote.
“The Holy Father should also replace the head of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith,” he added. “It is well known that this cardinal has written things in the past that he would not write today.”
Here, Zen appears to refer to several of Fernández’s pornographic writings unearthed in recent years[...]. Another explicit book written by the future prefect in 1998 [...], was also rediscovered.
Zen concluded by imploring the faithful to pray for Pope Leo as he undertakes the “arduous task” of dealing with the Synod.
“Of course, we must pray intensely for the Holy Father; only Almighty God can grant him the steadfastness and prudence he needs,” the cardinal wrote. “May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth.”
To read Cardinal Zen’s full post, click here.
|
|
|
|
| Man arrested after stealing, burning relic of St. Nicholas in France |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-11-2026, 06:55 AM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
- No Replies
|
|
Man arrested after stealing, burning relic of St. Nicholas in France
The suspect, whose identity police have not yet revealed, said he was driven by a ‘desire to destroy’ the relic of the beloved 4th-century saint.
Nov 10, 2026
SAINT-NICOLAS-DE-PORT, France (LifeSiteNews) — An unidentified man was arrested and charged after allegedly stealing, burning, and crushing a relic of Saint Nicholas of Myra from the 15th-century Basilica of Saint-Nicolas-de-Port in late October.
On October 28, the man, who police have so far declined to identify but some on social media suspect is Muslim, allegedly broke the glass containing one of St. Nicholas’s bones beneath a statue of the saint, before burning the ancient relic, per French media. Following his arrest, the suspect said he acted on impulse, driven by a “desire to destroy” the relic.
The relic that the suspect destroyed was not the basilica’s famous reliquary arm but another bone belonging to the fourth-century saint that has been on display since the 2000s.
“Beyond the patrimonial value of this object, it is above all a deep blow to our history, our faith, and the devotion of generations of pilgrims who are affected today,” the basilica parish said in a statement. “The parish is deeply grieved by this act. The relic of Saint Nicholas represents a precious link with our patron saint, whose memory we celebrate every year, and whose spiritual radiance far exceeds the boundaries of our Lorraine.”
“In this trial, we wish to remain united in prayer and to entrust to Saint Nicholas all those affected by this event. May Saint Nicholas continue to watch over our parish, our basilica, and all those who come to seek comfort and hope,” they added.
France has seen a massive uptick in riots and anti-Catholic violence in recent years. Within the last month, an unidentified masked man, who appeared to be African, climbed onto a bronze statue of Saint Joan of Arc in Toulouse and placed a yellow vest on the saint’s head in the shape of a hijab and a Palestinian flag on the statue’s side.
Video from Paris shows another unidentified, reportedly foreign, rioter being cheered on by a mob after climbing on and placing political stickers on another statue of the country’s patron saint in the Place des Pyramides.
In another incident, a group of 10 young Catholic men in Rouen, France, were harassed, spat on, and beaten by a group of apparently Muslim men dressed in black after singing a hymn on the way to the annual Foire (Fair) Saint-Rouen at the end of October. The next day, four of the men, including two from the hospital, filed a formal complaint “for violence based on race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.”
|
|
|
|
| Saint Thomas Aquinas in Today’s Combat for the Faith |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-11-2026, 06:51 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
|
Saint Thomas Aquinas in Today’s Combat for the Faith
“Thomas Aquinas was a light placed by Me over the Mystical Body of the Church in order to disperse the darkness of error.” 1
1. Saint Thomas, celestial patron of Catholic studies
On the feast of Saint Dominic, on August 4, 1880, and after having consulted the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Pope Leo III published the Brief, Cum hoc sit, designating St. Thomas the patron of universities, academies, Catholic colleges and schools. The feast was fixed on the 13th of November.2
The motives justifying the patronage of Saint Thomas for Catholic studies
This decision of the Pope, designating Saint Thomas patron of Catholic studies came immediately after his encyclical Aeterni Patris, dealing with the restoration of Catholic philosophy according to the principles of Saint Thomas Aquinas, written one year before, on August 4, 1879. This patronage should have been its crowning point, and Leo XIII assigned three reasons for it. Let us quote the Pope:
Quote:"The doctrine of Saint Thomas is so vast that it embraces, like an ocean, the entire wisdom of Antiquity. Everything said in the past that was true, everything that was wisely discussed by the pagan philosophers and by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as well as those superior individuals who existed before him; not only did he completely understand it, but he developed, completed and classified it with such an insight, with such methodical precision and with such a precise terminology, that he seems to have only left to his followers the ability to imitate him, while at the same time taking away their possibility of equaling him!”
“There is yet a more important matter to consider: it is that his doctrine being formed and armed with principles containing a vast breadth of application corresponds to the necessities not only of one historical period but rather of all times and periods of history and is therefore very well suited to conquer the continually re-emerging errors. Sustaining itself by its own strength, it remains invincible and causes a profound fear to its adversaries. The perfect agreement between faith and reason [in the works of St. Thomas] must not be neglected, especially in regards to the judgment of Catholics.”
“Finally, the Angelic Doctor, though great because of his doctrine, is no less great because of his virtue and holiness. Consequently virtue is the best preparation for the work of the mind and the acquisition of knowledge; those who neglect virtue falsely imagine having acquired a solid and fruitful knowledge because ‘Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins’ (Wisdom 1:4).”
Furthermore, Pope Pius XI dedicated a very beautiful encyclical; Studiorum Ducem3, in order to demonstrate the link between ecclesiastical studies and holiness as exemplified by Saint Thomas.
Saint Thomas enjoyed a wisdom proportioned to his sanctity; furthermore he enjoyed a superior degree of sanctity which was especially true from the moment when the Angels bound his loins with the cincture of chastity. The enlightenment of the intellect is, indeed, the special fruit of chastity while the result of impurity is to darken the mind. Saint Thomas was so free from the fires of concupiscence that he was able to enjoy an understanding of divine things similar to that of the Angels who do not have a body. That is why he is called the Angelic Doctor.
Saint Thomas is the fruit of the Dominican Order
At the same time, St. Thomas must not be separated from the religious order to which he belonged. It was the soil of the Order of Preachers where he was allowed to show his true worth. The necessary balance between the practice of the vows of religion, monastic observances, the choral singing of the divine office, and the contemplative study ordered to preaching for the salvation of souls: it is this entire wonderful ensemble that permitted him to develop his Angelic doctrine. But, since a religious acts only out of obedience, Saint Thomas’ superiors must also be mentioned:
Quote:“Must we not acknowledge that they directed him as perfectly as possible in his scientific vocation? For he was a superior intellect, a genius who during his period of development was not inhibited by his own brethren. This is a phenomenon rare enough throughout history even in Religious Orders to deserve to be mentioned and held up as an example.”4
The Masters General under whose direction he lived his religious life5, and the great saint, Albert-the-Great (1206-1280) who directed him at Cologne are a few superiors of Saint Thomas who must be honored.
We can certainly claim that Saint Thomas is the most beautiful flower, the most beautiful fruit of the Order of Saint Dominic: the Order whose mission in the Church is to spread the light of truth and combat error in order to save souls.
2. Saint Thomas Aquinas in today’s combat for the faith
Therefore, it is clear from all that has been said how important Saint Thomas is in the contemporary battle for the Faith. Let us quote Archbishop Lefebvre:
Quote:“We do not have the right to contradict the spirit of the Church which has always relied on Saint Thomas throughout its history. God, Himself, raised up this admirable Doctor and the Church and the Popes have confirmed it, always proclaiming the power of Saint Thomas in rejecting error and heresy. Since our contemporary age is one replete with heresy, error and paganism, we do not have the right to neglect papal directives. […] It is very unfortunate that in today’s Roman Universities every possible and imaginable theory is floated without any correction from the authorities. This is unfortunately due to the infiltration of ecumenism into philosophy as well as the idea of the equality of every theory. Thomism is considered like everything else – relative – it was a system that was good during a certain period of time but, now we need something else more suited to the needs of the time. (Archbishop Lefebvre)”6
Study
Saint Thomas is the remedy for the malicious illness of our time – which is Modernism
None other than Saint Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi, written on the 8th of September, 1907, declares that the primary remediation for Modernism is the study of the philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas:
Quote:“Concerning the question of studies, We wish and order that Scholastic philosophy form the basis for the Sacred Studies. […] And when we prescribe Scholastic philosophy, We want to make it clear the We especially mean the philosophy left us by the Angelic Doctor. This is of paramount importance.”
Saint Pius X will again clarify his thought in his Motu Proprio Doctoris Angelici of June 29, 1914, concerning the study of the doctrine of Saint Thomas Aquinas:
Quote:“It happened that since We said that the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas especially had to be followed without indicating that it had to be exclusively followed, a number of teachers convinced themselves that they were obeying Our desire, or at the very least, that it was not contradictory if they were to adopt indiscriminately what other scholastics taught about philosophy, even though it was directly in opposition to the principles of Saint Thomas. But in doing this they were greatly deceived. When we gave Our seminarians Saint Thomas as the sole leader of Scholastic Philosophy, it goes without saying, that we were talking especially about his principles upon which, as on its foundation, this philosophy rests. […] It is certainly not difficult to understand that if the doctrine of some author or some saint was ever recommended by Us or by Our predecessors with particular enthusiasm, […] it is not difficult to understand that they were recommended in so far as they were in agreement with the principles of Thomas Aquinas or at least they did not oppose his principles in the very least.”
Again, it is Saint Pius X who gives the reason for this:
Quote:“We wanted to state to all those dedicated to teaching philosophy and sacred theology to be alerted that if they alienated themselves from Thomas Aquinas, in the slightest degree, especially in matters of metaphysics they would experience a tragic loss.”
Furthermore, the Church had taken precise measures concerning this matter. The 1917 Code of Canon Law obliges seminary professors, as well as their students, to “adhere both in philosophy and theology to the method, doctrine and principles of Saint Thomas.” (C. 1366 # 2). The Dominican Constitution even required professors, the Master of novices and the brothers during their course of study to take an oath to maintain that doctrine. The doctrine of Saint Thomas is the Church’s doctrine, and the Church is suspicious of anyone straying from it.
The shipwreck of the Conciliar Church
Alienated from the Tradition of the Church, the intellect has no point of reference; it just wanders around (or it loses its way). This is precisely the spectacle given by the Conciliar Church.
The new Code of Canon Law issued in 1983, does not even explicitly mention Saint Thomas when it comes to philosophical studies in the seminaries! It only says:
Quote:“The philosophical formation ought to always relate to Tradition while at the same time keeping aware of on going philosophical research” (C. 251).
One cannot be more vague.
Let us also quote the incredible declaration of Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:
Quote:“I had difficulty in understanding Saint Thomas Aquinas whose crystalline logic appeared much too enclosed on itself, too impersonal and too stereotyped.”7
At any other time in history, he would not have been ordained a priest. And in our times, he became the Pope!
One must read the text of Saint Thomas
Following the thought of Saint Pius X we readily see that he insists on reading the text of Saint Thomas itself:
Quote:“It is absolutely necessary to return to the ancient custom which, should have never been abandoned, that there be courses taught on the Summa Theologica itself, for the obvious reason that this highly reasoned book renders the Solemn Decrees of the teaching Church and its Acts that naturally follow more easily intelligible. Because in the wake of the most blessed saintly Doctor, the Church has never held a Council in which he himself were not present with all the richness of his doctrine. It daily becomes clearer and the experience of so many centuries has made it known, how true the affirmation of Our predecessor John XXII8is right on: [Thomas] enlightened the Church more clearly than all the Doctors, and, in his books, man profits more in one year than if he spent his entire life span studying all the others.”
In addition to the necessity of reading the text of St. Thomas itself, two cogent things should be retained:
Quote:The Second Vatican Council is the only council which did not rely on the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor; hence the disaster that flows from this omission.
Saint Pius X links the study of St. Thomas, in our times, to none other than the Acts of the Holy See. This is something that was sadly lacking to the Thomists in our times. Leaning on the principles of the Angelic Doctor, the Popes – up to Pius XII included – assiduously studied modern errors and condemned them. These lessons were too often ignored and the lack of knowledge of the pontifical texts is an important cause for the lack of reaction against these errors in the Church: hence their triumph on the occasion of Vatican II.
That is why Archbishop Lefebvre, in order “to transmit in its entire doctrinal purity, as well as in all his missionary charity, just as Our Lord transmitted it to His Apostles as also the Roman Church transmitted it up until the middle of the XXth century,”9 inserted in the first year course on spirituality for the seminarians, courses on the Acts of the Magisterium concerning modern errors which he himself gave in the beginning10.
Preaching
The study of the doctrine of St. Thomas, in itself, ought to be the principal inspiration for preaching for priests. It is very important to nourish the souls with this doctrine in order to sustain their contemplation and love of God.
Saint Thomas himself, as a true son of Saint Dominic, had consecrated himself to the salvation of souls. Furthermore, it is Thomas himself who developed the logo for the Order of Preachers: “Contemplari, et contemplate aliis tradere,”: to contemplate and transmit to others that which you have contemplated.
It would be a grave error and detriment for the faithful to think that Saint Thomas is only reserved for priests. It would also be wrong to think that, for the faithful, it is only necessary to give moral exhortations or, what is worse, considerations that appeal only to feelings.
Let us quote again the Archbishop:
Quote:“Let us not think that Saint Thomas is too much for the faithful and that he is distant from their faith, for this is not true and damaging to the faithful. The philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas are truth. Therefore let us not say that the truth explained in all its simplicity, and clarity, in addition to its profound logic, cannot be understood by the faithful. That would be condescension on our part. This would amount to abandoning and despairing of communicating to the faithful – a profound tragedy. It goes without saying that one must know how to express and expose these admirable principles.”11
Father Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. tells of having known a little lay sister, who was a contemplative, and who did not possess any human culture to speak of but who had been interiorly enlightened by interior trials:
Quote:“She had discovered among the saints two great friends: Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Albert the Great. In spite of the fact that she lacked any philosophical or theological culture, she, nevertheless, loved to read how these saints prayed and furthermore, addressed them saying: “They are great Doctors of the Church and they enlighten the souls of those who entreat them for help.” As a matter of fact, Father Garrigou-Lagrange continues to explain that it was St. Thomas who showed her where the obscure tunnel she was crossing would lead her! And Saint Thomas enlightened many souls, as he had done to the little lay sister, if these poor souls appealed to him.”12
It was well known at Econe, that Msgr. Lefebvre came for a spiritual conference with a single volume of Saint Thomas, and he gave a commentary on an article of the Summa. These formed the most pleasing lectures experienced by the Seminarians, and especially by the brothers! [...]
Conclusion
Let us ask of Our Lord what the Church makes us specially ask for in the Collect and the Postcommunion for the feast of Saint Thomas:
— Da nobis et quae docuit, intellectu conspicere:
give us the grace to contemplate what he taught – that is, to nourish ourselves with his doctrine,
— et quae egit imitatione complere; ut actus exterius piae operationis excrescent:
give us the grace to resemble him, in order that there may be an increase in our good works,
knowing that the first work of spiritual mercy consists in teaching souls the truth:
-Docere ignorantes.
|
|
|
|
| Bishop Tissier de Mallerais [1995]: The True Notion of Tradition |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-11-2026, 06:41 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
|
The True Notion of Tradition
An Abridged text of the discourse given by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais at Versailles, May 19, 1995
Si Si No No - January 1997 No. 19
Modernist Rome has declared us schismatics because we hold a supposedly false notion of Tradition. I am going to show that it is the faithful of Tradition who have the true notion of Tradition and, consequently that it is those who declare us schismatics, the neo-modernists, who have a false evolutionary notion of Tradition, which they call "living tradition."
Tradition is essentially immutable, unchangeable: That however does not prevent it from being living-we will show in what manner- nor from undergoing a homogeneous development. To begin, let's look at the first point.
TRADITION IS ESSENTIALLY IMMUTABLE
Card. Billot, under Pope Pius XI, explained this in a work entitled: De Immutabilitate Traditionis Contra Modernam Haeresim Evolutionismi, Concerning the Immutability of Sacred Tradition (1929). This is no invention or opinion, it is the most classic doctrine of the Church: Tradition does not change. In fact, the word tradition comes from the Latin tradere which means to transmit. Tradition is the transmission without change of that which has been deposited. If in the course of the transmission there is a change, then in deed there is a breach of faith, there is a falsification of the deposit transmitted. We see this, for instance, if the transmission of popular tradition (i.e., folklore) ; but fidelity is so much more important in the transmission of the supernatural deposit of divine revelation, that is to say the treasure of truths revealed by the prophets, Our Lord Jesus Christ and ending with the Apostles. The revealed deposit is completed at the time of the death of the last Apostle
St Pius X in the decree Lamentabili (1907) condemns the following:
Quote:Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles [Proposition 21].
The proposition was condemned because it meant that there could have been other later revelations which could have been added to the revelation given to the Apostles. The Magisterium of the Church has solely the role of preserving and faithfully explaining this deposit of Revelation. This is what Vatican Council I says in the decree Pastor aeternus:
Quote:The Holy Spirit has not been promised to the successors of Peter that, under His revelation, they might make known a new doctrine, but in order that, with His assistance, they sacredly preserve and faithfully set forth the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is to say, the deposit of the faith.
Pope Pius IX had many years before condemned the error of progression in matters of doctrine held by those who said doctrine must evolve as human knowledge advances in his encyclical Qui pluribus (1846):
Quote:It is by as great a fraud...that these enemies of divine revelation, who bestow the highest praises on human progress, wish, with a truly reckless and sacrilegious audacity, to bring it [the progressivist error] into the Catholic religion, as if religion was not the work of God, but that of men, or was some philosophic discovery that human methods could perfect.
Let us hold firmly to the essential immutability of the divine tradition. It is a deposit to faithfully trasmit-and that’s that! Later we will explain in what way there is a certain progress, but this principle must be clearly established and firmly held; otherwise, we cannot continue.
TRADITION IS LIVING BECAUSE EACH ONE OF US LIVES IN IT
This essential immutability does not prevent Tradition from being living. The modernists speak of "living tradition." We also speak of the living tradition, but not in the same way, as we are going to see.
Here is what we understand by "living tradition":
That tradition is immutable does not prevent it from being living; that is to say that Catholics of yesterday, today and tomorrow live in it. Tradition is living because one lives in it.
We are going to see the life and development of divine tradition first as it concerns the individual; then as it manifests itself in the Church considered as a whole. It is very important to make a distinction between these two things.
Tradition is the revealed deposit. What is in the revelation? Essentially, the revelation is the intimate life of God which is communicated to us by grace and by the sacraments. The intimate life of God is God displaying himself in three divine Persons, and the entirety of this life is communicated to us by grace, the sacraments, and Our Lord Jesus Christ. That is the essential core of the Christian revelation, the very terms of this deposit one must keep. Living tradition is the same as saying that one lives the life of God, that one is imbued with this divine life, that one lives it by the intellect, by the will, by faith, by hope, by charity and by all the virtues.
Now this Christian life-this life of tradition in our hearts, persons, and surroundings-is a participation in the immutable life of God. God does not change. The blessed in heaven contemplate the immutable God in eternity which fills them with an immense joy for all eternity. They are delighted to contemplate the same and unchanging God forever, the Source of an inconceivable and inexpressible life. This is their eternal rejoicing, and nevertheless they are fixed in the immutable. See then the error of the progressists, who wish that this would not be constant change…. No! - The spiritual life is the most unchangeable! Look at the saints in their contemplation. They are fixed on God and that is sufficient for them and nourishes their lives. I am not speaking of the ecstasies possible on earth with the body almost suspended. I am speaking of the soul who, while conducting his ordinary activities, is completely immersed and transformed in God, firm and unchangeable. We understand well that the more we live this Tradition, the more we will be fixed in the immutable who is God, and the further we will be removed from the evolution of perpetual change.
For the modem evolutionists on the contrary, life consists of perpetual change. It is very difficult for them to conceive that the highest life which already exists here on earth for the saints, for the contemplatives and those who devote themselves to prayer and meditation, consists of the contemplation of the unchangeable-and yet, thus it is!
But this life of tradition, this contemplation of the unchangeable, should nevertheless progress within each one of the faithful. There is a progression, a progressive deepening in the course of the spiritual life:
1) First, there is a development in the object of the faith. The faithful should not only learn more and more about the scope of all the revealed truths but also the consequences of the revealed truths in practical life, e.g., the consequences of the divinity of Jesus Christ for social and political life, etc….
2) There is also a development in the intensity of the faith, in the extent that we live this revealed truth more vigorously (STI, II q.52). Great saints have a deeper faith because they adhere more steadfastly to God and His revelation.
3) There is also another development as regards the individual. This is the advancement in the power of faith when the Christian submits his entire life to the rule of the Faith. As Sacred Scripture says: "The just man lives by the faith" (Rom. 1:17).
4) Finally, in the individual, there is also a development in the fruits of the faith. A living faith is accompanied by charity and the entire retinue of the infused virtues and gifts of the Holy Ghost, whose intrinsic law is to grow without ceasing, provided that the tendencies toward vice are fought. The Faith is then the root of the progress of each Catholic towards holiness.
It is undeniable that living tradition exists in each individual, provided that there has been authentic transmission, and that this tradition has been increased within the individual by the deepening and fruitfulness of the faith.
FALSE IDEAS OF DEVELOPMENT
This development of the Faith, of Christian virtues, of the life of Tradition does not apply to the Church taken in her totality. In effect, neither in the sources of the spiritual life nor in the case of the holiness of the most saintly among the Catholics, nor in the number of saints, can one establish a spiritual development.
1) Let us first consider the sources of this life of Tradition. These sources do not increase, do not change. The Church possesses from Her inception the seven sacraments. No one can add an eighth sacrament, as the charismatics do with their laying on of hands. No one can suppress one or another of the sacraments as the modernists do, as for example in the case of Confirmation or of Penance. The sources of holiness are always the same. They are always as plentiful. One has only to drink at them.
2) Can there be an evolution in the model of holiness? No, there is no development. The model of sanctity no longer evolves because "the form of all perfection" is Our Lord Jesus Christ, as it states in the ritual for the taking of the habit by religious sisters. Though saints may appear different, they are only variations on the same theme...different arrangements of the same flowers of the same bouquet, as St. Francis de Sales explains. Thus the code of the sanctity of the Church does not change, just as the code of morality does not change. This is of equal value for all times. To wish to establish a new religious life in the 20th century is an illusion. It is an error. Opus Dei, with that which could be its motto: "Work, Commitment, Influence" is the very example of this illusion.
3) Perhaps you could object: "But nevertheless, in the degree of sanctity there is a development in the Church. In the 20th century the saints are much more holy than before! There are some great saints in the 20th century!"...Count them on the fingers of one hand! Martyrs have been canonised, it is true. St Pius X was canonised, it is true, but that was before the Council. Padre Pio is just before the Council. After the Council does one find saints? Surely, there will always be some of them, but they are few indeed and I promise that they are not of the conciliar Church! We are far from progress. In fact, there is a regression.
However, let us admit that an increase in sanctity in the Church lover time is not necessary. However, let us admit that an increase in sanctity in the Church over time is not necessary. God raises up the saints as He wishes, when He wishes, to lift the level of each century, but one does not observe that one century regularly produces more great saints than the preceding century .We do not have this imaginary progress in which the modernists believe. Let us then refute the ideas of this pseudo-progress.
In spite of everything, there is, in this immutable Tradition, an admirable capacity for application to all contingent circumstances. It is a matter of applying the eternal and unchanging principles to the problems and necessities of each century. The Council of Nicea is not the same as the Council of Florence, the Council of Florence is not the same as the Council of Trent, the Council of Trent is not the same as Vatican Council I. In each there is a different application, but the principles were always the same. Hence, we see here that there is a vitality to tradition in that it is capable of applying itself to each era.
Tradition is alive in that it applies itself above all to struggling against the errors of each era, against the dangers which threaten the souls of each century. It was of this that Pope Pius IX was speaking in Gravissimas Inter (1862):
Quote:The Church, because of her divine institution, must take the greatest care to keep intact and inviolate the deposit of the divine faith, keep unceasing watch over all her efforts for the salvation of souls and pay great attention to driving away and eliminating everything which can be opposed to the faith and can put in danger, in one way or another, the salvation of souls.
Doctrine has this marvelous faculty of application! - to condemn, to eliminate, to reject everything which opposes the Faith and salvation of souls.
THE FALSE AGGIORNAMENTO OF VATICAN II
After Vatican Council II, the opposite was done. No one any longer wished to condemn anything and there was talk of adaptation, of aggiornamento. But this is a false adaptation! The proof of it was they did not wish to condemn the contemporary errors such as Communism. The 400 signatures gathered by Archbishop Lefebvre to condemn it remained in a desk drawer. They did not want to condemn the contemporary errors of Liberalism, of Modernism, etc…. They did not want to apply the revealed deposit to the danger which was currently threatening souls. This unrealistic claim of adaptation on the part of the modernists is nonsense!
Vatican II wanted to make an adaptation that was a mutation a priori, artificial, with a Protestant and modernist interpretation. Catholic application is not a mutation. It is simply the applying of unchangeable principles to contingent circumstances. The principles are living because they apply themselves! That is the important thing! It is precisely because the transmission is living, that is to say applied, that the Church constantly draws new propositions from her own and immutable treasure...new condemnations of heresies for example, or new dogmatic definitions. It is necessary at certain times to put the finger on certain errors, to add a certain dogmatic precision, as for example when the Council of Trent defined (against the Protestant errors) the Mass. That is applying the immutable principle to the needs of the era. That is what Vatican Council II did not do. It let the principles fall, under the pretext of adaptation, to the thinking of the modern world! Where there is a true adaptation, there is a battle in proportion to the errors to be battled and to the dangers which menace the eternal life of souls.
It remains to be shown how, in this matter of application in the course of time, tradition undergoes a homogeneous development.
THE HOMOGENEOUS DEVELOPMENT OF DOGMA
This application-this necessity to respond to the needs of each era and protect souls against errors properly constitutes, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the divine force of a certain development of doctrine, e.g., new dogmatic definitions. But be on guard! This development is homogeneous. It is not a mutation but a homogeneous development. This is contrary to the view of the modernists who wish it to be an evolutionary development. The homogeneous progress of the Tradition of the Church is entirely a progress in l) precision, and 2) explanation.
That is to say, that which had been universally believed in previous times is, in later years, isolated and embossed. It is like a rough diamond, having been mined from the quarry and not yet very pretty, taken to the gem cutter who is going to chisel it into a thousand surfaces in order that one can view it from all its angles with thousands of reflections. But it is the same diamond! There is simply a development in the particulars - all the colors of the rainbow are going to be refracted but there is no development in substance. A gem cutter who might want to re-chisel it afterwards would fail. This is development in precision.
There is also a development in explanation. There is a passing from the implicit to the explicit. That which one believed implicitly is going to be believed explicitly. For example, the primacy of jurisdiction of the Pope over all the bishops of the world. This has always been believed, but implicitly {otherwise the Church would not have survived). After Vatican Council I, this is now believed explicitly.
St. Thomas, while addressing the growth of the articles of Faith in the course of the Old Testament, sets forth a doctrine that can also, in a certain way, be applied to the New Testament:
Quote:…..alone must say then that the articles of faith are never increased in their substantial content, as time goes by, because all that the later men have believed had been contained, although implicitly, in the faith of the Fathers who preceded them [thus, that which Isaiah said was contained in the faith of Moses, for example, was already in the faith of Abraham].
We must remember this very important doctrine of St. Thomas: in the Old Testament, the number of articles of the faith increased because the Holy Spirit disclosed more and more explicitly the revealed truths (STII,II, q.l, a.7).
After the New Testament {with the death of St. John) there is no more revelation. But there is the proposition by the Magisterium of the Church. In the Old Testament there had been an increase of the Revelation and thus of the articles of Faith. In the New Testament there is an increase in the proposition by the organs of Tradition, especially the Magisterium, and hence a passage from the implicit to the explicit. In the Old Testament it is God's Revelation itself which passes from the implicit to the explicit; in the New Testament, Revelation is ended, it is the proposition by the Church which passes from the implicit to the explicit. There is then a development, not in the articles of the Faith but in the explanation of the truths of the revealed deposit.
It is a homogeneous development. It is a development like a bud which blossoms...like a bud which opens up very beautifully, but remains the same bud. There is an unfolding, but without alteration; a displaying of all that which had been contained within from the outset. One calls this homogeneous because there is no mutation. It is the same living species, the same plant, it is a development without mutation, it is the same reality unfolding itself and making explicit all its details, but it is the same reality.
THE UNSURPASSABLE SUMMIT
Finally, this homogeneous development leads to a point which cannot be surpassed, which is, precisely, the defined truth. Once a truth is defined, for example, ex cathedra by a pope or in an ecumenical council, as was the Immaculate Conception (by Pope Pius IX) or the Assumption of the Most Holy Virgin (by Pope Pius XII), that truth, thus defined, constitutes an unsurpassable peak. One cannot improve upon it.
Catholic doctrine says that defined truths are irrevocable. They are no longer susceptible to development. They must always be believed in the same meaning in eodem sensu eademque semper sententia as the Anti-Modernist Oath puts it. They have been stated precisely with the assistance of the Holy Ghost. They are no longer subject to a subsequent development, even, I would say, in their formulation. The dogmatic formulas, the words employed, are no longer subject to improvement. Take for example the word transubstantiation used to express the conversion of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at the Mass The word conversion is a very vague word in Latin. It means change and/or passage from one condition to another, but it does not suffice. One must state precisely that it is a transubstantiation: all the substance of the bread is changed into the Body of Christ, all the substance of the wine is changed into the Blood of Christ. And indeed it could never be better stated. One cannot imagine of a new formulation which could say it better, because this is the diamond finely crafted by the Holy Ghost. And all the subsequent heretics are going to try to find another word, for example Fr. Schillebeeckx, who invents the word transignification and falls into heresy. Time and again, in each newly defined dogma, the Church eventually attains an unsurpassable height. That is to say that the truths which have not yet been defined have not yet reached their unsurpassable summit, and, therefore, they can still have an homogeneous development.
It remains no less true that, in the aggregate, the doctrine of the faith grows and develops itself homogeneously. It is open to development by a further preciseness in the explanation of points which have not yet been defined.
DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE
This is the way we must understand what St. Vincent of Lerins said in his celebrated "Commonitorium" which affirms the immutability of Tradition and at the same time homogeneous development, too:
Quote:But perhaps someone will say "is there then within the Church no progress in religion?" Assuredly there is, and a very great progress, for who is there who would be so hardened against men and so hateful towards God that he would dare oppose such a progress? It is however in this manner; there is a progress, there is in truth an advancement in the faith, but not a change.
St. Vincent of Lerins (d.445) remains very timely, replying to today's modernists that there is a development in the faith, but not a change, not a mutation: "There is a development when a thing in itself is enlarged; there is a change when something is changed into another thing" (RJ2174).
This change is inadmissible for tradition, for the deposit of the faith. St. Vincent wrote:
Quote:...understanding, knowledge and wisdom must increase and powerfully grow in one and in all, both in each individual man and in the Church, during the passage of time and of the ages, but grow solely within its own species, that is to say within the same dogma, in the same sense and in the same meaning. In eodem dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque sententia [This expression was lifted textually by Vatican Council I and for the Anti-Modernist Oath-Ed.]
Thus, St. Vincent of Lerins insists on continuity. There is a development he says, but a homogeneous development. There is no substantial change.
THE HOMOGENEOUS DEVELOPMENT OF THE LITURGY
The liturgy has also experienced a homogeneous development. The so-called "Mass of St. Pius V" is the result of centuries of liturgical developments which have, little by little, sculptured the prayers of the Mass and the other liturgical prayers of the missal, to form that inestimable jewel that the holy Pope St. Pius V codified. The Canon, the essential part of this Mass, was already completed by the time of St. Gregory the Great (reigning 590- 604). There had previously been a whole development; and indeed afterwards prayers were added, by no means secondary, such as those of the Offertory. We don't in the least assert that the Mass of St. Pius V "descended from heaven," for that would not conform to reality. It was perfected during the 11th to the 14th century. But when St. Pius V codified it his bull Quo Primum (1570), it becomes an unsurpassable summit. It is the completed liturgical expression of the dogmas of the Mass (e.g., Real Presence, Eucharistic Sacrifice, true sacrifice which is one and the same as the Sacrifice of the Cross) and of the veneration which is due to that which is effected by the holy Mass. And St. Pius V codified this Ordo Missae precisely as the insurmountable barrier raised up against the Protestant heresy and all subsequent heresies.
One must affirm then that this Mass is an unsurpassable expression of faith and adoration, and, therefore, we must affirm that the fabrication by Pope Paul VI of a new Mass-by his experts, notably Mgr. Bugnini-by the reconstitution of ancient formulas which had fallen into disuse and which, in particular, had not been retained by St. Pius V, is something artificial. It is not a homogeneous development. It is a thing artificially constrained and not a time-honored and spontaneous advancement. They attempted an abrupt development, but this was erroneous.
This new Mass is no longer a precise manifestation of the Faith, rather it is a regression. The dogmas are less clearly manifested, the Real Presence is less affirmed, the propitiatory Sacrifice is toned down. One passes from the explicit to the implicit, from the clear to the ambiguous. It is the opposite of an homogeneous development which is an advancement in explanation. The New Mass is the opposite of true progress and that is why we do not accept it. That is the reason that we ask the faithful to not assist at the New Mass except for reasons of expediency. And if one assists at the New Mass, at such a time, it is in a passive way. One cannot assist actively at the New Mass because the Mass does not express the Faith and the respect due that which is taking place. This Mass "represents a striking departure from" the dogma on the Holy Mass, defined at the Council of Trent (Session 22), as Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci wrote to Pope Paul VI (The Ottaviani Intervention, Sept., 1969).
THE "LIVING TRADITION" OF THE NEO-MODERNISTS
What about the evolutionary concept of the so-called "living tradition" of the Conciliar Church. What do the modernists mean by this term?- They mean a non-homogeneous evolution, hence, a change. By the term "living tradition," the Conciliar Church does not mean an inviolate transmission of a deposit which one lives and which progresses in a homogeneous fashion through explanation. It is not that at all! What is it then?-It is an evolutive tradition! -evolutive via a twofold process:
1) The assimilation of elements foreign to the revealed deposit. (One is going to add exterior elements to the revealed deposit—extraneous elements.)
2) By regression from the explicit to the ambiguous, from the clear to the equivocal.
Regarding the second point, you have a clear illustration of this regression from the explicit to the ambiguous in the New Mass. Indeed the many mixed doctrinal declarations (catholico-protestant and/or catholico-orthodox) of recent years produce some ambiguous texts where truth and error blend together under the sign of equivocation.
Let's talk about the first process of the evolution of tradition as understood by modernists, that is, the assimilation of extraneous elements into the revealed deposit. Vatican Council II, in a passage perhaps too little understood, makes a declaration of intention:
Quote:The Council intends above all to judge by this light [of the Faith] the values most highly esteemed by our contemporaries, and to link them again to their divine source (Gaudium et Spes, #11 [emphasis original]).
What are those values esteemed by our contemporaries? ...Roger Aubert, a priest-precursor of the council, will tell us that they are democracy and freedom. It is a case then of introducing them into the doctrine of the Church, by the re-linking of these values "to their divine source." The Council continues:
Quote:In fact, these values [of our contemporaries], to the extent that they originate in human nature, which is a gift of God, are very good, but the corruption of the human heart often turns them from the requisite order, and that is why they need to be purified.
So, if one "purifies" these values of "liberty," of "democracy," of "the rights of man," etc, they are very good and can be assimilated into Catholic doctrine. This is to say that the new profane "dogmas" of the French Revolution-liberty, equality, fraternity, democracy, the rights of man, all that-must be assimilated by Catholic doctrine. One is going to find religious liberty, freedom of conscience, ideological pluralism in the State, and the free concurrence of ideologies (as proclaimed by Pope John Paul II when he spoke at Strasbourg to the European Parliament in letting it be understood that Communism is ultimately a chance for the Church, a competition between two rival ideologies, etc.).
This assimilation of dubious elements, completely foreign to revelation, is an alienating hodge-podge and thus an execration which profanes the deposit of the Faith and, moreover, has been condemned by the popes. Here is the authorised commentary on Gaudium et Spes (#11), that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger proposes:
Quote:The problem of the 1960s was to acquire the better of the values drawn from two centuries of "liberal" culture. There are in fact some values which, although born outside the Church, can find their place purified and corrected in its vision of the world. This is what has been done.2
Thus, under the pretext that Tradition and divine Revelation should be adaptable to the contemporary mentality, they want to introduce into Catholic doctrine these contemporary ideas, these false principles of the contemporary spirit, which is to say the liberal, revolutionary spirit.
Now that which Vatican II says in Gaudium et Spes (#11), one finds in the works of Card. Congar (deceased), and also in those of Roger Aubert, a specialist in Church history. Yves Congar and Roger Aubert were writing in that vein around 1950, 15 years before Gaudium et Spes. They are truly the precursors of the Council. Gaudium et Spes ( #11 ) is an implicit citation of Fr. Congar:
Quote:The progressivists of the 19th century [e.g., Abbe Felicite-Robert de Lamennais, the French liberal hero of the 19th century] too often took, just as they stood, ideas born in another and often hostile world, ideas still laden with a hostile spirit, and tried to introduce them into Christianity-thinking, that is, to "baptise" them. Reconciling the Church with a positive modern world [which was ruled upon and condemned in its entirety by the Syllabus of Errors 1864] could not be done by introducing the ideas of the modern world into the Church just as they stood. That required a work in depth by which the permanent principles of Catholicism would take a new development by assimilating, after extracting and purifying as necessary , the valid contributions of that modern world.3
Note that this last sentence will be repeated exactly in Gaudium et Spes (#11)!... It is thus a development of doctrine by assimilation of liberal ideas; an assimilation absolutely inadmissible, absolutely impossible.
Secondly, it is an illusion to wish to "extract and purify" these ideas of the modern world. The popes have condemned them purely and simply. They did not seek to "purify" them. But Yves Congar is mightier than all those popes! ? ...than Pius VI, Pius VII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and St. Pius X who have condemned these errors without appeal.
In 1951, Church historian Fr. Roger Aubert takes up the Congarian thesis of purification and assimilation:
Quote:The collaborators of L’Avenir [the newspaper of De Lamennais] had not taken sufficient care in rethinking the principles which were going to permit them, by means of the necessary discernments and purifications, to assimilate into Christianity the ideas of democracy and liberty, which, born outside "of the Church, had developed in a spirit hostile to it.4
And so you see how modernists use, the tactic of copying one another in order to propagandize their false doctrine. Yet, despite this false credibility, the Church can never rectify and assimilate elements foreign to Her and condemned by Her.
But a disciple of Fr. Congar and of Roger Aubert, Fr. Bernard Sesboue, SJ., recycles the Congarian thesis and dresses it up as a critique, explicit this time, of the popes of the 19th century:
Quote:The drama of those pontifical declarations is that they had not discerned the element of Christian truth which lay hidden in demands that appeared at that time as attacks against religion and as a revolt against the rights of God. ...Thus the ideal which was signified by "the rights of man" was blocked off for a long time because men did not succeed in recognising there the distant heritage of the Gospel.5
The popes did not lack discernment! They condemned those errors. Those errors were condemned and remain condemned. The popes have declared these pseudo-values incapable of being assimilated into Catholic doctrine.6 To claim that these popes had not known how to make the distinction, to assert that the condemnation of liberal "values" is therefore a mistake, is an act of impiety against these popes; it is an injustice; it is a lie. The popes have done their duty, with the assistance of the Holy Ghost. They have vigorously excluded any attempt at reconciliation between the Church and the principles of the Revolution. They have been genuine witnesses of Tradition, witnesses of a Tradition which lives because it combats.
THE FRUITS OF STERILITY AND OF DEATH
The faithful transmission of Tradition is the necessary condition of its spiritual fecundity, just as sterility, when such is the case, is an infallible sign of infidelity in the transmission of the deposit. It is an illustration of Our Lord's words on the false prophets:
Quote:By their fruits you will know them. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit (Mt. 7:17- 18).
Thanks be to God, there is good fruit amongst us. Therefore the tree is good and the Tradition authentic. It is fruitful in zeal for one's own conversion by the Spiritual Exercises; for the conversion of one's neighbour by the work of the apostolate. It bears the fruit of families with numerous children, where the flame of the Faith is passed on to a whole new generation. It is fruitful in priestly and religious vocations, etc….
On the contrary, we verify that wherever Tradition has been adulterated, there we find the fruits of sterility and of death. In general, the so-called conciliar Church is languishing and dying of sterility. Parents no longer have children. Catholics no longer get married. There are no longer large families, thus no more vocations, and, as a result, seminaries are closing. Novitiate houses are empty, churches also, and they are being sold. It is the apostasy of the young generation. The young are completely lost. They abandon the Faith which has not been passed on to them. There has been a break in its transmission.
Let us remember this lesson. Tradition is alive as long as the deposit of the Faith is accurately transmitted. On the contrary, it dies of sterility where the transmission has been interrupted. Neo-modemism has killed Tradition because it has not transmitted it. It has falsified it; it has adulterated it, disarming it when faced with error in order to join it to the error. Archbishop Lefebvre had the great grace of simply passing on that which he had received, as was engraved on his tombstone at Econe, according to the words of St. Paul (1 Co. 11:23): Tradidi quod et accepi…. I have transmitted that which myself have received. But to transmit it faithfully, what a struggle he had to carry on! What intrepid resistance to all the pressures exerted on him to make him adopt the New Mass!-to prevent him from continuing the seminary and his work in 1975-76! What a heroic struggle in 1988 to resist the enticement of a booby-trapped consecration and to proceed with "Operation Survival of Tradition," even against the wishes of the pope!
This is the fighting Tradition which assures, by its struggle, the necessary conditions of its integral transmission and of its vitality. It is especially the Holy Mass of all times, which needs neither permission nor indult to remain in force and to make the Christian life fruitful. It is the Mass which constitutes "tradition at its highest degree of power and solemnity," as our teacher Dom Guillon loved to say, following the lead of Dom Gueranger.7 By its permanence and its fruits in the midst of the "antiliturgical heresy,"8 it is the traditional Roman Mass which sums up and focuses the essential struggle and the combative vitality of the authentic tradition of the Church. Pray then to God that He gives us the grace of fidelity to this Mass, and this Mass will assure us of receiving the genuine Tradition and of transmitting it faithfully to a whole new generation.
- Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
1. Discours au Parlement Europen, II act. 1988 n.8.
2. Interview with Vittorio Messori, "Pourquoi la foi est en crise," in the monthly ]e'sus, *II Nov. 1984, p.2.
3. Vraie etfaus-se re'form dans I~glise, Cerf, Paris 1950, pp.345-346.
4. In Tolerance et Communaute Humaine, Rencontr. de la Sarte 'a Huy, Castermann, act. 1951, pp.81-82.
5. "La doctrine de la liberte religieuse est-elle contraire ala tradition de l'Eglise? ." In Docu. mentsEpiscopat, the bulletin of the Secretaria1 of the Bishops' Conference of France, * 15, act. 1986, p15.
6. Cf. Syllabus, the last condemned proposition (*80): "The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization: (DZ 1780).
7. The liturgy is "tradition at its highest power" Dom Gueranger says in his Institutiom Liturgiques in the chapter entitled "La Composante Antiliturgique du Protestantisme."
8. Dom Gueranger's expression, ibid.
|
|
|
|
| Holy Mass in New Hampshire - November 15, 2026 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-10-2026, 11:04 AM - Forum: November 2026
- No Replies
|
|
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - Twenty-fifth Sunday after Pentecost
[Mass of the Sixth Sunday after Epiphany]
w/ Commemoration of the Feast of St. Albert the Great
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.freepik.com%2Fpremi...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.freepik.com%2Fpremium-photo%2Fwatercolor-depiction-parable-mustard-seed-with-fine-details_73899-55926.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=3c905826ec75daf5b34fb02d4299091d3214ba4cc1f60a3aff0cb22991fc75e4&ipo=images)
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2026
Time: Confessions - 10:00 AM
Holy Mass - 10:30 AM
Location: The Oratory of the Sorrowful Heart of Mary
66 Gove's Lane
Wentworth, NH 03282
Contact: 315-391-7575
sorrowfulheartofmaryoratory@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
