| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 342
» Latest member: Stoutyx
» Forum threads: 8,640
» Forum posts: 15,593
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 508 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 502 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Facebook, Google
|
|
|
| To Apostasy by Way of "Obedience" |
|
Posted by: Stone - Today, 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 - Today, 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 - Today, 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 - Today, 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 - Today, 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 - Yesterday, 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
|
|
|
|
| The Cure for the Present Crisis According to Pope Saint Pius X |
|
Posted by: Stone - Yesterday, 08:01 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
|
The Cure for the Present Crisis According to Pope Saint Pius X
Si Si No No
September 1996 No. 17
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
From the outset of the election of Pius X, public opinion had it that this new Pope was a religious Pope, in contrast to his immediate predecessor, Leo XIII:
Quote:Leo XIII has given back to the Church her rightful place in the world which she had lost under Pope Pius IX's pontificate. It would be logical that, by a contrary movement, there should follow after a statesman [Pope Leo XIII] whose interests had been turned toward the nations, an apostle whose solicitude or primary concern would be for the faithful....(Dansette, Histoire religieuse de la France contemporaine, Ed. Flammarion, p.317.)
Pius X brought to the See of Peter a spirit quite different from that of his predecessor. For all that the latter delighted in those subtle political and diplomatic maneuvers, Pius X had no taste at all for them, since he would in no way bow to the compromises necessarily implicated in such dealings; he had taken the firm decision of concentrating himself on the problems concerning the apostolate and Christian life (R. Aubert, Nouvelle histoire de l’Eglise, T.V. Ed. Seuil, p.25). There was this common opinion prevailing at the time of Card. Sarto's election.
In his first encyclical, E Supremi Apostolatus, St. Pius X declares:
Quote:We take courage in Him Who strengthens Us; and setting Ourselves to work, relying on the power of God, We proclaim that we have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate but that of "restoring all things in Christ" (Eph. 1:10), so that "Christ may be all and in all" (Col. 3:2)....The desire for peace is harbored in every breast, and there is no one who does not ardently invoke it. But to want peace without God is an absurdity, seeing that where God is absent thence too justice flies, and when justice is taken away, it is vain to cherish the hope of peace. "Peace is the work of justice" (Is. 22:17). There are many, We are well aware, who, in their yearning for peace, that is, for the tranquility of order, band themselves into societies and parties, which they style parties of order. Hope and labor lost. For there is but one party of order capable of restoring peace in the midst of all this turmoil, and that is the party of God. It is this party, therefore, that We must advance...(Documents Pontificaux de Sa Sainteté St. Pie X; Ed. Courrier de Rome, 1993).
Another one of St. Pius X's encyclicals, Jucunda Sane (Mar. 12, 1904), is just as expressive of his concern to restore the spiritual life amongst the faithful. It was published on the occasion of the celebration of the 13th centenary solemnity of Pope St. Gregory the Great. Here, he adopts the same solution in the face of a similar dramatic situation: the spiritual solution.
Quote:Truly wonderful is the work he [i.e., Pope St. Gregory] was able to effect during his reign of little more than thirteen years. He was the restorer of Christian life in its entirety, stimulating the devotion of the faithful, the observance of the monks, the discipline of the clergy, the pastoral solicitude of the bishops. Most prudent father of the family of Christ that he was (Joann. Diac., Vita Greg., ii, 51), he preserved and increased the patrimony of the Church.
A little farther on, he writes again:
Quote:But it is, nevertheless, true that he never put himself forward as one invested with the might and power of the great ones of the earth, for instead of using the exalted prestige of the Pontifical dignity, he preferred to call himself the Servant of the Servants of God; a title which he was the first to adopt. It was not merely by profane science or the "persuasive words of human wisdom" (1 Cor. 2:4) that he traced out his career, or by the devices of civil politics, or by systems of social renovation, skillfully studied, prepared and put in execution; nor yet, and this is very striking, by setting before himself a vast program of apostolic action to be gradually realized;....(h)e yet possessed an incredible energy of soul which was for ever receiving fresh vigor from his lively faith in the infallible words of Christ, and in His Divine promises.
Then again, he counted with unlimited confidence on the supernatural force given by God to the Church for the successful accomplishment of her divine mission in the world. The constant aim of his life, as shown in all his words and works, was, therefore, this: to preserve in himself, and to stimulate in others this same lively faith and confidence, doing all the good possible at the moment in expectation of the Divine judgment (op. cit.)....It is still more necessary to inculcate properly in the minds of all the moral maxims taught by Jesus Christ, so that everybody may learn to conquer himself, to curb the passions of the mind, to stifle pride, to live in obedience to authority, to love justice, to show charity towards all, to temper with Christian love the bitterness of social inequalities, to detach the heart from the goods of the world, to live contented with the state in which Providence has placed us, while striving to better it by the fulfillment of our duties, to thirst after the future life in the hope of eternal reward. But, above all, is it necessary that these principles be instilled and made to penetrate into the heart, so that true and solid piety may strike root there, and all, but as men and as Christians, may recognize by their acts, as well as by their words, the duties of their state and have recourse with filial confidence to the Church and her ministers to obtain from them pardon for their sins, to receive the strengthening grace of the sacraments, and to regulate their lives according to the laws of Christianity (op. cit.).
In his first two encyclicals, E Supremi Apostolatus and Jucunda Sane, and again in his later encyclical, Communium Rerum, St. Pius X demonstrated his essentially religious concerns. Moreover, in these three documents, he paints the same dramatic tableau of the prevailing situation: nothing less than a universal apostasy, and the cures he proposes are again the same (from Communium Rerum):
Quote:How they have realized this danger is easily to be seen in the anxieties, trepidations, and tears of most holy men who have had borne in upon them the terrible responsibility of the government of souls and the greatness of the danger to which they are exposed, but it is to be seen most strikingly in the life of Anselm. When he was torn from the solitude of the studious life of the cloister, to be raised to a lofty dignity in most difficult times, he found himself a prey to the most tormenting solicitude and anxiety, and chief of all the fear that he might not do enough for the salvation of his own soul and the souls of his people, for the honor of God and of His Church....[h]is one great comfort was his trust in God and in the Apostolic See (Epistol. lib. iii. ep. 37).
St. Pius X was a true pastor of souls, a pope who concerned himself first and foremost with the care of souls, a spiritual rather than a politically-wise pope. It would, however, be false to pretend that St. Pius X's pontificate was of an exclusively religious character, where politics had no part to play whatsoever. Aventino (op. cit.) states positively:
Quote:Pius X's eminently religious pontificate cannot be seen as completely detached from all political activity whatsoever. Anxious as he was in pursuing an essentially religious goal, Pius X's actions would never be of an exclusively political nor diplomatic character; it could never be but politico-religious; and under no circumstances whatsoever would moral or religious questions be subordinate to any worldly conditions; this he proved when he fearlessly raised the cross against the politics of religious interference in France and in Spain, as well as against the Russian government's arbitrary pretensions or claims. Far from dealing a death-blow to his courage, drawn from the everflowing supernatural sources of the Faith, the most dreadful obstacles simply served to redouble his energy and to give him the strength to rekindle everyone else's courage.
These words, addressed to Card. Fisher in 1911, repeat exactly what Pius X had penned in Jucunda Sane (1904).
Each and every time Catholic interests will be threatened, the Pope will be immediately ready to defend them against the Republique du Bloc or against the Czar's autocracy; against the Catholic monarchy and parliament of Spain or against the all-powerful German Protestant Empire, against the usurping monarchy of Savoy or against the very Catholic House of Hapsburg. The on-going religious struggle in France, the defense of Catholicism in Russia, the padlock law in Spain, the affair concerning the archbishopric of Posen in Germany, those incidents related to Nathan and Granito all reveal the unity of method as well as the unity of thought of the Sovereign Pontiff in all circumstances (op. cit., pp.143,144).
St. Pius X's pontificate was a politico-religious one; and, in this regard, four of his official documents are quite characteristic indeed. The first of them is his famous consistorial speech, Primum Vos (Nov. 9, 1903):
Quote:Our task, therefore, consists in defending both Christian Truth as well as the Law of Christ. Consequently, Ours will be the task of defining and explaining the notions of the most important truths....as well as that of leading back to the rule and straight path of honesty both in public and in private life, in the social and political spheres, all men and, indeed, each and every one of them, those who must obey as well as those whose duty is to command, for they are all sons of the same Father Who is in Heaven. We are also quite conscious of the fact that some will be shocked in hearing Us mention that We will, through necessity, concern Ourselves with politics. But anyone seeking to judge fairly will be quick to understand that the Sovereign Pontiff, who has been invested with the Supreme Magisterium, has no right whatsoever of divorcing questions relating to politics from the field of Faith and Morals. Moreover, in his capacity as chief and sovereign guide of that perfect society which is the Catholic Church, a society made up of men and also set up amongst men, he can only wish to foster and entertain close relationships with [all] heads of countries and members of governments if he wishes to see all the countries of the world protect their Catholic citizens' liberty and security.
A second document, just as characteristic, is the address delivered on the occasion of the beatification ceremonies of St. Joan of Arc (Apr. 19, 1909):
Quote:Having everything in common with Him, enriched by Him and possessor as well as guardian of Truth, the Catholic Church alone may claim the love and veneration of all peoples.
Thus it is that anyone rising up against the Church's authority under the unjust excuse that it is invading the State's domain is, in fact, limiting and shackling the Truth; he who declares the Church to be a stranger in his nation is also, in fact, declaring that Truth is indeed a stranger in his country; he who fears that the Church will weaken the liberty as well as the greatness of his country must also admit that a people can be great and free without Truth.
No, such a State or government, by whatever name it is known, while waging war against Truth and gravely offending that which is most sacred in men, cannot possibly lay claim to their love....Only that country united in a chaste alliance with the Church can inspire its citizens with those sentiments of veneration and love and bring about the true well-being of humanity.
The third document is found in the famous condemnation of the Sillon (Aug. 25, 1910):
Quote:It is in the democratic customs as well as in theories of the ideal city which inspires them, that you will perceive, Venerable Brethren, those underlying causes of those disciplinary lapses for which you have so often reproached the Sillon.
Thus did the Pope roundly condemn a political party, that Christian Democracy established by Marc Sangnier (1873-1950).
The fourth document, Il Fermo Proposito (June 11, 1905), manifests the Pope's worries which are seen to be not exclusively religious, but rather of a politico-religious nature.
In this encyclical on Catholic Action in Italy, St. Pius X declares:
Quote:Behold, Venerable Brethren, the precious support brought to the Church by those chosen companies of Catholics who propose, as a matter of fact, to combine all their living strength with the firm intention of doing battle by just and legal means against the growing anti-Christian forces in modern society, as well as to repair by all possible means, all of those extremely grave disorders brought about in our midst by those same forces of darkness. These same associations intend bringing back Jesus Christ into families, schools and society itself as well as re-establishing the principle of human authority as representing that [authority] of God. Those militant Catholics are therefore devoting themselves to bringing public laws in conformity with justice, to correcting or suppressing those which are lacking in that virtue as well as defending and supporting with a genuinely Catholic spirit the rights of God in all things, together with the no less sacred rights of His Church.
This last quotation shows how Pope St. Pius X envisaged "Restoring all things in Christ." This is evidently a question of a religious policy whose politics will be subject to the unchanging and saving doctrines of the Church.
However, since St. Pius X was Pope and head of the universal Church, it was necessary that he consider religion itself first and foremost since this is the summit of all human life. This subordination impregnates all of that Pope's writings, including Pascendi. St. Pius X revealed the gravity of the error of modernism both on the natural and supernatural orders. Pascendi begins with an analysis of the modernist system of philosophy which is agnosticism [i.e., the philosophy of the agnostics, that is, of those teaching that the essences of things and in particular the first cause and final ends, are absolutely unknowable]. Modernism has proven itself to be the ruin of all of human life, and therefore also the ruin of that necessary subordination of politics to religion, of the State to the Catholic Church.
In order to illustrate this affirmation, let us examine Pascendi point by point:
Pope St. Pius X roundly condemns the seven heads of modernism and then offers us their seven remedies. He begins by condemning philosophers who challenge all rational proof of the existence of God as the First Cause of everything in existence, both material and spiritual. Such philosophers fall victims to a so-called scientific atheism. For these, God is something emanating from man's subconscious. This false "faith" of theirs, based as it is on mere sentiment or feelings, is expressed in ever-changing formulae, since these have no other objective than that of maintaining or of warming up over and over again a sentimental life, a life of the heart which is, by definition, irrational. For these people, religion is a form of life and, as such, cannot constitute an adherence to an exterior object. Their "faith" proceeds from man; known as religious immanence, vital immanence. Such I a system of "belief" cannot possibly be viewed as an unmistakably clear knowledge above all scientific knowledge; on the contrary, science, which modernists have reduced to the level of measurable things, is done to impose its control on all human judgment.
St. Pius X then goes on to condemn modernist theologians. Since modernists are not concerned with true knowledge but rather with feelings [sentiments] and immanence - [i.e., the teaching that the foundation of faith must be sought in an internal sense which arises from man's need of God], and since they no longer have any external object to adhere to, the modern theologians have simply become begetters of symbols, designed to represent the divine emanating from human subconscious. They also consider that the Magisterium's sole function is that of transmitting or passing on common opinions. Their cult thus ends up being a humanistic expression of religious feelings. The modernist Church, for its part, is now seen as the collective conscience in the same way that popular regimes constitute the public conscience: and only the democratic form is considered suitable to their ends. Thus we end up with the error of separation of the Church and of the State. In fact, since modernists hold Faith to be subject to human knowledge [science] and reason, to the total advantage of [human] reasoning and to the vanishing point of Faith, the Church is seen to be subject to the collective conscience which constitutes what may be essentially called an all-encompassing Christian democracy, that is to say, the State. Understood in this way, authority becomes nothing more than a service whose mission is limited to the taking of the "universal pulse" in order to explain it in a formula comprehensible to everyone.
Pope St. Pius X, showing modernism to be agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionary, concludes:
Quote:The domineering overbearance of those who teach the errors, and the thoughtless compliance of the more shallow minds who assent to them, create a corrupted atmosphere which penetrates everywhere, and carries its infection with it. (Pascendi, 34).
He also went on to reveal their common cause: pride.
Quote:Pride! Pride sits in Modernism as in its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in its doctrines and lurking in its every aspect. (Pascendi, 40).
St. Thomas Aquinas describes the sin of pride in the following terms:
Quote:The first sin committed by the devil was that residing in an undue desire to be "like to God," in that he sought as the ultimate goal of his happiness something to which he could attain by his own natural powers, without having recourse to God, nor wishing to wait, as did the holy angels, for his final perfection through divine grace. This final perfection he sought to reach through the resources of his own nature, not, indeed, independently of God, Who gave to the angelic nature the ability to act, but independently of God Who confers grace (De Malo, 16,3).
For man, as well as for angels, pride consists in refusing the supernatural and the order of divine grace. But for us, the supernatural and grace depend on the mystery of the Incarnation whose motive is to be found in sin. (Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 1, article 3). Finally, it must be said that pride is centered on that refusal of mercy, on that refusal of the world of divine grace, that refusal of the Incarnation, that refusal of Our Redeemer, the Word made Incarnate.
Then, in the second part of his encyclical, the Pope proffers a remedy for this terrible and frightening evil. Having distinguished seven heads of modernism, he then proposes seven corresponding remedies, the first one being the restoration of the philosophy of the Angelic Doctor, the universal Doctor of the Church, who must remain the master of philosophy. St. Pius X absolutely insists on this primacy:
Quote:We admonish professors to bear well in mind that they cannot set aside St. Thomas Aquinas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage (Pascendi, 45).
In his motu proprio of June 29, 1914, St. Pius X [secondly] applied himself to the solid formation of future priests, an essential remedy:
Quote:Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and selecting candidates for Holy Orders. For, far from the clergy be the love of novelty! God hateth the proud and obstinate mind (Pascendi, 49).
Next [thirdly] follows the necessary prohibition of bad books. And the Pope then carefully warns:
Quote:Let all this be done in a fitting manner, and in certain cases it will suffice to restrict the prohibition to the clergy (Pascendi, 51).
The fourth measure consists in the control of publications through the obligation of the Nihil obstat and the Imprimatur. Ecclesiastical censors will be appointed for the revision of works intended for publication.
St. Pius X [fifth] warns against religious congresses. In the future, these will be rarely held, since they have been known to be the means of spreading modernist infection:
Quote:Whenever they [the bishops] do permit them, it shall only be on condition that matters appertaining to the Bishops or the Apostolic See be not treated in them, and that no resolutions or petitions be allowed that would imply an usurpation of sacred authority, and that absolutely nothing be said in them which savors of Modernism, presbyterianism, or laicism (Pascendi, 54).
The sixth remedy is the setting up of diocesan "Councils of Vigilance" established with rules identical to those of censors whose task it is to examine writings pertaining to religious matters.
Finally [seventh], it is ordained that bishops furnish the Holy See with a diligent and sworn report on the things which have been decreed in Pascendi.
Just as pride, as a common cause, masks the various errors making up Modernism, so another common cause is evident in their antidotes - the Pope's jealous attention and solicitude for his priests, not only in Pascendi, but in all of his encyclicals.
For example, in his first encyclical, E Supremi Apostolatus, St. Pius X proposes, as a first step in...
Quote:...bringing back to loyal obedience to the Church all of those societies bewildered and straying far away from the Wisdom of Christ, to form and mold Christ in those who, through that duty associated with their sublime vocation, are destined to form Him in others. Here, We wish to speak of priests....Thus, Venerable Brethren, how great indeed must be your solicitude in forming the clergy to holiness! No other task is to take precedence over this one....Let your zealous solicitude be lavished on those new priests just leaving their seminaries.
In Jucunda Sane, St. Pius X follows in the steps of St. Gregory:
Quote:The very idea of some danger, the very thought that the moral corruption so prevalent and pervading in the Roman world threatened to creep into the morals and customs of the clergy caused him no end of trembling and fear....He could be seen warning, correcting and suspending from their functions those unworthy members of the clergy....Thus do we see, Venerable Brethren, how important it is for a bishop, before laying hands on new candidates for ordination, to apply himself, in God's presence, to a deep and thorough self-examination.
Finally, a third example found in Communium Rerum, the encyclical from which we have quoted regarding St. Anselm's 8th centenary:
Quote:Why so much insistence in setting up and extolling once again St. Anselm's merits? The reason, Venerable Brethren, lies in this happy occasion afforded Us to exhort you once again to open up to our young clergy those saving sources of Christian knowledge; let those young clerics come and drink at those beneficial and salutary waters revealed by St. Anselm of Canterbury and so enriched by the Doctor of Aquinas....There are those who have abandoned these studies or else have undertaken them in a slipshod manner, totally lacking in sure and firm methodical order. And with what results? Alas! We see only too well all of the ruins piling up all around us day after day; many are they who, even amongst the clergy, without any aptitude and utterly wanting in proper preparation, have not feared to rashly debate and argue the loftiest Mysteries of the Faith.
In order to point out the jealous care St. Pius X had for the clergy, we quote from Haerent Animo (Aug. 4, 1908):
Quote:Through this exhortation, it is not only your interests that We will uphold, but also those common interests of Catholic nations, since they cannot at all be separated the ones from the others.
Would to God that there should now be a greater number of men practicing these virtues as did those saints of times past who proved to be so powerful in words and deeds, for the greater profit not only of Religion, but also for that of civil society...
When, at last, the true spirit of priestly vocations will have renewed and improved at all levels of the clergy, our other projects and efforts of reform, whatever they may be, will also prove to be, with God's help, much more effective indeed.
Thus are we able to conclude that in the same way that pride is found to be the common cause of the seven heads of modernism and that this pride simply constitutes man's refusal of Christ as his Redeemer, thus is also to be found a common remedy to this tragedy: priestly virtue. Why? Precisely because the priest participates directly in Christ's work of salvation, and because he is a man dispensing the sacraments of the Faith. This is where we behold the unrivalled splendor of the Pope's motto: To restore everything in Christ. In short, this means restoring everything in Christ the Redeemer, and therefore also restoring everything through the holy priesthood. Included in this "everything" is not only the Church, but all of human society as well. This universal restoration will come via Christ the Redeemer, and therefore by our priests. And this term "everything" is not restricted in any way at all. This remedy is not something new. St. Pius X ushered in nothing new; he just took up again a centuries-old idea, making his own the constant care of earlier Popes. He took up once again and continued the work of one former Pope in particular, Gregory VII. Here is what he wrote about St. Anselm:
Quote:He was still but a curate when he received from the great and courageous Roman Pontiff, Gregory VII, letters full of esteem and affection wherein the Pope recommended himself as well as the Catholic Church to the saint's [i.e., Anselm's] good prayers.
"We will cite but one name," says St. Pius X. "That person of indomitable courage, indefatigable defender of the rights and freedom of the Church, that watchful guardian and preserver of Church discipline, Pope Gregory VII."
Now, precisely in this encyclical where St. Pius X quotes Gregory VII, he very frequently returns to Pascendi, specifying:
Quote:What We wish to simply draw to your attention today is the fact that, if the dangers of which We speak are graver and more menacing nowadays, they are not, for all that, very different from those which threatened the Church and its doctrines in St. Anselm's days.
The conclusion of all this is easily drawn: if the ills plaguing the Church in Anselm's time (1033-1109) were the same as those of today, even though they are not of the same extent nor violence, the remedy is yet the same. It is the one proposed by the Pope of the dawn of the 11th century, that is to say, of St. Gregory VII.
Thus do we have St. Pius X following in the footsteps of Pope St. Gregory VII. To the same ills and dangers, the same remedies. St. Pius X is to the 20th century what St. Gregory VII was to the 11th century.
The measures taken by St. Pius X, although of the same order, were taken in different circumstances. Whereas at the time of Pope Gregory VII all of those States were Christian, and therefore by definition subject to Church authority, in this 20th century, no State admits of such dependency of politics on the Church. St. Pius X's action was therefore much more limited, and yet the principles involved were essentially the same. Only the actual carrying out of this Pontiff's orders was much more restricted. Unlike Gregory VII, who was able to excommunicate Henry IV and relieve that emperor's subjects from their oaths to him, St. Pius X had no other means at his disposal, whenever a government refused to be "subordinated" to the Church, refused its authority or even rebelled against it, than to declare that the citizens were no longer obliged to sentiments of veneration and affection, which they should have under normal circumstances. These are the words of the Pope in his address at the beatification of St. Joan of Arc (Apr. 9, 1909):
Quote:Thus is it to be seen that anyone revolting against the Church's authority under the unjust pretext that it is encroaching on the State's domain, is indeed thereby imposing limits to the Truth. He who holds it [i.e., the Church's authority] to be a stranger in a nation is also declaring that Truth must also be held to be something foreign in that nation. Those who fear that it will weaken the freedom and greatness of a people, are also obliged to admit that a people can be great and free without Truth. No, such a State, such a government or whatever other name may be given to it, cannot lay claim to its citizens' affection, because in waging war against Truth, it gravely strikes at that which is found to be most sacred in man. Such a government will be able to sustain itself through material and brute force; it will make itself feared through the sword; people will, through hypocrisy, self-interest or sheer slavishness: the people will obey because religion preaches and ennobles submission to the human powers that be, as long as they do not require that which is contrary to the holy laws of God. But if the fulfillment of these duties towards human authorities, in that which is compatible with the people's duty to God, renders their obedience more meritorious, it will not, for all that, become more tender, nor more joyful nor more spontaneous: never will it even deserve to be considered as venerable nor affectionate.
St. Pius X assures us that these sentiments of veneration and affection can only be inspired by that country which, united in a chaste alliance with the Catholic Church, brings about the genuine good of humanity.
Those terrible evils shaking the Church at the onset of the 20th century resemble those which Gregory VII found himself obliged to correct. They can all be summed up in one word: laicization.
However, the partisans of destruction are not only to be found outside the Church; they are unfortunately to be seen at their work of demolition in the very bosom of the Catholic Church.
It is interesting to note that the stress laid in Gregory VII's first letters is quite similar to that found in those of St. Pius X. Writing to Lanfranc of Canterbury, Gregory VII informs him:
Quote:As for the Bishops, whose sacred duty it is to guide and watch over those souls confided to them, they only seek, with insatiable desire, worldly glory and pleasures of the flesh. Not only do they destroy the last traces of holiness and all religious life in themselves, but through their bad example, they lead their flocks to all manner of evils. You are well aware how perilous it would be for Our soul not to combat them; but you also know how difficult it is to resist them and to restrain their malice.
Somewhat later, writing to Sicard the patriarch of Aquileia:
Quote:Your sound reasoning cannot ignore how mountainous waves of fury are relentlessly battering the Bark of the Church: to the point where she appears to be swamped and wrecked. The great and powerful, together with the princes of this world, selfishly seeking their own interests at the expense of those of Jesus Christ, have cast off all respect and are now oppressing the Church like an abject slave: they have no shame in covering her in confusion as long as they are able thereby to satisfy their monstrous greed.
Priests, as well as those charged with governing the Church, are seen to have almost utterly abandoned divine law, as they steal away from their sacred duties towards God and their flocks. Their ecclesiastical dignities only serve to cover them in worldly glory as they grievously squander away in vain pomps of pride and uncalled-for expenses, those funds which normally should be directed to the salvation and welfare of the majority.
Caught up in such chaos, the people, without their prelates' leadership, deprived of those good counsels which could guide it in the ways of justice, is now, on the contrary, thanks to the bad example of its leaders, pushed on toward every mischief and everything contrary to the Christian religion, and is seen rushing headlong into all sorts of iniquity.
We can then only quote Communium Rerum once again to witness that the policies pursued by St. Pius X were similar to those of St. Gregory VII:
Quote:Let us go back (in mind) to the times of Anselm, so fraught with misfortunes and difficulties according to historical accounts. People then were indeed obliged to give battle for the altar and the fatherland, that is to say, in favor of the inviolability of public rights and laws, for liberty, civilization and doctrine: all things over which the Church alone stood guard. It was necessary to repress the tyranny of those princes accustomed as they are in disregarding the people's most sacred rights: Vices had to be eradicated, intellects cultivated and barbarians civilized. Much work had to be done in reforming part of the clergy, guilty of cowardice or misconduct: numerous were they in its ranks who, owing their appointment to the base intrigues and whims of those princes, have shown themselves to be their time-serving subordinates.
Such was the situation, particularly in those regions which especially and more immediately benefited from Anselm's solicitude, works, doctrinal teachings, as well as his sterling example of monastic life. The souls entrusted to his care greatly benefited by his heedful vigilance as well as the industrious zeal he showed in faithfully fulfilling his functions of archbishop and primate.
On all sides, interior revolutions together with foreign wars were inevitably followed by a loosening of discipline: princes and subjects, clergy and laity; all were affected, none escaping.
The greatest minds of that century never ceased deploring such abuses and, most noteworthy amongst them was Anselm's former teacher and predecessor on the See of Canterbury, Lanfranc. But, above and beyond all others, the Roman Pontiffs raised their voices. We will recall but one name: he who bore it was a man of indomitable courage, the indefatigable champion of the Church's rights and liberty, the vigilant guardian and savior of ecclesiastical discipline, Pope Gregory VII.
The restoration is identical for both Popes: it consists in a genuine reform of the Catholic priesthood. It has become necessary to renew priestly powers, in order to triumph over all things; therefore over all of human societies subject to Christ the Redeemer. Omnia instaurare in Christo, and thereby affirm the Roman Church's indispensable supremacy, for there is no true civilization but Christianity resting upon the Catholic priesthood.
If those evils plaguing this 20th century are of the same order as those familiar to St. Anselm under the pontificate of Pope St. Gregory VII, the remedies must also once again be the same. Now, the greatest evil of our times is that of laicization or secularism. The remedies will therefore also necessarily be the same, those proposed by Pope Gregory VII: restoration of the powers of the Catholic priesthood for the restoration of Christ kingdom on earth.
- Fr. Benedict de Jorna (Superior of the District of France, Society of Saint Pius X)
|
|
|
|
| On the Power of God's Word |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-09-2026, 03:47 PM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
|
ON THE POWER OF GOD'S WORD
Taken from Fr. Leonard Goffine's Explanations of the Epistles and Gospels for the Sundays, Holydays, and Festivals throughout the Ecclesiastical Year
36th edition, 1880
THE word of God is compared, by the Prophet Jeremias, to a hammer which crushes hearts as hard as rocks, and to a fire that dries up the swamps of vice, and consumes inveterate evil habits. (Jer. xxiii. 29.) The Psalmist compares it to thunder that makes all tremble, a stormwind that bends and breaks the cedars of Lebanon, that is, proud and obstinate spirits; a light that dispels the darkness of ignorance; and a remedy that cures sin. (Ps. xxviii. 3. 5., cxviii. 105.) St. Paul compares it to a sword that divides the body from the soul, that is, the carnal desires from the spirit; (Hebr.iv. 12.) the Apostle James to a mirror in which man sees his stains and his wrongs. (Jam. i. 23.) the Prophet Isaias to a precious rain that moistens, the soil of the soul and fertilizes it; (Isai. Iv. 10. n.) and Jesus Himself compares it to a seed that when it falls on good ground, brings forth fruit a hundredfold. (Luke viii. 8.) One single grain of this divine seed produced the most marvellous fruits of sanctity in St. Augustine, St. Anthony the Great, in St. Nicholas of Tolentino, and others; for St. Augustine was converted by the words: "Let us walk honestly as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in, chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy." (Rom. xiii. 13.) St. Anthony by the words: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." (Matt. xix. 21.) Nicholas of Tolentino was brought to Christian perfection by the words: "Love not the world, nor the things which are in the world. (i. John ii. 15.)
How should we prepare ourselves to be benefited by the word of God?
We must be good, well-tilled soil, that is, we must have a heart that loves truth, desires to learn, and humbly and sincerely seeks salvation; we must listen to the word of God with due preparation and attention, keep the divine truths we have heard, in our heart, frequently consider and strive to fulfil them.
What should be done before the sermon?
We should endeavor to purify our conscience, for, as St. Chrysostom demands; "Who would pour precious juice into a vessel that is not clean, without first washing it?" We should, therefore, at least cleanse our hearts by an ardent sorrow for our sins, because the spirit of truth enters not into the sinful soul; (Wisd. i. 4.) we should ask the Holy Ghost for the necessary enlightenment, for little or no fruit can be obtained from a sermon if it is not united with prayer; we should listen to the sermon with a good motive; that is, with a view of hearing something edifying and instructive; if we attend only through curiosity, the desire to hear something new, to criticize the preacher, or to see and to be seen, we are like the Pharisees who for such and similar motives went to hear Christ and derived no benefit therefrom. "As a straight sword goes not into a crooked sheath, so the word of God enters not into a heart that is filled with improper motives." We should strive to direct our minds rightly, that is, to dispel all temporal thoughts, all needless distraction, otherwise the wholesome words would fall but upon the ears, would not penetrate the heart, and the words of Christ be fulfilled: They have ears, and hear not.
How should we comport ourselves during the sermon?
We should listen to the sermon with earnest, reverent attention, for God speaks to us through His priests, and Christ says to them: Who hears you, hears me. (Luke x. 16.) We must listen to the priests, therefore, not as to men, but as to God's ambassadors, for every priest can say with St. Paul: We are ambassadors for Christ, God, as it were, exhorting by us. (ii. Cor. v. 20.) "If," says St. Chrysostom, "when the letter of a king is read, the greatest quiet and attention prevails, that nothing may be lost, how much more should we listen with reverence and perfect silence to the word of God?" The word of God is, and ever will be, a divine seed, which, when properly received, produces precious fruit, by what priest soever sowed; for in the sowing it matters not what priest sows, but what soil is sowed. Be careful, also, that you do not apply that which is said to others, but take it to yourself, or the sermon will be of no benefit to you. Are you free from those vices which the preacher decries and against which he battles? then, thank God, but do not despise others who are perhaps laboring under them , rather pray that they may be released and you preserved from falling into them. Keep also from sleeping, talking, and other distractions, and remember, that whoever, is of God, also willingly hears his word. (John viii. 47.)
What should be done after the sermon?
We should then strive to put into practice the good we have heard, for God justifies not those who hear the law, but those who keep it, (Rom. ii. 13.) and those who hear the word of God and do not conform their lives to it, are like the man who looks into the mirror, and having- looked into it goes away, and presently forgets what manner of man he is. (Jam. i. 23. 24.) To practice that which has been heard, it is above all necessary that it should be kept constantly in mind, and thoughtfully considered. St. Bernard says: "Preserve the word of God as you would meat for your body, for it is a life-giving bread, and the food of your soul. Happy those, says Christ, who keep it. Receive it, therefore, into your soul's interior, and let it reach your morals and your actions."
That food which cannot be digested, or is at once thrown out, is useless; the food should be well masticated, retained, and by the digestive powers worked up into good blood. So not only on the day, but often during the week, that which was heard in the sermon should be thought of and put into practice. Speak of it to others, thus will much idle talk be saved, many souls with the grace of God roused to good, and enlightened in regard to the evil they had not before seen in themselves and in future will avoid. Let us listen to others when they repeat what was said in the sermon. Heads of families should require their children and domestics to relate what they have heard preached. Let us also entreat God to give us grace that we may be enabled to practice the precepts given us.
PRAYER
How much am I shamed, O my God, that the seed of Thy Divine word, which Thou hast sowed so often and so abundantly in my heart, has brought forth so little fruit ! Ah ! have mercy on me, and so change my heart, that it may become good soil, in which Thy word may take root, grow without hinderance, and finally bring forth fruits of salvation. Amen.
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Denis Fahey: The Coming of Antichrist |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-09-2026, 08:35 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
The Kingship of Christ and The Conversion of the Jewish Nation
by REV. DENIS FAHEY, C.S.Sp., D.D., D.Ph., B.A., Professor of Philosophy,
Holy Ghost Missionary College, Kimmage, Dublin
Imprimi Potest: P. O'CARROLL, C.S.Sp., Praep. Prov. Hib.
Nihil Obstat: JACOBUS BROWNE, Censor Deputatus.
Imprimatur: †JACOBUS, Episcopus Fernensis. die 26 januarii 1953
First printed : January 1953
“In the end my immaculate heart will triumph.” (13 July 1917, at Fatima, Portugal)
CHAPTER IX
The Coming of Antichrist
In Chapter VII we saw that there was a connection between that apostasy of the non-Jewish nations and the conversion of the Jewish nation. In Chapter VIII, we have seen something of the grandiose plans of the Jewish nation for an anti-supernatural organisation of the world, that is, for a design which is the very opposite of humble submission to the divine plan for Order proclaimed by Christ the King. In this Chapter I propose to say something about the Man of Sin, whose coming is mentioned by St. Paul, in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, immediately after having spoken of the apostasy or revolt of the nations. False teachers had spread confusion in the Church of Thessalonica by affirming that the end of the world was at hand. St. Paul wrote this Epistle to restore calm by the assurance that two events are to take place before the end of the world, namely, the apostasy or revolt of the nations and the appearance of Antichrist. A little work, written by Father Augustine Lémann and entitled L’Antéchrist, makes my task an easy one.1
THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFFS AND APOSTASY
Father Lémann mentions several warnings given by the Vicars of Christ concerning the revolt of human reason against the divine plan for Order. In the secret consistory of December 30, 1889, Pope Leo XIII said: “We desire the preservation of the Catholic Faith in its integrity, for that integrity is endangered when governments assign to the State the role of claiming for human reason measureless and limitless sovereignty. In plain language, this is nothing else than the rejection of all that God has revealed and complete separation from the Church.” Pope Leo again spoke of apostasy in a Protestation addressed to his Secretary of State, Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro, October 8, 1895: “The ultimate aim of the occupation of Rome was not attained, at least completely, by the conquest of political unity. We are speaking now, not of the intentions of all those who co-operated therein, but of the plans of the sectaries who were the prime movers in the affair. No: that act of violence . . . was intended by the Freemasons to be simply a step towards the accomplishment of a deeper, darker design . . . In order to attack the spiritual power of the Holy See, a beginning was made by overthrowing its earthly rampart . . . Is all this the triumph of Italy? Is it not rather the advent of apostasy?”
Twice in the course of the year 1901, the Venerable Pontiff repeated the same warnings, first in the letter addressed to the superiors of religious orders and congregations, on June 29, and then in the consistorial Allocution of August 15. In he Letter of June 29, he said: “It is only too true that in the designs of the [Masonic] Sect, the disorganisation and extinction of the Religious Orders constitute a clever manoeuvre destined to prepare the way for the apostasy of the Catholic nations.” A fifth time, Pope Leo returned to the subject in his Allocution to the Sacred College of December 23, 1902, in which he insisted that “what is aimed at and what is intended is the overthrow of Christian institutions and the reconstruction of States on the basis of pagan naturalism.”
The warnings of Blessed Pius X are just as solemn as those of Leo XIII. In his first Encyclical, he addresses the Hierarchy of the world as follows: “
Quote:Who can be unaware of the grave and deep-seated malady which, at the present time far more than in the past, is undermining human society, and which growing daily worse . . . is dragging it to ruin? You know this malady, Venerable Brethren: it is the rejection of God and apostasy . . . In our times, it is only too true that ‘the Gentiles have raged and the peoples devised vain things,’2 against their Creator. The cry of the enemies of God has become almost common: ‘Depart from us.’3 . . . Whosoever weighs these things has certainly reason to fear that such perversion of minds may herald the evils announced for the end of time and, as it were, be the beginning of those calamities, and that the son of perdition of whom the Apostle speaks4 may have already made his appearance here below. So great are the fury and hatred with which religion is everywhere assailed, that it seems to be a determined effort to destroy every vestige of the relation between God and man. On the other hand,—and this is, according to the same Apostle, the special characteristic of Antichrist—with frightful presumption man is attempting to usurp the place of his Creator and is lifting himself above all that is called God. Thus, powerless to extinguish completely in himself the notion of God, he is attempting to shake off the yoke of His Majesty and is dedicating the visible world to himself as a temple, in which he has the pretension to receive the adoration of his fellow men. ‘So that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God.’ (II Thess., II, 4).”5
Both Pontiffs, namely, Leo XIII, and Blessed Pius X, with apostolic clear-sightedness and firmness, insist upon the steady advance of apostasy. And the apostasy they speak of is that prophesied by St. Paul.
Quote:“For neither in the language of the Apostle nor in that of the Sovereign Pontiffs,” writes Fr. Augustine Lémann, “is it a question of an apostasy, that is, of a partial and limited falling away, but of the apostasy, according to the forceful Greek expression with the definite article, that is to say, of the falling away of the nations and of a great number of Catholics from Jesus Christ and the Church . . .
“Do the words of Pope Pius X mean that Antichrist has already made his appearance in the world? That cannot be affirmed with any degree of certitude. These words must in all probability be interpreted in accordance with the following texts of St. John: ‘As you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists.’6 ‘And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God; and this is Antichrist of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the worlds.’7 ‘For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist.’8 Just as in the past, the true Christ, our divine Lord Jesus had forerunners or precursors, who were types and prophetical figures of Him: Abel, Isaac, Joseph, David, Jonas, etc. so, by the permission of God, Antichrist has his types and figures: Antiochus, Epiphanius, Nero, Diocletian, Galerius, Julian the Apostate, Mahomet, etc. To the names of those forerunners from the past, others could be added from the present. But what is especially sad and deplorable is that human social organisation, having become hostile [to our divine Lord and the supernatural life], and unwilling to recognise either His royal dignity or the existence of that life, is transforming itself, as Pope Pius X has remarked, into a veritable Antichrist. ‘So great are the fury and hatred with which religion is everywhere assailed,’ writes Pope Pius X, ‘that it seems to be a determined effort to destroy every vestige of the relation between God and man. On the other hand,—and this is, according to the same Apostle, the special characteristic of Antichrist with frightful presumption man is attempting to usurp the place of his creator and is lifting himself above all that is called God. Thus, powerless to extinguish completely in himself the notion of God, he is attempting to shake off the yoke of His majesty and is dedicating the visible world to himself as a temple, in which he has the pretension to receive the adoration of his fellow men. ‘So that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.’9
“In past ages, only evil men or impious sects were figures of Antichrist. In our day, it is man in general, the human race in revolt against God, which ranges itself along with the Antichrists of old, preparing the way for the outstanding Antichrist, Antichrist properly so called. This Antichrist properly so called is clearly foretold. If, in the texts cited above, St. John speaks only of wicked men who, animated with the spirit of Antichrist, can be considered as his fore-runners and deserve to be called by his name, he allows it to be understood, as does Pius X, that, towards the end of the world, somebody will appear who will be the furious adversary of our Lord, as the word Antichrist indicates.”10
ANTICHRIST IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
Let us now see what can be known about Antichrist from Scripture and Tradition.
Three portraits of Antichrist are to be found in the Bible.
Quote:The first is the “little horn that grows” in Daniel VII: “After this I beheld in the vision of the night, and lo, a fourth beast, terrible and wonderful and exceeding strong. It had great iron teeth eating and breaking in pieces, . . . it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and behold another little horn sprung out of the midst of them; and three of the first horns were plucked up at the presence thereof: and behold eyes like the eyes of a man were in this horn, and a mouth speaking great things . . . My spirit trembled, I, Daniel, was affrighted at these things, and the visions of my head troubled me. I went near to one of them that stood by, and asked the truth of him concerning all these things . . . and after this I would diligently learn concerning . . . the ten horns that he had on his head; and concerning the other that came up before which three horns fell: and of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth speaking great things, and was greater than the rest. I beheld, and lo, that horn made war against the saints, and prevailed over them . . . And thus he said . . . the ten horns of the same kingdom shall be ten kings: and another shall rise up after them, and he shall be mightier than the former, and he shall bring down three kings. And he shall speak words against the High One, and shall crush the saints of the Most High: and he shall think himself able to change times and laws, and they shall be delivered into his hand until a time and times, and half a time. And judgment shall sit, that his power may be taken away, and be broken in pieces, and perish even to the end.” (Daniel, VII, 7, 8, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26).
“In this little horn that grows, the Fathers, notably Saint Irenæus, Theodoret, Lactantius, St. Jerome, the modern Commentators, Maldonatus, Cornelius à Lapide, Calmet, etc., and many contemporary exegetes, have rightly seen a figure of Antichrist. The horn is the symbol of strength and power. It is the great offensive and defensive arm of certain animals. Before the Assyrian discoveries it was rather difficult to explain why Daniel had chosen this symbol to represent Antichrist. To-day it seems quite natural. In Chaldæa where the prophet was then living, the statues of the Babylonian gods and kings had horns on their tiaras.”11
The second portrait is that of the Beast in the Apocalypse.
Quote:“And I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten diadems, and upon his heads names of blasphemy. And the beast, which I saw, was like a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his own strength, and great power . . . And all the earth was in admiration after the beast. And they adored the dragon, which gave power to the beast: and they adored the beast, saying: Who is like to the beast? and who shall be able to fight with him? And there was given to him a mouth speaking great things, and blasphemies: and power was given to him to do two and forty months. And he opened his mouth unto blasphemies against God, and to blaspheme His name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation. And all that dwell upon the earth adored him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb, which was slain from the beginning of the world.”12
“That the Beast is the figure of Antichrist has been the common opinion of Catholic commentators from ancient times to the present day. The use of the expression, ‘the Beast,’ shows that in the being in question, the bestial character will dominate instead of human feelings and sentiments. The coat of a leopard, the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion indicate also that he will combine cunning, ferocity and strength.”13
The third portrait of Antichrist is that of the man of sin in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.
Quote:‘Unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the on of perdition, Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God . . . And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: that they all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”14
“There is no doubt,” writes St. Augustine, “that the Apostle is here speaking of Antichrist.”15
“From these three portraits,” continues Father Lémann, “it is possible to deduce a number of conclusions with regard to the person, the reign, the persecution and the end of Antichrist. These conclusions can be classified under four headings as follows:
A. Things that are certain.
B. Things that are probable.
C. Things that are undecided.
D. Things that have not a solid foundation.”16
Space will permit of only a brief outline of what is contained under A, B, and C.
A. Things concerning Antichrist that are certain.
I. Antichrist will be a trial for the good (Apoc., XIII, 7), and a chastisement for the impious and the apostates (II Thess., II, 9-11).
II. Antichrist will be a man, a human person.
“Antichrist is not a myth or a fiction, as Renan, in his silly fashion, tried to show.17 Neither must he be confused with a sect, a collection of impious men, an atheistic environment, or a period of persecution, as certain pious persons have imagined. Antichrist will be a human person, appearing in an epoch of atheism and of wicked sectaries.”18
III. Antichrist will not be Satan in human form, but a man and only a man.19
IV. Antichrist will have great powers of seduction, owing to certain personal qualities.
“Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish.” (II. Thess., II, 9, 10).
V. The beginnings of Antichrist’s career will be lowly and obscure.20
VI. Antichrist will increase in power and make conquests.
VII. The rule of Antichrist will be world-wide.
“With the help which will be furnished him by the anti-Christian societies, this enemy of our Lord Jesus Christ will be able to form a gigantic empire in a short time.”21
VIII. Antichrist will wage a terrible war against God and the Church.
Father Lémann indicates some of the measures which, to judge by the experience of past persecutions, Antichrist will enforce more thoroughly and more cruelly than ever before. Two of them are: Proscription of Christian teaching and obligatory teaching of error. We can see them already in force in the countries behind the Iron Curtain. Father Lémann adds that “the schools without God or rather against God are a preparation for the second measure.” In that he is perfectly correct, for the Declaration of the Rights of Man of the French Revolution, in the name of which these schools function in France, signified repudiation of membership of Christ, and was thus a declaration of war on the divine plan for order.22
IX. Antichrist will claim to be God and will demand exclusive adoration.
X. By means of diabolical prodigies, Antichrist will seek to prove that he is God.
“Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders.” (II. Thess., II, 9).23
“The question is often asked,” writes St. Augustine, “whether these expressions ‘signs and lying wonders’ are to be understood in the sense that the prodigies wrought by Antichrist will be only apparent, not real; or as signifying that the really extraordinary feats performed by him will draw on to error and falsehood those who accept them as proofs of a divine mission? The great Doctor replies: “This will be known later.”24
“This hesitation has given rise to two currents of opinion. Some think that the prodigies wrought by Antichrist will be real prodigies and that they will lead to the acceptance of falsehood, that is, to belief in the divinity of Antichrist.25 Others hold that all the miracles of Antichrist will be false and unreal and that they will be accepted as true thanks to the action of the demon on the senses of his followers.”26
XI. The domination and persecution of Antichrist will be merely temporary. The man of sin will be destroyed (Dan., VII, 26; Apoc., XIX, 20; II Thess., II, 8).
B. Things concerning Antichrist that are probable.
First Probability.
The Jews will acclaim Antichrist as the Messias and will help to set up his kingdom.
“I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. (St. John, V, 43).
“It is upon this reproach addressed by our Lord Jesus Christ to the Jews, his contemporaries and adversaries, that this belief is based, and it can be said that it is the common opinion of the Fathers of the Church, for example, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Ephraim, St. John Chrysostom, etc., etc.,27 . . . When we see the enormous financial power of the Jews increasing daily, when we consider their intrigues, their successful occupancy of the chief places in the principal states, their mutual understanding from one end of the world to the other, then in presence of such a preponderance, we have no difficulty in realising that they will be able to contribute to the establishment of the formidable empire of Antichrist. The joyous welcome the Jews will give to Antichrist and the aid they will furnish him are therefore probable. They are not certain. Why? Because most of the texts of the Fathers refer to the words of St. John, V, 43, addressed by our Divine Lord to the Jews, and in connexion with this text, St. Thomas remarks that, after the true Christ, a great number of false Messiahs had appeared and had been welcomed by the Jews. Accordingly, this text considered by itself might be held to refer, not to Antichrist, but to anyone of these false Christs. Nevertheless, adds St. Thomas, this text can be held to refer to Antichrist with probability, because of the authority of the holy Fathers who have so understood it.”28
Unfortunately, Father Lémann is quoting from an opusculum attributed to St. Thomas, which, according to Père Mandonnet, O.P., is not authentic.29 The erudite Dominican historian definitely places it amongst the apocryphal writings attributed to the holy Doctor. On the same page, however, Father Lémann refers to Suarez, De Antichristo, which contains the same doctrine in practically identical terms. “This text probably refers to Antichrist,” writes the learned Jesuit theologian, “on account of the authority of the Saints whom I have quoted. Nevertheless, taken by itself its doctrine is not compelling, because, since the time of Christ, several on their own authority have pretended to be the Messiah and have been welcomed by the Jews, as is evident from Josephus (De Bello Judaico, Lib. 2, c. 6) . . . And we read in Acts VIII, that Simon the Magician pretended to be the Messiah and that many Jews believed in him. The words of Christ can be applied not to one alone but to all those false Messiahs . . . The former explanation, however, as I have said, is the better, for there is one whom the Jews expect and one whom they will all welcome. The others who pretended to be the Messiah were not received by all the Jews, but only by a certain few.”30
Second Probability.
The Persecution of Antichrist will last three years and a half.
“And they [the Saints] shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time” (Dan., VII, 25). “And power was given him to do two and forty months.” (Apoc., XIII, 5).
“It has been pointed out previously (Eleventh Point that is certain), that the power and the persecution of Antichrist will be only temporary. That is certain. Is it possible to determine their exact duration? One can give only a probable, not a certain, answer, according to the two texts quoted.”31
C. Things that are undecided.
These are points that are not based upon the unanimous consent of the Fathers or upon precise texts of Holy Writ.
First Undecided Point. The Nationality of Antichrist.
“According to several Fathers of the Church, followed by certain exegetes, Antichrist will be a member of the Jewish race and even of the tribe of Dan. ‘Here, however,’ remarks Bossuet, ‘it is a question not of dogma or of authority, but of conjecture.’32 And it must be added that these conjectures do not rest on any solid foundation.”33 Father Lémann then takes the different arguments advanced in favour of the Jewish nationality of Antichrist and replies to them. To the objection, taken from Malvanda, De Antichristo, that it is probable that the Jews will receive Antichrist as the Messias and that they would not do this if he were not of the Jewish race, Father Lémann replies: “Down the centuries, the Jews have welcomed all the enemies of Jesus Christ and His Church and have constituted themselves their auxiliaries. In the Great Sanhedrin, held at Paris in 1807, they applied the Biblical titles, exclusively reserved to the Messias, to Napoleon, though Napoleon was not of Jewish blood.34 They even welcomed the principles of the French Revolution as the Messias: ‘The Messias came for us on Feb. 28, 1790, with the Declaration of the Rights of 35 He sums up as follows: “The Jewish nationality of Antichrist remains an undecided question. It is neither certain, nor probable. It is merely possible, nothing more.”36
Second Undecided Point. The Name of Antichrist.
“St. John has indicated it, but in an extremely mysterious manner, by giving merely the number of this name: “That no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name . . . He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man; and the number of him is six hundred and sixty-six“ (Apoc., XIII, 17, 18).
“Amongst the people; of antiquity, and particularly amongst the Hebrews, the Greeks and the Latins, the letters of the alphabet were used as numbers. Each letter had its numerical value. That gave rise to the following procedure: By adding together the numerical value of the letters used in a passage, a number was obtained, and with the letters which were represented by this total, a name was elaborated. As the number of the Beast was 666, the figures of this number were changed into letters and thus form the mysterious name of Antichrist. This was tried in Greek, in Hebrew and in Latin, but it was sheer waste of time. The results obtained were so different that no precise definitive conclusion could be drawn.”37
Third Undecided Point. The Seat of Antichrist’s Empire.
“Here again there are two opinions. The first is that of St. Irenæus who writes as follows: “At the time of his reign, Antichrist will transfer the seat of his empire to the earthly Jerusalem.”38, St. Hippolytus, Sulpicius Severus, Aretas, Rabanus, St. Robert Bellarmine, Lessius, Cornelius à Lapide and others, including Suarez, are of the same opinion. Here are the words of the last-named theologian: ‘From what we have said about Antichrist being a Jew by race and finding his chief support among the Jews, it follows immediately that he will restore the city of their ancestors and its temple, in which they have always taken a special pride.’39 . . . Besides, if Antichrist were to act otherwise, how could he get himself accepted as the Messias by the Jews who dream of earthly glory for Jerusalem and imagine that that city will become the capital of the future Messianic kingdom. This last argument seems to become stronger in our times thanks to the rise and growth of Zionism . . . The second opinion designates the Rome of the Popes as the metropolis of Antichrist’s kingdom.”40
Fourth Undecided Point. The Temple in which Antichrist will present himself for adoration.
“Who opposeth and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.” (II. Thess., II, 4).41
“What temple will be the scene of this abomination?
“One opinion maintains that it will be the temple of Jerusalem, which will be restored by Antichrist either in whole or in part. This opinion is held by St. Irenæus, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Damascene, and a certain number of exegetes, ancient and modern. According to them the word temple must be taken in its strict, literal meaning. For, they argue, in the time of St. Paul, the author of the Epistles to the Thessalonians, the Temple of Jerusalem was the Temple. The name was sufficient indication of the building that was meant, as is clear from St. Luke (Acts, III and V), and other texts. At that epoch, Christian temples did not yet exist, and the Temple of Jerusalem alone was called the Temple of God. Accordingly, ‘it is more probable,’ writes Suarez, ‘that it is of it that St. Paul speaks.”42
“Opposed to this view there is another, which affirms that it is not definitely proved that St. Paul, when speaking of the Temple of God, had in view the Temple of Jerusalem. St. Jerome, in his explanation of the Apostle’s words writes: ‘He will enthrone himself in the Temple of God, that is to say, either in Jerusalem as some think, or in the Church, which seems to me most likely.’43 St. John Chrysostom also says: ‘Not in the Temple of Jerusalem, but in the Temple of the Church.’44 Theodoretus explains clearly what is meant: ‘What the Apostle calls the Temple of God are the churches in which this impious wretch will occupy the first rank, the first place, striving to get himself accepted as God.’45 . . . This is also the opinion of St. Hilary, Cajetan, Estius and others. In presence of the division of opinion in his day, St. Augustine held that the question was undecided.”46
THE DATE OF THE COMING OF ANTICHRIST
“Nobody can indicate it, as Scripture and Tradition are both silent on the point. God alone knows the year and the hour, and it is His secret . . .In Chapters XXIV-XXV of St. Matthew, our Lord announces clearly the end of the world and outlines the signs that will precede it, but He does not fix a date. Following the example of his Master, St. Paul, in the Second Chapter of the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, announces clearly the coming of Antichrist, but he does not assign a date for that event. He merely indicates the sign that will precede it, namely, the Apostasy of the Nations: ‘Unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”47
DECREE OF THE FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL
The Church, guided by the Holy Ghost and always prudent, has added nothing to the brief remarks of the Apostle . . . What is more, in order to prevent the recurrence of indiscretions which had taken place, she has forbidden under pain of excommunication to assign a date for the coming of Antichrist or for the General Judgment. This decree was drawn up in 1516, at the Fifth Lateran Council, under Pope Leo X, and it runs as follows:
Quote:‘We command all those who exercise the function of preaching or will do so in the future, not to presume, either in their sermons or in their affirmations, to fix a date for future evils, whether for the coming of Antichrist or for the Day of Judgment, seeing that the Truth has said: It is not for you to know the times or the moments, which the Father hath put in his own power.48 Those, therefore, who have had the audacity to make such statements in the past have lied, and it is well known that, on their account, the authority of those who preach wisely has greatly suffered.’”49
Footnotes:
1L’Antéchrist was published in 1905 by the Librarie Catholique Emmannel Vitte of Lyons and Paris. (back)
2Psalm II, 1. (back)
3Job, XXI, 14. (back)
4II Thess., II, 3. (back)
5Encyclical Letter, E Supremi Apostolatus Cathedra, Oct. 4, 1903. The translation has been made from the original text as published by the Bonne Presse, Paris. (back)
6I St. John, II, 18. (back)
7I St. John, IV, 3. (back)
8II St. John, I. 7. (back)
9Encyclical Letter, E Supremi Apostolatus Cathedra. Oct. 4, 1903. (back)
10L’Antéchrist, by Father Augustine Lémann, pp. 11-15. (back)
11L’Antéchrist, by Father A. Lémann, pp. 18, 19. (back)
12Apocalypse, XIII, 1-8. (back)
13L’Antéchrist, by Father A. Lémann, p. 20. (back)
14II Ep. to the Thessalonians, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11. (back)
15The City of God, Bk. XX, n. 19. (back)
16L’Antéchrist, p. 22. (back)
17Renan, L’Antéchrist, (Paris, 1873, pp. 478, 479). (back)
18L’Antéchrist, by Father Lémann, p. 24. (back)
19Suarez, De Antichristo, Sect. 1, n. 4 and 5. (back)
20“I considered the horns, and behold another little horn sprung out of the midst of them.” (Dan., VII, 8).
“The horn is called small, because it will grow little by little, and because it will arrive at domination, not by hereditary right, but by fraud.” (Cornelius à Lapide, in Ep. ad Thess., II, 11). (back)
21L’Antéchrist, by Father Lémann, p. 30. Father Lémann quotes a remarkable page from the great Spanish writer, Donoso Cortès, Oeuvres, t. II, pp. 229-230. (back)
22L’Antéchrist, pp. 32-34. (back)
23“He will come, when he comes, with all Satan’s influence to aid him: there will be no lack of power, of counterfeit signs and wonders.” (The New Testament, by Mgr. R. A. Knox). (back)
24De Civitate Dei, Lib. XX, n. 20. (back)
25Suarez, De Antichristo, sect. IV, n. 10. Suarez exposes the two opinions in excellent fashion. (back)
26Corn. à Lap., II Thess., II, 9. Bern. a Piconio, II Ep. ad Thess., c. II, 9. (back)
27Father Lémann quotes from the writings of the above-mentioned Fathers and others. The text of St. Jerome will suffice for all. “The Lord speaking of Antichrist says to the Jews: ‘I am come in the name of my Father and you receive me not; if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive’ . . . The Jews, after having despised the truth in the Person of Jesus Christ, will welcome falsehood by acclaiming Antichrist” (Epist. 151, ad Algariam, quæst. II). (back)
28L’Antéchrist, pp. 44.47. (back)
29Des Écrits authentiques de St. Thomas d’Aquin, pp. 110, 155. (back)
30De Antichristo, Disp. 54, Sect. 1, n. 7. In a note on page 47 of L’Antéchrist, Father Lémann enumerates 25 false messiahs, who received a partial welcome from the members of the Jewish nation. In their joint work, La Question du Messis (pp. 22-24), the two Fathers Lémann enumerate with a greater wealth of detail the twenty-five false Messiahs, and conclude with the words: “Not merely once, not merely ten times, but twenty five times, our ancestors were led astray by this mirage. Because they failed to recognise the true Messiah, they were drawn to seek Him where He was not.” (back)
31L’Antéchrist, p. 48. “The supreme power and reign of Antichrist will last three years and a half. I speak of his supreme power and rule . . . How long he will take to prepare and establish his rule is not clear to me . . . It does not seem very likely that he will accomplish all these things in the short space of three years and a half. That alone is certain that at the most he will remain on his throne three years and a half.” (Suarez, De Antichristo, Sect. II, n. 3). (back)
32Apocalypse, Preface, n. 13. (back)
33L’Antéchrist, by Father Lémann, p. 49. (back)
34Minutes of the Great Sanhedrin. (back)
35Archives Israélites, 1847, p. 801. (back)
36L’Antéchrist, by Father Lémann, p. 49. (back)
37L’ Antéchrist, pp. 58-61. (back)
38Irenæus, Adv. hæreses, lib. V, c. 25. (back)
39Suarez, De Antichristo, sect. V, n. 7. (back)
40L’Antéchrist. pp. 58-61. (back)
41“This is the rebel who is to lift up his head above every divine name, above all that men hold in reverence, till at last he enthrones himself in God’s temple, and proclaims himself as God.” (The New Testament, by Mgr. R. A. Knox). (back)
42Suarez, De Antichristo, Sect. V, n. 5. (back)
43St. Jerome, Ad Algariam, quæst. II. (back)
44In II ad Thessal., II. (back)
45In II ad Thessal., II. (back)
46St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, Lib. XX, n. 19. (back)
47II ad Thess., II, 3. “The Apostasy must come first; the champion of wickedness must appear first, destined to inherit perdition.” (The New Testament, Mgr. R. A. Knox). The Apostasy and Antichrist are to come before “the day of the Lord,” spoken of just previously. (back)
48Cf. Acts, 1, 7. (back)
49Father Lémann quotes the original text in a footnote. (back)
Source
|
|
|
|
| In One Day Leo Promotes 3 Bishops Linked to Spirit Rites, Pachamama, and the Lodge |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-09-2026, 08:22 AM - Forum: Pope Leo XIV
- No Replies
|
|
In One Day Leo XIV Promotes Three Bishops Linked to Spirit Rites, Pachamama, and the Masonic Lodge
Three bishops linked to pagan rites and Masonic associations receive appointments
as Leo XIV continues the doctrinal and liturgical policies of Francis.
![[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...72x941.png]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/%24s_!SilJ!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6e45c04d-86ce-4167-8932-eb02aa95bd40_1672x941.png)
Hiraeth in Exile | November 9, 2026
On November 7, 2026, the Vatican announced three episcopal appointments. In Guinea-Bissau, a bishop whose consecration had been preceded by an animist ceremony described as an evocation of spirits was transferred to the country’s capital. In Paraguay, a bishop whose record includes indigenous rituals before Mass and participation in a synodal gathering featuring a figure identified as Pachamama received a new diocese. In Cuba, a prelate whose episcopal installation had been attended by Communist Party officials and representatives of Masonic lodges was promoted to metropolitan archbishop.
All three appointments appeared in the same Vatican bulletin.
What a splendid Saturday for the much-advertised renewal under Leo XIV.
The same authorities who speak endlessly about sensitivity toward non-Christian traditions have demonstrated considerably less patience toward priests attached to the inherited Roman liturgy. The contrast deserves examination.
Read more here: https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/in-o...otes-three
|
|
|
|
| Our Lady of Almudena - November 9 |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-09-2026, 08:12 AM - Forum: Our Lady
- No Replies
|
|
Our Lady of Almudena - November 9
![[Image: 153_almudena_site.jpg]](https://www.traditioninaction.org/SOD/SODimages4/153_almudena_site.jpg)
Our Lady in the Almudena Cathedral
TIA [adapted]
The devotion to Our Lady of Almudena, patroness of Madrid, began in the 11th century. Tradition tells us that when Dom Alfonso VI conquered Madrid in 1083, he immediately ordered the purification of the Church of Santa Maria, which had been profaned by the Moors.
Since the statue of Our Lady, which the Apostle St. James had placed in that building in the early days of the Chuch, had disappeared, the King, together with the religious authorities, made a procession praying to Our Lord to help them find the statue. The pious cortege processed around the walls of the city, singing and praying.
At a certain moment, part of the wall fell and they found the statue of Our Lady that had been hidden there for over 300 years. On either side of the statue were two candles – still lighted and burning – that Catholics had placed there in homage of the Virgin before closing the niche where they had hidden her statue. Almudena means market or granary, and this name was given to the statue because the place where it was hidden was near the Moorish granary.
✝ ✝ ✝
November 9: Our Lady of Almudena, Madrid, Spain
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegeographicalcure...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegeographicalcure.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F03%2FIMG_8473-1530x2048.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=3a3602d7acf077674272fea12f632f9e22c0c46891133c7157eb215682ce7a61&ipo=images)
Roman Catholic Saints
According to tradition this statue, Our Lady of Almudena, was carved out of cedar and juniper by Saint Necodemus to propagate devotion to the Virgin Mary. It was polychromed by Saint Luke. The apostle Saint James gave it to Saint Calocero, who built a small chapel where it was displayed on the height of Cuesta de la Vega in present day Madrid. This sanctuary was free of the profanations during the persecutions suffered by the Christians in Gothic Spain. It became a large church during the fourth century under the Emperor Constantine.
During the Arab invasion of the 8th Century, the Christians of Old Madrid hid the image of Mary to avoid its being profaned or destroyed. It was sealed in a niche formed in one of the dados of the ramparts in a section close to the shrine. Once the statue was placed there in the year 714, they covered the place over so that it looked like an ordinary mending of the ramparts.
For three centuries and a half the Mohammedans were in Madrid. The shrine was briefly turned into a Mosque, but in 1083 Alfonso VI conquered Madrid and after the old shrine was purified and converted back into a church dedicated to Mary. King Alfonso ordered that on the wall of the major chapel a picture of the Blessed Virgin be painted to take the place of the lost image. In the course of centuries knowledge of the whereabouts of the statue had been hidden and lost.
After many efforts, the king determined to celebrate a novena of prayers, fasts, and penances as well as almsgiving, asking heaven to grant that the image be found. At the end of the novena, a procession took place on November 9, 1085. It was supposed to leave the church of Our Lady and march around the walls of the city. When the procession, in which the king himself and many other notables marched, came opposite to where the statue was hidden, the stones of the wall fell away and the statue was revealed in the niche with two candles on either side that were still miraculously alight, having burned continuously for over three-hundred years!
The next day the statue was taken to the church. All of Madrid celebrated a festival of great jubilation. The statue was borne by four prelates and carried to the church of Our Lady. It was given the name of Nuestra Senora de la Almudena, Our Lady of Almudena, for the statue was hidden near a Moorish granary.
King Alfonso VI ordered the building of a larger church which was given over to the Augustinians. In 1664 the municipal government of Madrid decided to participate in the feast and the procession celebrated in honor of the Holy Patroness.
When the church was torn down in 1868, the statue was taken to the church in the Calle del Sacramento.
|
|
|
|
|
