| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 342
» Latest member: Stoutyx
» Forum threads: 8,629
» Forum posts: 15,579
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 422 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 415 Guest(s)
Applebot, Baidu, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Facebook, Google, Twitter
|
|
|
| On the Power of God's Word |
|
Posted by: Stone - 3 hours ago - 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 - 10 hours ago - 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 - 10 hours ago - 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 - 10 hours ago - 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.
|
|
|
|
| On the Duty of Resisting Error |
|
Posted by: Stone - Yesterday, 09:39 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- Replies (3)
|
|
One Who Is Silent before Error Is Repulsive to God
Pope Leo XIII exhorted us in Sapientiae Christinae of January 10, 1890, to defend and proclaim the truth of the Catholic Faith at all times without fail. To safeguard the integrity of the Faith, he insists, is a duty that belongs to each one of the faithful and not just those with power of rule. Further, one who keeps silence in face of error is repulsive to God and unworthy of eternal salvation. These are important lessons for the progressivist clergy and laymen in our days.
Pope Leo XIII:
But in the same matter, touching Christian Faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance necessary at all times in the interest of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days.
Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion it is, as we have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping.
But when necessity compels, not only those who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of the Faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains, each one is under obligation to show forth his faith either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.
To recoil before an enemy or to keep silence when from all sides such clamor is raised against truth, belongs to a man either devoid of character or one who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is shameful and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of Faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good.
Moreover, lack of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions. And, by always exerting themselves more strenuously, they might count upon being successful.
Leo XIII, Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae
of January 10, 1890, n. 14
Adapted from here.
|
|
|
|
| Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces - November 8 |
|
Posted by: Stone - Yesterday, 08:30 AM - Forum: Our Lady
- No Replies
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Bh...ipo=images]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-BhDZcKQuvHI%2FUaft0zN5HZI%2FAAAAAAAAHuo%2FRRLq-GZal8Q%2Fs1600%2FMediatrix%2Bof%2Ball%2BGraces.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=23e1641b23f11f34a9f00b4b0f3dd1f33254055681fe5606c03f505de7ac5d4b&ipo=images)
Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces
Taken from here.
This title of Our Lady means that anything we get from God we get when Mary asks it, as she asks it, and to the degree with which she makes her request. She is the Mother of all favors for everyone. God will not listen to any prayer that is not offered to Him through the intercession of Mary, the Mother of God. This is the constant teaching of saints and Popes. The Mass of Our Lady, Mediatrix of All Graces, was approved by Pope Benedict XV in 1921.
Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces
November 8
Taken from here.
This devotion honors Our Lady as a cooperating agent in the plan of God from the Incarnation of Jesus Christ to the Redemption. Mary was the intermediary between Jesus and St. John the Baptist, sanctifying him before his birth. She was the one who asked Christ to make His first miracle at the wedding of Canaan before his public life had begun.
Our Lady is Mediatrix
During the Passion, she followed Him in every step of his sufferings, showing us that she was associated in the mission of reparation for the sins of mankind. After the Resurrection, the Holy Ghost descended upon her first, and then upon the Apostles, showing that she was the mediatrix of the graces for the nascent Church. By her divine maternity Mary became Co-Redemptix, taking on the role of Mediatrix of all graces.
In 1921 Pope Benedict XV instituted November 8 as the feast day of Our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces.
A text by St. Louis Grignion de Montfort expresses this truth admirably:
Quote:"Only Mary found grace before God (Luke 1:30) without the help of any other creature. And after her, all those who found grace before God found it only through her. Mary was full of grace when the Archangel Gabriel saluted her (Luke 1:28) and was filled with grace when the Holy Ghost so mysteriously overshadowed her (Luke 1:35).
"From day to day, from moment to moment, she increased so much this twofold plenitude that she attained an immense and inconceivable degree of grace. So much so, that the Almighty made of her the sole custodian of His treasures and sole dispenser of all His graces, so that she might ennoble, exalt and enrich all she chooses. She can lead them along the narrow path to Heaven and guide them through the narrow gate to life. She can give a royal throne, scepter and crown to whomever she wishes. Jesus is always and everywhere the Fruit and Son of Mary, and Mary is everywhere the true tree that bears the Fruit of life, the true Mother who bears that Son.” (True Devotion to Mary, n. 44)
|
|
|
|
| The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-07-2026, 08:17 PM - Forum: Resources Online
- Replies (1)
|
|
The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries
The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries.
With a Preface by His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster.
London: Burns and Oates, Limited.
New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benziger Brothers.
1893.
By Thomas Livius, M.A., Priest of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. Author of "S. Peter, Bishop of Rome," etc.
Dedication
To His Eminence Herbert Cardinal Vaughan, Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Priest of the Title of San Gregorio on the Caelian Hill.
My Lord Cardinal,
I am very grateful to your Eminence for having permitted me to dedicate this book to you, and that you have so kindly promised to write for it some words of preface.
It struck me as a circumstance of happy omen that the publication of my volume on S. Peter's Roman Episcopate, should, after several years' labour, coincide with the Sacerdotal Jubilee of Our Holy Father Leo XIII., and be dedicated to the illustrious Cardinal Newman. And it now affords me increased encouragement that this Patristic work in testimony of Our Lady's privileges, should, at length, appear in the year of His Episcopal Jubilee, and be dedicated to your Eminence, who has, in conjunction with all the Bishops of the Province of Westminster, so recently made the solemn act of consecrating our country anew to the Blessed Virgin and S. Peter, at the initiation of the Supreme Pontiff, and after his explicit recognition of England's claim to her ancient and glorious Title of "The Dowry of Mary."
I remain,
My Lord Cardinal,
With much respect,
Your devoted Servant,
T. LIVIUS, C.SS.R.
Preface by His Eminence
This work, to which I gladly prefix a few words of preface, will become a standard book of reference. It was much needed. That which its author had already done for S. Peter, he has now successfully accomplished for the Blessed Virgin Mary. And I am not depreciating his former work by saying that his latter is by far the more important — the more important because, whereas many books have been published containing ample reference to the acknowledgment of S. Peter's authority in the primitive Church, none has hitherto been presented to the English public setting forth the copious testimonies of the writers of the first six centuries to the doctrinal position in the Church of the Blessed Mother of God. This is the task fulfilled in the volume, The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries.
This work is destined to render a double service: first, it will deepen and strengthen the devotion of Catholics to the Blessed Virgin, by setting before them the witness to her prerogatives and to her position, afforded by the earliest Fathers of the Church; it will teach them how closely they are united in sentiment as in faith with the Fathers and Christian writers of the first six centuries; it will supply them with spiritual food by opening to them a granary of golden and delicious corn, the door of which had hitherto been in great measure closed to them. Knowledge, instruction, meditation, piety, and love, concerning Mary, are all combined in rich proportions in the abundant harvest which F. Livius has gathered in from the writings of the early Fathers.
The second service rendered is second only in importance to the first. She, whose office it has been to "destroy all heresies," has ever been a stumbling-block in the way of non-Catholics. It could hardly be otherwise than that the Tower of David, the Ark of the Covenant, the Gate of Heaven should present a sensible and formidable obstacle to the progress of error. She, whose foot was destined to crush the serpent's head, must ever stand in her calm beauty and power as an enemy in the path of the seed of the serpent. But there is a vast multitude of non-Catholics whose souls are being drawn back from the errors they have inherited to the Church of Christ. It is not enough to show them the love which the present children of God bear to the Mother of God; it is not enough to point out to them the devotion and faith of England during a period of a thousand years. All this, in their ignorance and prejudice, they explain away as parasitical overgrowth, attributable, they say, to the distinguishing character of the middle ages, and to man's proclivity to corruption and superstition.
What is needed is to remount the stream of testimony to its source — to exhibit without apology or hesitation our own devotion to Mary — to set forth, as in the Dowry of Mary, the history of the devotion of our Catholic English ancestors to her, up to the seventh century — and then to gather together and display before the eyes of all men, who have eyes to see, the teaching of the primitive Church, as attested in the writings of the first six centuries, as to the position and the prerogatives of the Blessed Mother of God.
The obiter dicta and incidental expressions of those ancient writers on such a subject as Mary are as valuable and as clear an indication of the direction taken by the mind and heart of the Church, during its early youth, as the more developed and studied treatises by writers in modern times are of their own belief and of that of their co-religionists. The faith is the same. But the Church is neither a mechanical nor a petrified creation. She is a living Bride, the Bride of the Lamb. She, like Mary in the Gospel, is "ever pondering in her heart over the things she has heard" in the original revelation made to her by the Bridegroom. And as she gives utterance to the thoughts of her heart in the language and expression which become them, she is perpetually testifying to the truth, the fulness, the life and the joy of the things which she originally heard. Thus you will find in the teaching of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, the Gregorys, Ephrem, Ambrose and other writers of the first six centuries on Mary's position as the Second Eve, on her excellence, her sanctity, and her power, the teaching of S. Alphonsus and of Blessed Grignon de Montfort and others, who have in modern days popularised devotion to Mary. The truth is ever the same, all through the centuries, carefully guarded by the authority of the Church; but the language in which it is clothed, in which it is conveyed to the mind of the people, is the language of the day, the language which is spoken and understood. And the more the original seed of truth becomes triturated by the devout mind, generation after generation, the more pervasive becomes its fragrance.
I trust that this most valuable addition to our literature upon the Office of Mary in the work of our Redemption and sanctification, will meet with the cordial reception which it deserves from devout Catholics, on the one hand, and from sincere and earnest inquirers outside the Church, on the other.
It is a pleasing incident to record that it has been granted to two sons of S. Alphonsus Mary de Liguori, to give to the English-speaking peoples two standard works on Mary, one dealing with the Devotion of England to Mary from the sixteenth century up to the time of the primitive Church, in his admirable volume, England, Our Lady's Dowry, and the other, completing the period of testimony, by exhaustively gathering together the witnesses, who still speak with no uncertain sound, as to the teaching of the Church about Mary, "the Second Eve," "the Mother of the living," during the first six centuries of the Christian era.
HERBERT CARD. VAUGHAN,
Archbishop of Westminster.
Octave of the Assumption, 1893.
Author's Preface
No one, I suppose, can entertain any doubt as to the general belief and cultus that prevailed amongst Catholics with regard to the Blessed Virgin Mary from the seventh and eighth centuries, through the middle ages, down to the period of the Protestant Reformation. For the numerous works that still survive of men eminent for their sanctity and theological science, as Ildephonsus, John Damascene, Anselm, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and many more, who wrote so profusely in her honour and proclaimed her privileges with such great explicitness — as well as the numberless examples of public and private devotion to her to be found in religious biographies, general literature, and historical records of those times — make it quite evident that the attitude of the faithful to Our Lady was then much the same as that of Catholics in the present day. Those too who may be unacquainted with the works I have alluded to must share the same conviction. For we all have still before our very eyes material monuments which bear visible witness to that past faith and devotion. I mean, we have in our midst, whether yet standing or in ruins, so many old cathedrals and churches, monasteries and abbeys, that were raised to Our Lady's name, with their shrines and other memorials in her honour; whilst in countries abroad there are ancient images and pictures, which are still held in veneration by the faithful, and carry down with them a long record of her miraculous favours, and of the people's devotion. Then again, there are so many religious Orders of men and women that have handed down in unbroken succession the same spirit, belief, and devotional practices regarding Our Lady, as they received in their origin.
Herein is a sensible continuity of the past with the present, which forms in men's minds what we may call a veritable actual memory, and is an argument which brings home the truth more forcibly and distinctly than do any proofs derivable from ancient documents.
If aught more were needed, there is the living witness of the existing generations of Catholics here at home and abroad, that have inherited in direct line, and bear testimony to the belief and practices of their forefathers in the same religious faith. Whilst, on the other hand, the notorious fact of the Reformation, and that so many have followed its tenets even to the present day, serves of itself continually to keep alive the memory of what was held about the Blessed Virgin in those former ages, and of the veneration that was then paid to her; since it was the repudiation of this belief and devotion as superstitious, that formed in great part the very reason of the first origin of the Reformation, and of the continued existence of Protestantism as a religion.
I have thus endeavoured to account for the clear and distinct conviction that is universally held of the Blessed Virgin's prominence in Catholic faith and devotion during the Middle Ages, in order the better to illustrate, by way of contrast, the difference of view that is generally taken as to the place which Our Lady occupied in the minds and hearts of Christians during the first six centuries of the Church's history.
Here there is no unanimity, but great diversity of sentiment; people's opinions are for the most part only half-formed, or formed from very insufficient data, on this side or that, according to their religious bias. Some perhaps will go so far as to maintain that the practical exhibition of devotion to the Blessed Virgin was the same in those earlier centuries as in later times; whilst others persistently assert that there was nothing in the primitive Church at all similar or corresponding to the doctrinal system and cultus of Our Lady which have prevailed from medieval times until the present day. All this, they say, was an after-growth quite unknown to the older Fathers, which first began to show itself in the seventh and eighth centuries. Between these two extremes opinions vary with more or less vagueness.
There are many causes for this general diversity and indefiniteness of view on the matter.
First, in the case of the Early Church, we have none of what, for lack of a better term, I called sensible continuity, which serves so much to give us definite notions, and in some sort an actual memory of the real truth in medieval times. Having lost all the religious surroundings of those first centuries, and having no longer any direct results surviving from them, we can hardly picture them to our minds, and how things then happened — at least with any certainty that our picture rightly corresponds to the reality.
It seems to belong to our intellectual nature, that when we hear or read about something of past or distant occurrence, we at once form in our mind, at any rate implicitly, sensible images derived in some way from our experimental knowledge; and by clothing with this imagery the simple ideas presented to our intelligence, we give to what is abstract a concrete shape, and thus assimilate and bring home to our full consciousness the recorded event, realising it more or less vividly in its circumstances. And so far as the subjective images correspond to their objective realities, so also is our mental view of the occurrence accurate and true.
We are now, however, divided by so great an interval from those early centuries, that our break-off from all their ordinary associations is complete. The learned, no doubt, who have made a special study of the first ages of the Church, and are better acquainted with the circumstances that then surrounded the faith and religious life of Christians, will so far be able to gain a clearer view and to approximate to the truth with regard to the attitude of the faithful in those days towards the Blessed Virgin. But most people are not learned, and their ideas on the subject are very vague; or should they have formed for themselves any definite judgment, it is of no real value, being pretty sure to be wide of the truth.
I may be here allowed to apply to our subject two terms of which Cardinal Newman discourses so largely in his Grammar of Assent, and say that the knowledge generally possessed of the Blessed Virgin's place in Medieval religion is a real knowledge, whilst that obtainable of the same in the first six centuries is of a notional character. In making this distinction I would by no means imply that there is less of objective certainty in the latter than in the former kind of knowledge; or, in other words, that truth is less the object of, and actually attainable by notional knowledge than it is by real knowledge; but the difference, conveyed by the two terms, lies rather, as I conceive, in the mind's subjective conviction of truth, and in the means whereby subjective certainty is arrived at.
What, then, was the doctrine held concerning the Blessed Virgin, both in its nature and extent, together with the actual devotion paid to her during the first six centuries of Christianity, is not now to be learnt by any sensible aids — such as existing monuments of antiquity and surviving traditions — as is our knowledge of the same in later ages, but almost exclusively from contemporaneous documents of that period that are still extant.
But here is no easy task, as is evident from the following considerations:
1. Whilst many works of the early Fathers are lost, and of some we have only fragments; those that remain are in great number and very voluminous, treating of manifold topics with wide diversity, and written for the most part very discursively.
2. The Fathers did not treat of the Blessed Virgin ex professo. No formal treatise on her is to be found amongst their writings. There were other matters of a more pressing nature in those early times to engage their attention. [This clause is badly garbled in the scan and the exact wording can't be fully recovered — the surviving fragments suggest it named the primary truths of Christian revelation the Fathers had to set forth: the Nature of God, His Unity of Being and Trinity of Persons, the Incarnation and Divinity of the Word, the personality of the Holy Ghost, the Unity and Communion of Saints, and the doctrines of original sin and grace.]
They had at the same time to contend against and refute many subtle heresies that endangered the faith on all points, and with which heresiarchs from every quarter were continually assailing the Church. They were occupied in interpreting, and composing commentaries on, the Sacred Scriptures. There are, moreover, many patristic writings of an occasional sort, such as sermons and homilies, exhortations, epistles and poems, and besides these, historical works, and others of a moral and philosophical character.
These are the chief subjects of the writings of the Fathers during the first six centuries. In most of them, perhaps, there is something, more or less, said of the Blessed Virgin; but what mention or treatment is made of her is incidental, and introduced only as bearing upon the principal theme and the matter in hand. There are, indeed, some very few treatises that relate especially to Our Lady, as those of S. Jerome and S. Epiphanius, written in defence of her perpetual virginity, or against a blasphemous excess in showing her honour. These, however, deal only with some particular point regarding her, and are of an apologetic nature. There are too some fugitive pieces, as sermons on her Feasts and hymns and prayers entirely devoted to her, especially in the works of S. Ephrem.
I would not be supposed to deny that much, comparatively speaking, is to be found in the early Fathers on the Blessed Virgin; for some of their treatises are full of her, as for example those of S. Ambrose on virginity, and also many portions of their Scriptural exegesis. My voluminous extracts show this. Still, with the exceptions I have made they are fragmentary, and not written on her ex professo.
Nowhere, then, do the early Fathers treat in a formal and positive manner, or as a whole, of the place of Our Lady in revealed Christian doctrine, and of the mutual relations that exist between her and men in the Divine economy of Redemption. What was their general view on this matter must be gathered from the various passages scattered up and down their writings.
Or perhaps I should express myself otherwise, and say that the earliest Fathers of all, who wrote about Our Blessed Lady, viz., S. Justin, S. Irenaeus, and Tertullian, in their exposition of Mary as the Second Eve, give a very distinct view of what they held concerning her, and make most explicit though very brief statements as to her doctrinal position and relation to mankind, and that these are, in fact, so comprehensive as implicitly to contain whatever else any other Fathers of the first six centuries said afterwards in a desultory way about her.
3. What adds to the general impression of indefiniteness attaching to the Blessed Virgin's place in the early Church, is the frequent allegation that discrepant statements regarding her are found in the patristic works of that age. True it is that some few of the Fathers have said certain things respecting Our Lady contrary to the teaching of the greater number. Such instances, however, are after all, but very rare exceptions. They are to be found chiefly in their comments on those passages of the Gospels which bring her into public notice; and are certainly inconsistent with the idea of her absolute sinlessness, or at least of that entire perfection which the Church has of her, and the general teaching of the Fathers bears out.
Cardinal Newman has discussed this question, and the particular passages that have given rise to it, so ably and fully in his Letter to Dr. Pusey, that I have not thought it necessary to go over his ground again: though I have treated of the difficulty from another point of view, especially as regards S. Chrysostom, in the course of this work.
That there should be some discrepancies in the Fathers regarding Our Lady need not, however, excite surprise or cavil, when we find the same upon still graver matters. Thus certain Fathers of the third century, in high repute for their orthodoxy, express themselves on the Consubstantiality of the Son in terms that would be inadmissible after the definition of Nice. So too S. Athanasius and S. Basil speak of the knowledge of Our Lord's soul in a very different way from what S. Augustine and S. Maximus did, and Catholic theologians would now speak.¹
Great indeed is the authority of the Holy Fathers approved as such by the Church, even when taken individually, and especially of the more eminent amongst them who were Bishops, Saints, and Doctors of the Church.² But their chief authority consists in their being witnesses and expounders of the divine traditions that had come down from Christ and the Apostles, and of the Church's teaching at their own time. Hence it is that their unanimous consent on any doctrine pertaining to the Faith is regarded as tantamount to the infallible utterance of the Church herself. We may, moreover, well believe that the Holy Fathers, properly so called, received as individuals, special gifts of divine wisdom and knowledge to enable them to set forth in their purity and integrity the divine traditions and doctrines that had been handed down to them from the Apostles.
Still we are not to take an exaggerated view of the Fathers, as though they were infallible, and none of them could make a doctrinal misstatement, since it is undeniable, that at least some errors, greater or less, are to be found in the writings of individual Holy Fathers, even of those who have been approved of as such by the Church. But we must at the same time bear in mind that the Church has never on this account charged any Father, whom she has once thus approved, with heterodoxy, nor allowed others to do so.
In reading the Fathers, should one chance to come upon some doubtful or ambiguous statement in any of them, the general rule to be followed is, to explain his words as far as possible according to the common concordant sense of the other Fathers' teaching. But where a real discrepancy from the common teaching is discovered, it will be found on mature examination that such error has resulted from the obscurity of the subject-matter, on which nothing had as yet been defined,³ or which had not been sufficiently thrashed out by more prolonged discussion. On verities that are fundamental no real discrepancy of this kind will have place.⁴
Whilst all revealed truths contained in the divine deposit had their place in the primitive Church, they may be said in a certain sense to have been for a time more or less held in solution. To use a perhaps too homely metaphor, the age of the earlier Fathers was the time of churning. By means of the agitation of heretics, and the doctrinal discussions of the Fathers, the several truths of faith were going through the process of coagulation, that so they might be shaped into dogmas and fixed in conciliary definitions. Formal dogmatic definitions were few at that date. Certain broad lines for general guidance were well known, such as Tertullian's rule of Prescription, and those principles that find their expression in the dicta of S. Augustine and S. Vincent of Lerins, "Securus judicat orbis terrarum," "Roma locuta est, causa finita est," "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"; or again, what first paved the way for the condemnation of Nestorius, the voice of the ecclesia discens, at Constantinople, whereby the old adage, "Vox populi, vox Dei," is illustrative of the Faithful in the Catholic Church.
But principles such as these, however true, were too broad for immediate practical application to every difficult question that might arise, and hence some divergency of longer or shorter continuance on certain points that were afterwards definitely settled, was the inevitable result.
4. Another difficulty in the works of the early Fathers is, that many of them are held to be spurious and unauthentic, whilst the genuineness of others is disputed. I leave the discussion in all cases to the judgment of learned critics. My general rule has been to make my quotations from writings the authenticity of which is commonly acknowledged. Sometimes, however, I have cited works of doubtful genuineness, or which, at any rate, were not written as we now have them by the Fathers to whom they are attributed, but whose date, as assigned to them by critics, falls within the first six centuries, to which period I confine myself. When I quote from a doubtful or unauthentic work, or depart exceptionally from this general rule, I note the fact.
Some modern writers appear to treat such unauthentic works as of no value at all, and even as though their doubtfulness or spuriousness of itself formed a positive argument against doctrines and practices to the existence of which they bear testimony: whereas the truth is, that regarded simply as witnesses their evidence on these matters is of an authority equal to that of any genuine writings with which they are coeval. But besides this: it is held as highly probable by the learned, that many even of those treatises and sermons, which, from intrinsic evidence of language and style, criticism has justly decided to be certainly unauthentic, were yet substantially the utterances of the Fathers whose names they bear, and were composed in their present form by disciples or admiring auditors from notes or memory. In any case it would be very difficult to account for the early and general acceptance of such writings as genuine, unless they really reflected and were in full accord with what was known to be the teaching of the Fathers who were credited with their authorship.
What has principally led me to compose this work is, because I had heard and read much of late years as to the very different view to be found in the writings of the early Fathers, regarding all that relates to the Blessed Virgin, from that which attaches to her in medieval and modern times; and because I knew well how very difficult it is — as in the preceding pages I have been at pains to show — to give a true, clear, full, and impartial exposition of what those Fathers really taught regarding her, and of the veneration or devotion that was paid to her in their days. I determined therefore to examine in detail what they had written on this subject, and to render into English numerous extracts from their writings, that people generally might read the Fathers' own words, and then judge for themselves.
For myself, endeavouring to be as impartial as possible, I have formed the clear conviction, that, saving a very few differences on points of lesser moment, the Fathers of the first six centuries unanimously held Our Blessed Lady in the same high appreciation, as she has been held in by Catholics of all subsequent ages; and that everything that the Church has at any time defined or sanctioned with regard to her privileges and the honour that is her due — together with all that saints and theologians of medieval and modern days have uttered in her praise — is to be found substantially, and at least in principle or germ, in the writings of the great Fathers and Doctors both of East and West, from the age of S. Justin the Martyr to that of S. Gregory the Great. Nay more, it will appear from passages which I quote from their writings, that many of the Fathers within that period were so explicit and profuse in their eulogies of the holy Mother of God, that they have left little for those who came after them to do, but to repeat their own words, and re-echo their praise.
It is to make this truth better known, and so to win some glory for the Virgin Mother, and to gain an increase of devotion to her from English-speaking people, whether Catholic or otherwise, that I have undertaken the task of translating so many passages in testimony of her greatness from the writings of the earlier Greek and Latin Fathers. For whatever value may be attached to this work is due entirely to the numerous patristic extracts which it contains. It has not been my general aim in it to prove or expound the various points of Catholic doctrine regarding Our Lady, which form the subject-matter of the several Chapters; but rather simply to show what were the views and teachings of the Fathers on them, and to produce their own words in witness. Hence the quotations from the Fathers should be looked upon as the principal part of this work, and what I have written of my own as but accessory, and intended to indicate and explain the drift of the patristic passages gathered under the separate headings. This takes the form of short Prolegomena. A few exceptions are made to this rule, in cases where a particular subject seemed to me to demand a larger treatment. These are the Chapters on Mary the Second Eve, on Intercession and Invocation, and on Our Lady's Assumption. The Introductory Chapters on Doctrinal Development also appeared to me necessary, in order to form a right and adequate view of patristic teaching on the Blessed Virgin during so long a period as the first six centuries.
The passages are generally appended to their several Chapters in the Chronological order of the writers.⁵ As many of them are of considerable length, and given with their full context, they will be sometimes found to contain, besides what is directly pertinent to the subject in hand, matters relating to the Blessed Virgin which more fitly belong to some other Chapter. This was unavoidable: for I often judged it better to present passages to the reader in their entirety, with their whole force and beauty, rather than in a curtailed and piecemeal form; and to refer to whatever was extraneous at the proper place.⁶
The edition which I have generally used is Migne's Patrologiae. My rule has been to give a very literal rather than fluent rendering of the original. This may be thought to have been carried sometimes to excess. I have, however, been led to aim at literalness at the expense of elegance, from the danger I constantly feel there is, especially in cases where the Author's meaning is obscure, or his words admit of more senses than one — and this is of frequent occurrence in the writings of the Fathers — lest a translator who aims much at fluency, should attach to a passage his own sense or colouring, and thus misrepresent the Author's mind, or at any rate deprive the reader of judging himself as to the signification of the original. In some few cases I have availed myself of others' translations.
With regard to the Syriac writings of S. Ephrem, I have followed implicitly the English translation of the Rev. J. B. Morris, and the Latin rendering of Canon Lamy. Whatever other extracts I have given from the Saint, that are not contained in their volumes, have been taken from the Roman edition published under Benedict XIV.
I have to acknowledge my obligation to several modern authors from whose works I have made copious extracts, and especially to learned writers in the Dublin Review, to whose articles on Development of doctrine and the Blessed Virgin I have sometimes been more indebted than appears from my direct quotations.
It will be seen that I have gathered in my pages not a few passages very similar to one another in sentiment and expression. This I have not done without design: since the very reiteration of the same praises of Mary from various parts of Christendom during so long a period is of itself a strong argument in favour of our general thesis, showing as it does, that the Fathers of the first six centuries had in common but one and the same appreciation of the great Mother of God; and also what in the mind of the early Church, and in the devotion of the faithful, was the place of her, concerning whom such things were continually being written.
Though my collection is a large one, and by some may be deemed cumbersome and excessive, it is by no means exhaustive. I have passed over many pages in the Fathers, where it appeared to me that there was nothing new, and which had not been said elsewhere; and very probably several important, and perhaps well-known, passages have escaped my notice. Moreover the recent discoveries of manuscripts of long-lost works of the Fathers lead us to expect with hope that many more hidden treasures will ere long be brought again to light, and that thus plentiful gleanings still remain for a yet richer harvest to Our Lady's praise.
S. Joseph's, Teignmouth,
Feast of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, 1893,
The Day of the Solemn Renewal of England's Dedication to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to S. Peter, Prince of the Apostles.
Footnotes
1. "Even on so fundamental a dogma as the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, S. Gregory Nazianzen says: 'The New Testament did but obscurely indicate the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. . . . For it was not safe . . . when the Son's Divinity was not yet (clearly) admitted, that the Holy Ghost should be imposed on us as a sort of heavy burden, so to speak.' Petavius quotes to the same effect S. Epiphanius, S. Augustine, S. Chrysostom, and other Fathers." Dublin Review, April, 1876, p. 294.
2. Although all early Christian writers conspicuous for their learning or antiquity, as v.g. Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius and Eusebius, are commonly called Holy Fathers, yet properly speaking, those only can claim the title who have been approved as such by the Church, and whom she has declared to be genuine and well-qualified witnesses, teachers, and judges, from their erudition and sanctity, of her doctrine as handed down to her from Christ and His Apostles. The other early authors are more properly called Christian or ecclesiastical writers.
3. "We must regard it," says Fr. Perrone, "as having happened, not without a special Providence, that very many (plurima) truths do but lie hid implexly and adumbratively in the revealed word: viz., in order that the faithful might thence more feel the necessity of the Church's living and infallible magisterium." Treatise on the definableness of the Immac. Conception of the B. V. M. Part ii., ch. i.
4. See Fessler, Institutiones Patrologiae. Ed. Jungmann. Tom. i., pp. 35-47.
5. Except in the Chapter on Scriptural Exegesis, where in the Old Testament the Biblical order is kept, and in the New that of certain mysteries and events of Our Lord's Life. It will be observed that I have taken the term, Exegesis, in a very wide sense.
6. In the Index at the end of the volume, reference is given under various headings to the pages where particular matters find mention throughout the work.
Contents
Introductory Chapters on Doctrinal Development
Chapter I. General Notions.
Accretive or Objective, and Non-Accretive or Subjective Development. Revealed Truths of the Substance of Faith, and Accessory to its Substance. Explicit and Implicit Faith.
Chapter II. Doctrinal Development (Continued).
The Christian Revelation was given once for all to the Apostles exclusively. All subsequent developments are non-accretive, and contained in the original Deposit.
Appendix: S. Vincent of Lerins; B. Thomas More.
Chapter III. Doctrinal Development (Continued).
Causes of Development of Christian Doctrine in the Church.
Chapter IV. Doctrinal Development (Continued).
Its Process examined.
Appendix: From Rev. J. B. Morris.
The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries
Chapter I.
The Primitive Patristic Idea of Mary as the Second Eve.
Chapter II. The Blessed Virgin in the Scriptural Exegesis of the Fathers of the First Six Centuries.
Prolegomena.
Part I. The Old Testament.
Part II. The New Testament.
§ 1. The Annunciation and Incarnation.
§ 2. The Visitation.
§ 3. The Purification, and Presentation in the Temple.
§ 4. Egypt — The Finding in the Temple — Nazareth.
§ 5. The Marriage Feast at Cana — John ii. 1-11.
§ 6. Mary on Calvary.
§ 7. Mary at the Resurrection.
§ 8. Exegesis on some other passages of the New Testament.
§ 9. Some doctrinal passages.
Chapter III. The Dignity and Sanctity of the Blessed Virgin.
Habitual Grace and Holiness.
Chapter IV. The Sanctity of the Blessed Virgin (Continued). Mary's entire Sinlessness.
Some explanatory Notes. — Appendix.
Chapter V. The Sanctity of the Blessed Virgin (Continued). Mary's acquired Sanctity, Practice of Virtues, Holy Virginity.
Chapter VI. The Blessed Virgin and the Church.
Chapter VII. Intercession and Invocation.
Chapter VIII. Examples of Devotion to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints — of invoking them — and of miracles and graces obtained through their Intercession.
Chapter IX. The Assumption.
Appendix: 1. Poem of S. Fortunatus. 2. From S. John Damascene. 3. From the Epistle, under S. Jerome's name, on the Assumption. 4. From the Chronicle of Eusebius. 5. From S. Willibald. 6. Apocryphal Writings.
Chapter X. Devotional.
The Blessed Virgin's place in the Christian life, and as our spiritual Mother.
Chapter XI. Hymns of S. Ephrem.
Prolegomena. — The Feasts of the Annunciation and Purification.
Hymns.
Chapter XII. Hymns and Poems.
Chapter XIII. An Æthiopic Hymn.
Index of Subjects.
Index of Authors.
[Note from The Catacombs - It is our understanding that a formal imprimatur/nihil obstat as a standard requirement for all Catholic books came with the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Before that, many works — especially ones like this, carrying a cardinal’s own dedication and preface, which functioned as a form of implicit episcopal endorsement — were published without a separate censorship notice.]
|
|
|
|
| Proving the Impossibilty of Theistic Evolution - Paula Haigh |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-07-2026, 07:51 PM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- Replies (1)
|
|
Outline of Thomistic Principles On Creation: Proving Impossibility of Theistic Evolution1
by Paula Haigh
The Church has taught in ancient, medieval and modern times that God and God alone has created. Some examples of this teaching:
Quote:If anyone does not say that the Father made all things through the Son and His Holy Spirit, that is, the visible and the invisible, he is a heretic.2
If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing... let him be anathema.3
It was Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who most fully elaborated the theological and metaphysical principles that support the above doctrinal pronouncements of the Church. It is no exaggeration to assert that every explanation of Creation by God that is not in agreement with these Thomistic principles is in error. The fact can be seen clearly when certain basic ideas are grasped.
First of all, it is well to understand what Saint Thomas means by the analogy of being. Being, or existence, is what God is, absolutely, but what all creatures only have from Him. Saint Thomas says that to exist is God's very essence or nature. We creatures possess an essence, which is expressed logically in a definition. Thus, man is a rational animal. But our existence is what makes us to be actual, what makes us to be and to be this specific individual person or thing. God is all Act, all actuality, all being; but we and all creatures have our existence from God, and it is an essence or nature that is thus given existence. All creatures are thus a mixture or composite of essence and existence; whereas God is all Being and admits of no such imperfect mixture. The mixture of essence or potency and act is, by its nature, limiting and limited, imperfect. But there can be no such imperfection in God.
The fact that we have our existence from God constitutes the relation of creation. This relation of creation is only in us, the creature, and is not in God the Creator because He is absolutely self-sufficient, self-existing, and depends upon nothing. Thus God as our Creator is utterly transcendent. The relation of creation or our absolute dependence upon God for existence is confused by many philosophers today (most notably Paul Tillich) with Creation itself, with the Creation of the universe that took place "in the beginning." Thus it is necessary to have a very clear appreciation of what it means for God to create.
Only God can create because to create is to bring into total being, that is, to bring into being the whole substance, the entire creature, from nothing (ex nihilo). Ex nihilo simply means from no pre-existing being. The best possible expression of God's Creative Action is to be found in the First Chapter of Genesis. There the Creation of the universe is reduced to certain specific Acts on God's part that correspond to the kinds of creatures brought into being in the first six days of the world. It is to be noted, too, that time itself is a creature, having come into existence or begun, with the first material or corporeal being. Time is, indeed, as Aristotle defined it, the measure of motion and cannot exist apart from some corporeal being in space and in motion. It is thus impossible, in a true cosmology, to conceive of a separation of time from beings in motion or from the space in which they live and move. Einstein's system is fantasy and was made-to~order for the literature of science fiction which builds its other worlds upon this false cosmology.
God's Act of Creation, or as in Genesis 1, His multiple Acts of Creation according to the creatures brought into existence on the different successive days of the first week of the world, is an Act and not a process. It is most important to distinguish carefully between God's Act of Creation or His Creative Activity and any kind of process, because all processes, as Dr. Henry Morris has pointed out, are decayings or un-doings, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. After the conception of a new individual, even the process of cell division by which the animal or human zygote grows into an embryo and is finally born, even this process of coming to a certain state, is ruled by the Second Law written into the DNA code; and biologically all corporeal beings begin to die as soon as they are conceived.
The difference between the human zygote and the animal zygote is worth noting in this context of Creation. The life principle of plants and animals inheres in the material of the DNA code and is passed on by generation not requiring a special act of creation by God. But the human soul is a spiritual immortal substance and as such can only be created directly and immediately for each human person by God Himself. This creation of the human soul which immediately, at conception, informs the zygote and causes it to be a human being, is well illustrative of God's Act of Creation over and against the process of growth, development, aging and dying that leads to biological extinction. The generative and degenerative processes of growth and dying constitute what Saint Thomas terms the order of generation as opposed to the order of creation. The entire order of creation or the universe, the whole natural order which was brought into existence "In the Beginning" with time itself, came to be not by any kind of process but by God's a-temporal Fiat. Processes belong to generation and degeneration, not to Creation.
God did not create from all eternity, however, nor is He creating now except for human souls. Even though His Act of Creation is identical with Himself because He is absolutely simple and contains no potencies, still His Act of Creation, this Act of God's Will, resulted in creatures. The effect of God's creating Will must not be confused or identified in any way with God's Nature. God infinitely transcends all of His creatures and the relation of creation is not in God but in the creatures only. This distinction which is a most real one, is necessary to grasp in order to avoid Pantheism.
The immanence which modern philosophers and theologians so ardently desire is to be found in the relation of creation, in the fact of our absolute dependence upon God for our existence every moment of time. Our being is from Him alone and thus Saint Paul said: "In Him we live and move and have our being." This is in the purely natural order. In the supernatural order of Grace, the Divine intimacy is even more marvelous, and beyond our power to understand. The Grace of God can only be answered with love.
Essence or Nature is the area of secondary or instrumental causality. In the order of generation, creatures give rise to creatures of their own nature and essence; like produces like, in obedience to God's command in Genesis I that every creature reproduce "according to its kind." Saint Thomas says that each creature causes or effects "what is proper to itself." But that any creature should produce something greater, of a higher order of being than itself, which would amount to creating, such hypotheses are absurd and against all the observed laws of nature, of logic, and of Grace. Even Grace only perfects human nature; it does not elevate it to something higher than human nature. Man will never become an angel nor even a "super-man". Should he aspire to be such, he will fulfill the promises of Satan (Genesis 3) rather than the Promises of our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ. The "new man" spoken of by Saint Paul is man conformed to Christ through Divine Grace.
And yet, this is what the theistic evolutionists are telling us to believe and to do! They would have us believe that all beings evolve and have evolved from lower to higher planes of being. This is against both reason and Faith.
Saint Thomas says that matter cannot exist without form, and the form of every creature, of every being, limits and defines its created nature or essence, essence being the principle of potency and limitation as well as of individuation. But if each creature is limited, as it is, by its created essence or nature, according to Genesis 1, then no creature can produce something of which it is not capable, something the potency for which it simply does not possess within itself. It is thus metaphysically, which is to say, philosophically impossible for a sea-creature to give rise to a land-creature, no matter how much time it be allowed, or for an animal to issue into a human being.
The question of time is somewhat irrelevant here, for if the potency were within the creature to evolve into something higher, then it could be done in six or six hundred as well as in six hundred million or billions of years. Nor is the question of life from non-life of any greater import than that of the bird from the dinosaur or that of the man from the ape, or that of the amphibian from the lung-fish. The question that must be asked first of all is this: on the side of reason, is the nature of the being capable of producing something that is not in its nature; and from the side of Biblical Faith, is evolution of any kind, theistic or otherwise, in accordance with Scripture and the teaching of the Church?
In both cases, of course, the answer is a definite NO. Evolution makes of Creation a process; it reduces the Order of Creation by God to the Order of Generation by Secondary Causes, thus placing the Creative Power itself within nature. And this is Pantheism. This heresy of Pantheism, and thus of Evolutionism, militates against and is destructive of the Truth of Faith.
The words of Saint Thomas about instrumental causes are relevant here:
Quote:The proper effect of God creating is what is presupposed to all other effects, and that is Absolute Being (Existence).
In other words, the entire natural order is presupposed to all other talk of creating and/or producing.
Quote:Hence, nothing else can act dispositively and instrumentally in this effect, since creation is not from anything presupposed which can be disposed by the action of the instrumental or secondary agent.
So therefore, it is impossible for any creature to create, either by its own power, or instrumentally, that is, ministerially.
No created being can cause anything unless something is presupposed; which is against the very idea of creation.4
Evolution presupposes that nature possesses truly creative power and has thereby given rise to the entire created order that we observe; which presupposition is blasphemous, an insult to God's unique and supreme creative power. It is also absurd to our God-given reason, God's great gift, with His Grace, to man. Even Divine Grace in us presupposes the created human soul.
Neither is Creation by God rightly termed a miracle since all miracles, whether physical or spiritual, presuppose the natural order of Creation with all its laws and processes.
Endnotes
1 Originally published in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1979, pp.210-211. Slightly revised March 1979.
2 The Council of Rome (382 A.D.). See Defarrari, Roy J., 1957, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translation of Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis & London.
3 Lateran Council IV (1215 A.D.) and Vatican Council I (1870 A.D.). See Denzinger 428 & 1905.
4 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Part I, Question 45, Article 5. The topic of Creation is discussed also in Questions 45-67 & 65-74. Related Questions include 92 on the production of women and 95-102 on the State of Innocence and the Garden of Paradise.
Source
|
|
|
|
| The Sect of the Gnostics at the Origin of Freemasonry |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-07-2026, 07:46 PM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
|
The Sect of the Gnostics at the Origin of Freemasonry
Taken from here.
Freemasonry is the modern form of anti-Christianity as it has shown itself from the beginning of the Church and developed in the course of centuries. That it can be related in some ways beyond the Christian era to pagan naturalism, rites and symbols used in the mysteries of the East, Greece and ancient Rome, is a filiation to which we do not want to contradict, leaving the scholars to appreciate the value of these connections.
By the mysterious forms in which she delights, by the secrets she imposes on her adepts, by the ceremonies that accompany her initiations, Freemasonry in fact recalls those secret associations in which the pagan worship of nature sought a veil for his theories and even more for his practices.
No one is unaware, on the other hand, that to give an air of high antiquity, by putting on its doctrines a biblical tint, Freemasonry has woven a whole network of legends and fables that would tend to recede its origins until the construction of the temple of Solomon, through descendants whose history would have completely lost track.
Vain efforts to conceal the anti-Christian character of the sect! It is to other sources that we must go back, when or wants to look for how it could be formed in the Christian world and develop in the Middle Ages an occult society having no other goal than the destruction of the Catholic Church and consequently the doctrine of all Christianity.
This obscure, dark society, which operates in secrecy and mystery against the Catholic Church, its doctrine and its institutions, to restore pagan naturalism in new forms, we find it, Our Very Dear Brothers, from the beginning of the Christian era: it is called the sect of the Gnostics. And it is not only we who point out the perfect analogy between the beliefs, rites and usages of Gnosticism and those of Freemasonry. We only reproduce the confessions of the most accredited writers of the sect that Our Holy Father Pope Leo XIII has just condemned following his august predecessors.
Yes, from the very beginning of the Church, we see in the shadows, in opposition to its dogmas, the formation of anti-Christian groups professing most of the ideas of modern Freemasonry: the confusion of God and world under the name of universal nature, denial of the deity of Jesus Christ degraded to the rank of lawmakers and philosophers of antiquity, monopoly of science attributed to a small number of initiates with regard to the faith of Christians treated ignorance and superstition, on the one hand men who aspire to light and on the other those who remain plunged in darkness, all this language and all these claims, with rites and symbols of equal value, we find them in the conventicles of Gnosis as in the Masonic lodges, so that one could say, without abusing the connection, that the Gnostics were Freemasons of the first three centuries of the Church.
- Bishop Freppel - Pastoral Instruction on Freemasonry (1885)
[emphasis in the original]
|
|
|
|
| Study of St. Thomas Aquinas as Remedy against Modernism |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-07-2026, 07:40 PM - Forum: Encyclicals
- No Replies
|
|
Quote:"It is well known," Leo XIII said, "that there have not been wanting heresiarchs who openly said that, if the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas could only be got rid of, they could easily give battle to other Catholic Doctors and overcome them, and so scatter the Church."
Carol Robinson, My Life with Thomas Aquinas, Angelus Press, 1995, p. 12
From Pascendi:
Quote:[...]
REMEDIES
44. Against this host of grave errors, and its secret and open advance, Our Predecessor Leo XIII., of happy memory, worked strenuously especially as regards the Bible, both in his words and his acts. But, as we have seen, the Modernists are not easily deterred by such weapons – with an affectation of submission and respect, they proceeded to twist the words of the Pontiff to their own sense, and his acts they described as directed against others than themselves. And the evil has gone on increasing from day to day. We therefore, Venerable Brethren, have determined to adopt at once the most efficacious measures in Our power, and We beg and conjure you to see to it that in this most grave matter nobody will ever be able to say that you have been in the slightest degree wanting in vigilance, zeal or firmness. And what We ask of you and expect of you, We ask and expect also of all other pastors of souls, of all educators and professors of clerics, and in a very special way of the superiors of religious institutions.
I. – The Study of Scholastic Philosophy
45. In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred sciences. It goes without saying that if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations (Leo XIII. Enc. Aeterni Patris). And let it be clearly understood above all things that the scholastic philosophy We prescribe is that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and We, therefore, declare that all the ordinances of Our Predecessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be necessary, We do decree anew, and confirm, and ordain that they be by all strictly observed. In seminaries where they may have been neglected let the Bishops impose them and require their observance, and let this apply also to the Superiors of religious institutions. Further let Professors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave detriment.
|
|
|
|
| Pope Leo gives top post to feminist who supports gay blessings |
|
Posted by: Stone - 11-06-2026, 12:30 PM - Forum: Pope Leo XIV
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Leo gives top post to feminist who supports gay blessings
Claudia Leal Luna criticized the Vatican's 2021 ruling against blessings for gay unions,
arguing that Catholic sexual morality needs to take 'some steps.'
Nov 6, 2026
(LifeSiteNews) — Pope Leo XIV has named Chilean theologian Claudia Leal Luna as undersecretary of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, placing a vocal critic of the Church’s 2021 rejection of blessings for homosexual unions in a senior Vatican post.
The appointment, announced on Thursday, pairs Leal with Jesuit Father Avelino Chicoma Bundo Chico. Vatican News and the dicastery’s own announcement confirm that Leal, born December 12, 1977, holds a law degree from the University of Chile and a doctorate in moral theology from Rome’s Alphonsian Academy.
Leal’s record on sexual morality has drawn scrutiny, especially concerning her criticism of the Vatican’s traditional position against same-sex union blessings, following the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2021 Responsum stating that the Church considers such blessings “illicit.”
Just days following the release, in a March 17, 2021, interview with Radio Universidad de Chile she countered that the “sexual morality of the Christian tradition still needs to take some steps.”
She called the document’s anthropology “somewhat taxidermic” and objected to its distinction between blessing persons with homosexual inclinations and blessing their relationships.
A personalist approach, she argued, would treat relationships as “constitutive of what we are as persons.” The Responsum, approved by Pope Francis, reaffirmed that God “does not and cannot bless sin” while distinguishing the person from acts the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes as “intrinsically disordered.”
Her 2022 essay “La recepción de Amoris Laetitia en Chile” records further disappointment that Pope Francis’s 2016 apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia had not gone far enough. She wrote that the papal letter produced “no innovation whatsoever with regard to the situation of sexual diversities in the ecclesial community.”
Invoking the law of gradualness, she stated that “the good is not the same for everyone” and credited Amoris laetitia with giving “legitimacy to an important group of ‘Pastorales de la Diversidad Sexual,’” i.e., groups that serve those with “dissident sexual identities.”
The same essay notes that the document opened space for Catholic women to examine “the compatibility between Christianity and feminism,” citing Pope Francis’s affirmation that he “values feminism.”
Leal has also identified herself as a feminist without qualification. In a December 23, 2021, interview with El Dínamo, she said: “Anyone who has studied social ethics cannot refuse the cause of feminism. A society where women have the same rights and opportunities as men is a happier world.”
She welcomed political focus on gender equality and “the rights of LGBT+ groups,” recounting that her “hair stood on end” at the inclusive address of Chile’s constitutional convention president Elisa Loncon. She teaches a course on “Sexuality in the Christian tradition” that, in her words, demonstrates the tradition is “much less monolithic than people think.”
Leal taught at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile from 2012 to 2022 and has served since 2022 as full professor of fundamental theology of the family at the Pontifical John Paul II Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences. She is already a consultor at the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and was appointed to the International Theological Commission on October 19, only two weeks prior to this present appointment.
InfoVaticana has highlighted these statements in its coverage of both the October International Theological Commission appointment and the new undersecretary role, noting the absence of any public retraction of her 2021 remarks.
In a statement released by the dicastery, Leal said she received the new post “with gratitude to the Holy Father Leo XIV for the trust he has placed in me” and observed that “every border I have crossed has confirmed for me that human development always has a face and a name, and that no one is a stranger in the Church.”
She entrusted the role to Pope St. John XXIII, asking that he teach her “to serve with his gentleness and trust, in the Church that he wanted to be a Church for all.”
The Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, under Prefect Sister Alessandra Smerilli and Pro-Prefect Cardinal Fabio Baggio, addresses migration, care for creation, and related issues of human development. Father Chicoma Bundo Chico, the co-appointee, brings experience in migration policy and described his role in terms of “presence, commitment, and witness.”
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: 549afaae-6044-2f00-015c-3394ec554afb.jpeg]](https://mcusercontent.com/76ce784d87af5db75a3164d6a/images/549afaae-6044-2f00-015c-3394ec554afb.jpeg)
