Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 317 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 314 Guest(s) Applebot, Bing, Google
|
|
|
Archbishop Viganò: Homily on Holy Thursday |
Posted by: Stone - 04-18-2025, 06:24 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
 |
Archbishop Viganò: Priests must hold fast to tradition as the Church goes through this agony
Let us implore the Blessed Virgin, that we may truly be friends of Christ, doing as He commands. By staying awake and praying during the agony of His Church.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on Holy Thursday, 2025
exsurgedomine.it
Apr 17, 2025
(LifeSiteNews) — The following was written and published in French by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò on Holy Thursday. The following is an unofficial English translation.
NEC SENESCAT TEMPORE
Homily of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò for the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday
On Thursday of Holy Week, the Church honors with the utmost solemnity some of the most important mysteries of our religion. In ancient times, this blessed day began with the reconciliation of public sinners who had atoned for their sins during Lent. Vivo ego, dicit Dominus: nolo mortem peccatoris, sed ut magis convertatur, et vivat.
But for the sinner not to die, but rather to be converted and live, it is indispensable that the Sacrifice of the New and Eternal Covenant, the Holy Mass, be perpetuated in an unbloody manner; and for this eternal Sacrifice to be celebrated, it requires the Priesthood, and thus the Episcopate to transmit it in the line of Apostolic Succession; and with the Priesthood, the Oils and Chrism of the anointing of Priests and Kings, Prophets and Martyrs. In short, it is necessary that the Messiah – the Χριστός, the Lord’s Anointed – gloriously risen and ascended to Heaven after suffering and dying on the Cross, perpetuate His presence in Holy Church, His Mystical Body, until the day of His return at the end of time.
On this blessed day, we remember the Last Supper, the institution of the priesthood, the Mass and the Blessed Sacrament.
The evening liturgy takes us back to the Upper Room, where the Apostles received His spiritual testament from the Lord, before the agony of Gethsemane and the arrest by the Sanhedrin. And while the days before and after Maundy Thursday offer us the Gospels of the Passion and the outward signs of mourning, today the Church dresses in white, intones the Gloria and concentrates on contemplating these last hours that the Redeemer spends with His disciples.
Never as in this crucial phase in the history of the Church and of humanity can we feel and share the apprehension of the Apostles, their disorientation at seeing their feet washed by the Master, their awareness of an imminent destiny, the sleep that seized them during the Agony in the Garden of Olives, the fear that led them to flee, Peter’s triple denial in the Praetorium, the despair that led Judas to take his own life, the silent presence of John and the holy women on the ascent to Calvary and at the foot of the Cross.
In the space of a few hours, the ritual banquet of the Jewish Passover, anticipating the only Mass celebrated before the Sacrifice on Golgotha, gives way to the apparent triumph of the executioners, the arrest of the Lord, a trial conducted with fraud and false witnesses, His condemnation to death on the infamous scaffold reserved for slaves, the outrages of the crowd stirred up by the scribes and priests.
We find all this in the modest signs of the Liturgy, which ends in sadness, with the rite of the stripping of the altars accompanied by the monotonous singing of Psalm 21, and the replacement of the sound of the bells by the austere noise of the rattle.
We could say that the Savior’s earthly life – and by extension the whole of Salvation history – is locked up in this day when the Lord allows the Twelve, and us with them, to enjoy a brief flash of solemn consolation and hope before the terrible hours of Good Friday.
On the day when the Levites renew their priestly promises and the bond of unity with the Bishop, we must ask ourselves to what model we wish to conform our Priesthood.
There are indeed many ways of understanding and living the priestly ministry, but only one conforms to the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not you who have chosen me, but I who have chosen you (Jn 15:16), said the Divine Master.
And if He has chosen us, if He has chosen you, it is so that you may be as He wants you to be, and so that you may go and bear fruit and that your fruit may remain (ibid.). That you may go, not that you may remain. That you may grow in holiness, not wallow in mediocrity, or worse, sink into sin. That you may bear fruit. You are not trade unionists, propagandists, leaders of a humanitarian organization or members of a philanthropic circle.
You are not called to reassure souls, nor to please them, but to awaken them from their torpor, to warn them, to prod them opportune, importunate. You are no longer of the world, but in the world: the black robe you wear is a sign of separation and renunciation, an example for the good and a warning for sinners. You are not presidents of an assembly, but ministers of Christ, dispensers of the Mysteries of God (1Co 4, 1). You are not actors on a stage, nor lecturers on a podium: you are priests, in whose gestures and words those who listen to you must see and hear Our Lord, the High Priest, stretching out his arms on the Cross to offer himself to the Father. The Church, the Priesthood, the Mass, the Sacraments, the Liturgy and the Gospel are not your property, nor a draft that God leaves you free to alter, distort or “reread” as you please.
So honor Holy Tradition, not as the cold, extinguished ashes of a past now buried, but as a living flame that should set everything ablaze with supernatural Charity, starting with yourselves. For if you are not the salt of the earth and the leaven of the mass, you will end up being thrown to the ground and trampled underfoot (Mt 5:13) by those you think you are pleasing.
Make the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the main reason for your life and your days, for on it depends the salvation of the Church, the world and your own. Complete in your body what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings, as the Apostle says (Col 1:24), for the good of His Body, which is the Church. Resistite fortes in fide (1 Pet 5:9), as St. Peter exhorts us. Beware lest your hearts be deceived and you turn aside, serving foreign gods or bowing down to them (Dt 11:16). Heed the advice of the Commonitorium of Saint-Vincent de Lérins: In ipsa item Catholica Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.
This is the most certain rule of Faith, before an apostate Hierarchy that eclipses the true Church of Christ, [...]. Learn to obey God rather than men, remembering that the destiny of the priest or bishop is indissolubly linked to that of his Lord:
Quote:If the world hates you, know that it hated me first.
If you belonged to the world, the world would love what belongs to it. But because you are not of the world, and I chose you out of the world, the world hates you because of this. Remember what I said to you: The servant is not greater than the master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my word, they will also keep yours. But they will do all these things to you for my name’s sake, because they do not know him who sent me (Jn 15:18-21).
The Church is preparing to face the passio Ecclesiae, the Mystical Body of Christ, which, like its Head, must not only face torment in the individual members of the Martyrs, as has happened throughout history, but also in the whole body, brought before a new Sanhedrin that hates the Church as it hates Christ. And in these blessed hours, we are given the opportunity to celebrate the Priesthood that has been conferred upon us: some in the fullness of the Episcopate, others in participation in the various degrees of the Order you have received. Gathered around the Calvary of the altar, let us repeat the words and gestures that the Lord taught the Apostles, faithful to the mandate received: Hæc quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis (1Co 11, 25). Each of us can say with Saint Augustine: Admiramini, gaudete, Christus facti sumus (Tract. XXI). We have become Christ: the faithful, in Baptism; you, Sacred Ministers, in the ordained ministerial Priesthood; we, Bishops, in the fullness of the Priesthood and in the Apostolic Succession.
We repeat what we have been taught and ordered to do. Let us pass on intact – with God’s help and the assistance of the Holy Spirit – what we have received: Tradidi quod et accepi (1 Cor 1:3). For we have nothing of ourselves to pass on, except all that Christ has given us: Dominus pars hereditatis meæ et calicis mei: tu es qui restitues hereditatem meam mihi (Ps 15:5), the Lord is my inheritance and my cup: it is You who brings me back into possession of the inheritance I had so abruptly lost. And if we are children, we are also heirs: heirs of God, co-heirs with Christ, if we truly share in his sufferings so as to share in his glory (Rom 8:17). Our being heirs of God and co-heirs of Christ thus involves assimilating the royal priesthood of Our Lord: a priesthood that consists in offering the divine Victim in the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass; but also in offering ourselves, mystically, as victims in union with the Immaculate Lamb; and in being, like Christ, the cornerstone, the mystical altar on which the rite is celebrated. Only in this way, dear brothers, can we be worthy of hearing the Master repeat the consoling words he spoke to the Apostles in the Upper Room:
This is my commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends, if you do what I command you. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, because all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you, that you may go and bear fruit, that your fruit may abide, and that the Father may grant you whatever you ask of him in my name (Jn 15:12-16).
Let us implore the Blessed Virgin, the Regina Crucis, Mother of the High Priest, Mother of the Divine Victim, Tabernacle of the Most High, that we may truly be friends of Christ, doing as He commands. By staying awake and praying during the agony of His Church; by remaining faithful to Him when new Judases hand Him over to the Sanhedrin; by not fleeing in fear, by not denying Him as Peter did. By loving one another as He loved us: Congregavit nos in unum Christi amor; by knowing how to give life as He gave it for us. By sharing in His sufferings, so as to share in His glory. And may it be so.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
17 April 2025
Feria V in Cœna Domini
|
|
|
New Archbishop of Detroit Bans All Latin Masses But One |
Posted by: Stone - 04-16-2025, 06:40 AM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
 |
Radical New Archbishop of Detroit Bans All Latin Masses But One
gloria.tv | April 16, 2025
Archbishop Edward Weisenburger of Detroit is ending the Holy Mass in the Roman Rite in all regular parishes.
He was installed March 24 (without a papal bull because Francis couldn't sign it). His predecessor, Archbishop Vigneron, saved several Latin Masses in various parishes.
The new decree states that Archbishop Weisenburger "has declared that the 1962 liturgy and sacraments will be prohibited in all parish churches in the Archdiocese of Detroit effective July 1".
The news was announced on social media by one of the affected parishes, Our Lady of the Scapular, Wyandotte.
The only remaining Mass site is the Shrine of St. Joseph in Detroit, which is run by the Institute of Christ the King.
|
|
|
The Holocaust, Vatican II, and the Crisis in the Catholic Church |
Posted by: Stone - 04-15-2025, 07:21 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
 |
The Holocaust, Vatican II, and the Crisis in the Catholic Church
Rabbi Heschel and Cardinal Bea look at a Yiddish newspaper in the offices of the American Jewish Committee in 1963.
Robert Morrison, Remnant Columnist | April 15, 2025
Appallingly, there are some who still think that the best cure for anti-Semitism is anti-Catholicism. We see this especially from those who insist that we cannot proclaim the Kingship of Christ.
In his Augustin Bea: The Cardinal of Unity, Bea’s longtime secretary, Fr. Stjepan Schmidt, quoted a letter to Bea from Nahum Goldmann in the name of the World Conference of Jewish Organizations:
Quote:“Now that the Ecumenical Council is coming to an end and the declaration on relations with the Jewish people has been approved with such a resounding majority, I feel the need to express to you both personally and in the name of the organizations I represent our gratitude for the wise yet also courageous manner in which you and your secretariat have brought this far-from-easy declaration to success. I am sure that Your Eminence knows that we are not happy about several changes in respect to the previous draft, but in this sinful world nobody ever gets everything he wants . . .” (p. 524)
Why did Mr. Goldmann, a prominent Zionist, express his displeasure with the final draft of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate? His Jewish organizations had not made any concessions in exchange for the Council’s pro-Jewish document, and we do not have any substantiated evidence that those organizations paid Bea to modify Catholic teaching. So what was it that Goldman thought gave the Jewish organizations a right to demand changes from the Catholic Church?
To begin to understand the intriguing dynamic that prompted Mr. Goldmann to scold Cardinal Bea in his letter of appreciation, we can begin with Jules Isaac. Norman Tobias’s 2008 Master’s Thesis helps us appreciate Isaac’s role at Vatican II:
Quote:“How ironic that the primary catalyst in connection with the reorientation of the Catholic Church's attitudes toward Jews and Judaism should have been a Jew. Having lost his wife, daughter and son-in-law in Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen, septuagenarian French Jewish historian Jules Isaac emerged from the Second World War to wage a single-handed campaign, in words and in deeds, for the rectification of Roman Catholic teachings about Jews and Judaism, contemptuous teachings, argued Isaac, that over-reached the bounds of scriptural and historical accuracy, contemptuous teachings, contended Isaac, that had sustained and nourished other varieties of anti-semitism for nearly two millennia. We now know that it did not occur to John XXIII to add to the agenda of Vatican II the relationship between the Church and the Jews until one week after the close of the pre-preparatory phase of Vatican II when John XXIII met one-on-one with Jules Isaac.”
Mr. Tobias subsequently wrote a valuable book on Isaac, Jewish Conscience of the Church, but this brief abstract gets to the heart of the matter: Isaac believed that the Catholic Church had promoted anti-Semitism, which had contributed to the horrors of the Holocaust.
In his Jewish Conscience of the Church, Tobias provided Isaac’s recollections from his June 13, 1960 meeting with John XXIII:
Quote:“I then explained my request regarding [Christian] teaching and its historical grounding. But how, in a few minutes, could I explain this spiritual ghetto in which the Church had ultimately confined old Israel — along with the physical ghetto? I described the bookends which sandwiched the Christian epoch, at one end a pagan antisemitism, incoherent and preposterous in its accusations and at the other end, racial antisemitism, Hitlerian, the most virulent of our day, though no less incoherent and preposterous. But between the two, the only variety [of antisemitism] that was coherent and by which one could be taken in, is that which has engendered a certain Christian theology, by force of circumstances, since the Jewish negation constituted the primary impediment to Christian proselytizing in the gentile world.” (p. 187)
There are several important points in this excerpt from Isaac’s description of his discussion with John XXIII: anti-Semitism predated Christianity; Hitler’s anti-Semitism was not Christian in nature; and, according to Isaac, Christian anti-Semitism was in response to the way in which the “Jewish negation” hindered Christian proselytism. By “Jewish negation” Isaac meant the Jewish assertion that Jesus is not the Messiah, God, and King.
In hindsight, John XXIII might have done well to inform Mr. Isaac of an important consideration, which Dr. Joseph Shaw noted in a recent article — that “the sin of antisemetism was defined and condemned by the Holy Office more than a generation before Vatican II, in 1928”:
“Moved by this charity, the Apostlic See has protected the same people [the Jews] against unjust vexations, and just as it reproves all ill-will and animosity among peoples, so also does it condemn, in the strongest possible terms, hatred against the people that was once chosen by God, namely that hatred that is now usually termed ‘Antisemitism’.” (Sacra Congregatio Sancti Officii, Decretum de consociatione vulgo ‘Amici Israël’ abolenda, March 25, 1928, Acta Apostolicae Sedis 20 (1928): 104.)
Several prominent Jewish leaders worked with Cardinal Bea to promote two primary Jewish aims at the Council: the exoneration of the Jewish people from any enduring guilt in connection with the Crucifixion of Jesus, and disavowal of Catholic teaching that the Jewish people should (like all people) be converted to the true Christian Faith.
As it turned out, though, several prominent Jewish leaders worked with Cardinal Bea to promote two primary Jewish aims at the Council: the exoneration of the Jewish people from any enduring guilt in connection with the Crucifixion of Jesus, and disavowal of Catholic teaching that the Jewish people should (like all people) be converted to the true Christian Faith. Because this latter point has received so little attention since Vatican II, it is worth examining it in detail.
The Jewish Interest in Religious Liberty at Vatican II
In his They Have Uncrowned Him, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre asserted that the B’nai B’rith had asked Cardinal Bea to promote religious liberty at Vatican II:
Quote:“‘Freemasons, what do you want? What do you ask of us?’ Such is the question that Cardinal Bea went to ask the B’nai B’rith before the beginning of the Council. The interview was announced by all the papers of New York, where it took place. And the Freemasons answered that what they wanted was ‘religious liberty!’ — that is to say, all the religions put on the same footing. The Church must no longer be called the only true religion, the sole path of salvation, the only one accepted by the State. Let us finish with these inadmissible privileges. And so, declare religious liberty. Well, they got it: it was Dignitatis humanae.” (p. 214)
Although the Jewish B’nai B’rith had been founded by Freemasons, there does not appear to be a current connection between B’nai B’rith and Freemasonry. Other than that, though, the substance of Archbishop Lefebvre’s claim appears entirely consistent with the statements below from Cardinal Bea and Jewish sources.
In her study on The Church and the Jews: The Struggle at Vatican Council II, Judith Hershcopf affirmed that the B’nai B’rith lobbied the Vatican on the question of the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae:
Quote:“In March 1964 a B'nai B'rith delegation of three met with Pope Paul VI and communicated the ‘profound interest’ of the Jewish community in the proposed declaration on religious freedom and Catholic-Jewish relations.”
As Archbishop Lefebvre observed above, this document (along with others promulgated at the Council) ultimately opposed what the pre-Vatican II popes had taught. Hershcopf noted that conservative Council Fathers (such as Archbishop Lefebvre) opposed Dignitatis Humanae because it undermined the authority of the Church and promoted indifferentism:
Quote:“There were prelates indifferent to the Jewish question, but strongly opposed to the statement on religious liberty for fear it would be used to undermine the authority of the church and encourage indifferentism or Communism. The ultra-conservatives were opposed to both.”
This observation is critical because Archbishop Lefebvre and other opponents of Dignitatis Humanae knew during the Council that it would promote precisely the evils that have plagued the Church for the past sixty years: the undermining of the Church’s authority, and encouragement for the religious indifferentism that is so evident both in the widespread apostasy from the Faith as well as the rampant cafeteria Catholicism that dominates everywhere, from diocesan catechism classes to the Vatican. As Archbishop Lefebvre knew, only those who opposed the Catholic Church would benefit from this.
Aside from Jules Isaac, one of the most important Jewish influences at the Council was Professor Abraham Joshua Heschel, a rabbi at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Heschel’s May 22, 1962 memorandum to Bea, On Improving Catholic-Jewish Relations, requested that the Council would respect Jews as Jews rather than try to convert them:
Quote:“Thus, it is our sincere hope that the Ecumenical Council would acknowledge the integrity and permanent preciousness of Jews and Judaism.”
How, though, could the Council do this without completely repudiating the Great Commission? In his The Church and the Jewish People, Cardinal Bea explained how the Council attempted to thread the needle in Nostra Aetate:
Quote:“Another difficulty I have often encountered in contacts with Jews is the fear that our only desire is to ‘convert’ them — a word which all too often brings back very painful memories, and that whatever the Church does is ultimately directed to this hidden purpose. And by ‘convert’ is understood, if not use of actual force and pressure, at least the intention of seducing men by subtle argument and astute manipulation to betray their own conscience. However, on this count also the Church has nothing to hide. In the conciliar document she explicitly and openly declares that it is both her duty and her desire to preach Christ who is ‘the way, the truth and the life,’ in whom God has reconciled all things to himself. From the beginning it is pointed out that the aim of the document is to investigate all that men have in common and which encourages them to live together and fulfill their common destiny; not, therefore, to dwell upon what divides and differentiates them.” (pp. 19-20)
Thus, according to Bea, the Church must continue to “preach Christ,” but without any real effort to “convert” non-Catholics (including Jews). Bea continued by describing the role of Dignitatis Humanae in further distancing the Church from its Great Commission:
Quote:“In addition, in the conciliar document on religious liberty, the Church solemnly declares as her own teaching the duty and the right of every man to pursue truth and justice according to the dictates of his own conscience, unimpeded and untrammeled. In the Declaration with which this commentary deals, she exhorts her own members to recognize, preserve and promote whatever is spiritually, morally, socially or culturally valuable in different religions from their own.” (p. 20)
With these and many other words along the same lines, Bea essentially confirmed Archbishop Lefebvre’s description of Dignitatis Humanae from above: “The Church must no longer be called the only true religion, the sole path of salvation, the only one accepted by the State.”
Although we could add other similar statements to further demonstrate the reality that Jewish leaders and organizations played a significant role in shaping Vatican II’s statements on religious liberty, the last to consider here is from Mr. Tobias, in his prologue to Jewish Conscience of the Church, in which he quotes Gregory Baum at length:
Quote:“‘Passages in the New Testament say that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, and those who refuse to believe will be damned. Some passages also say that the hard-heartedness of the Jews leaves them in darkness, deserted by God,’ according to Catholic theologian Gregory Baum, another of those who drafted Nostra aetate (No. 4). ‘They say that salvation is in Jesus and in no other name, and that the Gospel is the single offer of redemption for the sinful world. (Of course, there are also passages with a different message.) On the basis of the exclusivist biblical texts, the Church began to teach extra ecclesiam nulla salus,’ (outside the Church there is no salvation.) After the Holocaust, the Church, recognizing, not without shame, the cultural impact of its anti-Jewish discourse and the implications this discourse had in legitimizing antisemitism, was to read Paul’s letter to the Romans in a new way.” (p. xviii)
Thus, according to Tobias and Baum, the Holocaust nudged the Church at Vatican II to abandon its teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church.
For those who might not know Fr. Gregory Baum’s credentials beyond having helped draft Nostra Aetate, it is worth noting that he was a Jewish convert to Catholicism who had been criticized at the Council as not having sincerely converted. We can perhaps gauge the depth of his conversion from his 2017 obituary:
Quote:“He wrote that he considered resigning from the priesthood but did not go through with the formality. He later married a divorced ex-nun who he says ‘did not mind that, when we moved to Montreal in 1986, I met Normand, a former priest, with whom I fell in love.’”
Thus we have a striking emblem of the cause and effect of the crisis in the Church.
There may seem to be little value in dredging up the history of Vatican II at this point but, appallingly, there are some who still think that the best cure for anti-Semitism is anti-Catholicism. We see this especially from those who insist that we cannot proclaim the Kingship of Christ. They seem oblivious to the irrefutable reality that this is precisely the type of anti-Catholic bigotry that has caused hundreds of millions of souls to abandon the religion that they once considered to be the path to salvation. As our Lord told us, we should be willing to suffer anything rather than that catastrophe:
Quote:“For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels: and then will He render to every man according to his works.” (Matthew 16: 26-27)
[...]
Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us!
|
|
|
The Last Letter of Garcia Moreno |
Posted by: Stone - 04-15-2025, 06:51 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
 |
The Last Letter of Garcia Moreno
Gabriel Garcia Moreno 1821-1875
Margaret Galitzin, TIA [slightly reformatted and adapted] | April 14, 2025
Gabriel Garcia Moreno (1821-1875) had ruled over the Republic of Ecuador for nearly 15 years and was in the act of entering on his third presidency, to which he had been re-elected by the a great majority of the people, when he was assassinated by an order of the German Freemasonry on August 9, 1875. The atrocious crime took place in the square of the Presidential Palace in Quito.
On commencing his government this illustrious man found the State in great disorder, ruled by a Masonic and Liberal anti-clerical government. By means of his profound genius, his skill in action, his firmness in carrying out his plans, and above all by his piety and confidence in God, he not only reformed the customs, but also put order in every department of political administration, and made the country a paragon of a truly Catholic commonwealth at a time when this seemed impossible.
Garcia Moreno was remarkable for his piety. Though pressed by the incessant and weighty cares of office, he always found time to hear Mass every morning and to say his Rosary every evening. Before undertaking any important action, he would go before the Blessed Sacrament to draw light from the Fountain of Wisdom. In fact it was just after leaving the church that be received the fatal thrust of the assassin’s dagger.
This religious fervor gave birth in him to a great zeal for God’s glory and a strong devotion to Christ’s Vicar. Suffice it to say that when there was question of concluding a Concordat with the Holy See, he sent his ambassador to Rome with a document that had nothing written on it but his signature. As an act of trust in the Pontiff Pius IX, he desired that the Holy Father should fill out the blank sheet with whatever seemed to him just and conducive to the good of the Church and the true well-being of the people.
Garcia Moreno signs the Concordat between Pope Pius IX & the Republic of Ecuador, 1862
When the revolution entered Rome triumphant through the breach of Porta Pia in 1870, bringing an end to the Papal States, Garcia Moreno alone stepped forward among rulers to protest solemnly against the sacrilegious usurpation. And to relieve the sufferings of the plundered Pontiff, who had become a veritable "prisoner in the Vatican," he petitioned the Congress to vote a considerable sum of money to be sent to the Pope monthly as the country’s tribute of fidelity.
His piety and filial devotion to the Church is perhaps best expressed in the message he composed to the Congress, which he finished writing a few hours before his death. That bloodstained letter was found in his bosom after the assassination.
It ran thus:
Quote:“Senators and Representatives. Of all the great gifts which God has vouchsafed our Republic from the inexhaustible treasure of His mercy, I consider that the greatest is to see you reunited, through His protecting support, beneath the shadow of the peace that He grants to us and preserves in us, although we are nothing, capable of nothing, and know not how to reply to His paternal goodness except by an inexcusable and shameful ingratitude.
Carrying a large cross down the streets of Quito during Holy Week
“But a few years ago, Ecuador was daily experiencing those sad words, first uttered by the ‘liberator’ Bolivar in his last message to the Congress of 1830: 'I blush to confess it, independence is the only good we have acquired, and that at the cost of every other.'
“Since that time, however, placing all our hope in God, we have distanced ourselves from the torrent of impiety and apostasy that storms the world in this age of errors, and today have reorganized into a truly Catholic nation. And we see that everything has turned out to the good and prosperity of our dear country.
“Ecuador was a corpse, from which life had fled; like a carcass it laid, preyed upon by the multitude of horrible insects that liberty or putrefaction was continually breeding in the darkness of the sepulchre. But today, at the command of that supreme Voice which bade Lazarus rise from his fetid tomb, our country also has returned to life, though it still retains the bands and winding-sheet of death, that is, the remains or the wretchedness and corruption in which we were buried.
“To prove the truth of my words, I need but give a brief account or the advances made by us in the two last years, just as I find them recorded in greater detail in the documents and particular reports of each minister. And in order to ascertain more exactly how far we have proceeded during this period of regeneration, I shall compare the present state of affairs with the one from which we took our start; not, indeed, with a view to our own praise, but in order to glorify Him to whom we owe all, and whom we adore as our Redeemer and Father, as our Protector and God.” (Here follows an enumeration or all the advantages obtained, which he summarizes).
Garcia Moreno with Jesuits, whom he returned to the country after they were expelled by a previous Masonic government
“To the full liberty which the Church possesses among us and to the apostolic zeal of our virtuous pastors are due the reform of the clergy, the improvement in morals and the diminution of crime, which is so striking that in a population of more than one million, there is not to be found a sufficient number of criminals to people our penitentiary.
“To the Church again are we obliged for those religious congregations that produce such an abundance of good fruits by the instruction they give to children and youth, and the help they extend towards the sick and abandoned. We are their debtors for the renewal of the religious spirit in this year of jubilee and sanctification, and for the conversion of 9,000 savages on our eastern province to a Christian and civilized life.
“On account of the vast tract of country there is urgent need in this province of a second Vicariate. If you authorize me to treat this matter with the Holy See, I will see to its establishment. I intend, moreover, to further its commerce by rooting out the speculations and violent exactions to which the poor inhabitants have long been subject on the part of inhuman traders. Yet laborers are wanting; and, to form these, we must yearly come to the aid of our venerable and most zealous Archbishop in the building of a large seminary, which he has not hesitated to commence, relying on the protection of Heaven and our own efficacious cooperation.
“Do not lose sight of the fact that our small successes would be short-lived and useless had we not founded the social order of our Republic on the ever-assailed and ever-victorious rock of the Catholic Church. Her divine teaching, which neither individuals nor nations can reject without losing themselves, is the rule of our institutions and the law of our legislation.
“As faithful and docile children of that venerable, august and infallible Pontiff, whom all the powers of earth have abandoned as a vile and cowardly impiety besets him, we have continued to send him every month our small pecuniary succor, set aside by you for him in 1863. Since our want of strength obliges us to remain passive spectators of his slow martyrdom, may this poor gift be at least a proof of our good will and affection, and a pledge to him of our obedience and fidelity.
“In a few days my present term of office will expire. The Republic has enjoyed six years of peace, interrupted only by a momentary rising in 1879 of the natives of Riobamba against the white population. During these six years we have marched forward with rapid strides on the way to true progress under the visible protection of Providence. The results would certainly have been far more magnificent had I possessed the qualities for governing, which unfortunately I lack, or endeavored to be more fervent about the accomplishment of good.
“If I have committed defects, I ask your pardon a thousand times, and with sincere sorrow do I implore forgiveness of all my fellow-citizens, being persuaded that my will had no part in them. If, however, you think that I have succeeded in anything, attribute it to God first and to the Immaculate Dispensatrix of the inexhaustible treasures of His mercy, and next to yourselves, the people, the army, and to all who have assisted me with their advice and fidelity in the fulfillment of my arduous duties.
Signed, Gabriel Garcia Moreno
Quito, August 1865
This is how a Catholic ruler speaks. This testimony was sealed indeed with his very blood, for he wrote it just a short time before he was surprised by his assassins. It is a testimony all the more poignant as it seems that he foresaw that tragic moment when, as that blameless father, he asked the pardon of his subordinates, as if he had done anything else but selflessly bestow on them so many benefits.
Garcia Moreno confronts Liberalism
It seems fitting to close with a brief resume of how this valiant leader confronted and conquered – with God’s help – the liberal spirit of his times:
• Garcia Moreno began with God, and placed God at the head of the government of his people. Liberalism wants an atheistic State and deems it a disgrace even to mention the name of God in public acts.
• Garcia Moreno desired an intimate union with the Catholic Church, declaring that she must be the foundation of the social order, and that her teaching must be the guide for all human laws and institutions. Liberalism not only separates the Church from the State, but raises also the State above the Church, making civil laws the standard to which all ecclesiastical enactments most be referred
• Garcia Moreno wanted the pastors of the Church to have full freedom, and obtained from them in return the reform of the clergy and the morality of the people. Liberalism clogs the action of bishops, urges the low clergy to rebel against their superiors, and tries to remove the people from the influence of both bishops and priest.
• Garcia Moreno supported the already existing religious establishments and added others to their number. Liberalism abolishes them.
• Moreno respected ecclesiastical property and helped to fund new seminaries. Liberalism confiscates the goods of the Church and closes the seminaries.
• Moreno entrusted the education and instruction of youth to the clergy and to religious orders. Liberalism enforces secular education, excluding every religious element as much as possible.
• Moreno removed from his Catholic people every scandal of a false worship. Liberalism publishes liberty of worship, and opens the door to every heresy and corrupting influence in public morals.
• Moreno saw in himself that weakness which is proper to man, and refered to God all the good which he accomplished. Liberalism, puffs up with satanic pride, thinks itself capable of everything, and ascribes all to the powers of man.
Thus Garcia Moreno put the true theory of Christian government into practice when, in perfect opposition to the principles and wishes of the Liberalism that prevailed in his days, he wisely applied it to the Republic of Ecuador.
Adapted from the article “Friend of the Sacred Heart & a Martyr to Justice, N.A., in The Messenger of the Sacred Heart, Volume III, 1976, Second Series, Baltimore, 1876, pp. 63-74
This monthly Bulletin of the the monthly magazine of The Apostleship of Prayer was founded in 19th century France by the Jesuits to fight the Liberalism and secularization that was ravaging nations and to return the faithful to Catholic traditional devotions, especially to the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus
|
|
|
|